How Google Decides To Cancel a Project

The New York Times is running a story about the criteria involved when Google scraps one of their projects. While a project's popularity among users is important, Google also examines whether they can get enough employees interested in it, and whether it has a large enough scope — they prefer not to waste time solving minor problems. The article takes a look at the specific reasons behind the recent cancellation of several products. "Dennis Crowley, one of two co-founders who sold Dodgeball to Google in 2005 and stayed on, said that he had trouble competing for the attention of other Google engineers to expand the service. 'If you're a product manager, you have to recruit people and their "20 percent time."' ... [Jeff Huber, the company's senior vice president of engineering] said that Google eventually concluded that Dodgeball's vision was too narrow. ... Still, Google found the concepts behind Dodgeball intriguing, and early this month, it released Google Latitude, an add-on to Google Maps that allows people to share their location with friends and family members. It's more sophisticated than Dodgeball, with automatic location tracking and more options for privacy and communication."

Comments

But will this work in your company?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Google has the benefit of having a lot of employees, a lot of goodwill, and a lot of money, so when it takes the "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" business strategy, things have a way of working out for them.

But would this work for anyone else? Maybe Apple.

Re:But will this work in your company?

[peragrin]

Well sometimes things aren't quite right like when the shit is runny. MSFT tablet, and ultra mobile PC's, fall into this category.

A good idea, done in by poor interface choices, barely tolerable battery life, high prices, etc.

In the next 18 months with the emergence of touch screen netbooks with new interfaces, and more importantly low prices. you will see just how much needs to change in slight ways.

Apple does the throw shit at the wall and see what sticks too. however that wall is normally well hidden from view. My iphone is awesome. however the number of prototypes that were built before is the really interesting question.

Re:But will this work in your company?

[91degrees]

It's what they call a cash cow. Large segment of the market, not a lot of growth. Piling more money into the market isn't going expand it a lot so it makes more sense to take the cash generated and invest it in other products. Apple are in a similar position with the iPod (The mp3 player market is still expanding but not as much as when the original ipod was released), and so are Microsoft with Windows.

It's pretty much 101 business strategy stuff.

Re:But will this work in your company?

[Aladrin]

Oddly enough, the process isn't -too- different in smaller companies. You don't actually build the prototype, but since you can get direct access to the owner/boss, you can present your idea to him/her. If they like it, you'll get to build it.

It's medium-sized companies that have the problem. They can't afford the 'see what sticks' approach, and you can't talked to the owner/boss personally, so there's no way for this to happen without some favoritism being involved. Even companies that have 'good idea' programs rarely actually get them.

Re:But will this work in your company?

[Fat Cow]

This _should_ be a cash cow for the shareholders. If these companies can't invest this money profitably then they are morally obligated to return it to the shareholders.

Re:But will this work in your company?

[thermian]

Google has the benefit of having a lot of employees, a lot of goodwill, and a lot of money, so when it takes the "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" business strategy, things have a way of working out for them.

But would this work for anyone else? Maybe Apple.

No way. Apple try hard to give off an aura of 'hey, we're just cool guys having fun', but the reality is they are very structured and don't tend to do off the wall projects.

There is really one guy making the decisions as to what is good enough to survive, or even be started, and that's Steve Jobs.

Ok, he makes a lot of good choices, but they don't have anything like the setup that Google have.

They typically launch very tightly controlled products and evolve those, adding new features as required in order to either stay ahead of the competition or to get users to re buy the latest version.

Where they win is presentation, their stuff appeals to non geeks, so people get tricked into beleiving that Apple themselves are as cool and fun as their products and advertising make them appear.

Re:But will this work in your company?

[morgan_greywolf]

That's different really. Google's approach is to build something and see what the Internet community likes. The small business approach is to pitch something and see what the boss/owner likes. A bit different.

But at medium to larger businesses, you do get the chance to present new ideas to higher levels of management. If you pitch an idea and it gets some attention, your group can be given funding to produce a prototype.

Still, usually no one outside the company gets to see these prototypes. There are a couple of exceptions -- in the auto industry you have events like the North American International Auto Show where prototypes are tossed at consumers and marketroids note how the media and how consumers react to the prototypes. That information fuels decisions about new models for the next few years, typically.

But Google's approach is altogether different. First off, the vast majority of their money is tied up in infrastructure, not development. Producing a new product doesn't cost nearly as much as it would a traditional software house.

Think of it this way: what's it take to produce an N-tier enterprise intranet app? An analyst/project manager, maybe a couple of page designers, a couple of domain experts, a 3-4 core software developers, a DBA and a systems/network administrator. And you can do it with half that if you have pay for a team of highly-experienced superstars.

So the reason they can afford to 'toss shit against the wall and see what sticks' is because they're already spending on the infrastructure -- that cost is known and somewhat fixed. The variable part, the new development, costs relatively very little.

Re:But will this work in your company?

[mysterons]

Google has the benefit of having a lot of employees, a lot of goodwill, and a lot of money, so when it takes the "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" business strategy, things have a way of working out for them.

But would this work for anyone else? Maybe Apple.

One problem with grading projects by how popular they are internally is that flashy projects get chosen over boring, less obvious but quite possibly equally important ones.

