Quantcast

Googler Calls Google+ a “Knee-Jerk Reaction” and “A Study in Short-term Thinking”

Software engineer accidentally publishes internal letter to the public

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:
Googler Calls Google+ a “Knee-Jerk Reaction” and “A Study in Short-term Thinking”
[ Social Media]

Consider this a lesson in how not to use Google+.

And to think, the Circles feature was designed to give you more control over who sees what…

A Google software engineer, Steve Yegge, had some less than favorable things to say about his employer’s social networking service Google+. You know, the one that Google says “is Google.

Find this story interesting? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments, and as always, your +1′s, StumbleUpon shares, Facebook likes and retweets are appreciated.

He crafted a lengthy and very critical post about Google+ to share within Google, but accidentally shared it publicly (hat tip to Frederic Lardinois). Of course, others were able to capture it before he deleted it.

Here are some quotes from the rant.

“I was at Amazon for about six and a half years, and now I’ve been at Google for that long. One thing that struck me immediately about the two companies — an impression that has been reinforced almost daily — is that Amazon does everything wrong, and Google does everything right.”

That’s how it began. Good start, in Google’s eyes no doubt, considering the building rivalry between those two companies. In fact, much of post talks about how Google does most things better than Amazon, except for a few. Eventually, he talks about how Google’s “doesn’t get” platforms.

Here are some of the Google+-specific quotes:

Google+ is a prime example of our complete failure to understand platforms from the very highest levels of executive leadership (hi Larry, Sergey, Eric, Vic, howdy howdy) down to the very lowest leaf workers (hey yo). We all don’t get it. The Golden Rule of platforms is that you Eat Your Own Dogfood. The Google+ platform is a pathetic afterthought. We had no API at all at launch, and last I checked, we had one measly API call. One of the team members marched in and told me about it when they launched, and I asked: “So is it the Stalker API?” She got all glum and said “Yeah.” I mean, I was joking, but no… the only API call we offer is to get someone’s stream. So I guess the joke was on me.”

Google+ is a knee-jerk reaction, a study in short-term thinking, predicated on the incorrect notion that Facebook is successful because they built a great product. But that’s not why they are successful. Facebook is successful because they built an entire constellation of products by allowing other people to do the work. So Facebook is different for everyone. Some people spend all their time on Mafia Wars. Some spend all their time on Farmville. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of different high-quality time sinks available, so there’s something there for everyone.”

“Our Google+ team took a look at the aftermarket and said: “Gosh, it looks like we need some games. Let’s go contract someone to, um, write some games for us.” Do you begin to see how incredibly wrong that thinking is now? The problem is that we are trying to predict what people want and deliver it for them.”

“You can’t do that. Not really. Not reliably. There have been precious few people in the world, over the entire history of computing, who have been able to do it reliably. Steve Jobs was one of them. We don’t have a Steve Jobs here. I’m sorry, but we don’t.”

He also talks about how Microsoft “gets platforms” better. “So yeah, Microsoft gets it,” he says. “And you know as well as I do how surprising that is, because they don’t “get” much of anything, really. But they understand platforms as a purely accidental outgrowth of having started life in the business of providing platforms.”

He also says Amazon gets it and that Facebook gets it.

Google has said flat out that Microsoft is its “main competitor” (words of Eric Schmidt). And Amazon and Google are competing more and more. Obviously Facebook is a direct competitor to Google+ specifically. You wouldn’t think this is the kind of message Google would be happy about its employees putting out in public.

Yegge put up a public follow-up post, saying, “Sadly, it was intended to be an internal post, visible to everybody at Google, but not externally. But as it was midnight and I am not what you might call an experienced Google+ user, by the time I figured out how to actually post something I had somehow switched accounts.”

The post was taken down at his own discretion, he says. “I contacted our internal PR folks and asked what to do, and they were also nice and supportive. But they didn’t want me to think that they were even hinting at censoring me — they went out of their way to help me understand that we’re an opinionated company, and not one of the kinds of companies that censors their employees.”

A couple of interesting comments in response to Yegge’s explanation:

Pedram Keyani (Facebook engineer who has worked for Google and Microsoft): “I’m glad you are shaking things up and telling it how it is. I joined Google in 2005 but after a few years of I couldn’t take how little the company cared about connecting people. Fight the good fight.”

Theodore Ts’O (Google engineer): “The bits about the pro’s and con’s of SOA (and what you have to do so you can use SOA sanely from an ops and development point of view) are definitely worth publishing in a cleaned up fashion. Definitely a well written rant, even if it was published in the wrong place. :-)”

Liz Gannes interviewed Bradley Horowitz, VP of product at Google this week. While she notes that Yegge’s post was not a topic of discussion, she says, “First, Horowitz does think Google+ is a larger platform play rather than just a product, in that it will be a layer on top of all of Google’s products. And second, his team severely ‘underestimated the appetite for this product,’ and it is currently rushing to push out all sorts of things users are asking for, as well as other stuff they haven’t anticipated.”

