
The two things that could hurt Google - donmcc
http://www.mondaynote.com/2014/10/26/the-two-things-that-could-hurt-google/
======
josefresco
Newflash: Google is not an open source project that you can bitch about not
including you in the loop on changes. I think the attempt by the author to
paint Google engineers as aloof and out of touch was trite and intellectually
lazy.

Google is a mature service now that many rely on and then as a result feel as
though they _should_ have a say in how it's changed (or not). Combine this
with the fact that almost any extension of Google's service can encroach on
_established_ business models and you get a veritable sh*tstorm anytime Google
rolls out anything new and different.

This search feature actually serves Google's core purpose well: To help people
find what they want .. quickly. Google's mission is not to protect existing
business models (Amazon) or boost web traffic to your site.

~~~
chrramirez
I could say that the article is written by the average European wannabe-
socialist "intellectual". I convince myself of it when I read "luxury buses".
This is the typical hate argument of any wannabe socialist.

------
vonklaus
> Google’s disconnect from the outside world keeps growing.

> Google has a chronic communication problem.

I actually think these things are rather true. This article did really nothing
to persuade me and was argumentatively weak. Also, the part where the author
essentially tells the 70% white male tech crowd to check their privilege was a
non-sequitor as well.

~~~
pi-err
Agreed - the article feels anecdotical. Or does JLP have insider knowledge on
something deeper?

I can relate in London on how Google's culture obsesses with IQ, compared for
instance to Apple who's more on the EQ side. Yet I don't see how this
conflicts with a new search box that actually solves a problem with minimum
risk (JLP himself mentions the problem is more on Amazon side for using the
new feature).

~~~
CmonDev
"London on how Google's culture obsesses with IQ"

Google doesn't offer a salary that would attract a top IQ in London as far as
I am aware. That's the biggest problem with London - lack of strong and fair
tech presence.

------
Steko
We've seen a lot of articles talking about big dangers to Google lately. It's
an interesting topic but I'm skeptical there's anything there. Because Google
has got so many things going on everywhere, it's easy to find and latch onto
missteps that fit with your preconceived notions of why Google is in big
trouble.

In the meantime, big picture they are still the best search in quality, market
share and revenue in 200 countries and continue to out-innovate the
competition. The primary threat to their existence over the first decade,
MS/IE, has been vanquished and Android is the future global OS and Chrome is
the best in breed browser. Despite the constant privacy chatter, Gmail is
still the #1 platform a decade after launch and they are again out-innovating
everyone else in the email space. China is of course a problem for Google but
that's a decision they are comfortable with for now.

~~~
kshatrea
What you're describing, except search, are all "moats"[1]. They're all ways in
which Google monetizes and generates revenue. Any threat to their bottomline
has to come from people getting access to information in other ways: native
mobile applications, Facebook's walled garden, television etc. To their
credit, they saw the mobile juggernaut coming early unlike Microsoft and they
dealt with it effectively, ditto for browsers and email. They did not deal
with social that effectively. In each case, it was their ability to foresee an
information flow paradigm and get on top of it. The argument here that can be
made is that they're no longer that force that can monetize new information
flow paradigms and that FB, Amazon, Apple are eating their lunch in some ways
and whether they can make money without new sources of income (their new bets
have not paid off yet). Whether this argument against them is stupid or
thoughtful, the fact remains that this is a point that has been raised - not
how good their products are, but how much money they can make, which is
something a for-profit business must consider.

[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-
moat/](http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/25/search-googles-castle-moat/)

~~~
fidotron
Facebook did to Google what Google did to Microsoft, which is to tangentially
hit the old guard hard enough that their ability to move into new areas is
severely hampered. (Facebook have been quite good at buying up anyone that
might do this to them, but it's not clear how long that approach will last).

No one is going to displace Google in search for a long time, but a lot of
that moat is going to end up being eroded.

------
CmonDev
"...scores of young people, mostly male (70%) mostly white (61%), produced by
the same set of top universities..."

I guess he just described e.g. French CEOs and traders as well. But if techies
are doing this, then it's suddenly so wrong.

