The author also published [1] an email he wrote at the beginning of his tenure. It is amazing how alien and out of place early Google sounds in today's corporate environment. They have completely eroded the perception that Google is this kind of place:
Google is the opposite: it's like a giant grad-school. Half the programmers have PhD's, and everyone treats the place like a giant research playground [...] Every once in a while, a manager skims over the bubbling activity, looking for products to "reap" from the creative harvest. The programmers completely drive the company, it's really amazing. I kept waiting for people to walk up to me and ask me if I had declared my major yet. They not only encourage personal experimentation and innovation, they demand it. Every programmer is required to spend 20% of their time working on random personal projects. If you get overloaded by a crisis, then that 20% personal time accrues anyway. Nearly every Google technology you know (maps, earth, gmail) started out as somebody's 20% project, I think.
Even if this was only half-true back then, there's very little you could do to convince me that it's true at all now. This culture and the public perception of it has been squandered.
[1]: https://social.clawhammer.net/blog/posts/2005-09-25-FirstWee...
Both Maps and Earth were acquisitions. MOST Google products are.
The only two real big success products to come from Google that are still around are Search and Gmail. Maybe you can count Scholar but it’s really just a type of search.
Workspace was assembled from various acquisitions, YouTube they bought, Cloud is just a Jack Ma-esque “copy whatever Bezos is doing” initiative.
Most home grown Google products have either failed or been killed in the cradle. G+, Stadia, etc etc
20% was always a myth.
Google Chrome seems like a success as well.
Also forked from something Apple made (Webkit)
1) using that test, Apple didn't make webkit either. It's a fork of KHTML and why everything still uses LGPLv2 2) very little of what goes into making a browser successful is just the render. In WebKit and now Blink make up only a small percentage of the total browser.
Chrome/Chromium was developed for quite a while using Webkit. Chromium was created in 2008 and only after Google had already captured a third of the browser market share (according to Statista) did they fork it (April 2013).
The fact that basically all of the big companies (Microsoft, Google, Apple) use Webkit or Chromium shows that it's very difficult to build and maintain one successfully IMO. I think that Mozilla are essentially the only ones developing something that's somewhat competitive, not to mention that most smaller companies (e.g. Opera, Brave, Vivaldi, Island etc.) all use Chromium.
I'm not saying that it's easy to succeed with a product even after you've bought it, or started it from a fork (see less successful Chromium/Webkit forks). I'm just saying that it was not something built from the ground-up in Google. For example, v8 was and really changed a lot of things in the JavaScript world including Node, Deno etc.
I think v8 and the multi-process model were the big differentiators of Chrome when it first launched, and how it originally got marketshare! Regardless, I think "ground-up" building isn't a great way to measure product building; after all, macOS is "just" a BSD fork, as others have pointed out Webkit was originally a KHTML fork, etc. And just about any web product runs on Linux and is effectively a wrapper around libc, which wasn't ground-up built by any modern tech co.
MacOS is not a fork of BSD but uses some of its use land. I think it’s considered a BSD because of that, but the kernel and graphics libraries are all Apple.
The kernel isn't all Apple, it's a fork of the open-source Mach kernel developed at CMU (which was a replacement BSD kernel). "Ground up" just isn't real!
The graphics libraries are definitely more custom... Although in total fairness they're not entirely ground-up Apple either; Quartz was based on Display PostScript, which was acquired from NeXT, and which NeXT built in collaboration with Adobe based on Adobe's earlier work on PostScript. It's obviously true Apple's done a lot of work since then (e.g. Metal), but in that case, so has Google since forking Webkit.
I think you missed the point, there's two forks in the history of Blink (Chromium). Yes, Blink is a fork of WebKit, but WebKit is a fork of KHTML. So it's not like it originated at Apple either, it originated at KDE.
I did not miss the point, I just don't see why it's relevant. This isn't a thread about Apple's products and their success. The fact that Apple started from KHTML is not really relevant. However, it's clear that at the beginning Google was very dependent on Webkit and Apple, and there's a good reason why it took them five years of gaining development expertise and market share before forking Webkit.
