45 ms·

This isn't a google strategy. This is a generic Big Corp. strategy. The same thing happens at eBay, Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, etc. It's not a good thing. It is us

This isn't a google strategy. This is a generic Big Corp. strategy. The same thing happens at eBay, Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, etc. It's not a good thing. It is usually an indication that the higher ups don't trust each other or are trying to one up each other for the year end bonus round. It is just a wasteful strategy overall and only happens at places that can afford it.

nostrademons 11y ago
It's usually encouraged by the even-higher-up, i.e. the CEO. It's actually fairly rational from his perspective: he has more options, he can cover more of the market, he insures against product failure, and his reports can't get complacent. Yes, it's wasteful, and yes, it's demoralizing as hell when you're the ordinary employee whose product just got canceled. But then, you should understand (at least at some level) that your work is meaningless when you go join a big company: the reason they're big is because their product is already "good enough" for millions of people.
- gohrt 11y ago
  It's not different at a small company. At a small company you have "pivots" or "going out of business" or "competition from another company", instead of "competition from another team"
  - nostrademons 11y ago
    Almost makes you think that the part that's wrong is the narrative that we're sold as kids, y'know "Work hard and good things will happen to you." It's more like "Work hard and there is a ~2-3% chance good things will happen to you, but if you don't work hard there's a 0% chance good things will happen to you."
    - dorgo 11y ago
      Be clever and good things will happen to you.
      - soft_dev_person 11y ago
        Be clever and make good things happen to you.
    - saiya-jin 11y ago
      not really, for me its more like work on yourself, not necessarily hard, but continuously. in time, you will leave most people behind. and recognize moments when life is giving you a chance, and grab it like there is no tomorrow.
  - rz2k 11y ago
    There is a way to see it as different. Ideally people like entrepreneurship because you succeed or fail because your idea and execution meet the market's needs. That's better than getting paid on the basis of your own effort or discomfort involved in doing the work necessary to complete it. Certainly, the market is fickle, but that is different than something political that is going on where you have no influence. It is completely conceivable that you optimized such that your product generated revenue far in excess of its costs, but that it is canceled for a (good) strategic reason. Sure the difference is probably only psycholgical, but finding out that work you cared about was only a waste of time somehow feels more just if there was no market for it than if it had traction and the was shuttered for a reason you don't know.
    - amirmc 11y ago
      The very important difference is that at a job you get paid regardless. You can even shift your mental model such that "it's just a job" and start leaving the crap 'at work'. In a startup (esp if it's your own), the psychological and emotional stakes are significantly higher. Also, there's no reason that politics can't find their way into a startup you're running. You just might not notice it because you've positioned yourself at the top of the tree of monkeys.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
fidz 11y ago
Could you tell us an example from another Big Corp? (E.g. Microsoft?)
- lewisl9029 11y ago
  I remember Windows Live Mesh, a multi-folder, p2p + centralized sync app, being killed in favor of SkyDrive (OneDrive), a single-folder, centralized-only sync app. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live_Mesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live_Mesh
kristoffer 11y ago
It is really an old strategy to handle risky projects. Typically goes by names such as set based development or parallel trials and was for example used in the Manhattan project. I consider it wise strategy when the project is high risk and its outcome very important.
kabouseng 11y ago
You forget it was the same strategy Steve Jobs followed with the development of the original iPhone, where one was the current realisation and the other was based on the iPod.
- ninkendo 11y ago
  He didn't go and release both products to see which would win out; the better product was selected internally and Apple went with that. The article is about Google releasing two of everything, not making multiple prototypes of things. I actually think making multiple prototypes is a good thing, it helps you understand things from more angles and see more possibilities about how a problem can be solved. But going and releasing both is confusing to customers and ultimately fragments your product line-up (canibalizing your sales) which is something Apple is desperate to avoid.
  - kabouseng 11y ago
    You are right, but he did have two teams develop in secret not knowing about each other, the same complaint that many Googlers have.
    - arjunrc 11y ago
      Do you have a reference for this development being in secret? I think both Jobs' biographies detailed Forstall & Fadell's development, but I thought they knew about each other, working on Mac to Phone & iPod to Phone concepts respectively.
      - kabouseng 11y ago
        Hmmm actually I am not 100% sure, only from what I myself remember reading about it I interpreted it as they they didn't know about each other because the projects in general was conducted in such secrecy. I'll have a look if I can find anything.

