[bane]

Google's ability to "release and stagnate" is one of the hallmarks of the company's rather prolific product output. I honestly don't know how products are run at Google, but from the outside it seems that most of them are built and then just kicked off the back of a truck into a waiting crowd. If you hear any news later about a product it seems like it's news about a shutdown.

[yaeger]

It sounds like the real "nerdy" way to do things. Start with an exiting product, everybody is psyched cause it is new and everyone is giving 100%. First version is out and now, somehow the hype and enthusiasm is gone cause it is no long the "new thing". Refining it seems rather tedious and boring compared to just starting with a new and exciting product.

God knows I suffer from that. The beginning of something new is always awesome but as time progresses and the "new" feeling vanishes I find it harder and harder to keep working on it.

[TillE]

Yeah, it's really weird to see this pattern repeat again and again. Google has a few flagship products that get proper attention, but everything else...I just don't understand how it even gets developed in the first place, if they don't have a small team to continue working on it post-release.

[nobbyclark]

> I just don't understand how it even gets developed in the first place, if they don't have a small team to continue working on it post-release.

From talking to PMs at Google, they have exactly this problem. Engineers are free to pick and choose what they work on.As soon as a product is released, hits "1.0", and the engineers have claimed whatever kudos they can, they move on to the "next big thing", leaving the PM alone with the product. That leads to situations where PMs can't even get basics like localizations to specifics countries / languages.

[kingkawn]

This sounds like a microcosm of the market. Engineers/investors want the largest possible returns on their capital, so they chase projects with the largest potential. This makes for big splashes and little follow through, even on things that the customer population has as core needs for the overall company. Welcome to capitalism.

[freyr]

They're throwing spaghetti against the wall.

They don't want to waste engineering talent on a product that doesn't even register on their bottom line, and shows no promise of explosive growth. But on the other hand, they want to build the next big thing in-house, rather than having to acquire it for billions or letting it grow into a competitor.

It's really tough predicting what the next big thing is, so they throw spaghetti at the wall.

[mgkimsal]

the "next big thing" is an ecosystem that works well together. by neglecting all these individual systems, and not having them work together well, they're ensuring they're not the 'next big thing' and never will have it.

[simonh]

> Yeah, it's really weird to see this pattern repeat again and again.

If you think through the logic on 20% time and deliberately developing as many different crazy projects as possible in the hope that a few of them pan out and hit the big time, this is the inevitable outcome.