I've already stated that Chrome's success is not just because that it was forked from Webkit (e.g. v8, and other things that people mentioned here as well), but it was a huge jumpstart for them, and it would've taken them much longer to get a leading browser without it. e.g. Microsoft basically gave up on developing their own engine after failing with IE and the original Edge - and are now also based on Chromium.
Chrome is (IMO) much better than Safari, Maps is (IMO) a great product, Youtube is a a huge success and much bigger than it was when they bought it (homegrown Google Video failed), Android was also essentially an acquihire, as others have mentioned (using a lot of Google's resources) and is hugely successful. It doesn't change the fact that most existing Google products today are acquisitions that they improved, and not home-grown products from the "20% do your own thing" era - which is what the original comment talked about.
The original genius in Chrome was not the renderer built out of webkit. It was:
1. The V8 JavaScript engine, which blew away everything else. 2. The sandboxed, multiprocess, threading model.
Those were the two things emphasized in the original Chrome "comic" at launch, if I recall:
https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/
Kind of easy to forget the true innovation of Google chrome these days. I will try to remember this again any time I see an aww snap on my web browser because it would have been all tabs all windows dead at once before Google chrome.
Firefox only declared it completed electrolysis in 2018, nearly a decade after this comic.
And Apple forked WebKit from KDE!
That’s like saying os x was just a fork of bsd
My guess is Google Chrome spends well over a billion dollars a year and comes up with ridiculous rules like this https://developer.chrome.com/blog/autoplay#media_engagement_... because Google Chrome is Google first and a web browser second.
It will collapse under its own weight if Google stops spending billions of dollars on it every year.
This is an interesting point. Can anyone from the inside estimate the annual budget for Chrome? A billion sounds like a lot. That implies: 1b / 250k = 4,000 (expensive) developers. I guess at least 1,000 well-paid people are involved, so hundreds of millions sounds more likely.
There is also advertising and cross promotion. I am also counting the opportunity cost of ads not sold because the spot went to Google Chrome.
Disclaimer: I’ve never worked at Google and have no insider information.
250k is conservative for employee cost. A staff engineer at Google can reach 1 MM total comp. And add in all the overhead a company has (real estate, free food, perks, taxes, etc)
500k-700k is a little more realistic. 1500 employees across all domains (engineering, marketing, product management, customer service, etc) isn’t a huge number
Google engineers cost closer to $500K/head all in.
Mozilla at least at one point had 1,000 and is and always was chronically underfunded. 4,000 seems about reasonable. Keep in mind it's not 4,000 engineers, it's PMs, managers, UX, Infra, there's a lot more to software development that just line engineers.
A billion dollars is cheap considering it saves Google from having to pay Apple or Mozilla more money to stay the default search engine. Google gives Apple 10 billion a year just in traffic acquisition payments.
Android was developed entirely at google (and redone midway after iphone came out) despite being originally an acquisition. Youtube basically just sold userbase + content. Chrome. Waymo. AppEngine precedes ec2 and heroku by some time. Most of hashicorp products (and dozen other startups) are basically copies of what google had internally.
The theory that google hasn’t birthed any original products just doesnt hold any water
Wasn't the idea of Android basically the acquisition of Danger Inc.
This kind of lineage is interesting, but I don’t give large amounts of credit-for-success to a company that failed at what they were trying to do, or gave up and sold themselves off. How much of why Android is huge today could really be attributed to Danger? Not too much, in my book.
Can we really say that Danger could have accomplished the same thing? I was in the carrier industry at that time and Danger was just another handset company.
Android's whole design is very Danger though- the Java userspace, Binder RPC stuff.
Kind of - danger was bought by msft, then everyone left and joined Android/Google. I think their original plan more akin to those chinese all-in-one apps
I thought the original idea was instead of having to download and run random JAR files for random Nokia or Erickson phones, wouldn’t it be nice to have an open handset alliance that would allow developers like Google to write their applications only once and it would work on all phones running android…
I believe it was Android Inc. that Google purchased. Danger was a previous company founded by Andy Rubin and others.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110205190729/http://www.busine...
YouTube was founded in 2005, and then sold to Google in 2006.
Then it was run under Google from 2006 to 2023.
