
Google's Decline Really Bugs Me - blackhole
http://blackhole12.blogspot.com/2013/11/googles-decline-really-bugs-me.html
======
timr
If you ask me, one of Google's biggest strategic successes was their ability
to convince an entire generation of engineers that they were something other
than a company. The way many (otherwise intelligent) people talk about it,
you'd think it was a religion.

What you're seeing here is not the shattering of a dream, but of an illusion
-- Google hasn't been a scrappy, idealistic startup for many years. It's a
fine company, but it's a _big company_ \-- a collection of tens of thousands
of people, all motivated by different hopes and dreams. No institution of that
size behaves consistently, let alone consistently _benevolently_.

In other words: stop setting up false idols, and your reality won't be
shattered when they disappoint you.

~~~
alaskamiller
While eating my second dinner plate of something delicious on the campus I
looked around and saw how many children and families were around.

The company provides, so much, for you, for your family. You wouldn't to ever
lose what you have now gotten used to, for yourself, for your family.

So now you become a company man. What's good for the company must be good for
you.

What's good about knowing more people, how they think, how they behave, what
they want, must be good for the company, which turn must be good for you, good
for your family.

It's just a series of intricate goodness being passed around from group to
group, people to people.

No one inherently is evil, but the system can end up be directed towards evil
inevitably.

Either way, it just was damn good pork chops with quinoa.

We didn't get this kind of chow in the Marine Corps, and I would have killed
for it.

~~~
chrissnell
I don't know if you served or if you were just alluding to it but your last
point got me thinking:

In the Army, I lived the most barebones kind of lifestyle and did a job that
often put my family through hell but was buoyed by the feeling that I was part
of the most noble of professions. In this industry, I've provided incredible
privilege, comfort, and stability for my family but have always felt that this
industry principally serves those who are a part of it.

~~~
vdaniuk
Is this sarcasm? Do you really consider being in the Army a noble profession?
And do you think that the software industry serves humanity in general less
than military industry?

~~~
nhangen
It's sad that the Armed Forces are now looked upon with disdain by hackers
mere decades after the West wrested the world from Germany's grasp.

Say what you want about the military industrial complex, but lets not forget
that should any of our countries be invaded, we will be very grateful that
those guns pointing at the invaders.

~~~
pa5tabear
Disdain is inappropriate, but so is automatic praise. The media wants to paint
this picture that members of the military choose to serve for altruistic
reasons and that we need to celebrate them all. This may be true for some, but
I think the majority are in the military more-so because they think it's their
best option for starting a career.

Additionally, the justness of military conflicts these days is far more
questionable than in the past. Doesn't this make it reasonable to be more
critical of the military as a whole?

~~~
nhangen
I agree. I served 4+ years in the Army and was deployed as part of OEF. I'm
uncomfortable with the automatic praise; it's definitely not why I signed up.

However, given a choice I'd prefer that the scale remain tipped towards praise
instead of neglect or ignorance.

It's true, not all Soldiers serve altruistically, but they serve nonetheless.
It's fine to question the intent of our government, military, and its
officers, but try to remember that for the most part, Soldiers are forced to
follow orders or face jail time, and they are constantly reminded of this.

The recruitment pitch is vastly different from the reality. I remember many
Tuesdays where we'd spend the day sweeping the motor pool, wondering if we
really deserved the praise bestowed upon us. Rest assured, most Soldiers
wrestle with this at some point during their career.

------
matthewmacleod
What's with the sudden outpouring of Google-hate of late?

I totally get that Google is changing, and has been doing so for a while. But
I don't see that as "evil," and I'm struggling to see why anybody would.

Google around maybe five or six years ago was a wasteland of shoddy, broken,
unintegrated products, many with half-assed, confusing interfaces. That's been
tightened up - many of their products are now substantially better; there's a
coherent account and profile system in place; the weak products have been
culled. Their focus is a lot better.

I'm probably using Google resources less than I used to - GMail's interface
pisses me off, the new Maps layout is infuriating, and search is broadly
speaking totally broken for me in places. I'm also acutely aware that Google's
audience has changed - it's no longer tech-savvy early adopters, but almost
everybody who has an Internet connection. Unfortunately, the interests of the
minority groups of users are going to fall by the wayside as the business
evolves.

To some extent, that's great - it opens up gaps in the market where other
products can get a look-in. If Google's search sucks, I'm sure a competitor
will pop up. Same with Gmail, or Docs, or Hangouts… etc.

There are unsurprisingly some areas in which Google's record is not 100% clean
- they stopped supporting RSS, removed XMPP federation, require profile
verification (apparently) - but in most cases, I can certainly see how the
business or technical case for these could legitimately be made. These are not
evil actions - they're just ones that you (and I) don't agree with. Fair
enough - we're under no obligation to use Google's services. In the meantime,
they continue to develop a huge diversity of open-source software and
protocols, and I hear it's still a great place to work.

I guess at the end of the day you could be right - Google has declined from
your perspective. But I doubt that's true from the perspective of their wider
user base.

~~~
Kequc
People don't like change. People like what they had. People hate that Google
is deciding to move forward. Now forcing the changes on their user base so
that Google doesn't have an unlimited number of different things to maintain.

~~~
wpietri
I think it's more than a dislike of change. It's not clear to me that Google
is moving forward. I might characterize it more as "upward" in the sense that
they're solidifying their dominant position. Moving forward is precisely what
I fear them losing.

