6 ms·

I have no idea why people talk about huge corporations like they have hive mind and are in total unity? Google is now a mega-corp, comprised of thousands compe

I have no idea why people talk about huge corporations like they have hive mind and are in total unity? Google is now a mega-corp, comprised of thousands competing for finite success outcomes (raises & promos). It is also data driven hence they look at metrics that are considered success like registers over abandonments. Brand tarnish is a long term outcome, therefore it can not be seen in typical a/b testing cycles. Hence it is ignored, or even gamed upon for short term metric gain. This is true for all corps that equate success with short cycle data driven metrics.

n09n 13y ago
Maybe as a general assessment, but I think the google+/youtube merger specifically is being driven by ideology, not metrics. Remember that memo Steve Yegge wrote a few years ago? I think the company took that message very seriously. Maybe a little too seriously...
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  What memo? Do you have a link?
  - n09n 13y ago
    Searching "yegge memo" on google gives a plethora of relevant results. A copy of the full text can be found here: https://plus.google.com/+RipRowan/posts/eVeouesvaVX https://plus.google.com/+RipRowan/posts/eVeouesvaVX
    - joelrunyon 13y ago
      I'm not asking for myself as much as the community. Linking to things you reference to helps multiple people & makes the thread, site and your comments all that more valuable.
      - n09n 13y ago
        And not linking certain things helps people more by helping distinguish between which references are particular enough to merit linking when mentioned and which can be assumed as common knowledge.
    - bowlofpetunias 13y ago
      Now that I'm re-reading this, it seems to me that Google is doing exactly the opposite. It's even more product focused, and is now moving towards making everything one big product called Google+. There's no platform here at all. Not externally (who develops for or on Google as a platform?), but apparently not internally either. Because the haphazard way in which different properties interact, the way functionality and data bleeds through, and all the damn bugs because of it are all signs of products and data being hooked up to each other with duct-tape.
- MayanAstronaut 13y ago
  This is true of all partner+ or close to partner level management due to that they are there for the long haul. They do not have metrics only ideology. In the long haul, brand collapse will be seen; see MS where it has trickled from the bottom to the top, hence the exiting CEO and exec shedding. But who is implementing and setting all the short term 'features', lower mgmt and ICs. The issue is that ideology is not enough for measuring success in mega corps, data has to used. The translation form ideology to metrics is where they fail.
- leoc 13y ago
  I don't see the connection though. Yegge was lamenting Google's unwillingness to be serious about being a platform company for third-party app developers (, developers, developers, developers ...) The latest changes don't seem to have much to do with progress on that front.
  - n09n 13y ago
    I didn't say they understood it correctly. The way I see it is that they read it and decided to act on it by making Google+ their core platform and giving it the killer app that it had been lacking - youtube. Opening up their platform for others might come later. Or maybe they forgot about it. Who knows?
johnchristopher 13y ago
> I have no idea why people talk about huge corporations like they have hive mind and are in total unity ? Because despite being a mega-corp, comprised of thousands [...], it's still called and named `Google`, singular. They naturally map it to one entity ; not because they are stupid but because the entity is interacting with them solely through that one identity and they don't have incentives to care for the inner workings of that entity. > It is also data driven hence they look at metrics that are considered success like registers over abandonments. Brand tarnish is a long term outcome, therefore it can not be seen in typical a/b testing cycles. Hence it is ignored, or even gamed upon for short term metric gain. This is true for all corps that equate success with short cycle data driven metrics. Like: "we don't care about those abandonments because we got these phone numbers which are more valuable and show we are a trusty brand" ? Makes sens (no sarcasm).
- oceanplexian 13y ago
  They don't care about abandonment because anyone can game A/B testing. Users are easily persuaded. A majority of users will give in just so the damn thing shuts up. They probably use the metrics to hand out bonuses or engage in pointless contests leading to gamification. It doesn't take a village to make a Picasso, and any attempts to try are going to result in failure. Google needs leadership.
frogpelt 13y ago
Sure its a mega-corp but some person or persons are in charge. And this individuals either agree with this path or are getting ready to fire some folks.
leoc 13y ago
By all accounts the consolidation and Plusification of Google's services is being driven from the top, by Larry Page specifically.
- Silhouette 13y ago
  That a bad plan comes from a famous person doesn't make it any less of a bad plan. In the spirit of Google: +1 for people and +2 for companies now actively moving away from almost all Google properties because they're becoming so unpleasant and/or unproductive to use. I know they're all about being data driven and running empirical tests: that's why the {expletive deleted} page moves around every time I come back and visit something, which is probably the single most annoying thing they've been lately. The very fact that they're running so many tests is materially reducing the value of their services to us. Ironically, our exodus started with abandoning our business G+ pages, because they have generated so little interest that they aren't even worth a few minutes now and then to update them any more. It appears that literally no-one we care about is actually using Google+.
  - leoc 13y ago
    > That a bad plan comes from a famous person doesn't make it any less of a bad plan. But I didn't say that the plan was a good one (or a bad one), just that this action and similar ones do seem to be in accord with that top-down plan rather than the result of independent action by lower-level people.
  - vdaniuk 13y ago
    Do you have any proof that significant number of people are moving away from almost all Google properties? This sounds very anecdotal.
    - Silhouette 13y ago
      I'm merely offering an anecdotal view and make no claim otherwise, though FWIW it's a pattern I've now seen with multiple clients who previously had varying levels of Google dependence as well as my own companies and myself personally. The thing that made me mention it was that so many of the reasons given by so many of the people involved are fundamentally the same. If what I've seen is at all representative, Google are increasingly perceived to be a security/privacy risk (though this is hardly unique among cloud services) and perhaps worse for them, they're not perceived to be a stable long-term bet (too many dropped products, too many unwanted changes happening too fast, nothing special in terms of quality or features, and little support for users). Some of these factors presumably won't be as damaging to Google in the consumer market, or at least not as quickly, so I don't see their main advertising business dying any time soon. However, to businesses with real money on the line and organisation-wide IT strategies to plan, Google's overall offering looks increasingly unattractive. For example, Google Docs/Drive/Apps have been tried by various groups I know. None is still happy with them, and several have been forced to move at least some of their activities to alternative systems because the Google ones just weren't capable of getting those jobs done. Chrome is another example I've more often heard mentioned between curse words than flattering ones recently. And I already mentioned in another post the horrible experience we had trying to organise some Google Ads. Google's resilience appears to stem in part from traditional alternatives shooting themselves in the foot by also pushing to cloud-based offerings and therefore immediately running into similar concerns. Even so, Google seem to be getting worse faster than everyone else.
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
Either your description of a purely data driven corporation is true, in which case I would say Google operates exactly like a hive mind, or something else is controlling these actions. Actions which across all Google properties are identical in nature, and maybe more significantly, tone of voice. That, or all of this is just a huge coincidence. I find that to be the least plausible explanation. Clearly this is a unified strategic approach. It's one Google doing this, not dozens of units that happen to accidentally all try to do the same things the same way at the same time. It's the total unity part that actually makes it more creepy.
- hackertux 13y ago
  Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
summerdown2 13y ago
> I have no idea why people talk about huge corporations like they have hive mind and are in total unity? Am I the only one to find this statement ironic? One of the biggest arguments against Google+ and its drive to one account/real names is that individual people don't have unitary identities, let alone companies.