An example: who would want to work on infrastructure which is never directly visible to the outside world?

Re:But will this work in your company?

[Supergibbs]

No, Apple might do something similar but afterwards takes whatever sticks and makes it pretty, strips out any advanced features and wraps the whole thing in proprietary crap

Re:But will this work in your company?

[jschen]

This makes sense only if the new projects are, on average, equally lucrative. (Apple's iPod, for example, is highly profitable.) Otherwise, the money could be better used to generate dividends or do share buybacks. Companies can't grow bigger indefinitely. At some point, a successful company should start generating a consistent revenue stream for its owners (shareholders).

Re:But will this work in your company?

[stevey]

An example: who would want to work on infrastructure which is never directly visible to the outside world?

Me, but that's probably why I'm mostly a sysadmin only part-time programmer.

Without the presence of a good infrastructure you can't have nowhere for the flashy stuff to be developed/hosted/placed.

Re:But will this work in your company?

[The End Of Days]

When people use the phrase "true morals," I reach for my shotgun.

Re:But will this work in your company?

[Chyeld]

When people use the phrase "I reach for my shotgun", I give Anne a good night kiss, grab my pants, and shimmy out the window.

Re:But will this work in your company?

[Anonymous Coward]

who would want to work on infrastructure which is never directly visible to the outside world?

I work at Google on an infrastructure project that is not directly visible to the outside world. On a normal working day I really don't care if what I do is directly visible to the outside world. I can see how this project is a good thing for our users, and I know for a fact that our founders consider this project very important, shouldn't that be more important to me than what bloggers around the internet think? The only times where it is slightly annoying to be working on something that isn't visible is when friends from outside the company ask me what I am working on, and the only answer I can give is "internal infrastructure". But the project has importance and technical challenges to be solved. And even if I was granted a wish for something to change, then working on something more visible wouldn't be the first thing on my list - if at all.

Re:But will this work in your company?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just that Apple fanboys have a poor memory of the bad shit. Evidence: Apple TV.

Nevermind most years after the adoption of PowerPC and before the introduction of the iPod.

Re:But will this work in your company?

[rmerry72]

Companies can't grow bigger indefinitely. At some point, a successful company should start generating a consistent revenue stream for its owners (shareholders).

Nope. Unfortunately that is not the way the economy works. Shareholders are not looking for revenue or profit (ie cash, dividends) from companies. They are looking for wealth. Specifically increases in the share price. That requires growth - or at least the appearance of it - and for that companies need to "invest" in new markets, technologies and products.

A steady revenue stream will not keep your share price up as lots of investors - particularly institutional investors which make up the far bulk of share ownership today - sell out and look for higher yield stocks. Our stock market does not look at the overall size or profitability of an organisation and certainly doesn't reward over all size. The important thing - the only thing - is growth.

And before anybody chimes in with the obvious, yes in today's downtrodden economy when most of the world is going backwards, just standing still and not shrinking is enough "growth" to stand out from your competitors.

Re:But will this work in your company?

[rmerry72]

Without the presence of a good infrastructure you can't have nowhere for the flashy stuff to be developed/hosted/placed.

Very, very true. Which is why most people prefer other people work on the infrastructure. Own culture idolizes those that do the flashy stuff and gives little credit to those that do the hard invisible stuff, and so everybody wants to do the flashy stuff in order to be idolized. Most people would prefer to be racing car drivers than car mechanics, even racing car mechanics.

That's sad, cause I find the most joy in solving the hard problems that nobody ever hears about. How boring to be a racing car driver, I say. Any moron can drive around a track, as long as I make the car go fast and handle well enough.

Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything not in beta goes onto the Mad Maxian wheel. It's then spun by Tina Turner and whichever project it lands on gets thrown out.

Re:Recruit?

[Anonymous Coward]

All Google projects have to recruit engineers. It's just the Google way.

Follow Up Story

[basementman]

We need a follow-up story, "How Google decides whether or not to label something Beta". I'm guessing it involves dart boards, hookers, and cocaine.

Re:Follow Up Story

[c1t1z3nk41n3]

In fact, forget the dart boards!

Re:Follow Up Story

[peater]

I'm impotent and cocaine intolerant you selfish insensitive clod!

Re:Recruit?

[SerpentMage]

You know I have a product that is doing very well, and I am hoping to be bought out. Though if it does not I will have enough clients. But I digress...

If say Google were to buy me out and the success of this product depended on whether or not I could recruit engineers I would say screw it!

Google would have bought me out so I would have my money. And if Google is too stupid to do anything with the investment its their problem, not mine.

I mean so I could work there twiddle my thumbs surf, and do nothing until I could leave...

Personally I never thought too much of the Program Manager approach. Lends itself to be less focused in my opinion.

I have found that the best companies have REALLY good visionaries who say, "lets do this, and if you don't like it its your problem not mine." Yes many companies fail, but there are many who do quite well as a result of it.

Re:They killed Google Calculator!!!

[Z34107]

Now when I need confirmation that 2+2=4, Google isn't there to help. What a letdown.

Wrong! Google is always there to help!

Re:Recruit?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get my point do you?

Why on earth is Google buying a company that it will not use? If I was a shareholder of Google I would be bleeding furious at the waste of money.