Of course, it's easy to move forward when you're new and have nothing to lose.
Moving forward is much harder when you're the dominant player, because moving
forward puts you at risk.

~~~
Kequc
I feel that I've been waiting for them to do something with youtube for a long
time. Making it and Google plus the same thing is probably the right move.
Youtube in general needs a lot of renovation.

The structure of Google plus suits content aggregation really well, it was
designed for it. So I think it's a really good fit and I can't really wait for
the transition to be finished.

My hesitation used to be something along the lines of I don't want Youtube
users on Google plus. But I've come to remember, since it has started. I still
have complete control over who shows up in my streams.

~~~
alandarev
Indeed, why not enforce people use social network if they want to watch a
video?

------
IBM
They are the new Microsoft but they're trying to avoid the same fate of
companies like Yahoo and Microsoft; i.e viewed as stodgy old companies that
aren't great places to work. The perception about Google needs to be
"innovative" which is why there is lots of PR about their X Labs initiatives.
But if you think about all of the high profile ones, they aren't really
attractive businesses.

Driverless cars? It's technology that all the major car companies have been
working on for years and is close to market. This means they aren't going to
create a business of licensing that tech to them. Are they going to get into
the high capex business of car manufacturing?

Google Fiber? Same story. Capex heavy business with lower margins than being
an ad company. It also takes a lot of time to scale it up and roll it out to
cities.

Most of these things are for PR rather than real businesses that will be
successful and change Google's revenue mix from 90%+ advertising to anything
else. Even in their core business, Cost Per Clicks continue to trend down.
This is a deterioration in pricing power largely being driven by the shift to
computing on mobile devices. Their latest quarterly results were good because
they are essentially "making it up in volume", but there is a limit to how
much ad inventory you can squeeze out of all your properties to keep driving
aggregate clicks up without pissing off users or trashing your products.

~~~
antonius
_" Companies like Yahoo and Microsoft; i.e viewed as stodgy old companies that
aren't great places to work."_

For what reasons is Microsoft not a great place to work? I may be biased
because my brother works there full-time and a friend is interning there but
both of them very much enjoy it.

~~~
IBM
My comment about them is how they're perceived in the industry, in reality
they may be great places to work.

~~~
MAGZine
Other than stack-ranking thing/general office politics, I don't really have a
negative preception of Microsoft. Is this a supposed-perception, or an actual
perception?

I don't know anything about Yahoo!, but my perceptions of them are still
positive. If you have an awful work environment, people will just go
elsewhere. _especially_ if you're qualified to work at either company.

~~~
yuhong
I think they were referring to the 1990s when MS was a lot worse than the
Google of today. MS did a lot of unethical attacks against competitors during
that period (my favorite is the MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco).

------
birken
Here are 3 pertinent facts related to your post:

1) When I worked there, long before Larry Page was CEO, 20% time barely
existed and Google cared a heck of a lot about making money.

2) The share price going up makes employees, former employees, and all sorts
of non-"wall street investors" very happy.

3) Your hacker news about section links to your Google+ page

~~~
nostrademons
1) 20% time still exists. I used it to write an HTML parser [1] that's had
some modest success, and I have coworkers that have 20%ed on robotics, quantum
computation, elementary school education, Project Loon, Flu Trends, and a
variety of other interesting things. Google Now came out of a 20% project. It
_is_ something that you have to take a lot of initiative on to pull off
successfully, but the opportunity is still available.

[1] [https://github.com/google/gumbo-parser](https://github.com/google/gumbo-
parser)

~~~
mathattack
Does 20% realistically come between 80 and 100%, 100 and 120, or 120 and 140%?

~~~
na85
What does that even mean?

edit: Yes, let's downmod the guy who doesn't understand an obtusely-worded
question. Well done.

~~~
reikonomusha
He's asking if the 20% time is exclusively:

1\. genuinely 20% of one's full-time schedule;

2\. 20% beyond one's full-time schedule; or

3\. 20% beyond one's over-time schedule.

------
gilgoomesh
The paragraph involving Steve Jobs is a misquote at best or a completely wrong
at worst. If you read the article that paragraph links, it doesn't mention
"maximizing profit" or money at all.

I think this paragraphs reflects badly on the entire article – it makes the
article appear to be a struggle to create a connect-the-dots conspiracy behind
Google's actions (evil Steve Jobs told Larry Page to be evil and now Google is
evil).

Steve Jobs told Larry Page to gave a strong focus on key products. You could
certainly argue that Google are too strongly focussed on AdWords and Google+
but that's not the point that McClure argues.

~~~
dmak
After reading the Steve Jobs book, the biggest emphasis was focus on making a
great product. He was never in it for the money; He was making $1 a year at
one point.

~~~
Fomite
$1 a year and a _massive_ pile of stock. That's a big show of faith in your
abilities and your company, but that's hardly "Never in it for the money".

~~~
Amadou
_That 's a big show of faith in your abilities and your company_

It's a tax dodge if the company's share price is at least level.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-
dollar_salary#Instances_of...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-
dollar_salary#Instances_of_alternative_compensation)

------
dictum
> Now it's just another large company - only concerned about maximizing
> profit.

> Google was a company that, for a time, I loved. To me, they represented the
> antithesis of Microsoft, a rebellion against a poisonous corporate culture
> dominated by profiteering that had no regard for its users.

 _Maybe You 're Just Not Their Target Demographic Anymore™_

Google had better ideals, sure. But I'd say their current actions are actually
making Google's products better for more people. Unfortunately, as their
products improve for the majority of people, they become less accommodating[1]
of early users and people who actually care about privacy, restraint in
advertising, and domain-specific needs.

However, OP doesn't provide specific examples of what Google did that made him
worry, just a general discomfort with Google that's been voiced countless
times since their IPO.

I hate their general attitude about privacy, their gradual shoving of ads
everywhere, and the usual we-are-open stuff used to divert questioning, but
maybe it's time to admit that Google is just getting better at things that
don't matter to you.

[1]: It's a false choice, yes: they could keep honoring their initial
principles and still grow and profit, but has any behemoth corporation ever
done that?