We haven’t heard what kind of consequences Yegge faces from the company, if any. Rip Rowan, who shared the post on Google+ before Yegge deleted it, says, “Hopefully Steve will not experience any negative repercussions from Google about this. On the contrary, he deserves a promotion.”

Now Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt is using Google+. Maybe he’ll accidentally post an internal message publicly too. Keep your fingers crossed.

What do you think? Do you agree with Yegge about Google+? Let us know in the comments.

Read the original post in its entirety below:

I was at Amazon for about six and a half years, and now I’ve been at Google for that long. One thing that struck me immediately about the two companies — an impression that has been reinforced almost daily — is that Amazon does everything wrong, and Google does everything right. Sure, it’s a sweeping generalization, but a surprisingly accurate one. It’s pretty crazy. There are probably a hundred or even two hundred different ways you can compare the two companies, and Google is superior in all but three of them, if I recall correctly. I actually did a spreadsheet at one point but Legal wouldn’t let me show it to anyone, even though recruiting loved it.

I mean, just to give you a very brief taste: Amazon’s recruiting process is fundamentally flawed by having teams hire for themselves, so their hiring bar is incredibly inconsistent across teams, despite various efforts they’ve made to level it out. And their operations are a mess; they don’t really have SREs and they make engineers pretty much do everything, which leaves almost no time for coding – though again this varies by group, so it’s luck of the draw. They don’t give a single shit about charity or helping the needy or community contributions or anything like that. Never comes up there, except maybe to laugh about it. Their facilities are dirt-smeared cube farms without a dime spent on decor or common meeting areas. Their pay and benefits suck, although much less so lately due to local competition from Google and Facebook. But they don’t have any of our perks or extras — they just try to match the offer-letter numbers, and that’s the end of it. Their code base is a disaster, with no engineering standards whatsoever except what individual teams choose to put in place.

To be fair, they do have a nice versioned-library system that we really ought to emulate, and a nice publish-subscribe system that we also have no equivalent for. But for the most part they just have a bunch of crappy tools that read and write state machine information into relational databases. We wouldn’t take most of it even if it were free.

I think the pubsub system and their library-shelf system were two out of the grand total of three things Amazon does better than google.

I guess you could make an argument that their bias for launching early and iterating like mad is also something they do well, but you can argue it either way. They prioritize launching early over everything else, including retention and engineering discipline and a bunch of other stuff that turns out to matter in the long run. So even though it’s given them some competitive advantages in the marketplace, it’s created enough other problems to make it something less than a slam-dunk.

But there’s one thing they do really really well that pretty much makes up for ALL of their political, philosophical and technical screw-ups.

Jeff Bezos is an infamous micro-manager. He micro-manages every single pixel of Amazon’s retail site. He hired Larry Tesler, Apple’s Chief Scientist and probably the very most famous and respected human-computer interaction expert in the entire world, and then ignored every goddamn thing Larry said for three years until Larry finally — wisely — left the company. Larry would do these big usability studies and demonstrate beyond any shred of doubt that nobody can understand that frigging website, but Bezos just couldn’t let go of those pixels, all those millions of semantics-packed pixels on the landing page. They were like millions of his own precious children. So they’re all still there, and Larry is not.

Micro-managing isn’t that third thing that Amazon does better than us, by the way. I mean, yeah, they micro-manage really well, but I wouldn’t list it as a strength or anything. I’m just trying to set the context here, to help you understand what happened. We’re talking about a guy who in all seriousness has said on many public occasions that people should be paying him to work at Amazon. He hands out little yellow stickies with his name on them, reminding people “who runs the company” when they disagree with him. The guy is a regular… well, Steve Jobs, I guess. Except without the fashion or design sense. Bezos is super smart; don’t get me wrong. He just makes ordinary control freaks look like stoned hippies.

So one day Jeff Bezos issued a mandate. He’s doing that all the time, of course, and people scramble like ants being pounded with a rubber mallet whenever it happens. But on one occasion — back around 2002 I think, plus or minus a year — he issued a mandate that was so out there, so huge and eye-bulgingly ponderous, that it made all of his other mandates look like unsolicited peer bonuses.

His Big Mandate went something along these lines:

1) All teams will henceforth expose their data and functionality through service interfaces.

2) Teams must communicate with each other through these interfaces.

3) There will be no other form of interprocess communication allowed: no direct linking, no direct reads of another team’s data store, no shared-memory model, no back-doors whatsoever. The only communication allowed is via service interface calls over the network.

4) It doesn’t matter what technology they use. HTTP, Corba, Pubsub, custom protocols — doesn’t matter. Bezos doesn’t care.

5) All service interfaces, without exception, must be designed from the ground up to be externalizable. That is to say, the team must plan and design to be able to expose the interface to developers in the outside world. No exceptions.

6) Anyone who doesn’t do this will be fired.

