[ddkto]

It is interesting to consider this from a Stage-Gate vs Lean Startup perspective. These two product development processes can be seen as antithetical, but if you read the original sources (Winning at New Products and The Lean Startup), you find that they are both trying to achieve the exact same thing: delivering successful new products to market at minimal cost.

The differences between the two processes is a function of their environment. If you are working in a company with separate functional departments and a strong, existing brand, you need a step by step process to align everyone and get customer insight before launch. Stage-Gate answers this need and products that get killed die before they are formally launched (thus protecting the brand).

If you are a small team doing everything with an unknown brand, the most reliable way to get market feedback earlier is to just put something on the market. The Lean Startup comes from this perspective - if there isn’t enough traction, kill the product and invent a new brand.

(Of course, these processes can be adapted to other environments, but these are their native soil, so to speak.)

Google seems to be managing its product initiative like startups: they incentivize new product launches, and don’t hesitate to kill products that are already on the market. Perhaps we are better off adjust our expectation of the google brand: it’s just a VC brand (like a16z), not a product brand.

[loudmax]

I think that is a reasonably analogy, but an important difference is that a startup has a strong incentive to be committed to their product. A startup may not stay in business for long, but we have an expectation that they'll support their product for as long as they can. After all, this product is a big bet for them and they really need it to succeed.

I don't see that those incentives even exist at Google. A well managed company would introduce new products that match the rest of the company's portfolio. When a product fails to gain interest, they would revise it and try to figure out how to provide customer value. There's nothing about Google's behavior in the past ten years that suggests that's what is going on there. From an outsider's perspective, there's nothing to indicate that Google is making any effort to follow through to make sure new products are successful.

[ddkto]

exactly - Google is acting like a VC, not a company. A VC isn't too worried if a large percentage of their investments go under, so long a few make it big.

It's like Google has the worst of both worlds: the upper management has the detachment of a VC firm, and the product teams have the detachment of being incentivized to start something new. At least in an actual startup, the team is committed to success.