Area 120 – A workshop for Google's experimental products | Hacker News Reader

Area 120 – A workshop for Google's experimental products

area120.google.com

110 pointssidcool97 comments

This is just a sign-up page? That's not a substantive submission for HN. Here it's better to wait until a thing is actually available.

(It also unleashes the hounds of snark, as seen below.)

Do you want more messaging apps? This is how you get more messaging apps.

The main appeal for Googlers is that participating in Area 120 gets you out of doing Perf for an entire cycle. That's actually pretty huge.

When this was first unveiled internally I don't recall anyone saying this was more attractive than just leaving and creating your own startup. It never even crossed my mind when I decided to leave and start a new project, I can't understand what the upside would be.

"...What the upside would be"

A very low risk great shot at potentially leading a Google product and all the associated upsides?

What is "doing Perf" and how long is a cycle?

I imagine it means performance reviews

Performance Review. A cycle is 6 months.

im thinking they tend toward projects that aren't big enough to be their own thing. Ie a new feature to a project they're already working on internally. Or as a way to work on a project in another part of the company from your immediate. Both could be ways to move up/over within the company.

Assuming you meant "Perf[ormance reviews]", like a sibling comment suggested, don't you think Google can figure out how to assess someone, even if the environment is more-experimental than just plowing through well-defined backlog? They already have Research (capital R) teams for which they must have addressed this in some way, and those are probably even much less causal in their contribution to output relationship (which is what I presume the difficulty in measuring performance amounts to)?

1. Research teams at Google are unlike most other companies. You're expected to write code and deliver results.

2. It's not inability to measure Area 120'ers. Not putting participants through perf is ostensibly because they want to give a true entrepreneury environment where you are only measured by your product's success. Traditional performance review is...more complicated, to say the least.

The "Perf" process currently leads to some perverse incentives. I think part of the removal of Perf is to avoid those incentives for the more entrepreneurial efforts while also not penalizing Googlers that choose to work on those projects. Can't have good folks getting "Needs Improvement" or even "Meets Expectations" because their project didn't pan out.

When you leave Google to start your own startup: 1. In addition to a very uncertain economic future in the short term, you also have high chance of failure in the long term. 2. Google looses you as an employee.

It seems that A120 addresses both these issues.

Imagine there's a new accelerator called ZD. You have a new product idea, a prototype and a team. Instead of investing money for a few percent of the company, helping to refine your product market fit, and introducing you to investors they instead take 100% ownership, give you a comfortable salary, and keep you bunkered away from talking to people on the outside very much.

Would you rather personally take your idea to YC or ZD? Which of the two do you think would be more successful in the long run? Which environment will actually motivate the "founders" and stimulate them to create something great and useful?

Area 120 is awkwardly addressing the fact that 20% time is dying and isn't working as the R&D model that once drove so much innovation at Google. The name itself is an in-joke about the tendency for 20% time to only come after you've done the first 100%.

Some people don't have green card / US citizenship.

And of course everyone knows the Internet, computers and even the concept of businesses all cease to exist the moment you step onto the air-bridge at LAX.

This is a really good point against leaving Google to create a startup. At the same time, people were frustrated that Area 120 was only open to folks in Mountain View. Maybe that changed for future classes but I know it was an issue with the first one.

That has changed.

I love that those guys working on the machine-learning haircut robot are so willing to eat their own dogfood. It's still got a ways to go before it's believable but I can see the potential.

>I love that those guys working on the machine-learning haircut robot are so willing to eat their own dogfood.

I sure wish I hadn't been drinking water when I read this.

Is this a joke? I don't see anything about this on this webpage. I'd like to read more if this is serious.

2011: "more wood behind fewer arrows! Let's kill Labs"

2017: "argh! the wood is running away!! Let's resurrect Labs"

Is this a parody?

  ("Google") which is focused on launching experimental products which are iterated quickly, and which may be discontinued at any time.

No, really?

I would think it's an accurate description.

