Hacker News Reader

Comment by diminish | Hacker News Reader

As an intensive user, everywhere on Google products, I feel the Microsoftization. This includes documentation with corporate jargon, the bloated and confusing Hangout fiasco, the frustrating way to connect multiple identities together.

Did they hire any corporate UX/UI/branding/marketing/documentation guys from Redmond recently, after Larry Page's CEOship?

View on HN

> Did they hire any corporate UX/UI/branding/marketing/documentation guys from Redmond recently, after Larry Page's CEOship?

Vic Gundotra was at Microsoft prior to joining Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Gundotra

That explains a lot

It's an inescapable reality: companies grow and grow bloated and complacent. It happened to IBM and Microsoft, it happened to Google and it's happening now for Facebook. Once corporate mentality sets in the company's soul is gone.

I saw Craig Newmark of Craig's List speak once after the late 90s bubble burst. He said people kept asking him why he didn't take up the many opportunities to make money he could have -- just one small ad on each page could have made hundreds of millions of dollars with hardly any change to the user experience. He calmly pointed out how many of them went bankrupt and had to change their ways. He seemed more than content with a site that delivered what its users wanted.

I'm sure they've made blunders along the way, but as far as I can tell they've remained true to their original ways. Wikipedia says they have a staff of 28.

My theory is that it involves excessively mediated reality. When Google was two guys, most of the people they talked to were not Google people. Now, my guess is that 95% of their conversations are with people they pay. Those people are more likely to tell them good things than bad things. And those people also think Google is pretty swell, because these who don't leave Google. And at Larry and Sergey's level, they probably aren't within three layers of external reality.

There's a diagnostic term: Acquired Situational Narcissism[1]. Basically, when a celebrity spends all their time around people who act like the celebrity is the most important person in the world, then they too start to believe it. I think there's a corporate version of that.

Imagine it: You created Google. You can buy anything. Everybody you spend time around defers to you. Of course you'd think you could do a better job of designing a social network than Facebook; half of humanity thinks that. The problem is that people will now let you do that.

Once you've done it, your very mediated reality makes it hard to know you've screwed up. Because everybody you talk to needs you to like them. Most of those people have gotten promoted a number of times, meaning they are very good at being liked by their bosses. And who doesn't like good news, especially about a pet project?

I'm not sure it's inescapable, but it certainly is the very common outcome.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism#Acquired_situational...

Google has also hired a huge number of Microsoft people, that's going to have an effect on company culture. As well as consultant types from places like Mackenzie, Accenture, etc.

That's the problem with growing fast, hiring like crazy, acquiring like crazy, is that you don't have enough time to assimilate people into company culture properly.

I recently had to use YouTube for a project, and it's marketers and "audience engagement" all the way down. Their Playbook is probably the best example of the inmates running the asylum: https://www.youtube.com/yt/playbook/.

As a YouTuber for six years I can't tell you how depressing its been to watch this shit happen.

I remember attending my first VidCon, I was 18 and just graduated on high school and my first YouTube channel basically got fucked due to the fact my Adsense getting disabled (RIGHT BEFORE MY FIRST PAYCHECK WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SENT).

When I went to talk to the YouTube staff attending the event they informed me that it was out of their hands and that there was nothing they could do which is bullshit considering the exact same thing happened to a bigger YouTuber and it was fixed within a day.

YouTube sees their big channels as the example to follow - if it works for them, it must work for everyone. They gave out the Playbooks at the last VidCon in physical form and re-reading them just make sick because its not about making great content, its about how to make the most money.

They encourage you to try to hook your audience in the first 15 seconds, use all caps in your video titles BECAUSE THIS GRABS THE AUDIENCE'S ATTENTION BY THE BALLS APPARENTLY, they want you to remember to make sure you remind them to always like comment and subscribe, and try to encourage discussion by posing questions to your audience.

I understand they want content creators making money but the least they could do is actually help us rather than just pat us on the back and lie to us "Yea, these changes are gonna help grow your channel" is what we hear every time there's a new YouTube layout implemented. My first VidCon was when they announced Cosmic Panda, with every update we get less and less. I think with Google+ we were all just kind of fed up with taking the crap Google fed us and actually got mad about it.

Everyone saw this as YouTubers being angsty and hostile for no reason when in reality friends of mine who make their livings off their YouTube were seeing their views drop at least 30% minimum. Some of my friends saw 50-60% drop in views which caused some of them to rethink what they were gonna do, a few quit because they just couldn't pay the bills anymore.

YouTube needs to understand that they're not just messing with a users experience but they're also messing with people's livelihoods. They don't seem to get that, they never have.

Sorry for the rant, I needed to vent.

If you ask old people, they will tell you the same story, but about IBM. Every generation has its great, innovative tech company turned evil mastermind story. It seems to be hard to avoid. I wonder who will be next.

Exactly when do you think IBM 'turned evil mastermind'?

Because for me, that was in 1933: http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

exactly. Larry Page reminds me of Steve Ballmer's remark on iPhone. I think Steve Ballmer is an excellent man, except having no idea about design: "... windows phone can DO email...". Larry Page thought Google can DO social, and he gets G+.

Same sentiments here.

Microsoft was the admirable company of the 90's for me, and more recently it's Apple and Google. I really hope Google doesn't continue on this path, though it seems to be unavoidable in some ways.

Don't be evil was a good start, it's too bad the motto is inversely proportional to capitalistic gains.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com