7) Thank you; have a nice day!

Ha, ha! You 150-odd ex-Amazon folks here will of course realize immediately that #7 was a little joke I threw in, because Bezos most definitely does not give a shit about your day.

#6, however, was quite real, so people went to work. Bezos assigned a couple of Chief Bulldogs to oversee the effort and ensure forward progress, headed up by Uber-Chief Bear Bulldog Rick Dalzell. Rick is an ex-Armgy Ranger, West Point Academy graduate, ex-boxer, ex-Chief Torturer slash CIO at Wal*Mart, and is a big genial scary man who used the word “hardened interface” a lot. Rick was a walking, talking hardened interface himself, so needless to say, everyone made LOTS of forward progress and made sure Rick knew about it.

Over the next couple of years, Amazon transformed internally into a service-oriented architecture. They learned a tremendous amount while effecting this transformation. There was lots of existing documentation and lore about SOAs, but at Amazon’s vast scale it was about as useful as telling Indiana Jones to look both ways before crossing the street. Amazon’s dev staff made a lot of discoveries along the way. A teeny tiny sampling of these discoveries included:

- pager escalation gets way harder, because a ticket might bounce through 20 service calls before the real owner is identified. If each bounce goes through a team with a 15-minute response time, it can be hours before the right team finally finds out, unless you build a lot of scaffolding and metrics and reporting.

- every single one of your peer teams suddenly becomes a potential DOS attacker. Nobody can make any real forward progress until very serious quotas and throttling are put in place in every single service.

- monitoring and QA are the same thing. You’d never think so until you try doing a big SOA. But when your service says “oh yes, I’m fine”, it may well be the case that the only thing still functioning in the server is the little component that knows how to say “I’m fine, roger roger, over and out” in a cheery droid voice. In order to tell whether the service is actually responding, you have to make individual calls. The problem continues recursively until your monitoring is doing comprehensive semantics checking of your entire range of services and data, at which point it’s indistinguishable from automated QA. So they’re a continuum.

- if you have hundreds of services, and your code MUST communicate with other groups’ code via these services, then you won’t be able to find any of them without a service-discovery mechanism. And you can’t have that without a service registration mechanism, which itself is another service. So Amazon has a universal service registry where you can find out reflectively (programmatically) about every service, what its APIs are, and also whether it is currently up, and where.

- debugging problems with someone else’s code gets a LOT harder, and is basically impossible unless there is a universal standard way to run every service in a debuggable sandbox.

That’s just a very small sample. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of individual learnings like these that Amazon had to discover organically. There were a lot of wacky ones around externalizing services, but not as many as you might think. Organizing into services taught teams not to trust each other in most of the same ways they’re not supposed to trust external developers.

This effort was still underway when I left to join Google in mid-2005, but it was pretty far advanced. From the time Bezos issued his edict through the time I left, Amazon had transformed culturally into a company that thinks about everything in a services-first fashion. It is now fundamental to how they approach all designs, including internal designs for stuff that might never see the light of day externally.

At this point they don’t even do it out of fear of being fired. I mean, they’re still afraid of that; it’s pretty much part of daily life there, working for the Dread Pirate Bezos and all. But they do services because they’ve come to understand that it’s the Right Thing. There are without question pros and cons to the SOA approach, and some of the cons are pretty long. But overall it’s the right thing because SOA-driven design enables Platforms.

That’s what Bezos was up to with his edict, of course. He didn’t (and doesn’t) care even a tiny bit about the well-being of the teams, nor about what technologies they use, nor in fact any detail whatsoever about how they go about their business unless they happen to be screwing up. But Bezos realized long before the vast majority of Amazonians that Amazon needs to be a platform.

You wouldn’t really think that an online bookstore needs to be an extensible, programmable platform. Would you?

Well, the first big thing Bezos realized is that the infrastructure they’d built for selling and shipping books and sundry could be transformed an excellent repurposable computing platform. So now they have the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud, and the Amazon Elastic MapReduce, and the Amazon Relational Database Service, and a whole passel’ o’ other services browsable at aws.amazon.com. These services host the backends for some pretty successful companies, reddit being my personal favorite of the bunch.

The other big realization he had was that he can’t always build the right thing. I think Larry Tesler might have struck some kind of chord in Bezos when he said his mom couldn’t use the goddamn website. It’s not even super clear whose mom he was talking about, and doesn’t really matter, because nobody’s mom can use the goddamn website. In fact I myself find the website disturbingly daunting, and I worked there for over half a decade. I’ve just learned to kinda defocus my eyes and concentrate on the million or so pixels near the center of the page above the fold.

I’m not really sure how Bezos came to this realization — the insight that he can’t build one product and have it be right for everyone. But it doesn’t matter, because he gets it. There’s actually a formal name for this phenomenon. It’s called Accessibility, and it’s the most important thing in the computing world.

The. Most. Important. Thing.