I tried twice scrolling down that page and couldn't manage to read more than ten actual words. I think my eyes tried to escape my body in revolt.

seems cool. But, in true Google style, has that whole "Let's stroke our profound selves off first" element to it.

There's something about this that makes me never want to work at Google. I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

You can play on your own cool ideas while working here, but we own all the ideas and upside.

That is still much better than a code monkey who is managed and told exactly what to do.

Would you rather sell hours of your life, or sell your dreams?

Google's not forcing employees to pursue every one of their side projects on 20% time, only giving them the option. They're still just as free as any of us plebs to leave and own their code.

Getting paid well to work on whatever project you want is a pretty nice dream.

If the alternative hinges on the odds of realizing those dreams successfully via the current startup ecosphere (and not getting fleeced by financial backers), I'd sell them. I'll always have plenty more where they came from.

Agree but, there is a happier place between these to points.

Like, I give my people time off for their projects, I help with mentorship, would help them go farther if needed. Let them own their ideas.

My objective as an employer isn't to extract all the value I can from an employee.

I was once told to stop working on a side project (outside of work hours) and the wording in my contract at the time made it a legit request.

Think I'd still prefer to own the IP though if it was my own thing.

Are you describing Google specifically, or any good employment?

More like: you can play with your own cool ideas while working here, so long as they're more "cool" than "useful"...and incorporate a green slideshow.

Why would a Googler do A120 vs. leaving and doing a startup and potentially quick-sale back to Google?

(I guess access to Google infrastructure could be worth it for some projects, and for people who have large stock grants who want to vest them out for another 6-12mo before leaving)

Risk.

Area 120 has bounded reward, but the downside risk is measured entirely in opportunity cost. If your goal is a quick sale, the upsides may be comparable as well.

Can someone at Area 120 make bringing back Google Reader a thing?

I'm serious.

Is the guy on the rhs of the 2nd photo of the slideshow working on an invisible computer? One would think that'd be the highlight.

He also has his right hand in his lap, and nobody opposite him. No idea what he's supposed to be doing.

https://area120.google.com/static/images/home/hi/Home_3_imag...

It looks to me like he's waiting for something or someone.

Okay, makes a bit more sense in full color. Kinda. But now the handless arm on the far rhs is throwing me off.

Sure, make an area120 account github and we'll follow it.

The assumption many have here is that all people build startups to get rich well truthfully thats what American start up scene has become. Reality is that most successful startups are not about making billions but solving a problem or multiple problems some people make a lot money solving those problems but most don't. Having a chance at solving a problem without bankrupting yourself and your family would be a good opportunity for many.

Ads optimization as the reason for life.

I'll throw out a lament. I wish Google had released that Robot Arm they built that could lift >10kg payloads. When I heard about it I was throwing money at the screen and wondering why nothing happened.

If you put floating/moving photo filters on a page, at least let users drag them at will. The lack of control on this page is driving me nuts.

Translation: Too many Googlers leave and go on to start their own companies. We're creating a playground where they can explore their ideas and we can keep the profits, as it should be.

Google pays well. Why not take the opportunity to swing for the fences without taking personal financial risk?

Because you'll forfeit your reward or upside for working hard on executing your idea, worse if it's successful where Google owns your IP and starts productizing it you've killed your opportunity to go start your own company around it.

But if you're not interested in starting a company, and instead want to work on interesting things while being paid very well, it sounds pretty good.

Your pay remains the same regardless. If you're not interested in any financial gain, sure it can be more enjoyable to spend your work hours on your own idea inside Google's cushy offices.

That's a strange assumption. I would think that any employee who pioneers a successful idea will land a leading role in the subsequent product development team and a bonus at least. Sure, the reward isn't as high as if you spun off your own startup but it won't be nothing.

Because as your patron Google ultimately calls the shots. You are still an employee beholden to your monolith employer.

Building your dreams within area 120 implies that they belong to Google. Personally, I would rather own the idea I'm passionate about than get paid to work on it.

