
Paul Buchheit: Four Reasons Google is still Awesome - paul
http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2010/12/four-reasons-google-is-still-awesome.html
======
gfunk911
Great article.

Choosing a place where people appreciate honest criticism works for
friendships as well. My biggest criteria for friends is that the person is
cool with honesty, including telling them when they're wrong.

Interesting point about how if you never fail, you're too conservative. The
same idea applies to poker. Microsoft fails constantly and people accept it,
yet every Google failure means they've lost their mojo. No Wave and no Buzz
means no GMail.

~~~
sriramk
Microsoft fails constantly and people accept it? :) I would argue the exact
opposite - Microsoft succeeds consistently in a lot of very measurable ways
but isn't given enough credit for it (that a Google/Apple would get for doing
the very same thing).

~~~
fjarlq
Care to list some examples? (Not that I disagree)

~~~
random42
1\. Project Natal/Kinect

2\. Surface Table

Both are good innovations, on which media would go over gaga, had they come
from Apple/Google.

~~~
brk
Yes, but both of those are (I believe) technologies developed outside of
Microsoft that were then purchased.

While Google and Apple do also purchase technologies, they seem to produce
more interesting in-house products than Microsoft. At least in my perception.

I can't recall the last time that Microsoft actually developed internally and
rolled out a significant "game changer" device or software.

~~~
krschultz
Your perception of Microsoft may be correct, but it alsao applied to the
others. Apple didn't invent multi-touch either. Google didn't do Android
inhouse it was an acquisition (at least at first).

~~~
brk
No, but I would credit Apple with "inventing" the iPhone, iPad, MacBook Air.
Even though all of those products likely have core pieces that were from
acquisitions, it seems like Apple executed the grand vision of bringing it
together.

Same thing with Google, though they appear to buy several things that they
don't fully roll out (Dodgeball, etc.). Android may have originally been an
acquisition, again it feels like Google made it into a finished product far
beyond what they acquired.

Microsoft appears to have bought the Kinect technology/product and done little
more than change the logo on the device. The surface table also hasn't been
productized into anything revolutionary or different.

------
spenrose
Hhmm. You didn't actually mention my first reason (though #3 is sort of
related): Google creates more value than it captures. Remember the Web in '98?
Remember domain name bidding wars, because typing "www.shopping.com" into the
address bar was actually a plausible strategy for attempting to buy something
online, because search basically didn't work? Google made search work, which
made the Internet work, which changed millions of lives and created many more
billions in value than they have ever booked as revenue. Wave was an attempt
to fix the way hundreds of millions of people work. They are trying to
substantially improve the way we get around the planet. Succeed or fail,
Google persistently tries to make the world a better place. How many companies
can say that?

------
mattmanser
I think equating Wave to a 'big' risk is a bit much, financially there was no
risk. All they lost was face.

Also Chrome and Android are not successes, Google Adwords is a success, MS
Office is a success, MS Windows is a success. The key ingredient to a success
for a company is some MONEY. Anything else is just showing off.

I'm still very disappointed with the follow through on Wave and Buzz, a bit of
PR and a few man years of engineering is pretty minor compared to the profit
they make. The 'oh well, it didn't work, we're giving up' attitude Google has
been displaying recently is pretty disconcerting.

We may all hate MS, but at least they tend to follow through with some serious
chops when the going gets tough (I'm thinking Silverlight rather than Danger).

I'm actually getting a little worried about Google's follow through on certain
projects, as an external company I wouldn't be putting any investment in any
of their new products given their recent track record.

I'm also not keen on Google 'competing' in the 'oh, we'll make money through
search advertising' way they're doing recently. It's stifling innovation in
certain markets imo.

Actually, rereading my post, I really don't agree with Paul very much.

On the other hand, I still think they're great, if a worrying monopoly. It
could be worse though, Google could be run by Zynga.

~~~
paul
Chrome and Android are both a huge success. Google takes a long-term view
which doesn't require every product to immediately pay for itself, which is
very smart. The long term value of owning these platforms is immense.

Also, your notion that "Wave was not a risk" is similarly mistaken. The
opportunity cost of having a large team of smart people working for several
years is enormous.