If you’re sorta thinking, “huh? You mean like, blind and deaf people Accessibility?” then you’re not alone, because I’ve come to understand that there are lots and LOTS of people just like you: people for whom this idea does not have the right Accessibility, so it hasn’t been able to get through to you yet. It’s not your fault for not understanding, any more than it would be your fault for being blind or deaf or motion-restricted or living with any other disability. When software — or idea-ware for that matter — fails to be accessible to anyone for any reason, it is the fault of the software or of the messaging of the idea. It is an Accessibility failure.

Like anything else big and important in life, Accessibility has an evil twin who, jilted by the unbalanced affection displayed by their parents in their youth, has grown into an equally powerful Arch-Nemesis (yes, there’s more than one nemesis to accessibility) named Security. And boy howdy are the two ever at odds.

But I’ll argue that Accessibility is actually more important than Security because dialing Accessibility to zero means you have no product at all, whereas dialing Security to zero can still get you a reasonably successful product such as the Playstation Network.

So yeah. In case you hadn’t noticed, I could actually write a book on this topic. A fat one, filled with amusing anecdotes about ants and rubber mallets at companies I’ve worked at. But I will never get this little rant published, and you’ll never get it read, unless I start to wrap up.

That one last thing that Google doesn’t do well is Platforms. We don’t understand platforms. We don’t “get” platforms. Some of you do, but you are the minority. This has become painfully clear to me over the past six years. I was kind of hoping that competitive pressure from Microsoft and Amazon and more recently Facebook would make us wake up collectively and start doing universal services. Not in some sort of ad-hoc, half-assed way, but in more or less the same way Amazon did it: all at once, for real, no cheating, and treating it as our top priority from now on.

But no. No, it’s like our tenth or eleventh priority. Or fifteenth, I don’t know. It’s pretty low. There are a few teams who treat the idea very seriously, but most teams either don’t think about it all, ever, or only a small percentage of them think about it in a very small way.

It’s a big stretch even to get most teams to offer a stubby service to get programmatic access to their data and computations. Most of them think they’re building products. And a stubby service is a pretty pathetic service. Go back and look at that partial list of learnings from Amazon, and tell me which ones Stubby gives you out of the box. As far as I’m concerned, it’s none of them. Stubby’s great, but it’s like parts when you need a car.

A product is useless without a platform, or more precisely and accurately, a platform-less product will always be replaced by an equivalent platform-ized product.

Google+ is a prime example of our complete failure to understand platforms from the very highest levels of executive leadership (hi Larry, Sergey, Eric, Vic, howdy howdy) down to the very lowest leaf workers (hey yo). We all don’t get it. The Golden Rule of platforms is that you Eat Your Own Dogfood. The Google+ platform is a pathetic afterthought. We had no API at all at launch, and last I checked, we had one measly API call. One of the team members marched in and told me about it when they launched, and I asked: “So is it the Stalker API?” She got all glum and said “Yeah.” I mean, I was joking, but no… the only API call we offer is to get someone’s stream. So I guess the joke was on me.

Microsoft has known about the Dogfood rule for at least twenty years. It’s been part of their culture for a whole generation now. You don’t eat People Food and give your developers Dog Food. Doing that is simply robbing your long-term platform value for short-term successes. Platforms are all about long-term thinking.

Google+ is a knee-jerk reaction, a study in short-term thinking, predicated on the incorrect notion that Facebook is successful because they built a great product. But that’s not why they are successful. Facebook is successful because they built an entire constellation of products by allowing other people to do the work. So Facebook is different for everyone. Some people spend all their time on Mafia Wars. Some spend all their time on Farmville. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of different high-quality time sinks available, so there’s something there for everyone.

Our Google+ team took a look at the aftermarket and said: “Gosh, it looks like we need some games. Let’s go contract someone to, um, write some games for us.” Do you begin to see how incredibly wrong that thinking is now? The problem is that we are trying to predict what people want and deliver it for them.

You can’t do that. Not really. Not reliably. There have been precious few people in the world, over the entire history of computing, who have been able to do it reliably. Steve Jobs was one of them. We don’t have a Steve Jobs here. I’m sorry, but we don’t.

Larry Tesler may have convinced Bezos that he was no Steve Jobs, but Bezos realized that he didn’t need to be a Steve Jobs in order to provide everyone with the right products: interfaces and workflows that they liked and felt at ease with. He just needed to enable third-party developers to do it, and it would happen automatically.

I apologize to those (many) of you for whom all this stuff I’m saying is incredibly obvious, because yeah. It’s incredibly frigging obvious. Except we’re not doing it. We don’t get Platforms, and we don’t get Accessibility. The two are basically the same thing, because platforms solve accessibility. A platform is accessibility.