Does anyone remember what 2005 looked like at all?
But people really like the narrative that Google couldn’t make a YouTube
And, there is no way that YouTube could survive on its own. The last mile bandwidth problem required a Google-sized company to help them solve it. This is usually overlooked.
Legend has it they had like weeks of runway left and didn’t pay any of their bills once it looked like the deal was going to close
I remember Google Videos being better than YouTube at the time, but IIRC it didn't have the amount of pirate content that initially made YouTube popular.
They had a YouTube. It was called Google Video, and it went nowhere.
Those are kinda important parts. Like, to the point that if they'd homegrown "GVideos" I bet it would have failed.
Which was a WebKit wrapper - explicitly just the browser chrome.
They did have Google Videos before they bought Youtube, and integrated it a while after.
Right, it was google video (that was just a bunch of users and content) that was "merged" into youtube. As usual they didn't bother redirecting the url's. Just let all of those hundreds of millions of links rot. What an opportunity to ruin an unimaginable number of threads and blog posts.
I'm trying to picture a white board with someone drawing up a plan how to destroy everything and take over.
Woah, video replies, we have to remove those. Threaded conversations under videos? Lets make them into an unbearable mess and make it as hard as possible for anyone to have a conversation. We can put it under history! ha-ha good one! Wait, we could suck everyone into a vacuum and have them all watch the same videos? ~ Excellent idea!
Creative company indeed
The YouTube product which is their creator economy that exists today didn't back then. In fact, I'm pretty sure original team would've run out of money soon.
And Docker is "a wrapper" around Linux Cgroups. So? It was a unique product with instant market fit - "fast browser without the UI clutter and with sandbox'ed tabs".
This is a really off base characterization of Android within Google.
Chet Haase wrote a book on those years, and while it is clear that Google gave them rocket fuel to meet their ambitions, their company culture was wildly different from the rest of Google. Shipping code on Android would not have passed muster for anyone at mainline Google; the process and standards were utterly alien from one another.
There is no way Android happens without the acquisition.
Yeah, when I first looked at the shocking source code for bionic (Android's libc) to figure out why my code wasn't working I couldn't believe it was written by Google. It wasn't really. (Nor did they (initially) borrow from any of the high-quality open source libcs out there.)
Not so much that Google hasn't birthed _any_ original products but rather that their customer service is abysmal and they've consistently shown poor long-term commitment to the end user, or worse, e.g. Reader, Nest, Fitbit, even Tensorflow is dead. The theory is that Google makes it needlessly hard for product people to innovate there, and the evidence is in Google's outsized insularity and coddling of technical projects that end up mostly for internal entertainment.
20% was very real, I saw it many times
Googles main successful product was amazing infrastructure. Lots of real innovation. It enabled massive scale of everything else, including acquisitions. YouTube was about to hit the wall when they got acquired.
By the time I got to Google in 2012, 20% seemed dead to me. If it had any meaning, it just meant "you can do some extra work on something management approves", not "I have a wild idea and want to go off and try it in my 20%" (as I naively understood it before coming there.)
It was already the case, at that point, that 20% really just meant doing more of what Google was already doing.
But maybe I just didn't know the right people or have the right connections or status.
Yes, by then it was org dependent. Some were not supportive, but some were.
2005 was still very open
100% - Google IS SRE. My favorite group of people to work with when I was there, a true honor, just amazing infra.
But the people “leading” the place are trash.
Chrome. Photos. Hadoop. Kubernetes. Brain. Spanner. T in GPT (Transformers). And lots more. Google's real contribution was internet scale systems and how to run them reliably.
Google photos was spawned from Picasa, which they bought https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB109121493116979168
Photos totally replaced Picasa, including, you know, replacing a local desktop app with a web/cloud app.
Google Photos came from the acquisition of Flock (via Bump) which was a mobile photo organizing and sharing app https://techcrunch.com/2013/12/31/google-to-close-bump-and-f...
Stadia was amazing.
