[fdsfsaa]

> Also, the areas in which Microsoft is revitalizing itself are green field projects like the cloud and some other interesting hardware/software integration

The example I have in mind is in a big legacy product. I can't get more specific without outing myself, but it's very far from greenfield.

> Specialized labor does help.

Specialization of labor can also hurt. I've found myself frustrated with security people in the past because they spend so much time thinking about security threats that they start to veto massively useful functionality on very flimsy security grounds. Broad exposure helps too.

> AB testing on wireframes helps and gets most of the edge cases. After you roll out to production things get hairy.

Why? There's no rule that says that everyone needs to see the same UI in production.

> Otto was based from Google expats, one from Google maps and one from the Google self driving car company. Your point is?

It's telling that Google autonomous drivers experts had to leave the company in order to get their work into a real live product.

[jimmywanger]

> Broad exposure helps too.

It seems as though you haven't really encountered Google process in person, you've just heard stories. Security people do have a day job, they just do security on the side because they've expressed interest/aptitude.

My point remains. I'd rather have a plumber fix my plumbing or check over plumbing designs rather than an enthusiastic amateur.

> Why? There's no rule that says that everyone needs to see the same UI in production.

They don't. Google constantly runs A/B testing. Once you get it to production you've already invested the time in productionizing it.

> It's telling that Google autonomous drivers experts had to leave the company in order to get their work into a real live product.

Or that it's be far more lucrative to be acquired than continue working on Google X. You can't ascribe motives to their actions.