So yeah, Microsoft gets it. And you know as well as I do how surprising that is, because they don’t “get” much of anything, really. But they understand platforms as a purely accidental outgrowth of having started life in the business of providing platforms. So they have thirty-plus years of learning in this space. And if you go to msdn.com, and spend some time browsing, and you’ve never seen it before, prepare to be amazed. Because it’s staggeringly huge. They have thousands, and thousands, and THOUSANDS of API calls. They have a HUGE platform. Too big in fact, because they can’t design for squat, but at least they’re doing it.

Amazon gets it. Amazon’s AWS (aws.amazon.com) is incredible. Just go look at it. Click around. It’s embarrassing. We don’t have any of that stuff.

Apple gets it, obviously. They’ve made some fundamentally non-open choices, particularly around their mobile platform. But they understand accessibility and they understand the power of third-party development and they eat their dogfood. And you know what? They make pretty good dogfood. Their APIs are a hell of a lot cleaner than Microsoft’s, and have been since time immemorial.

Facebook gets it. That’s what really worries me. That’s what got me off my lazy butt to write this thing. I hate blogging. I hate… plussing, or whatever it’s called when you do a massive rant in Google+ even though it’s a terrible venue for it but you do it anyway because in the end you really do want Google to be successful. And I do! I mean, Facebook wants me there, and it’d be pretty easy to just go. But Google is home, so I’m insisting that we have this little family intervention, uncomfortable as it might be.

After you’ve marveled at the platform offerings of Microsoft and Amazon, and Facebook I guess (I didn’t look because I didn’t want to get too depressed), head over to developers.google.com and browse a little. Pretty big difference, eh? It’s like what your fifth-grade nephew might mock up if he were doing an assignment to demonstrate what a big powerful platform company might be building if all they had, resource-wise, was one fifth grader.

Please don’t get me wrong here — I know for a fact that the dev-rel team has had to FIGHT to get even this much available externally. They’re kicking ass as far as I’m concerned, because they DO get platforms, and they are struggling heroically to try to create one in an environment that is at best platform-apathetic, and at worst often openly hostile to the idea.

I’m just frankly describing what developers.google.com looks like to an outsider. It looks childish. Where’s the Maps APIs in there for Christ’s sake? Some of the things in there are labs projects. And the APIs for everything I clicked were… they were paltry. They were obviously dog food. Not even good organic stuff. Compared to our internal APIs it’s all snouts and horse hooves.

And also don’t get me wrong about Google+. They’re far from the only offenders. This is a cultural thing. What we have going on internally is basically a war, with the underdog minority Platformers fighting a more or less losing battle against the Mighty Funded Confident Producters.

Any teams that have successfully internalized the notion that they should be externally programmable platforms from the ground up are underdogs — Maps and Docs come to mind, and I know GMail is making overtures in that direction. But it’s hard for them to get funding for it because it’s not part of our culture. Maestro’s funding is a feeble thing compared to the gargantuan Microsoft Office programming platform: it’s a fluffy rabbit versus a T-Rex. The Docs team knows they’ll never be competitive with Office until they can match its scripting facilities, but they’re not getting any resource love. I mean, I assume they’re not, given that Apps Script only works in Spreadsheet right now, and it doesn’t even have keyboard shortcuts as part of its API. That team looks pretty unloved to me.

Ironically enough, Wave was a great platform, may they rest in peace. But making something a platform is not going to make you an instant success. A platform needs a killer app. Facebook — that is, the stock service they offer with walls and friends and such — is the killer app for the Facebook Platform. And it is a very serious mistake to conclude that the Facebook App could have been anywhere near as successful without the Facebook Platform.

You know how people are always saying Google is arrogant? I’m a Googler, so I get as irritated as you do when people say that. We’re not arrogant, by and large. We’re, like, 99% Arrogance-Free. I did start this post — if you’ll reach back into distant memory — by describing Google as “doing everything right”. We do mean well, and for the most part when people say we’re arrogant it’s because we didn’t hire them, or they’re unhappy with our policies, or something along those lines. They’re inferring arrogance because it makes them feel better.

But when we take the stance that we know how to design the perfect product for everyone, and believe you me, I hear that a lot, then we’re being fools. You can attribute it to arrogance, or naivete, or whatever — it doesn’t matter in the end, because it’s foolishness. There IS no perfect product for everyone.

And so we wind up with a browser that doesn’t let you set the default font size. Talk about an affront to Accessibility. I mean, as I get older I’m actually going blind. For real. I’ve been nearsighted all my life, and once you hit 40 years old you stop being able to see things up close. So font selection becomes this life-or-death thing: it can lock you out of the product completely. But the Chrome team is flat-out arrogant here: they want to build a zero-configuration product, and they’re quite brazen about it, and Fuck You if you’re blind or deaf or whatever. Hit Ctrl-+ on every single page visit for the rest of your life.

It’s not just them. It’s everyone. The problem is that we’re a Product Company through and through. We built a successful product with broad appeal — our search, that is — and that wild success has biased us.