That was an absolutely spot-on description of what it was like when I joined in 2007 or 2008. Within 2 year of joining, I had approval to use all the idle cycles in prod for protein design, folding, and drug discovery, and I had a front-row seat with some of the best programmers in the industry. By and large, employees were fun people to interact with, and the management was generally understanding of our hijinx. The main struggle I had was to convince the leadership to move faster into the cloud ("But we have appengine!" and "But profits aren't as good as ads", until MSFT ate their lunch). As soon as it was possible, I built and launched the cloud product I had wanted Google to make even before I joined!
It really did just feel like grad school with better funding. For me it lasted until around 2014 (wow, 10 years ago) when a director stole my ideas and bad-mouthed me to a bunch of senior folks. I hung on a bit longer (working for a close friend of the author of this FAQ on 3d printing and making stuff) and then a couple stints with ML hardware, before I finally concluded that the company was well on its way to enhittifying everything it did.
Sundar is sort of the complete opposite of this. He wants a large pool of completely anonymous programmers and a small number of directors who know how to turn those programmers into growth products, but those directors don't have a clue. For example, with gChat, one day the head of chat told TGIF that chat was changing, that japanese teen girls were the primary target, and they wanted emojis. He didn't even get that there was this enormous number of professional workers using gmail/gchat/gcal/gdocs and that by fucking up the product, he lost their trust.
Oh well. Sundar is why we can't have nice things.
Grad school...with all the politics to match.
Exactly, and for someone like myself who hated academia, the internals of Google when I was there (2011-2021) were awful for the same reasons.
It's hard enough to be motivated to work on things in a Big Company. It's even harder when you have to consciously play a game to advertise and promote your success and work -- spending almost as much time doing that as actually doing work. ... and then have others come along and take credit for your work, etc.
I've always despised the higher echelons of academia, the top 1%, the Ivy leagues et. al. for a similar reason.
Success in academia comes to those who pick the right people to work with, pick the right things to work on at the right time and say the right things at the right times to the right people, all to push yourself ahead of others guised under veils and veneers of goodness. Truth, morality and the quest for knowledge be damned.
"Picking" is more than what the word suggests. It involves shutting others out, stealing ideas and actual work, propagandizing, giving out freebies but keeping the kickbacks hidden, buttering people for favors, building and fostering inner circles etc. All this is the politics.
No surprise that the ones who are left and thrive are self driven narcissists and ruthless cold blooded creatures painted in playful colors.
Google is the equivalent of the Ivy league. Hopeless, clueless and on a path to irrelevance fostered by a thousand leeches.
Some argue, the world is better because of what Google produced and hence entitled to such inner workings. Same argument as the Ivy's. That's missing the forest for the trees. The real loss isn't what Google or the Ivys have become, but the opportunity loss comparing to what they could have been, with all their resources, had they not gone down this path. This isn't the only possible outcome in this game.
Something new will have to be made. You wont get credit for that effort, no riches, not even a thank you. Fooling around with the puzzle is the only reward and it should be good enough even if it amounts to nothing.
What is even the real question? How should we do politics?
Do you have a proposal to repair this? It seems any organizational effort is going to end up in a similar situation, because the people who desire to be at the top are the people willing to do the things required to get there, and that leaves little room for people who just want to pursue 'truth, morality and the quest for knowledge'.
It seems to me that the only solution to resolving this problem is to either (a) rely on a benevolent, genius, moral autocrat; (b) completely purge the leadership regularly; or (c) delegate authority to some future un-corruptible intelligence.
Why is this downvoted? It seems relevant to the conversation.
What does this mean? Yes, I understand the English, but I mean deeper: What are you trying to say? And, why does it matter?
Who cares about "losing the trust of the users". What matters is that 99% of "professional workers" don't have a choice what mail/chat/calendar/word processor they use. Their IT department decided for them. And, if they do have a choice, what do they use instead?
Most of Google is now mature products. Run it like a business -- maximize profits. It seems logical to me.
That's true until is isn't. Complacency's impact is subtle, but no company is actually invincible forever.
What if they lose the trust of the IT department that chooses which office ecosystem they’re in..?
It is logical if all you want is to extract maximum short-term value from what was already built. To me, the logical conclusion of this path is irrelevance in the long term.
