Newflash: Google is not an open source project that you can bitch about not including you in the loop on changes. I think the attempt by the author to paint Google engineers as aloof and out of touch was trite and intellectually lazy.<p>Google is a mature service now that many rely on and then as a result feel as though they <i>should</i> have a say in how it's changed (or not). Combine this with the fact that almost any extension of Google's service can encroach on <i>established</i> business models and you get a veritable sh*tstorm anytime Google rolls out anything new and different.<p>This search feature actually serves Google's core purpose well: To help people find what they want .. quickly. Google's mission is not to protect existing business models (Amazon) or boost web traffic to your site.
> Google’s disconnect from the outside world keeps growing.<p>> Google has a chronic communication problem.<p>I actually think these things are rather true. This article did really nothing to persuade me and was argumentatively weak. Also, the part where the author essentially tells the 70% white male tech crowd to check their privilege was a non-sequitor as well.
We've seen a lot of articles talking about big dangers to Google lately. It's an interesting topic but I'm skeptical there's anything there. Because Google has got so many things going on everywhere, it's easy to find and latch onto missteps that fit with your preconceived notions of why Google is in big trouble.<p>In the meantime, big picture they are still the best search in quality, market share and revenue in 200 countries and continue to out-innovate the competition. The primary threat to their existence over the first decade, MS/IE, has been vanquished and Android is the future global OS and Chrome is the best in breed browser. Despite the constant privacy chatter, Gmail is still the #1 platform a decade after launch and they are again out-innovating everyone else in the email space. China is of course a problem for Google but that's a decision they are comfortable with for now.
"...scores of young people, mostly male (70%) mostly white (61%), produced by the same set of top universities..."<p>I guess he just described e.g. French CEOs and traders as well. But if techies are doing this, then it's suddenly so wrong.
While the specific problem he pointed out is relevant, the rest of the article is just speculative. Does he have any proof that parts of Google is disconnected from each other? He seems to have an issue with the perks of Google (really just perks of tech) and sort of seized upon this one insistence to expound on that and other things he doesn't like.
I think this is worth addressing in reverse order:<p>> Two: Google has a chronic communication problem.<p>This hasn't hurt them so far. They do a poor job communicating - but their products so far have been up to snuff & there aren't real alternatives (yet). This could & will only hurt them if they screw up the next point.<p>> One: Google’s disconnect from the outside world keeps growing. More than ever, it looks like an insulated community, nurturing its own vision of the digital world, with less and less concern for its users who also happen to be its customers.<p>This I think is the bigger threat. They keep pushing innovations or new things on people Google <i>really</i> wants to see happen, that real people are saying "no, we don't care about." Stuff like G+ for users and stuff like this example where they're actively making their advertisers angry.<p>The big issue here is that if they keep producing things that people don't care about - then the product quality drops and opens up space for competitors - which really <i>could</i> hurt them.<p>Very rarely do you see these massive companies shrink because of some new startup that jumped into the space with a superior product - typically it's because they messed themselves up internally and opened up an area for another company to jump on.
Hardly. These are distant problems in my opinion and even if they were to become critical in addressing, their scope is not so large that they would affect Google as a company in any noticeable way (IMHO).
When I put HomeDepot in the search bar, I'm searching for HomeDepot products so putting a targeted search bar for HomeDepot in there is a feature, not a problem. Thank you, Google!<p>"scores of young people, mostly male (70%) mostly white (61%)," Is this article about age-ism, sexism and race, too? Having 61% white employees is far above most companies and hardly "mostly white". If you say "mostly", I'm assuming 90% or more.<p>But what's the problem with that? are These authors saying white employees are bad? Or that a 60% white force is bad? I'm sick and tired of the "white people" bashing for no good reason.<p>"...the same set of top universities (in that order: Stanford, UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, MIT, UCLA…). They are pampered in the best possible way, with free food, on location dental care, etc. "<p>Again, he's bashing this as if it's a bad thing. They don't mention the reason for the so-called "pampering" which isn't at all for what they're trying to give the impression it really is for.<p>"In practical terms, they fire first and reflect afterwards. "<p>This is an absolutely, thoughtless comment. In the restaurant parlance, it's called a "soft opening", where you open the doors and let people discover your place while you learn what works and what doesn't and what breaks. It's a smart thing to do when you can afford it or have the time but these authors think it's a problem that will ruin the company and an example of bad communication.<p>I'm not reading the rest of it. There are more important things for me to do.