Amazon was a product company too, so it took an out-of-band force to make Bezos understand the need for a platform. That force was their evaporating margins; he was cornered and had to think of a way out. But all he had was a bunch of engineers and all these computers… if only they could be monetized somehow… you can see how he arrived at AWS, in hindsight.

Microsoft started out as a platform, so they’ve just had lots of practice at it.

Facebook, though: they worry me. I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure they started off as a Product and they rode that success pretty far. So I’m not sure exactly how they made the transition to a platform. It was a relatively long time ago, since they had to be a platform before (now very old) things like Mafia Wars could come along.

Maybe they just looked at us and asked: “How can we beat Google? What are they missing?”

The problem we face is pretty huge, because it will take a dramatic cultural change in order for us to start catching up. We don’t do internal service-oriented platforms, and we just as equally don’t do external ones. This means that the “not getting it” is endemic across the company: the PMs don’t get it, the engineers don’t get it, the product teams don’t get it, nobody gets it. Even if individuals do, even if YOU do, it doesn’t matter one bit unless we’re treating it as an all-hands-on-deck emergency. We can’t keep launching products and pretending we’ll turn them into magical beautiful extensible platforms later. We’ve tried that and it’s not working.

The Golden Rule of Platforms, “Eat Your Own Dogfood”, can be rephrased as “Start with a Platform, and Then Use it for Everything.” You can’t just bolt it on later. Certainly not easily at any rate — ask anyone who worked on platformizing MS Office. Or anyone who worked on platformizing Amazon. If you delay it, it’ll be ten times as much work as just doing it correctly up front. You can’t cheat. You can’t have secret back doors for internal apps to get special priority access, not for ANY reason. You need to solve the hard problems up front.

I’m not saying it’s too late for us, but the longer we wait, the closer we get to being Too Late.

I honestly don’t know how to wrap this up. I’ve said pretty much everything I came here to say today. This post has been six years in the making. I’m sorry if I wasn’t gentle enough, or if I misrepresented some product or team or person, or if we’re actually doing LOTS of platform stuff and it just so happens that I and everyone I ever talk to has just never heard about it. I’m sorry.

But we’ve gotta start doing this right.

Googler Calls Google+ a “Knee-Jerk Reaction” and “A Study in Short-term Thinking”
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • http://www.shift4.com Steve Sommers

    Originally when I read the headline and teaser I thought this was another employee trashing his company in a public forum or a social media site and I thought he should be fired. After reading the story, and if it was truly an accidental public post and meant for internal viewers only, I think he should be commended. Albeit harsh, it does seem to be very constructive and an opinion that should be shared (well, I guess it depends on your boss and the political structure of the organization). Sometimes the emperor needs to be told that he is not wearing clothes.

    • http://www.webpronews.com/ Chris Crum

      Yeah, I mean, it’s not as though this stuff he didn’t want his employers to see, as ballsy as it may seem. Now Eric Schmidt is on there. Maybe he didn’t want to miss this kind of stuff.

    • http://cass-hacks.com Craig

      Were he still working for Amazon, he would have been out the door before it had a chance to close and hit him on the back-side.

      From my experience, Google actually thrives on constructive criticism, which this is clearly an example of. Unfortunately, especially in this case, it is not all actioned on.

  • Obie

    We must be wise with our freedoms. Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you should.

  • Ron

    It’s unfortunate that this was waylaid, but–of the content that has been provided here–it’s an intelligent and responsible comment on a massive investment. Every company should have a majority of workers who can be this open, honest and clearly spoken.

    Most don’t even have ONE.

    • http://www.webpronews.com/ Chris Crum

      He’s certainly gotten a lot of praise for what he’s said. Still, he may have laid it on a little thick at times. Specifically, lines like ““Google+ is a prime example of our complete failure to understand platforms from the very highest levels of executive leadership (hi Larry, Sergey, Eric, Vic, howdy howdy)…” Although, I guess if you’re looking to get their attention, that’s one way to do it.

  • http://www.PlacesToEatOkay.com Steven

    Where Google+ got it wrong is they didn’t have search from the start. I mean a company know for search launches a product they know will need search capabilities and still won’t add that functionality into it. A full feature API would be nice, but easily can be added at any time. Where Google continues to get it wrong is they haven’t launched anything new except updating the circles and adding a few games. Big deal. I think Google+ is more like a scaled down version of Google Wave. When an employee states their mind I applaud them. It’s rare that you even hear what Google employees think about their own products other than to praise it. To be honest if Google were to simply create Google+ as a hub to connect all these social networking sites into one I think that’s where Google+ could really have a great system. I chat through Yahoo messenger for Facebook chat since Yahoo added that functionality through Facebook’s API. I don’t see why Google couldn’t add chat functionality of their own and/or even let Yahoo let users post to their Google+ profile and chat through Google+ through Yahoo Messenger.

    • http://www.webpronews.com/ Chris Crum

      They definitely should have had search from the start.