One of the things that makes me sad about this is that Sergei and Larry seem so checked out. They were mostly gone when I was there, but I've always gotten the feeling that Google was like grad school because Larry and Sergei wanted it that way.
I get that they've made a ton of money, but it also seems like they really wanted to spend their lives making awesome stuff and doing things like scanning books and making them free. And it feels a bit like the market forces took Google away from them. They put Sundar and a bunch of other McKinsey alums in charge. And McKinsey is, from what I can tell, basically the opposite of grad school.
Whenever I did see Larry or Sergei make an appearance they always looked a little dead inside and like they were just going through the motions.
And from what I can tell, the original sin was taking VC funding. Once they took VC funding, they had limited actual control over what happened to their company. So while they talked in 2004 about not wanting to be a conventional company, and while they warned in 1998 that ad-driven search engines were biased against their users, they still had limited ability to be unconventional in any way that was unattractive to investors. And that includes, in a sense, just being too different. A large company will eventually need to be run by professional management, and professional managers need a thing that looks and drives like a conventional company.
To put the picture together: So VC money, the DoubleClick merger, and McKinsey ‘culture’ eroded Google (culture)?
Google stopped needing VC money very fast, by the time I joined in 2006 it had long since been irrelevant. Google was funding the VCs by then, not the other way around.
The DoubleClick acquisition wasn't a merger, and had no impact on anything as far as I could tell. It was really acquired for the market share not the people and iirc every DoubleClick employee was reinterviewed, maybe half didn't make it!
I doubt McKinsey had much to do with it either.
IMO the problem was more that the culture of endless hiring disconnected from need eventually caught up with it. I think once Page finally became CEO he may have decided he didn't like it much, especially as with ever greater numbers of restless/bored employees the flow of negative feedback / hate mail got bigger and bigger. People like Pichai are often appointed as CEOs when founders move on, because they will stick to the founders vision and won't make any big changes. Ballmer and Tim Cook are similar, I think, except that Cook seems to have done a better job of keeping things on the original path than the other two did. Typically under such CEOs revenues and profits increase a lot, but there are few bold initiatives or risks taken. It's easy for drift to set in.
I think this one sentence describes everything, companies are all about the people at the top. Its these people that set the culture, pace and overall direction of the company.
If the founders tune out and outsource the very soul of the company to general managers, who can keep lights on rather too well. Well thats what you get. The lights will be on, it will be life as usual and gradual erosion of that very soul that was the company.
You can't blame Larry and Sergei either. There are better things to enjoy when you have billions in the bank and one life to spend it.
Jesus. Tell me more. You didn’t happen to be involved in deepmind are you? I kind of _loathe_ google these days but find it absolutely mind blowing that there was a time when they were just casually unblocking the scientific community for funsies…to the point where parents could just leverage google’s freebies to maybe shed some light on their kids’ rare disease.
It pains me to think this won’t be happening anymore because really, you can’t sic your brightness engineers on detecting ad blockers _and_ casually make scientific breakthroughs. Something happened to google and the we’ll be writing about for decades to come but if there’s one thing I’m certain it’s that they are done trying to make the world a better place.
Has that changed? AlphaFold is recent and was practically given away to the biotech community. Google is doing a startup based around it as well. So they're still unblocking scientists for funsies, maybe moreso than in the past.
Google/Deepmind research still has a fairly large subgroup working on health problems, but most of that work is not given away (or even easily licensable) or published in a way that competitors could reproduce.
What Isomorphic, the spinoff, learned pretty quickly is that protein structure prediction is not, has never been, and is unlikely to be, the most critical blocking step in developing new drugs. That won't stop pharma from investing biobucks (virtual dollars that are gated by milestones) in them. Right now pharma is terrified because their pipelines are drying up, their blockbusters are going generic, and the recent rates of new discoveries leading to new candidates (target diseases/bio pathways) are dropping, even as they invest more and more into automation and machine learning.
(By the way Mike- I always did wish you had been able to run your "math problems" on exacycle, as a way of monetizing idle cores)
How was Sundar at the time you joined? According to Wikipedia he spearheaded the development of Chrome, GDrive, GMaps, GMail and the VP8 format which are all monumental products so he sounds like he was quite like every other talented hacker that thrived in early Google culture. Is that not the case? What made him turn to the dark side so abruptly?