~~~
lazyjones
> _But I 'd say their current actions are actually making Google's products
> better for more people._

Can you explain how forcing people to use their real names (or something that
passes as such) is making Google's products better for more people? How about
the inbox spam in Gmail, or the large ads they have been testing on Google
itself apparently ([http://www.seroundtable.com/google-adwords-huge-image-
ad-175...](http://www.seroundtable.com/google-adwords-huge-image-
ad-17568.html)) while they penalize large ads above the fold on indexed pages
([http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.at/2012/01/page-
la...](http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.at/2012/01/page-layout-
algorithm-improvement.html)), or, like someone else pointed out here, killing
Reader?

Frankly, I may not be their target demographic either, but for most of the
recent changes they got flak over I simply have to shake my head and wonder
what they were thinking and how they could actually claim to make things
better for anyone but themselves. Perhaps I'm too stupid to understand ...

~~~
dictum
Maybe I'm just jaded and never really saw Google as a a nice company with good
intentions, but I just can't be sad about Google's new directions.

My suggestion to everyone who's worried about Google: other companies would be
really happy to service your needs. There are other companies offering e-mail
services, ad services, internet search (the one thing there's no absolute
replacement for yet[1], but with your patronage, a new competitor could get
there), internet messaging, website analytics, maps, mobile operating
systems... and new companies could appear in these areas.

> Can you explain how forcing people to use their real names (or something
> that passes as such) is making Google's products better for more people?

I dislike their new real names policy, but: human faces. Humans are drawn to
other humans' faces. That's why they're pushing to use Google+ photos on ads.
Also, people are drawn to names of people they know. That's why they nudged
website owners to associate their domains with their personal Google+
accounts. They're essentially trying to make their services more like a social
network so people discover YouTube videos while browsing YouTube, not Twitter
or Facebook, for instance.

A simpler explanation: Google is trying to remain relevant and grow even more
using the same magic that made Facebook big: your friends.

[1]: In my experience, DDG is good at searches related to programming,
mediocre at searches related to non-tech stuff, and terrible at searches in
languages other than English. It's getting better, though.

~~~
fennecfoxen
I think what it boils down to is that Google, for its users, used to be all
about giving the Internet neat things. But now they're all "more wood behind
fewer arrows" and shutting down things (Google Reader, real estate search,
whatever) and are little more than an advertising company.

The magic is gone, and that's a special kind of disappointment.

~~~
Khaine
Don't forget Eric Schmidt's crazy thoughts on privacy:

* During an interview aired on December 3, 2009, on the CNBC documentary "Inside the Mind of Google," Schmidt was asked, "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" He replied: "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities."

* At the Techonomy conference on August 4, 2010, Schmidt expressed that technology is good. And he said that the only way to manage the challenges is "much greater transparency and no anonymity." Schmidt also stated that in an era of asymmetric threats, "true anonymity is too dangerous."

* In 2005 Google blacklisted CNET reporters from talking to Google employees for one year, until July 2006, after CNET published personal information on Schmidt, including his politician donations, hobbies, salary, and neighborhood, that had been obtained through Google searches.

* In 2010 in an interview with the WSJ Schmidt stated that he thinks teenagers should be entitled to change their names upon reaching adulthood in order to separate themselves from the Google record of their youthful indiscretions.

* In 2010 he also stated that "people aren't ready for the technology revolution that's going to happen to them" and that absolute privacy would prove too-unsafe in the future

------
ttunguz
The main argument in the article is that as Google has gotten bigger, its
profit motive has become more important to the company, which is negatively
impacting new and old products. While Google may have to continue to generate
more revenue growth from AdWords and AdSense and YouTube in order to keep the
stock going up and generate more cash, the majority of Google products aren't
at all impacted by profit motive. In fact, most of the product initiatives at
Google sap profit.

Android is a multi-billion dollar bet on mobile OS Calico is a billion dollar
bet on extending life ChromeOS is a multi-billion dollar bet on laptop/TV
ChromeBrowser is a hundred-million dollar bet on browsing Google Glass is a
multi-billion dollar bet on next gen devices Self driving cars are a multi-
billion dollar bet on, well, self driving cars.

None of these, save perhaps Android, has any chance of driving material
revenue to the business in the next five years. Most of the hardware bets
Google makes are money losers because they routinely subsidize hardware.

When I was there, I launched two product features that each cost the company
hundreds of millions of dollars and were visible on the earnings-per-share
number in the quarterly revenues we reported to Wall Street.

The argument might stand on Google.com, where the number of ads has increased.
But for the majority of products (Gmail, Drive, Spreadsheets, Docs, Keep,
Maps, Calendar, Books, Finance, Music, etc), it's hard to justify a profit
motive argument.

~~~
slyv
I think people are seeing the products that Google has to maximize profit on
(Youtube, AdSense, G+, etc...) and using those as the basis for the entire
ecosystem that is Google. Google, as you pointed out, is much more than just
the products that make money. I find it incredibly shortsighted to fault a
company that tries to make money in order to pay for these great research
projects.

I really don't mind ads. Its a free service to use, I can live with some ads,
I still get my search that I like, I still get the experience that I like, and
I patronize the company that provides this without any dime out of my pocket.
Plus, Google is using these funds to research these multi-billion dollar
initiatives like self-driving cars that I couldn't fathom to undertake on my
own.

------
buyx
Google has always had a massive weakness: feedback.

Feedback on products is atrocious -Google Now on my iPhone shows me a route
home that would send me the wrong way up a freeway, and I don't know where to
report it. Years ago, I ran into a serious issue with Google Desktop, and the
bug was poorly documented.

