James Whittaker: Focus on Ads and 'Social' Destroying Google

theodp writes "In June 2009, Google welcomed James Whittaker as its newest Test Director. In February 2012, Whittaker rejoined Microsoft. On Tuesday, Whittaker explained why he left Google: 'The Google I was passionate about,' Whittaker writes, 'was a technology company that empowered its employees to innovate. The Google I left was an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus ...The old Google was a great place to work. The new one? -1.' Welcome to the real world, quips CNET's Charles Cooper in response to Whittaker's still-awesome-even-if-a-tad-naive rant." More from from his post: "It turns out that there was one place where the Google innovation machine faltered and that one place mattered a lot: competing with Facebook ... Google could still put ads in front of more people than Facebook, but Facebook knows so much more about those people. Advertisers and publishers cherish this kind of personal information ... Larry Page himself assumed command to right this wrong. Social became state-owned, a corporate mandate called Google+. It was an ominous name invoking the feeling that Google alone wasn't enough."

Comments

huh?

[MickyTheIdiot]

So he moved back to Microsoft? Huh? Don't get it.

Now he'll experience a "corporate mandate called $variable"
where $variable = { "the cloud" , "Windows 8" , "whatever marketing thinks up next" }

Re:huh?

[Phics]

In my youth, I moved back to a company I had left for a couple years. For me, it was simply a comfort thing - I was familiar with the policies, people, and surroundings. I'm not saying those aspects of the company were any good, and it turned out to be a terrible move; I was much happier elsewhere in the end. I'm also not saying that is why Mr. Whittaker returned, but humans tend to find some solace in familiarity - especially if the pay is good.

Normal lifecycle...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exciting startup with a couple of people does exciting things, attracts excited developers because they can do exciting things.
Over time company gets big, has to worry about shareholders and lots of internal politics with growing levels of management.
Company is grown up, things slow down, life becomes boring, bored developers seeking excitement move on to next startup.

Are there any exceptions?

Smart people can be dumb.

[mcmonkey]

Google could still put ads in front of more people than Facebook, but Facebook knows so much more about those people.

Knowing nothing of James Whittaker other than what is in the summary, and having not RTFA, I'll assume he is a very intelligent and successful person.

He is also missing the obvious (and he's not the only one).

Facebook knows more of what people want other people to know. Google knows about what is really going on with people. People lie in surveys, whether it's to say what they want to be true or what they think is expected. Facebook is like a survey you create yourself.

Facebook has your holiday photos, knows you've been to an island, like partying on the beach. Google knows you're reading up on herpes treatments.

Maybe Facebook knows you're married. Google knows you're trying to find a divorce attorney.

If Google is relying on + to compete with Facebook, it has already lost the battle.

Re:The Punchline

[dzfoo]

Because, love them or hate them, Microsoft is a software company trying to apply engineering to diverse software problems.

Ultimately, they make their money through the sale of products, so their interests tend to align with their users'.

Google, on the other hand is an advertising company trying to apply engineering to, um, data mining algorithms; and acquiring start-up companies for the purpose of increasing data collection and improve the targeting of ads.

Ultimately, they make their money through better and more targeted advertising, so their interests tend to align with those of advertisers'.

      -dZ.