Sundar wasn't a hacker, he was a product manager, and he was very good at identifying growing products, becoming their leader, and riding them to glory. But what really sealed the deal was Sundar's ability to sit in meeting with Larry Page while all the Chief Lieutenants fought, and patiently argue them all down (which Larry never wanted to do).
It's news to me that Sundar had anything to do with gdrive, gmaps, and gmail, except that he was head of Apps for a while, long after those products had completely established themselves.
Interesting, thanks for your reply
I think it was Jamie Zawinski who said the reason he left Netscape was that it went from being full of people that wanted to build a great company to being full of people who wanted to work at a great company. The later culture won.
Are there any places today that are like Google in the early days? I would love to work at a place like this.
IMO no. The unique combination of parameters with early-Google were:
- Small, relatively young company.
- Absolutely gargantuan amounts of revenue
You can't run a company this way unless you have a very large money firehose.
The last time this happened was early-Facebook. I don't think there has been a single company since then that fit the description - which IMO is fine, the celestial alignment of factors is pretty rare.
Companies nowadays have kind of the opposite problem: lots of hiring, but not enough revenue to show for it. Some tried to build a similar culture on VC funding but imploded once the cash ran out. You really need an intensely profitable product to make this formula work.
Google was like this before they identified the ad firehose. Facebook didn’t find its own profits until way after IPO. Thats not the correct answer. It was that they were instantly truly successful without being blatantly exploitative (which Uber et al were). And the investors trusted that they will find their profits somewhere. That environment doesn’t exist anymore. Except maybe in OpenAI.
OpenAI seems to be a bunch of people who spend 18 hours a day trying to bring about AGI, though. Driven, sure, but nobody is looking to solve world hunger there unless it involves a cluster of GPUs in some way.
I don’t remember Google solving world hunger either?
AGI might solve world hunger, although that particular problem seems to be more about societal organization and trust between people. AGI would without doubt lead to an incredible productivity boost though, and that helps solve many existential problems we currently have as well.
Google AdWords launched in 2000; AdSense in 2003. Google itself only dates to 1998; there's not much "before" the ads.
They probably mean pre-doubleclick
I also think that experimental culture is gone due to things like startup culture. Any half viable idea, they leave and create a startup.
So Google has really only been doing obvious ideas. Like Pixel phones, Pixel buds, getting into cloud too late.
That's true, that's not much incentive for a brilliant individual to do something inside Google when they can do it outside and make a lot more money without any politics. In the 0% interest rate world anyway.
Indeed. I don't know that something like this can ever happen again, barring another major upset. Many people don't realize or remember how transformative the dot-com era really was. The amount of money firehose that was there to go around was staggering. We're just at a much more mature point in the market. Ironically, a lot of the people that make it difficult/impossible to have the money firehose are the ones that made their fortune from that environment!
It's still possible for a one-off startup here and there to maybe get into this boat, but at this point the big tech players are there to slurp up the real money makers early and often and assimilate them into the borg.
If this sort of environment were what I wanted to work in, I'd probably look at specialized teams/niches inside of big corps. Surely very difficult to find, but they do exist.
clearly you're incorrect, since Google was (famously!) exactly like this before the ads firehose of cash started.
Roblox was like that for a while. They did some nice work on scaling up big MMOs with user-created content, something I'm into. They overexpanded, losing money on every user. They'd gone public, and the stock is way down. Peaked at $126, now $40. Despite many attempts, they just can't retain users beyond middle school.
I also want to know the answer to this, but I'm starting to think I might not recognize it.
Part of Google's perceived aura (IMHO) when they started was that they seemed to be like the nebulous group of pre-Web Internet-savvy techies. Which were a smart group, tending towards altruistic and egalitarian, and wanting to bring Internet goodness to people, and onboard people into Internet culture. What seemed like one sign of this was times that you'd see old-school techies outside of Google treating Google like stewards rather than exploiters. And when they said "Don't Be Evil", I thought I knew exactly what they meant.
