If you have ever spent time in a FAANG research org - it can be incredibly frustrating to see so much lack of focus. Everybody does what they want. This is not an issue for most e.g. ML research (my org) because there is so much money to go around, and researchers will leave if they are too constrained.
For hardware/critical projects or customer retention, this is very much an issue. Just look at how the TF ecosystem developed API wise.
There can literally be a project with enormous importance for an ecosystem where multiple teams under one VP do the same thing slightly differently. VPs do nothing and have no opinion on the details. Internal and external users get frustrated because there is no clarity.
If you do a project where you have resources for just one shot in a given timespan, this simply won't cut it.
Martinis seems like a very focused leader. The problem chosen was very specific to what they knew they could do with the technology, assuming only that the theory works. He had to say no to business units asking for application value, no to easier paths to publication, no to other people trying to build their careers on a different problem, because he needed everybody’s best ideas on the one problem. But many people can’t adapt to a new problem, and many leaders can’t tell the difference between an idea for solving the problem, and an idea for solving a different problem.
The wiring thing sounds petty, but maybe it was really a divergence. I don’t know. It sounds like part of the problem is that he achieved the goal and didn’t know what to lead with next.
Also, don't underestimate wiring in a quantum computer. I don't know the details of Google's system but Quantum computers uses analog RF pulses to interact with the Qubit system which are then later digitized. The design of a wiring system in a Quantum computer is similar to what you would see designing a high end phased array radar system with the need for everything to be phase matched, highly stable, and temperature controlled except that a quantum computer is also extremely susceptible to cross talk at the interfaces. Wiring a system of Google's scale can easily run into the $100k+ range in just material and manufacturing costs. If the other person didn't have any experimental experience like Martinis says, then he would almost certainly run into problems.
In my case, I am someone who wants to do everything from first principles whereas my study leader at the time unfortunately told me "you can't understand everything". Although that statement is true, you should at least try to understand one thing really as deep as you can. But what bothered me was that if I wanted to understand something deeply, I realised I had to do it myself. So what I can say is that you don't have to be completely unfocused; it could be that your interests and objectives are different in the group.
Long story short, my HonsBSc was a basically a failure and my MSc was a success for these reasons. The funny thing is that I get satisfaction today when I do anything that would have been a great honours project in my topic (signal analysis in bioinformatics).
As opposed to what? Everyone having their own personal sort of projects or splitting up in groups of two and three is natural in the academia research groups I’ve been in to.
What is wrong with that?
Have you ever thought about how much work it takes to deliver hardware? How many teams and processes and planning there are involved from physics level to software stack to deliver something usable? It's insane. And normal processor hardware is something people have experience with. For a physics experiment, virtually everything is custom made and you only have budget for a few fixes or trials on each component. There is just not much room for slack.
I'm actually speaking from my experience in experimental physics (solid state) labs. Certainly, you can't just have teams of two entirely deciding what to do independently of the group, but the level of control and dictation Martinis is speaking about seems like a whole different level.
He got pissed just because a theorist tried to come up with an alternate way of doing this wiring and the lab leader didn't shut it down in favor of just him researching the problem.
>The pattern seems familiar, take a succesful, self-propelled creative inventor, typically an engineer kind of person, put that person in a group where they need to submit to ideas of others, and things eventually go wrong
Not saying any view particular is right or wrong since these things usually are tricky
No one likes a 'silo' either.
That said, if someone has a proven track record in an area of expertise, it probably makes more sense to organise around them and move overlapping resource on to some another area of responsibility, if only for productivity's sake.
It would only be a bad idea, if no one was allowed to review or challenge the work produced by the aforementioned expert...
Who knows.
We only have one side of the argument here. I'm sure he'll find a better environment for himself very soon.
Thing is, it can be very brutal if you are flaky. It has a very low tolerance for bullshit/lack of expertise and people will not hesitate a second to call others out on it - even in public.