~~~
demallien
If you want to argue that we should take the long view with respect to Chrome
and Android making money, then I would counter with needing to take the long
view with respect to their being a success as well. The OP was (IMO) correct -
a product's success, when done by a private company, is whether or not it
improves the company's bottom line. I don't think that that claim can be made
about Chrome or Android at the moment. I certainly doubt whether the little
money they are currently making out of Android would not be largely blown
aware by another allocation of that energy and resources.

That's not to say that in the long term these products don't end up being
major successes, but until they start making money, that claim can't be made.

~~~
bad_user
You should read some material on microeconomics and about complementary
products. That's not arguing, it's how the economy currently works.

    
    
         a product's success ...
         is whether or not it improves the company's bottom line
    

Microsoft controlling the platform through Windows and IExplorer hasn't
improved their bottom line?

RedHat paying high wages to highly skilled kernel hackers to work on (get
this, open-source software) hasn't improved their bottom line?

    
    
         until they start making money, that claim can't be made
    

Because, you know, Apple and Microsoft installing Bing alternatives (Maps /
Search) on their phone operating systems wouldn't affect Google in no way
whatsoever.

[http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/jan2010...](http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/jan2010/tc20100119_759795.htm)

I find it quite baffling actually that so many people are criticizing
investments made by Google, Apple or Microsoft; These are big companies that
grew to unimaginable levels in just a few years (with respect to oil mining
which can take a few generations to reach a fraction of that size).

You should really learn from them, because not so many companies can achieve
what they did ;-)

~~~
demallien
You're not replying to my point. I didn't say that Android and Chrome wouldn't
end up being critical products that add to Google's bottom line. I said that
right at the moment, that's not the case, and until it does become the case,
you can't claim that they're a success.

It's important to read what is written, not what you think is written ;)
(yeah, I find the winky smiley annoying when it's placed after a condescending
remark)

------
aristus
Not to stir the pot, Paul, but was google the only place where your criticisms
were welcomed? What about Facebook?

~~~
zackattack
ycombinator?

~~~
paul
Y Combinator and FriendFeed don't count, naturally. Somehow, they don't go in
the "job" category the same way other jobs do.

~~~
Fjslfj
This implicitly means Facebook _does_ count. You don't have to answer this
one.

In light of YC's recent tie-up with Facebook, it's good to see that there
might very well be a voice of caution within the organization.

~~~
jackowayed
Note that he said "Google was the only one where me speaking my mind never
seemed to cause a problem." So he's not necessarily implying that all
criticism is wholly rejected at Facebook, just that his criticism _sometimes_
caused problems.

------
wizardishungry
Chrome is a risk? I'd say Chrome is a hedge against risk - allowing Apple, MS,
Mozilla, etc. to dictate the terms of browser innovation.

~~~
angelbob
Developing Chrome is a risk. It's only a hedge against risk if it _works_.

It's a little like if you could buy insurance, but there'd be a 25% chance
that you paid for it and it just didn't do anything. The insurance is a hedge
against risk, but buying it is (another) risk.

------
jrockway
The thing about taking risks is spot-on. I noticed that where I work, every
project is treated as though failure would mean death to the company; there is
no agility or experimentation, and projects that should die because they suck
last forever because failure is absolutely not an option. If we said, "hey,
let's try this out" once in a while, we would have a lot better technology.

------
danest
In retrospect Google is the new type of Einstein and Tesla and it is very
exciting to be living right now with all their new pushes in inovation.

Paul, would you mind sharing the title of the new google book?

~~~
babeKnuth
You're kidding me with the analogies. Seriously?

"Google" is not a person/individual. I'd definitely place _why, brad
fitzpatrick, and zed shaw as POSSIBLE equals to einstein and tesla, but that
would still be a stretch...

~~~
jimbokun
""Google" is not a person/individual."

Neither was "Edison".

~~~
raleec
Thomas Edison? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison>

~~~
jimbokun
From that article:

"Edison was legally attributed with most of the inventions produced there,
though many employees carried out research and development under his
direction. His staff was generally told to carry out his directions in
conducting research, and he drove them hard to produce results."

So, when you read "Edison invented such and such", it really means that the
people working under him invented such and such. So, it really is similar to
the way "Google" is inventing lots of interesting things. The difference is
Larry and Sergey refrain from claiming that they personally invented
everything that comes out of Google.

------
amichail
BTW, when is Google going to allow third party developers to enhance its core
search results via a search API?

Such an API would allow third party developers to add Wolfram Alpha like
features among other things right into the core Google search.

~~~
nostrademons
I think they used to do this - I could swear that I used to have a third-party
plugin that I "installed" on my Google account that would show me JavaDocs
whenever I Googled a Java class name. It hasn't shown up in about 3 years,
though, and I haven't found any trace of it in the code I work with (which
should be right around that area of the page...), so maybe it was
discontinued.

~~~
amichail
Was there any third party computation/ui?

Such a feature would fit nicely with the app engine to provide third party
computation/ui to enhance the core search results.

User feedback would determine which third party code is run by default for
various queries/contexts.

Third party developers would make more money when their code is executed more
often.

~~~
nostrademons
Yeah, it was totally third-party, and labeled as such. I have no idea how the
technology behind it worked - I was just a user, not a developer.

~~~
amichail
It should not require you to subscribe. User feedback (possibly implicit)
should be used to determine what third party code is used for which
queries/contexts by default.

------
antirez
What I think Google could hugely benefit from, is stop hiring too much PHD &
engineering-type people. I think they have a cultural problem that has the
effect of many consumer products they develop (where the technology is not the
only important ingredient) to don't work: you can't rule the "social" world
from the nerd-point-of-view, seriously. Get creative/artistic people into the
mix, and Google could turn into some magical stuff again.

~~~
mike-cardwell
Engineers _are_ creative and artistic people.

~~~
antirez
No... engineers, like any other subset of people selected by profession, are a
mix of creative/artistic and non creative/artistic people. And if you hire
doing a huge selection pressure based on PHDs, ability to reply to strictly
logical problems, and so forth, you are mounting a selective pressure that
will get you with an environment where there are high logical skills but
possibly deficiencies in other fields.

------
sz
#3 is my favorite thing about Google. On some level it makes me feel better
about handing over personal data when the company doesn't act asshole-ish.

~~~
andreyf
_On some level it makes me feel better about handing over personal data when
the company doesn't act asshole-ish._

As well meaning as all of the employees at Google are, and as far as they'll
go to do the right thing (far, in my experience), from what I understand of
our legal system, it's really the role of government to protect you from
corporations mis-purposing your data. The free market isn't meant to be a
democratic institution, and while some top executives have a certain talent
for aligning stockholders interests with those of their users, the system they
operate within simply isn't _designed_ with democratic responsibility in mind.

------
amichail
I suspect risk taking is only encouraged outside their core business.

~~~
anthuswilliams
With what justification? Google has made numerous innovations in terms of
search. Think Instant, Goggles, and their shiny new (painfully unusable)
implementation of Image Search. Plus they've got a bunch of micro-innovations
--the AROUND operator, for example, and the reading level filters.

~~~
amichail
As an example of something really risky, see my comment about a search API.

------
3pt14159
I've always been the "tell the truth because it is truth" type and I wish my
startup had an advisor like Paul. It would be an invaluable asset to any
startup that really cared about making it. I can see why YC was able to
attract him.

------
ryanwaggoner
Shouldn't this be titled "Reasons Google is still awesome"?

------
speleding
IMHO the main reason Google will remain a force to be reckoned with is that
they have 10000 driven and highly skilled individuals on board with the right
experience. That trumps all arguments the article provides.

------
known
One word: _Intrapreneurship_

~~~
babeKnuth
Six words: absorb other startups into your company