Their maps data in Johannesburg has some annoying data issues, and is
rewriting the geography of the city, because it is relied on by third party
sites. They do respond to some Maps reports, and other problems can be fixed
in Map Maker, but some are too big.

The common thread in these problems is that Google has very poor feedback
mechanisms - a problem that has existed for years. Given their success in
organising data, you'd think there would be a way for them to handle feedback
efficiently, and in a standardised way across products. But feedback doesn't
seem to be a priority. A few months ago, HN became an unofficial support
board, with various tales of woe posted here, and then fixed by Googlers

If they get their feedback and bug reporting right, I'd be willing to cut them
some slack: as a company, they aren't particularly abusive. Wanting to clean
up YouTube comments is commendable and overdue, and their search engine
remains very useful. It's easy enough to lock down a Google+ profile if you
want, and to tweak Gmail to be less annoying.

~~~
curiousdannii
And their open source projects like Chrome do have public bug trackers, but in
my experience I've either been ignored or treated with what I felt was
contempt. The first is probably the same feedback problem as everywhere, the
second is because the Chrome developers don't want the same kind of internet I
do...

------
jdreaver
> Larry Page worshiped Steve Jobs, who gave him a bunch of bad advice centered
> around maximizing profit.

What is so bad about maximizing profit? If you make a profit, it means people
are willingly giving you money for the service you provide. You make more
profit when people feel they benefit more from your service. People can
complain about Google until the end of time, but as long as the cash keeps
flowing then Google is getting the signal that everything they are doing is in
the interest of the consumer.

Now, I don't know if the "decline" of Google, as asserted by the OP, has
actually affected their bottom line, because I'm not on the board at Google. I
just think it's silly to throw around the word "profit" as if it's some sort
of evil goal. Profit is the foundation of a monetary-based economy, and
therefore modern human civilization. There is no signal available that is as
efficient as profit as a proxy for the wants of the consumer, and how to most
efficiently allocate scarce resources.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _You make more profit when people feel they benefit more from your service._
> //

That's clearly not the only way to make more profit. If for example one has
entrenched users and cuts the level of service markedly, or increases the
cost, then profit increases. There is no need for anyone to benefit more other
than the shareholders.

You can also improve a service without charging more. Again profit and benefit
will not be directly correlated.

For me Google's search has been doing down-hill for a year or so, to my
recollection. I've been using them for about 15 years. It's my primary point
of contact despite using webmaster tools and a couple of other offerings.

Usually I try alternate SE about once every year to see if I can find
something that works better for me. I just changed my primary SE to
duckduckgo. Being so used to Google's interface it's proving hard but not
impossible (as it was a last year for me); still not sure I'll settle on it
but continually convinced Google isn't working any more.

~~~
adventured
"You can also improve a service without charging more. Again profit and
benefit will not be directly correlated."

In your example, profit and benefit would in fact be directly correlated.

If you improve your service, without charging more, then more customers will
want your product accordingly, and you will earn more profit all things being
equal. In fact, this is one the most basic of all methods of earning more
profit from an existing service or product: give customers a better service or
product without raising prices, increasing the value proposition of your
offering.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
In the phrase "profit and benefit" it is implicit that the benefit is per
customer. In your addendum it is profit and customer base that is correlated.
As you imply, increased benefit (per customer) is also likely to lead to more
customers, but not necessarily.

------
kailuowang
I agree that Google is becoming a lot more intrusive towards her end users and
the incentive behind it is probably profit. But at lease for software
developers, from my experience, we as a group benefit from Google MORE than 5
years ago.

Chrome

AngularJS

Go

Selenium Webdriver

dart

Even Google Hangout with screen share helped our distributed team a lot.

5 years ago, what did Google offer? GWT?

And, of course, the search engine, we developers probably use it more than
many other groups users. I hardly heard anyone use alternative search engine
for day-to-day software development related search.

All these are of zero cost to us.

~~~
zobzu
arguably half the stuff you listed would be seen as useless or even bad from
another point of view.

heck 5years ago at least google results weren't a bunch of advertisements and
i'm not talking of the first 5 "sponsored results". That alone, was a huge
bonus to humanity in general. Nothing less.

------
SilkRoadie
I am not sure decline is the correct word.

Google's choice of direction really bugs me.

Scrapping the 20% developer time is fine. Cutting down projects to focus the
company on a handful of products is cool. I never used Reader anyway.

What is worrying is the way Google is becoming more and more creepy. They have
so much information about you and with the increasing rollout of Google+ I
feel more and more like I am being stalked.

Even when I am not on Google sites their ad's follow me around. It used to be
relevant ad's. That was ok. Now I visit the Alienware website and all I see
are Alienware banners everywhere I go for the next week. Its freaky.

Now Google+ wants to do away with your alias and force you to use your real
identity. Why would you ever want to do that? For a while there was a warning
"be careful what you put on Facebook, it could get you fired." Google are
trying to make that "be careful what you put on the Internet."

Perhaps some people will improve the quality of their comments.. I think a far
better chance is that someone looking for me will find a 4 year old opinion or
me playing devils advocate in an arguement and think I am a bigot, ill-
imformed, stupid, whatever as a result..

The fact is that I want my email and my documents to be linked to me and my
name. Anything else I would like to be attached to a throwaway name like the
one I have on HN. Something I can abandon without worry that my opinions in
2013 will survive as "internet fact" for years to come.

~~~
elastoplast
20% time has not been scrapped.

This is a recurrent rumour that pops up over and over again. It is not true.

There have always been people who felt like they were unable to take it, or it
was really 120% time or whatever. I've had a variety of 20% projects for
years, and I've never worked 120%.