nostrademons 11y ago

It's usually encouraged by the even-higher-up, i.e. the CEO. It's actually fairly rational from his perspective: he has more options, he can cover more of the market, he insures against product failure, and his reports can't get complacent. Yes, it's wasteful, and yes, it's demoralizing as hell when you're the ordinary employee whose product just got canceled. But then, you should understand (at least at some level) that your work is meaningless when you go join a big company: the reason they're big is because their product is already "good enough" for millions of people.

gohrt 11y ago
It's not different at a small company. At a small company you have "pivots" or "going out of business" or "competition from another company", instead of "competition from another team"
- nostrademons 11y ago
  Almost makes you think that the part that's wrong is the narrative that we're sold as kids, y'know "Work hard and good things will happen to you." It's more like "Work hard and there is a ~2-3% chance good things will happen to you, but if you don't work hard there's a 0% chance good things will happen to you."
  - dorgo 11y ago
    Be clever and good things will happen to you.
    - soft_dev_person 11y ago
      Be clever and make good things happen to you.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    not really, for me its more like work on yourself, not necessarily hard, but continuously. in time, you will leave most people behind. and recognize moments when life is giving you a chance, and grab it like there is no tomorrow.
- rz2k 11y ago
  There is a way to see it as different. Ideally people like entrepreneurship because you succeed or fail because your idea and execution meet the market's needs. That's better than getting paid on the basis of your own effort or discomfort involved in doing the work necessary to complete it. Certainly, the market is fickle, but that is different than something political that is going on where you have no influence. It is completely conceivable that you optimized such that your product generated revenue far in excess of its costs, but that it is canceled for a (good) strategic reason. Sure the difference is probably only psycholgical, but finding out that work you cared about was only a waste of time somehow feels more just if there was no market for it than if it had traction and the was shuttered for a reason you don't know.
  - amirmc 11y ago
    The very important difference is that at a job you get paid regardless. You can even shift your mental model such that "it's just a job" and start leaving the crap 'at work'. In a startup (esp if it's your own), the psychological and emotional stakes are significantly higher. Also, there's no reason that politics can't find their way into a startup you're running. You just might not notice it because you've positioned yourself at the top of the tree of monkeys.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

fidz 11y ago

Could you tell us an example from another Big Corp? (E.g. Microsoft?)

lewisl9029 11y ago
I remember Windows Live Mesh, a multi-folder, p2p + centralized sync app, being killed in favor of SkyDrive (OneDrive), a single-folder, centralized-only sync app. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live_Mesh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live_Mesh

kristoffer 11y ago

It is really an old strategy to handle risky projects. Typically goes by names such as set based development or parallel trials and was for example used in the Manhattan project. I consider it wise strategy when the project is high risk and its outcome very important.

kabouseng 11y ago

You forget it was the same strategy Steve Jobs followed with the development of the original iPhone, where one was the current realisation and the other was based on the iPod.

ninkendo 11y ago
He didn't go and release both products to see which would win out; the better product was selected internally and Apple went with that. The article is about Google releasing two of everything, not making multiple prototypes of things. I actually think making multiple prototypes is a good thing, it helps you understand things from more angles and see more possibilities about how a problem can be solved. But going and releasing both is confusing to customers and ultimately fragments your product line-up (canibalizing your sales) which is something Apple is desperate to avoid.
- kabouseng 11y ago
  You are right, but he did have two teams develop in secret not knowing about each other, the same complaint that many Googlers have.
  - arjunrc 11y ago
    Do you have a reference for this development being in secret? I think both Jobs' biographies detailed Forstall & Fadell's development, but I thought they knew about each other, working on Mac to Phone & iPod to Phone concepts respectively.
    - kabouseng 11y ago
      Hmmm actually I am not 100% sure, only from what I myself remember reading about it I interpreted it as they they didn't know about each other because the projects in general was conducted in such secrecy. I'll have a look if I can find anything.