Google's fetish for serving more users with fewer employees has been responsible for the failure of so many of their initiatives I often wonder who's behind it.
Businesses which scale by hiring are much harder to grow and tend to be a lot less profitable. As a result, internet companies tend to see such businesses as not worth being in. Sure, there are lots of successful companies which operate this way, but Google sees it as an unacceptably high opportunity cost. Rather than pour resources into growing a scale by hiring business, they would rather put the resources toward a different business that they think they can scale with non-linear hiring.
Given this, it surprises me that Google is going after the enterprise cloud business. It is pretty well known that such businesses scale fairly linearly with sales and support staff. My understanding is that they know this and are attempting to scale the business this way instead of their usual strategy of ignoring the issue and hoping it will go away.
GCP can't get their act together to get a consistent enterprise sales model done....
Ha ha. Last I heard, Google were actively trying to remove their engineers from client engagements, and replace them with third party "Google preferred suppliers". They really don't want to ever be face to face with a customer.
It's too easy to forget that if you do not take care of the users, they will leave and take the payers with them. Right now it's hard to escape Google.
But a little river carved the Grand Canyon, and as more people leave the services and provide easy to use alternatives, more people will follow. My guess is that, even though it might take 20 years if Google does not redirect their focus to be more equilaterally supportive of their users then Google will inevitably become a modern Yahoo.
Rim to rim, the canyon is pretty darned wide.
Maybe the root issue was letting 4 private companies control the entire public debate with dangerous moderation practices.
When something goes wrong, Apple, Amazon and Netflix (as examples) all manage to provide free, robust customer service.
Google can afford to support it's customers. They choose not to.
This is the reason I was able to sway the C suite at my last position to avoid anything Google. I'm estimating it's probably around $9m/month revenue they lost from GCE and GApps.
They're simply not trustworthy, no/terrible support, and capricious about arbitrarily holding user's data hostage when some random automated abuse system decides you're horrible.
System Engineers don't let fellow system engineers use anything google for production purposes.
To be a person is to not be reduced to an array of arbitrary scores in a worksheet.
"The McNamara fallacy (also known as the quantitative fallacy), named for Robert McNamara, the US Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968, involves making a decision based solely on quantitative observations (or metrics) and ignoring all others. The reason given is often that these other observations cannot be proven."
That is indeed....your opinion.
They are happy to reap the benefits so it is fair to put the costs on them.
How are you helping?
This is not a new attack in either type or scope. It's merely more visible.
> How are you helping?
Not at all. I don't benefit from YouTube's business model so why do you think that I have some obligation to help YouTube?
Of course, since you think that I have some obligation, you surely do. What are you doing besides attacking people who point out that this is a foreseeable consequences of YT's business decisions?