You have to be able to manage your teams and managers expectations, and if you
commit to a deadline and fall behind then you're obviously going to have to
"bank" that time. If you are in a team or get yourself into a position where
you're constantly committing to unrealistic deadlines that have no slack time
in them, of course you'll feel like you can't take 20%. But that's not the
companies fault.

20% is a great policy. I don't know what else the company could do to make it
easier to take really: managers aren't allowed to deny it to you, and you're
allowed to bank it up to a reasonable cap if you have to focus on a main
project for a while. At that point it's really up to you and your own time
management.

~~~
SilkRoadie
Thanks for the clarification. I thought I read a while ago it was being scaled
back and you needed approval to get cracking on a 20% project. Either I
remember incorrectly or the story was untrue.

------
devindotcom
Yeah, I had many of the same sentiments that I wrote up around the time the
death of Reader was announced ([http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/17/god-damn-it-
google/](http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/17/god-damn-it-google/)). I can't
really look to them for inspiration any more, which is a greater loss than I
would have admitted a year or two ago when I finally admitted Google was no
longer Google. Oh well. Next!

------
stephenr
Steve jobs didn't say to maximise profits. He said make great products, rather
than simply adequate products.

------
znowi
I loved the early Google. A lot. But it's dead now. What's left is just the
name and a dusty plaque in the corner that reads: don't be evil.

It will still attract smart people, but they will be of other kind to match
the new company culture. The kind that joins Microsoft and Oracle. Those who
follow the protocol, happy in their bubble, with the prime goal of
_maximization of profit_. At all costs.

------
wrongc0ntinent
Back when I was showing off my Google T-shirt, this is what they were
(archive.org):
[https://web.archive.org/web/20001203022500/http://www.google...](https://web.archive.org/web/20001203022500/http://www.google.com)

A lot more's changed than just a CEO.

~~~
jonathonf
Tried and was disappointed I couldn't search the 2000-era web.

~~~
asveikau
The old school yahoo style categorization of links works. I was pretty
surprised, I used google back then and didn't remember them having that...

------
amaks
Steve Jobs' advice was not (only) to maximize profits, but to consolidate the
products, reduce the number of products "because Google was all over the
place". That's from the Steve Jobs autobiography by Walter Isaacson. So far,
it looks like Larry Page took Steve Jobs advice to his heart and executes
precisely on that vision: all products get integrated together (including
through the Google+), innovation rate is still high and growing, company is
super successful in post PC world.

------
guybrushT
Reports of Google's decline are greatly exaggerated :) G+ is annoying, but
these days no large company can make all their users happy, with all their
products/features/changes, all the time. The so-called erosion of 'Don't be
evil' has just become more apparent now, but as long as I have known google,
they always made money from ads - and ads are fundamentally evil (IMHO).
Search, maps, email etc are quite nice and I use those everyday. Fast,
reliable, solid products - vastly improved since I first used them (many years
ago). Where is the decline?

~~~
Someone
Ads are _fundamentally_ evil? What mechanism do you propose for bringing new
products to the attention of customers, then? Or are new products and/or
customers also fundamentally evil, IYHO?

~~~
dingaling
Most ads are designed to resonate on an emotional level, rather than being
purely informative.

It's the sophistication of their design in order to pierce our emotional
'firewall' that makes them 'evil'; they're basically exploits against the
human mind.

~~~
izolate
Such poetic diction. I agree completely.

------
shmerl
_> They founded the company with the motto "Don't Be Evil", and the unspoken
question was, how long would this last? The answer, oddly enough, was "until
Larry Page took over"._

This is probably very to the point. "Don't be evil" was Sergey Brin's push,
and Larry Page doesn't seem to share it.

~~~
nostrademons
"Don't be evil" was Amit Patel & Paul Buchheit's push. Sergey, according to
them, is the arbiter of what is "evil". Separation of powers and all that.

------
bambax
Turns out adult supervision wasn't all bad.

I remember some time ago, probably 2002-2003 (?) when Bill Gates said
something along the lines of "every tech company goes through a period of love
at the beginning, and then that love turns to resentment; Google is in the
middle of their "love" period and Microsoft is way past it; but that will
change".

And, like a newly wed, I remember thinking: nah, that can't change. My love of
Google will never fade.

Yet here we are; today no company annoys me more than Google; every decision
they make seems bad. Like most people I still use their products, but every
time I do I wish I didn't, like when I was driving a Renault.

~~~
72deluxe
Haha driving a Renault

Made me laugh, thanks!

~~~
squozzer
I think (s)he meant, "Praying to god it doesn't break down on me again" while
driving.

------
6ren
Search engines have zero switching costs, so _mainstream_ PR is a key
competitive advantage for Google (not engineer PR). Their massive capital
investment in server farms (esp. for google suggest) is another.

20% time was a long-term strategy to lead new technologies instead of being
disrupted by them. Google+ is a short-term strategy to avoid being disrupted
by facebook. Long-term self-interest is often close to "good" (so close it may
be _why_ it's good).

 _oblig snark:_ Instead of turning evil, Google be like Sun - die, and be
reanimated by evil piecemeal.

------
dpmehta02
This article would have been much more persuasive had it specified the actual
decisions made by Google that illustrate exactly how that company has "lost
its way" (i.e., chosen profit over solving important problems).

------
vuck
I really wish people would shut up about Google's "ideals". They're a company,
not a messiah. Companies operate on a midpoint between what they _want_ to do
and what they _need_ to do, and Google (like every company) has slid towards
their "evil" neccessities over time.

Don't like it? That's fine, neither do I. But stop preaching about a morality
that was never there.

------
brosco45
Yeah, I noticed Google interviewers are no longer showing enthusiasm during
the interview, it's a very worrying sign.

