Slashdot Mirror


Longtime Google Engineer Quits; Says Company Can No Longer Innovate, Is Mired in Politics, and Has Become Absolutely Competitor-Focused (medium.com)

Steve Yegge, a longtime Google engineer who gained popularity after his rant on Google+ went viral, wrote another rant on Wednesday, in which he announced he has left Google. His rationale behind leaving Google, in his own words: The main reason I left Google is that they can no longer innovate. They've pretty much lost that ability. I believe there are several contributing factors, of which I'll list four here. First, they're conservative: They are so focused on protecting what they've got, that they fear risk-taking and real innovation. Gatekeeping and risk aversion at Google are the norm rather the exception. Second, they are mired in politics, which is sort of inevitable with a large enough organization; the only real alternative is a dictatorship, which has its own downsides. Third, Google is arrogant. It has taken me years to understand that a company full of humble individuals can still be an arrogant company. Google has the arrogance of the "we", not the "I". Fourth, last, and probably worst of all, Google has become 100% competitor-focused rather than customer focused. They've made a weak attempt to pivot from this, with their new internal slogan "Focus on the user and all else will follow." But unfortunately it's just lip service.

You can look at Google's entire portfolio of launches over the past decade, and trace nearly all of them to copying a competitor: Google+ (Facebook), Google Cloud (AWS), Google Home (Amazon Echo), Allo (WhatsApp), Android Instant Apps (Facebook, WeChat), Google Assistant (Apple/Siri), and on and on and on. They are stuck in me-too mode and have been for years. They simply don't have innovation in their DNA any more. And it's because their eyes are fixed on their competitors, not their customers.

6 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. They are customer focused by anthony_greer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but the user is not the customer - the advertiser is. All of those MeToo things he complains about are more ad real estate - that's what google is, an ad company, period.

  2. Re:The fate of all monopolies by Anon-Admin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Na, the previous CEO's were innovators.

    The current CEO is an MBA.

    Put an MBA in charge of a company and they simply chase the next big thing instead of innovating and creating the next big thing.

    They do this because they are not innovators and creators, they are simply followers and maintainers.

    It seems to be the plight of large companies to not want to take the risk of hiring an innovator. So they look for someone who "knows how to run a business." They get what the look for, stagnation.

  3. Re:Are we making money? by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IBM was making money by the truckload while Microsoft was bumbling around with DOS. If you wait with the innovation step until it shows up in revenue, you are too late.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  4. Confused... wasn't this always the case? by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Didn't Google start you know... a search engine? Like Netscape and Yahoo and AltaVista? Then they started a webmail service... just like Hotmail and Netscape and Yahoo before them. Oh, then they also started a online map service... just like MapQuest before them. When were they ever anything other than a "me too" company? Have they in their entire history made a single product that wasn't a dig at some other established market? I'm seriously expecting them to target Amazon or Netflix's business plan next.

  5. This!!! On the MONEY!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We are Google's product. Soylent green for the ad agencies.

  6. Re:The fate of all monopolies by Dru+Nemeton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple in a perfect example of this! (I'm a fan, so moderate your opinion accordingly...)

    Tim Cook knows how to run a business, but since he's taken over the company their products aren't revolutionary, but evolutionary. They're often released before they're ready and riddled with bugs / issues. Apple is so focused on making a buck with iPhone they leave profit on the table. (The Mac mini hasn't been updated in over two years. The Mac Pro just got dusted by the iMac Pro, which is absurd.)

    Steve Jobs was for all intents and purposes a smelly bastard to work for, but he drove people to innovate like mad! He really did strive to change the world and didn't much give a fuck about the competitors.