<![CDATA[Ex-Googler says enough with the puff pieces - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[Ex-Googler says enough with the puff pieces - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[Ex-Googler says enough with the puff pieces]]> Uhhhhh, and after all that tearing & rebuilding, we get Google Web Page Creator, Google Base, Google Docs, Google ${otherSuckyService}?

Peeeps

]]> <![CDATA[Ex-Googler says enough with the puff pieces]]> @MarkTheMarketWatcher: Oooh... it makes the ideas better. How very special. And how man of these "better" ideas have turned into marketable, profitable products?

OaklandTechie

]]> <![CDATA[Ex-Googler says enough with the puff pieces]]> @WagCurious: You must not have read his last sentence. (It was a long paragraph, after all!) His point was that Google just doesn't tear an idea to shreds and then discard it - which is what most companies do. Rather, they tear ideas to shreds to make the ideas better. If this distinction is lost on you, then I suspect you're a middle manager at a company that is currently subject to hostile takeover efforts. Keep tearing down good ideas and driving top talent away!

MarkTheMarketWatcher

]]> <![CDATA[Ex-Googler says enough with the puff pieces]]> I didn't realize that Google had its own all-girls Catholic School! What *don't* they have?

godospoons

]]> <![CDATA[Ex-Googler says enough with the puff pieces]]> Oh if only you went just a bit further in the article: when Marissa Meyer started she could have put her name and address on a piece of paper in the men's room and everyone else in the (tiny, all male) company would have seen it.

regine

]]> <![CDATA[Ex-Googler says enough with the puff pieces]]> Search and Maps. Name another successful Google product. The rip to shreds product cycle doesn't guarantee success.

risimini

]]> <![CDATA[Ex-Googler says enough with the puff pieces]]> SREs are the only ones worthy of praise in the whole Google enterprise.

Ted Dziuba

]]> <![CDATA[Ex-Googler says enough with the puff pieces]]> because they have the money to develop, refine, and launch products that may never directly produce revenue or earnings. How many of these things are primarily marketing devices to help recruit developers?

MS did pretty well recruiting developers - a lot of those developers never worked directly for MS - they were able to develop a profitable ecosystem that built the monopoly they now enjoy. Too bad Google can't do the same - the only money they make is in search ads and they're not sharing. Could argue that publishers are the ecosystem, but switching costs are so low...

abettertomorrow

]]> <![CDATA[Ex-Googler says enough with the puff pieces]]> Google is "magical" because they analyze their products before they launch? Whoa! Someone call Haas and get a case study started.

WagCurious

]]>