~~~
gdulli
It took a while for me to be able to articulate it, but that was what bothered
me about my interview. The recruiter was all positivity, but the first real
person who interviewed me seemed like he hated his job. It was the biggest
turn-off.

------
dudus
The stock market thinks differently. GOOG is above 1,000 for a while now.

Of course you may dismiss my point rapidly since the Market is more interested
in Financial profit than any other thing. But the same thing can be said about
Hacker News.

What bothers HN readers/writers will not, necessarily, bother the average
consumer, the same way what really boost the Stocks may don't matter to
average HN reader.

Despite the fact that HN hates the new Gmail Compose, and the new Youtube
comment system these are still the most compelling offers in their fields for
the average consumer.

HN seems to have the urge to not only discuss their opinion but try to flush
down everyone's throat and then generalize broadly.

Google's Decline here could be better written as "Google Decline, among hacker
news readers."

~~~
wmeredith
The problem with Wall street is they're only focused on short term profits.
Google creeping everyone the fuck out for a few years will eventually take a
toll on the bottom lines even if it helps them this quarter. (I'm not just
talking about devs either, everyone I know thinks they're a little creepy -
from my grandma to my nieces.)

------
auggierose
I admire the guys who can pull off something great with just 20%. I could not
do that. When I have something that excites me, it soon grabs 100% of me.

~~~
michaelochurch
20% time is the idea that it's OK to put "only" 32 hours (or, in practice,
25-30) on your assigned project, but there is certainly not an 8-hour maximum
on the side project.

If you want a promotion, you'll have to put in more time than 25-32 hpw; but
you won't get in trouble at that effort level. Of course, this is true in most
companies-- a 25-hour effort on your assigned work is not low enough to get
you fired, almost anywhere; it means that you're not outrunning the bear but
you're outrunning someone-- but the difference is that you don't have to hide
side projects. That makes a pretty substantial difference.

It's a good idea, not because the number means anything, but because it means
that (under most managers, although there are exceptions) you don't have to
deny or hide working on other things ("skunk works") that might prove useful.
You can talk about them openly. In companies without 20%T projects, people
still do those types of projects, but are afraid to share their work, which
means those projects go nowhere. Google doesn't seem to have that problem. If
you build a demo and share it, that's encouraged.

Google is still better than many companies (yes, I'll say it; it is, if you
land in the right place, a great place to work) but an incredible amount
depends on your manager. The biggest moral failing of Google probably is how
easily a manager can become a SPOF for your career. That's not different from
most companies, but any firm that wants to call itself progressive ought to
solve that problem. You'd think it would be a first order of business.

~~~
auggierose
Still, a certain mental makeup is necessary to be able to switch between
projects like that. When I work on a project that interests me, I go to bed
thinking about it, and in the morning I want to continue where I left it.
Often I'll see things clearer after such a sleep break, and then I cannot just
switch to another project instead of trying out an idea I had.

~~~
nostrademons
This is a learnable skill, and one that is IMHO very worth learning.

I also have a tendency to want to just load a whole problem into my head,
Think Real Hard, and then write down the solution as quickly as I can. It's a
great strategy, when it works. The problem is that it doesn't scale - it sets
a limit on the complexity of problems you can attack directly, and it prevents
you from working on more than one problem at once.

So what I've found, as I work on more complex problems, is that I really need
to adopt all those tactics that back in college I thought were reserved for
"lesser" minds. Things like breaking down a problem into chunks and then
writing down all the intermediate steps. Adopting a bug database, spreadsheet,
or task management software. Thinking about the external impact of a change,
and communicating it to other parties. Showing off intermediate demos, and
breaking the problem down into a form where intermediate demos are possible.
Asking for help from other people.

These are _absolutely essential_ if you want to work on anything that takes
more than a month, but the nice side effect is that you then get the ability
to work on multiple projects for free. All the problem state is externalized,
so if you need to work on something else, you can just drop it, switch
contexts, and read your own documents or bug queue to figure out where to pick
it up.

~~~
auggierose
I agree that all of these measures help greatly, in particular with bigger
problems. Nevertheless, I found that in the end, even when you've broken up a
problem into chunks, keeping your focus on these connected chunks for an
uninterrupted extended time period is invaluable. Often your realise that you
should reorganise the chunk division etc. Of course you also benefit from
breaks of looking at the problem, but these breaks tend to occur naturally for
me, and are very different from a forced break of having to tend to another
project.

Or let's put it another way: I don't multitask / switch contexts.

------
yapcguy
The rot was setting in long before Larry Page became CEO. For me, the first
sign was GMail and their broken/perverted IMAP model.