    • http://www.prismatic-app.com Paul

      No way is an API an optional extra in this day and age. Can you imagine Twitter without an API? If you could only Tweet from their website? Google+ will come alive with true 3rd party mobile apps – Tweetdeck, Foursquare, all the other apps that currently post straight to Facebook and Twitter. Then when people are out in the world living their lives, they can share with Google+ as it happens. Yes you can do that with the Google+ official app, but that’s about it.

  • Donald Trump

    Steve, you’re fired.

  • http://www.LanceFrank.com Lance Frank

    A well written “rant” indeed!

  • John

    I am not happy at all with Google+ …..There is almost nothing there and have not seen anything added since I joined

  • http://www.sfpincchicago.com Shadow Fire Promotions, Inc.

    If only every company allowed employees or contractors to speak their minds, you’d likely have a much better work environment. Instead, most companies will fire you for daring to criticise what they do.

  • http://blog.siliconpublishing.com Max Dunn

    LOL, I just tried Google+ and I couldn’t agree more with this guy’s opinions. I have long felt Google is like a spoiled kid that inherited a fortune… they did actually earn what they’ve got by having the right search algorithm at the right time, but ever since that and some exploitation of it with advertising, they’ve tossed out 5th class software with fundamentally dim understanding, and gotten half lucky in a couple cases, more often than not abandoning their offerings, as will hopefully be the case with Google+. A copy of facebook may make alot of sense, a really stupid copy makes them look stupid. I imagine they could do something that would entice usage, between exploiting what remains of their search monopoly or investing some of their fortune in a rethink, but on the surface Google+ is a sad example of what can happen when a company gets too fat.

  • Jodie

    Do you really believe that his posting to the public was an error. Please!!!!

    • http://www.alda-architects.co.uk Alan

      I also have my doubts.

  • Chris54

    The message of the post is, you should not mix internal and external tools (or products) together. Ever.

    • http://cass-hacks.com Craig

      There is no such thing as an ‘internal’ only tool.

      With concepts similar to the ‘rogue engineer’ and the like, publishing an API for internal use only that couldn’t survive in the ‘wild’ of public access is nothing more than security through obscurity.

  • DavidH

    I certainly hope this employee of Google does not get impacted from what is an honest mistake. Senior Management at Google has take this as a lesson learned and seek more input from their obvisously talented team members. But far to often management works in a scret bubble because they have all the answers..LOL.

    Creating an open and truly transparent environment leads to innovation, qaulity of work life and superior delivery of products and services.

  • DMZ

    Ahem,

    Yegge deserves the medal of honor! What the main problem in Google as Yegge alluded to is that Google made it’s “name” in the search biz by figuring out what people “Really Wanted”. But not much else really works that way.

    They apply that sort of thinking to everything!

    I hope they DO fire him, because this dude has real talent. Not the kiss up type of talent that Google already has too much of!

    DMZ

  • http://cass-hacks.com Craig

    I think what was written could and does apply to thousands of developers working for thousands of companies.

    It is most interesting in Google’s case, at least for me, because one of the things that made Google what it is is the concept that, ‘He who dies with the most data, wins.’.

    But, data is worthless without a platform to leverage it.

    Google does try but the ‘platform’ is so data source centric and disparate and split amongst the various sources of data, e.g. Webmaster tools based on search, Analytics based on stats harvested from site usage, Adsense and Adwords data from each of their respective applications but, there is no overarching platform or architecture available to fully make use of all the information, read ‘data’, and make it available internally if not externally on a limited basis.

    Dealing with large amounts of varied data without a platform to provide data agnostic api’s possible is painful. It surprises me that Google hasn’t figured that out yet.

    I sincerely hope they do though. Look what Amazon does with the right concept compared to what they do wrong and then consider what Google could do with all the other things they do right as well.

    It gives me Google-bumps just thinking about the possibilities!

  • http://www.berlinpacific.com Anders Mikkelsen

    This was very interesting.

    He definitely gets the big picture. The reason why Microsoft was so successful was because they got platforms. (Obviously they’re unclear how to create the next platform, but they’re still a huge company.)

    Apple on the other hand was run by benevolent tyrant. While setting the bar for interface, it didn’t really take off until technology enabled the creation of iThings. Apple had a big problem creating a platform that took off and enabled developers to develop business products for Apple. (Apparently this isn’t still an issue.)

    Jobs thought IBM would win if Apple didn’t. Instead Microsoft succeeded by creating a platform and took over. (IBM had to re-invent itself as a company that tied system together.) Microsoft unleashed innovation from multiple sources. Jobs by contrast relied on Jobs to innovate.

    It was fascinating see how Amazon succeeded. This is a good example of how someone used his centralized power to put in rules that enable decentralization and enable people to work together.

  • http://www.webmarketingtips4u.net TPJaveton

    Hey Chris,

    This is certainly a unique type of article which you don’t get every day.