n09n 13y ago

Maybe as a general assessment, but I think the google+/youtube merger specifically is being driven by ideology, not metrics. Remember that memo Steve Yegge wrote a few years ago? I think the company took that message very seriously. Maybe a little too seriously...

joelrunyon 13y ago
What memo? Do you have a link?
- n09n 13y ago
  Searching "yegge memo" on google gives a plethora of relevant results. A copy of the full text can be found here: https://plus.google.com/+RipRowan/posts/eVeouesvaVX https://plus.google.com/+RipRowan/posts/eVeouesvaVX
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    I'm not asking for myself as much as the community. Linking to things you reference to helps multiple people & makes the thread, site and your comments all that more valuable.
    - n09n 13y ago
      And not linking certain things helps people more by helping distinguish between which references are particular enough to merit linking when mentioned and which can be assumed as common knowledge.
  - bowlofpetunias 13y ago
    Now that I'm re-reading this, it seems to me that Google is doing exactly the opposite. It's even more product focused, and is now moving towards making everything one big product called Google+. There's no platform here at all. Not externally (who develops for or on Google as a platform?), but apparently not internally either. Because the haphazard way in which different properties interact, the way functionality and data bleeds through, and all the damn bugs because of it are all signs of products and data being hooked up to each other with duct-tape.
MayanAstronaut 13y ago
This is true of all partner+ or close to partner level management due to that they are there for the long haul. They do not have metrics only ideology. In the long haul, brand collapse will be seen; see MS where it has trickled from the bottom to the top, hence the exiting CEO and exec shedding. But who is implementing and setting all the short term 'features', lower mgmt and ICs. The issue is that ideology is not enough for measuring success in mega corps, data has to used. The translation form ideology to metrics is where they fail.
leoc 13y ago
I don't see the connection though. Yegge was lamenting Google's unwillingness to be serious about being a platform company for third-party app developers (, developers, developers, developers ...) The latest changes don't seem to have much to do with progress on that front.
- n09n 13y ago
  I didn't say they understood it correctly. The way I see it is that they read it and decided to act on it by making Google+ their core platform and giving it the killer app that it had been lacking - youtube. Opening up their platform for others might come later. Or maybe they forgot about it. Who knows?

