

Does Google do "research"? - hiteshiitk
http://matt-welsh.blogspot.com/2011/01/does-google-do-research.html

======
strlen
Reading this article confirms my tremendous respect for Google for:

1) Creating a culture where writing unit tests, fixing bugs and the like are
not viewed dirty work or an overhead, something that scientists (or even
engineers) are above

2) At the mean time, being a place where creation of new technology (even if
not strictly related to the primary product i.e., not just information
retrieval algorithms) is not viewed as "academic" or a risk to be avoided at
all costs.

There are companies which do (1) well and companies that do (2) well; they
have created wealth and made products I enjoy and use. Only a handful managed
to do both: they changed far more than their industry.

~~~
Smerity
I was spoiled as my internship January last year with Google was my first
introduction to the world of corporate IT. Google as a culture really
encourages engineers to follow best practices - "Testing on the Toilet"[1] was
always a highlight.

As you say, the emphasis on unit tests is amazing and something not found in a
lot of professional companies. When you tell someone you haven't committed
your code yet because you're writing unit tests they don't tell you to hurry -
it's not considered something you can rush.

Additionally some of the research that has come out of Google Research [2] is
stunning and I suggest if people are interested they can keep tabs on new
publications via their feed [3]. A lot of their tools and products really are
pushing the boundaries of the field they're in, both in complexity and scale,
so the "reports from the front line" offer a unique insight.

[1] - [http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2008/08/tott-100-and-
count...](http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2008/08/tott-100-and-
counting.html) [2] - <http://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html> [3] -
<http://research.google.com/pubs/atom.xml>

------
sdizdar
The danger with integrating research as part of day-to-day development is that
you might not end up with groundbreaking or disruptive innovation. The problem
is that forces which are controlling day-to-day work are essentially
controlled by value network of the company (social and technical resources
within and between businesses) and constrained by resources, values, and
processes of the company. So, there is a danger of missing inventions which
will replace the current (profitable) way do doing things (i.e., start Groupon
kind of business model, or Twitter, or Facebook).

However, I also 100% agree that having pure "research labs" is not effective:
in many cases some great idea from research arm are just forgotten.

Clayton Christensen wrote a few books on this topic (and I am a very big fan
of Clayton Christensen's work).

I would like to also mention that Google is not the only company which has
this approach: it seems to me that majority of companies in Silicon Valley
operate like this (I don't think Facebook has "research labs", but they do
invent things).

~~~
cpeterso
> forces which are controlling day-to-day work are essentially controlled by
> value network of the company (social and technical resources within and
> between businesses) and constrained by resources, values, and processes of
> the company.

Google's 20% Time could be considered "research" or R&D not constrained by
business requirements. 20% Time seems like a clever way to harness engineers'
downtime for work that may benefit the company.

But none of the Google engineers I've met had a 20% Time project. They said
product teams (like Android) had much less flexibility for 20% Time than
people working on google.com properties.

------
TomOfTTB
Two disconnected thoughts that came to mind reading this...

1\. I agree with Google's approach. Microsoft spends $10 billion a year on R&D
yet I can't think of a revolutionary product they've come up with (Kinect was
bought from the outside)

2\. I notice the word "patent" is never mentioned in this piece. A big reason
companies like Microsoft and Intel have research labs is to patent protect
themselves in the future (wasn't there an article on HN just a few days ago
that mentioned Google's anemic patent portfolio?)

~~~
kenjackson
MS's approach to research is fundamentally different than Google's. Google's
approach is about creating better Google products. Microsoft's approach (which
is really Bill Gates's dream) is to advance science.

Both are good goals. But if you ask a researcher from MS how important it is
to get in a future version of Windows, they may well shrug their shoulders.
Their feeling is if they can advance technology then all boats rise, which is
good for Microsoft.

I must say when I'm actually doing research, and not just dev work for product
Version Next, I don't want to do unit tests and a whole bunch of other cruft.
My code isn't meant to be shipped to customers. Its meant to test a
hypothesis.

~~~
ikuygtyuiouy
MSFT research is much more like research of great American companies of the
past, Bell, AT+T etc - I'm sure this is what they were aiming for.

~~~
xtacy
This is what scares me about Microsoft Research. Since Google's research adds
direct value to what it's doing, it is quite unlikely to disintegrate.

~~~
kenjackson
I suspct if left completely up to Sinofsky or Ballmer MSR would shut down (or
be substantially smaller). I think as long as Gates is alive and/or has large
influence, it will be a relatively big part of MS.