    Maybe this software engineer is right and maybe not, only time will tell. But he seems to have a tendency (innate as it were) to limit his employment duration to 61/2 years, or thereabouts, with a given company. This is the quote that caught my attention:

    “I was at Amazon for about six and a half years, and now I’ve been at Google for that long…”

    What struck me is not what he said about his present employer’s prize product but that he had the chuzpa to say it in the first place and then proceded to publish it – albeit accidently – to the world. Maybe he’s reached his limit with this employer and is ready to move on to another company. I certainly get that feeling.

    Very interesting article, Chris. Thanks for sharing it!

    TPJ-

  • Bob

    WOW! WOW! WOW! I hadn’t even finished reading the letter and had to stop right about here:

    “The problem is that we are trying to predict what people want and deliver it for them.”

    I’m telling you Google needs to hire more of these engineers who actually have a life and know what people really want. Most of these engineers at Google live in their own little code world.

    Yeah, that’s Google’s problem right there with search and everything else for many years; playing God trying to predict the world. Finally an engineer with common sense! The Herman Cain at Google do you dig me? This engineer is dangerous, very dangerous! 1998 Larry/Sergey 2.0. Should leave Google and try to strike it on his own!

  • http://website-in-a-weekend.net/ Dave Doolin

    Reading the whole thing, the criticism which was quoted is a pretty small part of it.

    Wish I owned a company big enough to hire this guy.

  • http://get-business-online.com/ Gal

    Brave man, Steve, not to mention technology-wise (we’ll excuse this particular fumble, right?). However, Google is not a social company at the core, it’s a search company, and Google+ and the +1 button are search plays.

    I’ve actually been dying to have the ability to post to Google+ from HootSuite or Seesmic, but no API, so I definitely feel that pain, but Google is sure to whip up something useful shortly. Anyone who can come up with Google Chrome, AdWords Analytics, etc (whether by themselves or through “other means”) can bridge this type of gap and move to the front.

  • http://www.prepaidplans.com.au Arthur | prepaidplans

    I think the platform has yet to find its place. We all wanted to try and now don’t know what to do with it and how much, with whom to interact.

    Facebook works because people you know socially are on it. Not everyone has 1000 friends.

    Question is, how long does it have before they begin to question its worth? If it is however a layer of what is to come then maybe we wait and see. In the mean time it is pretty quite out there.

  • http://www.CaptainCyberzone.com CaptainCyberzone

    I see Facebook as a great extemporaneous idea: college kid spotting a hot chick or guy and wanting to hit on said attraction but only knows fleeting image … the answer … an online “yearbook” for the college where info on the hot chick or guy can be found. A basic want/need fullfilled … an instant hit. And it build from there, there was no “big” game plan.
    Now, to try and jump in, in hindsight, to copy the “winning” formula and come-up with a better “Facebook” could lead to the Edsel.
    So, Steve Yegge’s post was constructive criticism. I don’t see the big deal. If I were Google I’d encourage this behavior; if Ford [the company] had … just think, there’d be no “Edsel”, just Edsel Ford.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home Alec Ward

    I use google for picasa, docs, gmail, blogger, I cant stand the pointlessness and stupidity of facebook, especially the front man (but I couldn’t stand jobs either,) but, they never seem to get anything just right, they stop a particularly useful feature (e.g. HTML in docs) and their design is sometimes appalling (e.g. new interface in blogger) When I come across software like open office, I often find myself thinking, if only google could do something as well as this. Why do I carry on using them, well I’m not quite sure I can answer that with any logic !!

  • http://www.denver-criminaldefenselawyer.com V. Iyer

    This incident is sad from a human perspective. I am sure the poster in questtion is struck with remorse or embarrassment. Google has grown into a super duper mega giant within a short few years as compared to other giants that have taken ten times of years to get where Google is. I hope that the leadership in Google are enlightened enough to see the Gift this poster has accidentally given the other engineers at Google. Therefore, Google, I hope will be proactive and not reactivate or retaliatory. If the leadership at Google is confident, secure and at ease under their own skin they will do as I hope. If they do otherwise then we will know they are just fakes and not an innovative company but just like the usual suspects. I always believe in looking at the positive side in everyone. I am an optimist. An eternal one.

    Lets hope something good comes out of this accident and the Google engineers will include like reminder system just like they have when you are trying to delete emails or something to give you pause like a private icon to prevent this type of accidents by other users.

    Google should reward the poster for his Gift to Google. Lucky it happened to someone in Google and not an ordinary user like me or other hundreds of millions other users.

  • http://www.greenplan.pt Greenplan

    Love it!
    https://plus.google.com/114588982706728360930/about

  • http://krisztianpanczel.com/ Krisztian

    Yeah not much of a criticism for Google actually … Bezos got more from the guy than Google, even thought his platform works and he ‘gets it’, he does not put him in the best perspective.
    It’s interesting this post is being hyped about Google while it’s not that bad at all after reading the entire original post.

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom