
Google is the new Bell Labs - dlitwak
http://davidlitwak.com/google-acts-how-a-tech-behemoth-should
======
alaskamiller
Google is Oak Ridge.

When I was growing up in Silicon Valley traffic was light, places were far,
and there was nothing in between.

Silicon Valley was rarely the place you wanted to be, we all wanted out having
been here our whole lives. We wanted New York, we wanted Los Angeles, we
wanted anywhere but here.

Over the years that has changed.

You ask most people that work at Google the significance of the Googleplex and
no one will ever tell you about the prominence, about how it used to the
rolling valleys housed the SGI buildings.

But day in, day out, the buses flow. The cars flow. Once you're on campus it's
a different world. Everyone's busy, everyone has something important they're
insisting on doing.

The whole of Mountain View, and in turn the surrounding suburban sprawl has
been turned into the tiny steams coursing into Oak Ridge.

The highways are jammed. The roads are jammed. There are more lines. There are
more people. All eager to do something important. Meals are provided, the
buses are provided, the interns get their limos to go to the local hotels

Slowly but surely, we got our wish. Los Angeles came to us. New York came to
us.

~~~
michaelochurch
_Slowly but surely, we got our wish. Los Angeles came to us. New York came to
us._

Los Angeles never struck me as a place to elevate, and I like the real New
York better.

Silicon Valley was better when it was a place the MBA-culture carpetbaggers
and thugs considered an outpost and avoided as much as they could. The weather
and the scenery were just as good or better (due to less buildup) and people
were able to focus on building things, not having to listen to endless
conversations about Y Combinator and vesting schedules and Mark Pincus.

------
alayne
Bell Labs invented fundamental technology like the transistor and the laser. I
wouldn't put Google Maps in that league. They did not invent autonomous
vehicles or wearable computers, though they have made strides in commoditizing
the technology.

~~~
hdevalence
Moreover, Bell Labs' position as part of a state-regulated monopoly meant that
the research created at Bell Labs was publically available. For instance, UNIX
was given away, since Bell was prohibited from selling it.

I doubt that Google's research will have the same public benefit; it seems
much more likely that Google will keep it for themselves.

~~~
rayiner
My developing theory is that monopolies can be great for innovation. What do
ATT, Google, Xerox, and the old HP have on common? They are/were, if not
outright monopolies, insulated from competition by virtue of network effects,
brand or trademark monopolies, or simply a lack of competent competition. They
weren't like the Acers of world, in highly competitive markets, struggling to
make 1-2% profits on their revenues. They had steady sources of cash from
products that had little market competition.

This allowed them to bankroll things like Bell Labs and Xerox PARC. Freed from
living on the margin, they had the security to invest in blue sky projects.

~~~
punkghetto
What do ATT, Google, Xerox, and the old HP have on common? - They wer
innovative market leaders of there time. They invested further in monetizing
their successful business models. ATT&T has managed to continue to be a big
player in telecoms and Google, much younger than the others is still
incredibly relevant. But being a monopoly does not encourage innovation,
although it can provide the financing. being a monopoly instead incentives
protectionist behaviour to maintain the status quo 'cash cow'. Eventually
however, unless protected by government intervention, monopolies fall or shift
to new entrants. The only way to combat that is to look to the future and try
and ride the next wave. Google's support of investing in 'moonshots' is really
necessary to ensure they stay relevant, otherwise at some point they will
become irrelevant.

~~~
rayiner
> They wer innovative market leaders of there time.

Since adding the "innovative" begs he question, let's rephrase it to "They
were market leaders of their time." But lots of companies are market leaders.
HP of today and Dell are market leaders of the PC industry, yet show almost no
innovation.

My point is that competition, in the sense of the economic force that drives
marginal profits towards zero, discourages innovation, at least in the short
term, because it forces companies to be preoccupied with immediate survival,
instead of allowing them to plan ahead to the future.

------
nemothekid
I really don't understand the Apple hate boner. Apple may have single handedly
jump started the mobile industry, and is the godfather of huge apps like
Facebook, Twitter, Vine, Instagram , Snapchat, Uber, Square, Candy Crush, the
last few that have been causing major problems for major incumbents.

Now what platforms has Google built that is changing the game for everyone
else? You have YouTube and thats pretty much it. Android is a me-too product,
Chromecase is a me-too product, Chrome is a me-too product. I won't lie Maps,
and Translate are amazing services but hardly worth deity status. Plus has
been a spectacular flop, and my father (who isn't in tune with tech) is
completely confused as to why people by their cloud machines from Amazon.

Lastly, Google isn't putting anything on the line. 95%+ of Google's revenue is
advertising. If Ford started work on an autonomous car that would be putting
it on the line. What Google is doing is the equivalent of a rich kid buying
fancy toys. Google X gets a lot of PR, but thus far it isn't all that much
different from Microsoft & IBM Research.

I'm not going to say what Google is doing is wrong, I think its great
actually. However we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves by saying Apple is doing
nothing. That company is focused on building amazing products on what pretty
much amounts to yesterdays technology. Every phone today has a capacitive
screen but how long has that been around? Retina displays? How long did we
suffer with 1368x768 laptops?

So while Google is not reliving the 80s "household of tomorrow" pipe dream, It
doesn't seem wise to say Apple just builds "only phones and tablets." given
that those phones and tablets have been the center of current tech industry
and are out _now_ rather than "just 5 more years!"

~~~
dlitwak
Candy Crush, we're holding that up as a development that Apple is responsible
that we want to be proud of, seriously? Regardless, an app store wasn't
groundbreaking. They executed much better on what Blackberry was already doing
with smartphones.

The point isn't necessarily what has come to pass yet, it's the focus on
things that don't necessarily have a path to revenue yet. Everything Apple
does is product and revenue focused. That is not the case with Google.

You are right that 95% of their revenue comes from Adwords . . . but 95% of
their efforts aren't on optimizing Adwords, and that right there is my point:
Apple is focused on executing where their revenue is, Google is definitely
MORE focused on finding new revenue opportunities, and is more willing to look
into unorthodox industries and ideas.

~~~
nemothekid
Yes, Candy Crush, especially when King is apply major pressure to Nintendo, a
30 year incumbent, on their home court[1]. I understand most people don't
understand the video games industry.

Second, don't take execution lightly. Execution is everything. Again, the last
few major tech products in silicon valley _aren 't_ moonshots. Most of the
them are ideas that could have built 2001. Square could have been released on
Windows Mobile 6.

What I'm simply trying to argue is that Google Research isn't inherently
better than Apple's workshop. Moonshots are great yes, but its a bit too early
to be sounding the bells. Microsoft Research had a similar position in the
past and everyone thought they were ushering the new age, but it turned out to
simply be PR. "The World of Tomorrow" at Disney Land (which probably hasn't
been touched in 5-10 years) is chock full of a Microsoft Research moonshots
that never caught on or weren't really practical. I see Google Glass heading a
similar direction.

~~~
kayoone
But thats the point. MS and Google are trying, Apple is more or less only
making safe bets, combining existing technologies and executing extremely well
on improving those. Thats great, i love my Apple products, but its still a
different philosophy.

~~~
nemothekid
>Apple is more or less only making safe bets,

Again, you don't know that because Apple doesn't use Research as a PR
platform. Apple tinkered with something like the Glass.[1] It would be naive
to think Apple R&D isn't tinkering with similar ideas. However Apple's
marketing approach is very different and Apple on recent doesn't try to sell
you on ideas that are 5 years away. Which is entirely why I'm hesitant to say
"Apple isn't doing anything and Google is flying to the moon." In reality both
companies are looking into very interesting products, the difference is while
Google is telling the world, Apple would crucify anyone who leaked a blurry
photo.

[1][http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/10/4714680/apple-developed-
go...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/10/4714680/apple-developed-google-glass-
style-wearable-visor-prototype)

------
redial
I don't get the Apple hate. And at the risk of getting downvoted, I'm gonna
paraphrase Steve Jobs,

    
    
        We have to get out of our heads that for Google to win Apple has to loose.
    

This idea that Apple only got right the timing, and that without them
smartphones would be the same, computers would be the same and tablets would
be the same seems crazy to me. Timing <i>IS</i> everything, and they made
theirs by creating a lot of the technology we take for granted now. They drove
the industry here, almost entirely by willpower. AT&T helped them reluctantly,
Verizon didn't want anything to do with the iPhone (and I suspect they still
don't) and the music industry did't even saw it coming; once they realized
what was happening, they tried their best to stop it.

They make phones and tablets <i>NOW</i>. They didn't five years ago and who
nows what they'll be making 5 years from now. What did Google have five years
ago? Search, Maps, Gmail and Youtube. What do they have today? Search, Maps,
Youtube, Gmail and thanks in part to Apple, Chrome and Android. Everything
else is a research project.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love Google. I use Gmail, Youtube and Maps
religiously. Google Glass <i>IS</i> the future. Every one of their research
projects is a vector for change in the world, but let's not pretend that they
work in isolation. Technologies feed on each other, ideas spring new ideas,
companies inspire other companies, to create and to compete. To reinvent.

I am glad to live in the time of Apple and Google. Don't ruin it with hate.

~~~
selmnoo
> I don't get the Apple hate. And at the risk of getting downvoted, I'm gonna
> paraphrase Steve Jobs,

That comes from the same guy who, in private, said:

    
    
        I'm going to destroy Android [...] I will spend my
        last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every
        penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this 
        wrong

~~~
kayoone
source?

~~~
selmnoo
[http://allthingsd.com/20120604/bombs-away-judge-rules-
steve-...](http://allthingsd.com/20120604/bombs-away-judge-rules-steve-jobss-
thermonuclear-comment-fair-game-in-android-case/)

------
vonskippy
Google is NOTHING like Bell Labs. Bell did real research, not research that
had a ROI counter tied to it.

Google researches what makes Google money - period. If this is the current
generations "hero", then we're doomed.

~~~
dlitwak
Don't be silly, all research done by companies has an ROI counter tied to it .
. . the point is that some do much more forward thinking research into
technologies that might not yet have a specific application quite yet, and
others are focused 2-3 years in advance and that's it.

~~~
msutherl
This is simply not true except perhaps in that any research center will have
an aggregate ROI counter that some bureaucrats glance at annually. As somebody
pointed out elsewhere, Bell Labs' ROI was capped. Much, and I would argue the
best, corporate research is done with almost no consequential oversight from
the host corporation. This was certainly the case with Bell Labs, XEROX Parc,
and other great research centers of yore just as it is still the case to some
extent at Microsoft, AT&T, IBM, and Intel today (between re-orgs).

At present, PARC (no longer under Xerox) operates on something of an agency
model and Google runs research projects like startups. This appears to result
in a higher rate of short-term commercial success, but at the cost of
fundamental research. That said, I think we've done a tremendous amount of
fundamental research since World War II and now that the conditions for
producing more no longer exist, there's plenty of low-hanging fruit – new
configurations of things that already exist – hence the prevalence of startups
and the perceived excellence of hybrid research models.

------
Eduardo3rd
I've been reading The Idea Factory by Jon Gertner recently and I feel like the
parallels between the two are really striking. The advent of Google X
projects, the Motorola acquisition, and all of the recent robotics
acquisitions make it feel like Google is actually building the future that
I've been dreaming of since I was in elementary school.

I only hope that the next wave of technological innovation will be far more
decentralized than the last one. We haven't had a Bell Labs like organization
in a long time. Maybe one day we won't need one.

~~~
Balgair
Take a drive around the googleplex. Go by the LinkedIn offices to the south.
See those buildings off on the end there? Look at your google maps. Do you see
them online? Will you ever? Google has it's secrets too, ones it doesn't want
advertised.

~~~
jmillikin
I just checked, and all the buildings near the Googleplex-proximate LinkedIn
offices are on Google Maps. The Google buildings even have floorplans.

------
czr80
It's fascinating how successful Google has been at marketing itself to geeks -
it doesn't matter that none of the really cool stuff has actually shipped (and
perhaps will never ship). The dream is there, and that's enough to get the
kids in to work on improving advertising (while dreaming of changing the
world).

Is that cynical? Probably, don't mind me. It's just reading these comments
you'd think self-driving cars, say, were a done deal, and yet when I read
things like this they seem an awfully long way away:

>The Google car has now driven more than half a million miles without causing
an accident—about twice as far as the average American driver goes before
crashing. Of course, the computer has always had a human driver to take over
in tight spots. Left to its own devices, Thrun says, it could go only about
fifty thousand miles on freeways without a major mistake. Google calls this
the dog-food stage: not quite fit for human consumption. “The risk is too
high,” Thrun says. “You would never accept it.” The car has trouble in the
rain, for instance, when its lasers bounce off shiny surfaces. (The first
drops call forth a small icon of a cloud onscreen and a voice warning that
auto-drive will soon disengage.) It can’t tell wet concrete from dry or fresh
asphalt from firm. It can’t hear a traffic cop’s whistle or follow hand
signals.

[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/11/25/131125fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/11/25/131125fa_fact_bilger?currentPage=all)

------
Keyframe
Right, Microsoft Research, IBM Research.. they really have nothing to show
for. Google also has what an advertising system and a site to search things
for, send/receive email and watch videos, some phones.. that's it. Everything
else has been videos and PR.

~~~
dlitwak
True. I'll admit that there is probably a fair amount of bias because Google
has a better PR department. But I doubt it's that much better than these other
guys . . . I think much of the research being done is around incremental
improvements, and the point is that Google seems to be dreaming much bigger
and thinking much more long term.

~~~
Keyframe
I got what the main thought was, but I'm not sure about much longer term or
greater plans. Maybe broader appeal? Again, related to PR. IBM seems to be
doing fine long term with their research, but not very PR active, and when
they are you notice that - Watson?

~~~
stan_rogers
Watson is actually sort of boring stock-in-trade stuff for IBM when looked at
through a certain lens. (Not that it isn't noteworthy or anything.) The phrase
"IBM researchers have..." used to be attached to things like atom-by-atom
manipulation (the atomic IBM logo was the PR piece), superconductivity
(Bednorz and Müller)... things that might one day mean a whole heck of a lot,
but in the meantime amounted to allowing some very smart people to piddle
around trying interesting stuff. There was always hope that some technology
might fall sideways out of the work, but the IBM of the day was significantly
less attached to success. Pre-PC Revolution, they were in a position to afford
it; Gerstner's IBM could not.

------
nl
For all those that are arguing that Google isn't Bell Labs because Bell Labs
invented more stuff and gave it away: there is a reason for that: Xerox PARC.

Xerox PARC is the Bell Labs of the computing industry, and its spectacular
failure to do anything to help Xerox hangs heavy over commercial research labs
in computing.

Google is _determined_ not to let its lab projects be another Xerox PARC. For
better or worse that means there does tend to be a profit goal at the end of
most of their research.

~~~
panic
Xerox PARC may never have produced the modern computer if there had been an
explicit profit goal. The "spectacular failure" here was not in the goal of
the lab -- the problem was how Xerox management dealt with its results.

~~~
nl
_Xerox PARC may never have produced the modern computer if there had been an
explicit profit goal._

Perhaps, perhaps not.

 _The "spectacular failure" here was not in the goal of the lab -- the problem
was how Xerox management dealt with its results._

Yes, I agree 100%.

------
ironchief
Being the next Bell Labs is both an honour and a disgrace. Bell Labs funded
basic sciences which provided much of the technology you see before you today.
Certainly this was a great example of corporate research. However, Bell Labs
was funded by a government sanctioned monopoly over the telecommunications
sector in the US. AT&T repeatedly stifled innovation (see MCI) and abused its
monopoly and neglected to implement the research coming outs of its labs
(parallel with Xerox).

Google provides an interesting foil to AT&T. They both have/had effective
monopolies over a telecommunication sector and large research operations.
However, the differences are quite large. Google has not funded basic research
on the same level as Bell Labs. It also is more keen to productize the
research it does. Additionally, its monopoly is part of an ecosystem of
services on the internet and is not as complete as Bells dominance over
telephone lines.

Read Tim Wu's "The Master Switch" for a much more complete history of Radio,
Television, Film, Phone and Internet communication companies in the USA. It's
a fantastic read and provides the background for intelligent conversations
about the telecommunications industry.

~~~
joseph_cooney
Yes. I read "The Master Switch" and being crowned "The New Bell Labs" to me
was synonymous with incredible innovation, which is the buried for decades to
protect and entrenched position, which I don't think is google's play. For
example, see the history of the answering machine and magnetic tape.

[http://io9.com/5691604/how-ma-bell-shelved-the-future-
for-60...](http://io9.com/5691604/how-ma-bell-shelved-the-future-for-60-years)

------
jimbobimbo
You cannot mention Microsoft in the article like this and completely dismiss
their Research arm. Even Amazon's PR stunt with "drone delivery" gets
mentioned, but not a real-deal research, seriously?

------
kayoone
so things like the watson ai by IBM or MS Kinect arent groundbreaking tech?

Google does cool stuff, but saying no one else is seems pretty ignorant

------
beachstartup
> Apple has pretty phones and tablets and that’s really it.

interesting conclusion. i must be hallucinating my macbook air, mac pro, os x
+ apps, and airport network then.

~~~
dlitwak
Ok they have a computer and an operating system as well as a nice way to
transfer files . . . big whoop. I think we can all agree that this isn't
groundbreaking.

~~~
doe88
I think your premise is kind of flawed. That's not because you don't see what
Apple is working on right now that there's nothing, that may just be their
usual policy not to communicate about future products. Moreover I think a lot
of people forget to credit Apple of their on-going effort on semi-conductors I
think it's forward thinking, but hey that's less shiny than robots.

------
todd3834
Just because Google doesn't put as much work into keeping their future ideas
secret, you can't assume Apple doesn't have equally ambitious ideas. You just
won't find out about then until Apple thinks it is worthy of your attention.

~~~
beambot
Couldn't you say the same about any other company too?

~~~
todd3834
Yes

------
sifarat
Just because everyone is not making alpha releases of their products, does not
mean they are not working on ground-breaking technology (which works) either.
If you understand Apple, you will get my point.

I don't want to take any credit away from Google. But there is a thin line
between a gimmick and something earth shattering. Unless, I practically see,
the practical use of these products (by google) I am more inclined to think,
they are merely cheap gimmicks.

Google at best, can replicate a feature. But sadly that trick is no longer
working. read: G+ and all they have resorted to gimmicks like this.

Oh yea, I am an Apple asshole but that does not make my above point invalid.

------
dineuica
"Only Google is investing in truly groundbreaking research." guess author
hasn't seen [http://research.microsoft.com/en-
us/](http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/)

------
graeham
Last year, Apple spent $1.1B on R&D
([http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AAAPL&fstype=ii&ei...](http://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AAAPL&fstype=ii&ei=nTeuUqjmH4KEsge5Mw)).
Google spent $6.6B
([http://www.google.co.uk/finance?fstype=ii&q=NASDAQ:GOOG](http://www.google.co.uk/finance?fstype=ii&q=NASDAQ:GOOG)).
The big spender will suprise many: Microsoft spent $10.4B
([https://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AMSFT&fstype=ii&e...](https://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AMSFT&fstype=ii&ei=XjeuUsA-
pPOxB_lC)).

Also, the majority of Google R&D (at least that I am aware of) is much more
applied than fundamental. The Google Car and Google Glasses are cool, but they
will never win Nobel Prizes.

------
Wyrmkill
This is a pretty broad generalization. Not to mention, just because Google has
better advertising and promotion of its new ideas and research, I'd not
discount Apple, IBM or Microsoft. If anyone, IBM has consecutively stood the
test of time with new innovations and inventions. World changing.

~~~
tunap
Two words of agreement: Dr Mandelbrot

------
gfodor
Uh, Apple created the Macintosh, the iPhone, and the iPad. I would give them a
bit more credit for creating new industries if we're going to start comparing
them to Google on that front.

~~~
dlitwak
I think credit is given . . . that's the past though, only so long you can
rest on your laurels, and creating a snazzier phone and an app store doesn't
really measure up to autonomous cars and robots in my opinion . . . its very
nice don't get me wrong, but not in the same category of hard research into
technologies where there isn't an obvious usecase yet, and thinking ahead 15
years.

~~~
philwelch
The difference is that Apple doesn't advertise what they're working on until
it's nearly ready to ship. They don't do vaporware. So they're always going to
lose out on that comparison.

------
JulienSchmidt
Somehow related: Has Apple Really Ever Invented Anything?
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0)

~~~
pvdm
not really. they make some nice hardware. wozniak was the first to realize the
potential of the microprocessor.

------
asmman1
Very interesting article I think. But I think that says Google is the new Bell
Labs is a bit exaggeration. While Bell Labs did most of its inventions from
scratch and with a lot of search, what Google do in most part of its products
is improvement of existing ones. And no, I'm not a Google hater.

------
Link-
Google is Bell Labs; William Bell's Labs (Massive Dynamic) from Fringe
([http://fringepedia.net/wiki/William_Bell](http://fringepedia.net/wiki/William_Bell))

------
pvdm
I don't see Google working on detecting cosmic background radiation from the
origins of the universe any time soon.