~~~
joelrunyon
You missed the point.

French CEOs aren't in charge of creating products. Neither are traders.

If you're dependent on creating products that people love with features that
help people in their day-to-day lives, you can't afford to be completely
insulated.

A trader who is focused on a numbers all day - can.

~~~
CmonDev
I just wanted to say that top careers are limited to specific people same way
across different industries, and IT is not the worst case at all. You have to
graduate from specific places and have a specific background. It's a general
problem.

~~~
ripb
>You have to graduate from specific places and have a specific background.
It's a general problem.

It's only a problem if you believe that these places are being favoured over
others with merit being thrown to the way side, and I'd be interested to see
any evidence of such a thing.

------
hangonhn
While the specific problem he pointed out is relevant, the rest of the article
is just speculative. Does he have any proof that parts of Google is
disconnected from each other? He seems to have an issue with the perks of
Google (really just perks of tech) and sort of seized upon this one insistence
to expound on that and other things he doesn't like.

~~~
joelrunyon
He's not talking about the perks but rather how it insulates Google's
worldview to that of an 70% white, 60% male work force.

That, along with being bussed into work & having all your meals, medical, etc
taken care of on campus limits their perspective of what other non-tech people
experience on a day-to-day basis.

His argument is that Google tends to think up these ideas in their own space,
but since they're isolated from what the average american that uses their
products experiences - they have no feedback component that tells them they're
losing touch with their customers.

------
joelrunyon
I think this is worth addressing in reverse order:

> Two: Google has a chronic communication problem.

This hasn't hurt them so far. They do a poor job communicating - but their
products so far have been up to snuff & there aren't real alternatives (yet).
This could & will only hurt them if they screw up the next point.

> One: Google’s disconnect from the outside world keeps growing. More than
> ever, it looks like an insulated community, nurturing its own vision of the
> digital world, with less and less concern for its users who also happen to
> be its customers.

This I think is the bigger threat. They keep pushing innovations or new things
on people Google _really_ wants to see happen, that real people are saying
"no, we don't care about." Stuff like G+ for users and stuff like this example
where they're actively making their advertisers angry.

The big issue here is that if they keep producing things that people don't
care about - then the product quality drops and opens up space for competitors
- which really _could_ hurt them.

Very rarely do you see these massive companies shrink because of some new
startup that jumped into the space with a superior product - typically it's
because they messed themselves up internally and opened up an area for another
company to jump on.

~~~
waterlesscloud
i think it's more accurate to say their lack of communication hasn't been
fatal yet. I think it has hurt them, with some of their dead and/or dying
products.

~~~
joelrunyon
Good point - their growth has been so stratospheric that it hasn't hurt them
(yet). However, if they keep putting out products / features that don't
resonate with people - it could have serious repercussions if a newcomer comes
into the space that excels at communication.

------
jrockway
At least riding the bus is considered "luxury" now. Death of the personal
automobile considered imminent!

~~~
joelrunyon
A free, personal bus that delivers you to the front door of your place of
work? That's not quite "public transportation."

~~~
icebraining
Calling it "free" is somewhat misleading; it's effectively a part of the
salary. The only difference is that most companies pay for the transportation
of their workers in cash, instead of in kind.

~~~
joelrunyon
If it's not taxed - then it's not part of their salary (though the IRS is
working on that).

------
socceroos
Hardly. These are distant problems in my opinion and even if they were to
become critical in addressing, their scope is not so large that they would
affect Google as a company in any noticeable way (IMHO).

~~~
berkes
> their scope is not so large that they would affect Google as a company in
> any noticeable way.

To be fair, the author said `could hurt Google`, expressing reservations.

The two points he makes, however, are directly influencing Googles actual
customers. We must not forget that Google is first and foremost an advertising
agency., or ad-broker. All their "consumerproducts" are there to leverage
their actual product: ad-space.

And the customers, the ones advertising, are rather directly hurt by both
issues (for the sake of the argument, let's presume these statements are
correct):

> Google’s disconnect from the outside world keeps growing.

The threat being that their customerbase moves on; either by moving to new
platforms and systems to sell their goods and create attention. Or by
offending their customers, probably unintentional. The case at point, offering
in-site-search on third-party-sites could be that: hurting the companies that
normally buy the ads to drive the follow-up traffic to their products now see
Google taking that traffic to their own site.

> Google has a chronic communication problem.

Google's customers are also the ones who need to know the ins and outs of
changes to their products. If you are buying ad-space on a somewhat
professional base, you care deeply about the efficiency of these ads. This is
not some "pay and forget" product, it is something you have to keep tuning, or
else your ads effectiveness wear off. For that, you need data: information
about the ins- and outs of Google's products and the changes therein. You have
to keep on top of the changes and tune your portfolio of ads to make use of,
or counteract the effects these changes.

~~~
cromwellian
Chrome itself has long offered in-site search. As much as people keep
repeating the "google is an ad agency" claim, they're still wrong about how
the company functions internally. The non-ads teams are focused on making the
services better for the consumer. Things that Search, Apps, or Android does
can hurt the ads business, but actually make the product better for the user.

When Google Instant was launched, people thought it could hurt the ads
business. Google Now and Google direct-answers searches, which turn up
knowledge graph boxes result in less ads shown. In the old days if you asked
"how long is the golden gate bridge", you'd get ads on the side for San
Francisco tourism, now you get a Knowledge Graph box.

The biggest threat to Google is that mobile erodes search ads faster that Play
store revenue replaces it (if ever). The most of the Web moves to native apps
or even mobile web sites, ad inventory and clicks will go down, and will have
to be made up by other products (YouTube display ads? Play store revenue?)

~~~
millstone
I don't think Chrome's behavior of enabling 3rd party cookies by default,
burying Do Not Track under "Advanced", and having no Reader Mode functionality
make it "better for the consumer."

It's easy to guess that someone searching for "how long is the golden gate
bridge" is more likely to be idly curious than in the market for hotels. This
is a small loss. But when it comes to choices that affect their core business
model, ads rule.

Of course this isn't surprising or even particularly damning. Apple still
charges for iPhones, even though free ones are surely better for the consumer.
Still, the settings and defaults for Chrome vs (say) Safari speak to the
priorities of their authors.

I think you're right about the biggest threat to Google.

------
mikkom
Only thing that would really hurt google: Better search engine.

~~~
jfoster
Not even that, so long as Google is "good enough" and the better search engine
is only a bit better.

One thing that might hurt a bit is if Apple launches a search engine that
people are happy enough to use and makes it the default on OSX & iOS.

~~~
mikkom
I'm so old fart that I still remember days when Altavista was the king. Then
came google. It wasn't that much better but the switch was easy - so I
changed. And so did lots of other people.

This will happen with google at some point, someone will come up with
something different and people will switch. Not because it's so much better
but because it's so easy to switch. At that point Google becomes just one
account place where people read their email, store their photos and so on.

~~~
stephenr
If Google search loses a lot of market share, their profit margins will be
impacted severely.

In that situation, anything that doesn't directly create revenue is fair game
to be axed.

------
unclesaamm
I'm not sure OP knows which side of the brain is which...

------
Beltiras
Cardinal sin of disruptive product development: Not consulting the data source
....

~~~
JamesBaxter
How can Google and its competitors consult the data source at the scale they
deal with?

~~~
ripb
>How can Google and its competitors consult the data source at the scale they
deal with?

As insinuated by the author of this article, by overlooking the best and
brightest at the country's top universities in favour of pulling in more non-
white people and women into engineering roles.

Sure, it might be extremely unfair to those who've been into technology since
a young age and worked their arse off to get into the best universities, the
best internships, etc. and come out the otherside as the best candidates, but
they're most likely white men, and in today's tech journalism narrative, being
a white man is wrong.

------
icantthinkofone
When I put HomeDepot in the search bar, I'm searching for HomeDepot products
so putting a targeted search bar for HomeDepot in there is a feature, not a
problem. Thank you, Google!

"scores of young people, mostly male (70%) mostly white (61%)," Is this
article about age-ism, sexism and race, too? Having 61% white employees is far
above most companies and hardly "mostly white". If you say "mostly", I'm
assuming 90% or more.

But what's the problem with that? are These authors saying white employees are
bad? Or that a 60% white force is bad? I'm sick and tired of the "white
people" bashing for no good reason.

"...the same set of top universities (in that order: Stanford, UC Berkeley,
Carnegie Mellon, MIT, UCLA…). They are pampered in the best possible way, with
free food, on location dental care, etc. "

Again, he's bashing this as if it's a bad thing. They don't mention the reason
for the so-called "pampering" which isn't at all for what they're trying to
give the impression it really is for.

"In practical terms, they fire first and reflect afterwards. "

This is an absolutely, thoughtless comment. In the restaurant parlance, it's
called a "soft opening", where you open the doors and let people discover your
place while you learn what works and what doesn't and what breaks. It's a
smart thing to do when you can afford it or have the time but these authors
think it's a problem that will ruin the company and an example of bad
communication.

I'm not reading the rest of it. There are more important things for me to do.

~~~
ripb
>These authors saying white employees are bad? Or that a 60% white force is
bad? I'm sick and tired of the "white people" bashing for no good reason.

They're saying that hiring based on merit, from the top universities in the
US, which happens to result in a lot of white male employees, is bad and that
Google et al. should be essentially watering down their talent pool in favour
of diversity.

It's a narrative that has polluted the tech industry over the last few years -
mainly pushed by people not even in the industry and who are just writing
about it - and I'm really growing weary of it.

Yes, we get it, tech is cool and has status now and everyone wants a part of
it. Well sorry, to get into the best tech companies you've to be the best, and
unfortunately for a lot of people that will be the generation of young white
guys who were at home tinkering with their computers from a very young age and
who pursued it through third level, over people who saw the salaries in
technology when they were graduating HS and decided that CS was for them.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
This disparity can be addressed, but its not by the Soviet solution of fixing
prices or quotas. Its by doing diligent hiring, looking hard for the good
candidates of minority descent. And since there won't be enough to go around
(that's the premise after all) then agitating at the secondary school level to
get Everybody included in the tech revolution.

~~~
ripb
>This disparity can be addressed, but its not by the Soviet solution of fixing
prices or quotas

I agree.

> Its by doing diligent hiring, looking hard for the good candidates of
> minority descent

This contradicts your first point in a way. If we essentially overlook say
white or Asian candidates in favour of recruiting from potentially worse
schools with a lower quality of student, simply for the sake of introducing
diversity in our workplace, then not only are we consciously trying to fill a
quota (i.e. there are not enough X minority here, instead of going to MIT and
looking for candidates, we'll overlook them and go to X community college or
whatever) but we're being racist in doing so.

>And since there won't be enough to go around (that's the premise after all)
then agitating at the secondary school level to get Everybody included in the
tech revolution.

Absolutely.

I mean it's an interesting and complex issue. Much of the disparities in the
tech industry come from a place of somewhat fortunate circumstances - many of
us are from middle class or higher backgrounds, with fathers who were
engineers or similar, and so had access to better schools who provided their
students with access to computers, along with having computers in the home at
a time where many wouldn't have.

But it also comes from luck and being in the right place at the right time.
Being into technology not so long ago was relegated to a status of being for
nerds, geeks and other supposedly anti-social labels. The people who were into
it pursued it, despite its stigma, and as luck would have it the skills they
developed in doing so turned out to be very valuable today.

As such, I absolutely do not support overlooking these people when hiring
simply to fill a perceived void pushed by the mainstream media these days.

We now live in a different era, where even lower social or economic classes
have widespread access to technology. To address the perceived disparity, the
focus should be on getting these people to pursue technology from a young age,
as you said. It should not be addressed by attempting to shame companies into
overlooking what are the best candidates in favour of others simply because
they've a different skin colour, a different set of genitals, etc.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Diligent hiring just means, considering culture and upbringing before
rejecting a candidate. Also, interviewing at colleges that you would not
normally associate with upper-middle-class-white-kid. Excluding these schools
is biased; including them can no more be considered 'racist' than including
Yale.

