[echelon]

Google can pretend they're not IBM, but that doesn't make it true.

Google no longer innovates or launches products of note. They throw ideas at the wall, like spaghetti, and hope things stick.

Perverse incentives create competing products, dead end projects, and invariably everything created winds up getting cancelled.

Google got drunk off of easy search ad revenue. Their founding leadership went off to do zeppelins and politicking. Now that golden goose looks like it may be cooked.

Google had the Bell Labs of AI research, but their ability to build product around it looks a lot more like IBM Watson.

Over the next half decade, their top tier talent will leave and get venture funding to do their own things with their own equity.

[lxgr]

> They throw ideas at the wall, like spaghetti, and hope things stick.

Yes, and whether they stick or not, they tear down the wall after 2-3 years because they seemingly still haven’t figured out how to internally incentivize KTLO/running stable products (other than a few flagship ones) rather than building shiny new things.

[m0zzie]

Did you mean to reply to a different comment? I'm not sure what relevance this has to my comment which you're replying to?

[echelon]

I meant it in response to your comment.

> As a Staff Eng who leads and mentors engineers who live in a world where they have no choice but to use Google SDKs and services, I find many of the developer-focused talks invaluable for getting others in my team up to speed on what's new and what's coming soon.

This sounds identical to IBM developer outreach. Or Ballmer-era Microsoft. Similar straightjackets, captive audience.

We'll see if Google can excite people about AI here, but I'm doubtful.