Plus, former Google employees are some of the most hireable candidates in the world. They don't lose job security when they walk away to chase their startup dreams like most of us do.

Do you want to build Pied Piper or Nucleus?

> keep the profits

Yes the lucrative profits of the average startup :-D

Googlers can easily go to any tech company within weeks of their startup failure. For them there's little risk.

Other than the risk of taking home 1/4 their salary and working twice as long for years and finally leaving with nothing to show for it. Which is by far the most likely outcome.

Do they? What successful companies have been founded by ex-googlers? I don't think a ton, in income terms. I see this as far more marketing fluff and/or job ads than preemptive recuperation of insignificant future losses. (Though I do hope cockroachdb makes it big).

Pinterest [1] and Instagram [2] may be the two largest. And I guess technically Twitter [3]. But Google is so massive that I'm not sure it really would impact their overall market cap at this point. For example, Twitter is about 2% of Google's $640 billion market cap. Although, Instagram is worth around $50 billion now, which might be primarily because of Facebook, but in the most generous case could've added around 8% to Google's overall value, which is moderately significant.

Anyway, I applaud their effort, as I think it has a significant chance of empowering some people to build some awesome stuff that they were otherwise too hesitant to go at alone.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Silbermann

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Systrom

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Williams_(Internet_entrep...

It doesn't matter if they're successful or not. The point is that bright, hard-working people left Google, and chances are, they won't be back even if the startup doesn't pan out.

If they try out their idea in Area 120 instead, then a) Google can own the product if it ends up being good b) It has a better chance at success with Google behind it c) If it fails, the "founders" are more likely to rejoin the mothership

https://www.quora.com/What-successful-startups-have-been-fou...

There are many more, though.

Does this mean open access outside of google or something?

Can't believe this wasn't leaked...years ago?

It was a year ago. https://www.recode.net/2016/5/20/11718792/google-120-area-in...

google releases a dumb marketing site, fun!

So this gives people the opportunity to try Google products...

...that are even more likely to to be cancelled without warning than normal Google products?

I'm positively quivering with anticipation.

I liked Gmail labs' stuff. And some of it got incorporated into Gmail proper (and later inbox).

I for one was grateful for the "experimental" things I got the opportunity to use, e.g. cancel after send.

The thing about Gmail labs is they are (mostly) extra features that you could use or not, and which didn't leave you worse off than if you'd never used them if you started and then they were killed off

Fully fledged products have more risk. And I've felt burned by multiple Google products in the past.

Let's say the first product announced by Area 120 turns out to be a great new chat app. Would you recommend your friends all download it and start using it? :)

Edit: Confused Google Labs and Gmail labs, my bad. Removed nonsensical comment.

Are you speaking of labs being killed off in the hypothetical? As far as I can tell, it's still there...

I was thinking of Google Labs I guess, brain fart. Edited my comment. :(

>Let's say the first product announced by Area 120 turns out to be a great new chat app.

That's exactly what Google has been missing all these years: a chat app.

That's turning into the Google version of what one of the mods here called 'Wolfram derangement syndrome'.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10978871

Yes Google cancels stuff (usually not without warning). Experimental stuff? Even more likely to go nowhere, just as it says on the page. The response is, by this point, completely content-free.

Yes, this has become an HN meme/trope. The other one illustrated here is "what's up with web page design trends where I can't read the text or scroll properly?"

Just curious, do you post the same response when Microsoft announces products or services?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Discontinued_Microsof...

You can also add these to the list:

  Wunderlist
  Sunset
  Games for Windows
  Silverlight
  Zune
  Kin
  XNA
  PlaysForSure
  Flight Sim
  Expression Suite
  SteadyState
  Windows RT
  Windows Phone 7
  Forefront
  Front Page
  Money

Or Apple?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_discontinued_....

The difference between web services that Google provides and almost everything in both those lists is:

1) When a web service goes away, you can't keep using the old version that's installed on your PC/hardware you own.