~~~
stephenr
I never understood why they didn't just expose their tags as imap keywords?

~~~
saurik
I think the argument is that no existing client that a user would actually
have on their PC supported flags in any meaningful way: they weren't stored
efficiently, they weren't presented in a way the user could effectively see,
and in many cases they were limited to a random subset of flags (in the case
of some clients, like Thunderbird, you could have exactly five flags with the
names flag1 through flag5). The support in some clients has become more
reasonable, but it is still not really usable. Even at the protocol level it
is only recently that there is any effective way where flags could be
efficiently resynchronized between the client and the server, and AFAIK there
still isn't a standard to let flags have remap able high-level Unicode names.
Sure, it would be interesting to push client developers to start maybe
considering flags to be an interesting thing to support sufficiently to let a
user work with Gmail, but frankly wouldn't we expect Google, as users, to
build something actually usable?

------
wpietri
One of the most salient facts to me is that Google was formed as a rebellion
against the existing search companies and their business practices. I think
"don't be evil" and "organizing the world's information" were entirely
sincere, and I miss that spirit. Now I can't really distinguish them from any
other company.

As hegemons go, I guess they're still better than average. And they're way
better than Microsoft. But Google's decline makes me wonder where they're
going to bottom out.

------
Tloewald
I don't see Steve Jobs's "bad advice" having anything to do with maximizing
profits but with maximizing excellence and surviving.

Apple in the late 80s and early 90s was an unfocused beacon of creativity that
led to the company nearly going under (PowerPC, OpenDoc, Taligent, Kaleida,
Dylan, Newton, QuickDraw GX, AV macs with video conferencing when QuickTime
barely worked, Copland).

Was the advice bad? Quite possibly. But it was sincere and i don't think
profit was the motive.

------
lazyjones
Google was the antithesis of Microsoft as the author writes and is now doomed
to become the same. It's a monopoly that has come to dictate its terms for
maximum profit and resilience against competition. By becoming "evil", it is
opening opportunities for a new antithesis of itself. Perhaps Twitter will
take that spot, perhaps some entirely different company from the Far East?
That's the way it goes ...

~~~
twelvechairs
twitter are showing signs of going the same way. what it takes is someone
prepared to take a low-prifit long-haul trust based approach rather than
'monetise now!'. this is a hard choice to make at the moment when its so easy
to make money from investors who think they can both make big profits and keep
users signing up.

~~~
TylerE
e.g. Amazon

------
mempko
Only reason to be disappointed is if you expected something else out of
capitalists....

~~~
wpietri
I expected them to retain some of their academic ethos. My problem isn't that
I expected too much out of capitalists; I just expected them not to become
pure capitalists.

And here by "capitalist" I mean the current American zeitgeist's version of
that term, mainly as defined by MBAs. I think there are other versions of
capitalism that are much more interesting.

------
codelust
Unsurprisingly, companies (especially ones that are growing) do change and
those changes impact their relationship with their customers/consumers. Tech
is no different on that front, where it is different is that, unlike your
department store, tech is something that you carry with you almost all the
time. Understandably, people do get upset by this a lot more than what a
similar change at a department store would result in.

I have been a fan of Google and have used a lot of its products over time. The
company has been changing for a while now and a significant part of that
change is that it is making the transition from being someone in the
background (the advertising business), to someone who wants a front seat in
everything digital. Consequently, its product line will also start to reflect
that change.

And one of the obvious outcomes of such a change is that a lot of us who have
used Google's products extensively from the early days are no longer the
primary target group for the company. Early adopters rarely form the mass
market and it is the same in the case of Google. Products like Gmail were
never front line products. These happened to exist by leveraging existing tech
within the company. With Glass, Android etc., these products are now moving to
the front lines for the company.

I still use Gmail extensively, most of my video is consumed on Youtube, I
still use search, Android and Drive (for online docs & Keep, not file sync).
My main Google account does not have G+ on it and while things are not
perfect, it is so far usable. I've rarely commented on YT, can't rate anything
anymore on Play Store, but I can live with all that, at least for now.

I fully expect the situation to worsen for people like me in the years to come
on Google, but that is OK. It will eventually lead to newer products coming
into the market and that is always a good thing. Email will be the first thing
I will switch and I think that will happen before the second half of 2014
swings around.

All said and done, I have been happy with Google being around -- they
revolutionized search, made email an enabler than a pain (better storage &
spam management) and every now and then I discover something awesome on YT
that makes so grateful that it exists. It has given me much more than what it
(and NSA ;-)) probably has taken from me.

Irony in all of this is that all this while everyone has criticized Google for
being an ill-organized one-trick-pony! Maybe the OTP was a better company
after all, eh?

------
dschiptsov
It is not a decline, it is just "maturation" or even "over-ripeness".

Speaking for a decline, it is rather a decline of interest in "internets" in
general and especially social networks in particular. It is no longer a "shiny
new thing".

So, Google, as FB, are trying to squeeze everything what is left from G+ and
its flagship Gmail, just because everything switches to mobile and a chat is a
new email.

That is why they are pushing Hangouts and FB pushes Messenger, which both
wants to hijack your SMS app. But chat apps are too simple and it is not so
easy to push ads here, because users will just switch to less annoying rival's
service.

So, let's say that it is a decline of browser-based "internets", and email as
a default way of communication, not just Google or FB.

------
RexRollman
I don't think Google is "evil" but I do think it really all comes down to how
Google makes their money. They are not like Microsoft or Apple, who actually
sells things to end users.

I suspect we will see the same thing with Twitter too, as they seek to
monetize their service.

------
d4nt
Google, and tech companies in general, should not be trying to innovate
_despite_ the need to make money, they should be trying to innovate _because
of_ the need to make money. If Google have lost that culture of innovation
because of a short term need for operational efficiency then it will hurt them
in the long run. People have observed how Microsoft failed to capitalise early
on the internet, the smartphone explosion and the tablet explosion because of
a poor culture. While that effect takes many years to hurt the bottom line, it
is real and it hurts. If Google go down the same road then that is them
failing at plain old capitalism, not the death of some alternative utopian
dream.

------
untilHellbanned
"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" -Mark Twain/Google

------
ithkuil
the funny thing is that Google itself played a huge role into making all of us
raise the bar of what can be expected as a good behavior for a company. To get
some open standards, get some open source stuff, get some free APIs, get some
free services, get some interesting tools without costly subscriptions etc

All the things we didn't get from microsoft. If you were a student from a poor
country you were cut off all the good things because you didn't have msdn
subscription (and then blame pirating...).

I remember when I though "microsoft has to be stupid, they are walling off
potential developers for their platform, if they only made stuff more
developer friendly they would benefit greatly". I didn't mind that they were
making money, I was concerned that they they got in the way, the didn't let
you.

Google is certainly repeating some of these mistakes, but generally feels more
friendly to users and developers for its platforms.

Other issues with Google about privacy etc, you cannot really compare it with
a company that didn't recognize the value of "the internet" until too late.
These are novel issues, and mixing profit with such sensible topics will
certainly cause problems, whatever your business model is.

The interesting things is that we demand that from Google, because we know
it's possible to do better, and the irony is that Google itself (among others)
made us raise the bar of that acceptance.

------
tixocloud
Correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't read anything about maximizing profit
that Steve Jobs supposedly mentioned to Larry Page. Steve Jobs mentioned about
a stronger focus and a plan on figuring out what Google wants to be when it
grows up. Ultimately it was Larry's choice that Google is who they are now.
I'm not a big fan of Steve Jobs but I don't think it's fair to say that Steve
gave bad advice - unless it's written in the book, in which case, I apologize.

------
MichaelMoser123
I am sick of all this Google bashing here on HN; that's what is bugging me,
really.

Come on, its a company, they don't _owe_ you anything; They sell your data,
yes, but it's still the best search engine, by far; to me it's a tool, and
yes, they also use their customers as tools to sell adds, that's what the
internet is all about - pushing adds.

They could still do worse, they could push much more adds than they do now,
but they don't; That's something that few people seem to notice.

------
mililani
When Google Voice and free calls stop being free, I'm completely jumping off
Google's bandwagon: gmail, google voice, google search, etc...

------
joshuaellinger
I keep thinking of Ben Horowitz's article about Peacetime verse Wartime CEO
([http://bhorowitz.com/2011/04/15/peacetime-ceowartime-
ceo](http://bhorowitz.com/2011/04/15/peacetime-ceowartime-ceo))

Larry Page took over when Google went to war with Facebook. A lot of stuff
gets sacrificed during wartime.

------
sidcool
Not trying to be sadistic, but hasn't the backlash over Google+ integration
into YouTube gone a bit far?

------
hartator
> waiting until an investor accidentally makes the world a better place in the
> process of trying to make as much money as possible

What the what?

I don't agree with the article. I feel the main issue with google is its
laziness. No more legacy internet explorer support, imposing a bad google +
whereas make it better...

------
SideburnsOfDoom
Article says "To me, they represented the antithesis of Microsoft"

IMHO all they are is following a similar trajectory around 20 years later than
Microsoft.

------
stretchwithme
Oh, poor Sergei and Larry, duped into taking bad advice from Steve Jobs.

------
untilHellbanned
the WHHAAAmbulance needs to be called on these recent HackerNews anti-Google
rants

------
ollerac
I still like Google.

------
michaelochurch
This is not worth getting "bugged" about. I say this as one who made that
exact mistake. It's really traumatic to see those who are supposed to be
leading fail, but it's an ahistorical truth not worth getting emotional about.

I don't care to speak about Google, but more generally, here's something
everyone needs to know. Regarding the way we assess companies, it's probably
the truest thing in the world. Here it is: _reputation is positively
correlated with past moral decency and negatively correlated with_ future*
moral decency.*

That might seem strange, but keep in mind that organizations change and,
within 5 years, it will be a different set of people. Doing the right thing
begets a good reputation (such as that held by Microsoft in 1997, Google in
2013, Silicon Valley until recently) but that reputation also admits
complacency. If the same people were in charge, they'd possibly continue doing
the right thing. But a new set of people inherit that favorable standing and
use it as an excuse to get away with bad behavior. This is as old as dirt.
It's why there is a centuries-old hatred of inherited wealth and position in
all modernized cultures.

The same applies to "Silicon Valley". It's easy to look at its fall from grace
with hatred and disgust; but the fact is that the people now on top are 50
years separated from the ones who built it; so why, exactly, is it a surprise
that the ones on top now are so shitty? It shouldn't be. They inherited the
reputations of their forebears (which is why they have favorable tax laws, a
"cool" image not shared by more traditional companies, and their pick of top
young talent) but not the values.

Preventing this kind of moral decay requires growing slowly: _very_ slowly.
Look at Valve, weighing in around 330 people after 17 years. If they'd had VCs
breathing down their necks to reach 2000 people at 5 years, there's no way
they could have maintained that open allocation culture.

If something grows organically and sanely, then there is a chance for there to
be enough stability that reputation carries a positive signal (because past
good behavior is a likely sign of the future) but if it grows at a venture-
capital pace, reputation almost always predicts _low_ moral decency in the
future (especially since that reputation is usually bought from the tech
press, not established organically over years).

~~~
ktd
>It's why there is a centuries-old hatred of inherited wealth and position in
all modernized cultures.

Isn't the opposite true?

We can certainly point to famous examples of heirs/heiresses behaving badly,
but that seems largely the exception rather than the rule-- by and large, the
terms _nouveau riche_ and "new money" carry a negative connotation, while "old
money" is associated with taste and sophistication (though certainly also
snobbery).

------
mangala
Here Here!

------
SloughFeg
I stopped reading at "I'm not female, so I don't have to worry about getting
thousands of rape threats every month". Inserting unsubstantiated claims for
shock value into an argument just detracts from any other points he is trying
to make.

~~~
kordless
I read the damn thing three times and can't find a point to any of it. What I
see is a bunch of rambling doom and gloom statements: "and then it all came
tumbling down". What exactly has tumbled here? The fact they jacked with the
YouTube comment system?

~~~
ehmish
XMPP Syndication, (And with that interoperability), an increase of
invasiveness of their ads (for those without adblock), the death of Google
Reader, there's plenty more if you read up.