Well, the dotcom gold rush happened, huge masses of people rushed in looking for what it was about, huge money rushed in and soon tried to landgrab and then exploit those masses rather than onboard them, Doubleclick acquired Google :), techie job interviews started looking like rituals to induct affluent young new grads into their rightful upper-middle career paths, unethical behaviors became so commonplace that people can't even see them, and academia was infected a bit. Which I think means...
...If another Google happened, would we even recognize it? From where could it draw its culture that's not pretty completely overtaken by big money and all that attracts and builds?
Maybe the next Google can't be in the space of computing/communications/information at all, because big money and and coattail-riders would be all over that too quickly.
Maybe it would instead arise from people that really love to study insects. And they have a cooperative community around that, and have been trying to explain the importance of insects to the world for years, but not many care. Then it turns out that insects are the key to averting an imminent Earth extinction-level event. So the bug nuts get huge infusions of cash, and can work on all the problems they've wanted to.
And it'll be at least a few years before people with no interest in insects, other than chasing money, can really take over and start perverting the field, set up gatekeeping to pass people like them, while excluding the actual people who created and loved the field and saved the world, etc.
Personally, I have always disliked bugs, and will never be a candidate for Bügle.
Join the ant revolution!
If a company had invented LLMs by themselves (without anyone else having the technology) that would be a very similar situation to what Google was in the early days.
Probably but by the time the conditions are well known it has started degrading already. I’m convinced that ending up at a place like that in the early days has a massive luck component, even if you are the sort of person who would trivially get in hiring bar wise.
maps and earth were both acquisitions
you say acquisitions, others might say stolen.
They bought the companies; that’s very literally not stealing.
So, you're totally discounting the work of Terravision
"The Billion Dollar Code" is a Netflix series about the lawsuit of Google trouncing the little guys. [0] is a brief bit from its creator about the impetus for the show. If you haven't seen it, it's pretty good. In the [0], they compare it to The Social Network being from the Zucks point of view, aka the winner. This story is told from the view of the losing side.
[0] https://variety.com/2021/streaming/global/netflix-the-billio...!
I've seen plenty of "documentaries" which were really just pushing an agenda. You can distinguish advocacy from accuracy usually within the first few sentences.
Documentaries are usually painfully open about their agendas, like changing policies in Madagascar to save the lemurs, save the smokers, save the obese, etc. But no documentary until "The Billion Dollar Code" ever made me feel genuinely lied to and outright manipulated, and there's no way I would have known if I hadn't read the primary materials. When I discovered the deception, I edited the Terravision Wikipedia page to mention SRI, so there's clues for the next person who enjoys the series, but someone would have to write truthful secondary sources in order for the article to be improved further. Who can say who benefits from poking Google Maps in the eye. Netflix must have been tripping when they approved that one.
Which is also said about anything that tends to go against the views of the other side. It's a bit of entertainment "based" on true events. Nobody claims it is the gospel according to.... They even qualify this in the interview I linked.
The majority of people have no idea on how/when/where the products they use on a daily basis originated. By the time a FAANG type of company releases something, you can pretty much be assured there are casualties along the way.
The obviousness comes from:
1. speculation, without identifying it as speculation
2. hyperbolic words
3. absence of any contraindications to their thesis
Don't believe everything you watch on television or read on Wikipedia. Terravision was created by the Stanford Research Institute. Google used to be a Stanford research project. The group called ART+COM that Netflix portrays as a bunch of scrappy innovative hackers is actually just a den of patent trolls. I know reality is a bummer isn't it?
https://cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-order...
Local was in-house. What we know of as Maps today is the merger of Google Local (Bret Taylor, in-house), Where2 (Lars & Jens Rasmussen, acquisition), KeyHole (John Hanke, acquisition), and probably a few other projects.
It's not true anymore and started going away during Larry Page's tenure.
~ ex-Googler : 2011 to 2018
People don’t give Eric enough credit as CEO
I give Eric all the credit. I honestly don’t know if Google would have been hugely successfully without him. Sure, they would not have failed, but they probably would’ve plateaued early like most successful startups.
L&S were very important imo, just not good at being in charge of everything directly.