2) In the vast majority of cases the products were not cancelled before the introduction of a replacement. Notable exceptions might include the Newton. And yes, it would probably quite normal to mention the Newton when a similar product was launched (i.e. the original iPhone) and may people did.

Microsoft has also cancelled services so I'm not sure why you're trying to make it sound any different. I have Steam games that have no online support anymore because Microsoft cancelled yet another Steam competitor service. I've lost track of how many times they've tried to take on Steam and lost. You would think they would have learned by now.

Some of the Microsoft products you listed have been around and successful for a really long time. I can only imagine some people being disappointed about Flight Simulator being dropped after about 24 years, but that's a very respectable product lifespan. When you look at Silverlight, that was very strategic to Microsoft, they put a lot of weight behind it, and them abandoning it after nine years isn't for a lack of trying. With Google it's more like floating an idea, that then people might get hooked on, for them to seemingly say: nah, never mind. Google probably has the numbers to back up these decisions, but for people that were buying into it, that's pretty sour, and it either has happened quite a few times with them, or they have a major perception problem around the matter.

Yes, some of those products and services that Microsoft has shut down do go back some way, but others such as Sunset and, the soon to be shut down, Wunderlist are very recent.

But neither of those companies have as thoroughly destroyed a standard as Google did with RSS. Apple in particular has almost always continued with a device to fill the hole left by a product(excluding the Newton).

RSS is still alive and well so I'm not sure where you get the idea that Google destroyed it by cancelling Google Reader.

>Apple in particular has almost always continued with a device to fill the hole left by a product(excluding the Newton).

And it was replaced with a significantly higher priced device.

Why such a negative response? I do not see how it is constructive at all..

A) Look: New Vaporware! B) Yeah but it's still vaporware

Not necessarily constructive, so much as pointing out a thing.

I can certainly see the sentiment. I also thought maybe this is like a startup incubator where the Google employees get some 'test customers' to actually see if their science project has legs. Because who doesn't like being a test customer right?

The optics are horribly bad here, to someone on the outside, hitting that landing page, it looks like "Gee we have these fans that will do almost anything to feel like they are on the 'inside', lets have a thought shower and see how we can exploit that!"

What's next, let us be early testers of the fully immersive VR environment? You know strap us into a harness, feed VR right to our brain, and harvest our thermal energy to power data centers?

How delightfully vague.

I couldn't spend more than 10 seconds attempting to read that website, what with all of the colorful shapes rushing this way and that.

How did we get back here in web design? It truly boggles the mind.

I was wondering what style they want to achieve with that.. is that swiss? Or even brutalist?

It's called Material Design, and it keeps getting worse. (unrestrained animation, oversaturated colors)

Not only that, but it took a solid minute of frustrated tapping to successfully hit the 'I agree' checkbox. Using chrome on iOS.

Even on a quick scroll down/up it kept re-animating. The person that decided that was a solid design idea should straight up feel bad.

I avidly utilize extensions to block annoying crap like that, is there anything to disable that sort of "feature"

What's really annoying is that most browsers actually support an accessibility feature called "prefers-reduced-motion"[1] in CSS media queries to tell a site not to do this sort of thing, but Google don't appear to use it.

[1] https://css-tricks.com/introduction-reduced-motion-media-que...

Thanks for that link. For years, I've been arguing that animation is an accessibility issue, but the situation keeps getting worse. I hope that there is a way to enable that on Linux and Android.

I miss the old web. Maybe I've grown too old, but I actually like a bunch of our retro interfaces. It was usually just a bunch of information with nothing fancy getting in the way.

Trying to open this on my old laptop results in a stuttering mess. If you disable WebGL it doesn't show as many flashy animations, which is a big improvement for me. I'm not sure how/if it's doable on browsers other than Safari, though. With Safari you can configure it so a permission prompt will show up when a site uses WebGL, and you can set it to one of Ask / Block / Allow / Allow Always. I have the default set to Ask, and will usually Block most requests, with the exception of websites I visit regularly and in cases where WebGL is clearly required.

This is the most Hooli thing ever.

Shut up Dinesh.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com