johnchristopher 13y ago

> I have no idea why people talk about huge corporations like they have hive mind and are in total unity ? Because despite being a mega-corp, comprised of thousands [...], it's still called and named `Google`, singular. They naturally map it to one entity ; not because they are stupid but because the entity is interacting with them solely through that one identity and they don't have incentives to care for the inner workings of that entity. > It is also data driven hence they look at metrics that are considered success like registers over abandonments. Brand tarnish is a long term outcome, therefore it can not be seen in typical a/b testing cycles. Hence it is ignored, or even gamed upon for short term metric gain. This is true for all corps that equate success with short cycle data driven metrics. Like: "we don't care about those abandonments because we got these phone numbers which are more valuable and show we are a trusty brand" ? Makes sens (no sarcasm).

oceanplexian 13y ago
They don't care about abandonment because anyone can game A/B testing. Users are easily persuaded. A majority of users will give in just so the damn thing shuts up. They probably use the metrics to hand out bonuses or engage in pointless contests leading to gamification. It doesn't take a village to make a Picasso, and any attempts to try are going to result in failure. Google needs leadership.

frogpelt 13y ago

Sure its a mega-corp but some person or persons are in charge. And this individuals either agree with this path or are getting ready to fire some folks.

leoc 13y ago

By all accounts the consolidation and Plusification of Google's services is being driven from the top, by Larry Page specifically.

Silhouette 13y ago
That a bad plan comes from a famous person doesn't make it any less of a bad plan. In the spirit of Google: +1 for people and +2 for companies now actively moving away from almost all Google properties because they're becoming so unpleasant and/or unproductive to use. I know they're all about being data driven and running empirical tests: that's why the {expletive deleted} page moves around every time I come back and visit something, which is probably the single most annoying thing they've been lately. The very fact that they're running so many tests is materially reducing the value of their services to us. Ironically, our exodus started with abandoning our business G+ pages, because they have generated so little interest that they aren't even worth a few minutes now and then to update them any more. It appears that literally no-one we care about is actually using Google+.
- leoc 13y ago
  > That a bad plan comes from a famous person doesn't make it any less of a bad plan. But I didn't say that the plan was a good one (or a bad one), just that this action and similar ones do seem to be in accord with that top-down plan rather than the result of independent action by lower-level people.
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  Do you have any proof that significant number of people are moving away from almost all Google properties? This sounds very anecdotal.
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    I'm merely offering an anecdotal view and make no claim otherwise, though FWIW it's a pattern I've now seen with multiple clients who previously had varying levels of Google dependence as well as my own companies and myself personally. The thing that made me mention it was that so many of the reasons given by so many of the people involved are fundamentally the same. If what I've seen is at all representative, Google are increasingly perceived to be a security/privacy risk (though this is hardly unique among cloud services) and perhaps worse for them, they're not perceived to be a stable long-term bet (too many dropped products, too many unwanted changes happening too fast, nothing special in terms of quality or features, and little support for users). Some of these factors presumably won't be as damaging to Google in the consumer market, or at least not as quickly, so I don't see their main advertising business dying any time soon. However, to businesses with real money on the line and organisation-wide IT strategies to plan, Google's overall offering looks increasingly unattractive. For example, Google Docs/Drive/Apps have been tried by various groups I know. None is still happy with them, and several have been forced to move at least some of their activities to alternative systems because the Google ones just weren't capable of getting those jobs done. Chrome is another example I've more often heard mentioned between curse words than flattering ones recently. And I already mentioned in another post the horrible experience we had trying to organise some Google Ads. Google's resilience appears to stem in part from traditional alternatives shooting themselves in the foot by also pushing to cloud-based offerings and therefore immediately running into similar concerns. Even so, Google seem to be getting worse faster than everyone else.

bowlofpetunias 13y ago

Either your description of a purely data driven corporation is true, in which case I would say Google operates exactly like a hive mind, or something else is controlling these actions. Actions which across all Google properties are identical in nature, and maybe more significantly, tone of voice. That, or all of this is just a huge coincidence. I find that to be the least plausible explanation. Clearly this is a unified strategic approach. It's one Google doing this, not dozens of units that happen to accidentally all try to do the same things the same way at the same time. It's the total unity part that actually makes it more creepy.

hackertux 13y ago
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

summerdown2 13y ago

> I have no idea why people talk about huge corporations like they have hive mind and are in total unity? Am I the only one to find this statement ironic? One of the biggest arguments against Google+ and its drive to one account/real names is that individual people don't have unitary identities, let alone companies.