I see reasoning a la "Google wants..." everywhere. I call it the fallacy of atomicity: when people think of a company like Google as an atomic unit, as opposed to a collection of internal components with their own incentives. Google contains multitudes, as does any large org.
-
-
-
Put another way, it's not useful to think of "Google's incentives" except for contexts in which Google-at-large (i.e. top execs) is the entity making a decision. For something small, like Google Inbox, the decision-making entity is a person/group way down in Google's hierarchy.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It always cracks me up when people try to analyze Google's behavior in terms of strategic goals.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Oh boy is that a deep truth. I’ve seen it said sometimes that many companies ship their org chart too.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, but I'm still confused why they're constantly killing off seemingly successful projects. I get Google is huge, and successful for them is a different proposition. But still, it seems like they are either improving or killing (which is not true of, say, TI's calculators).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"once you stop seeing disruptive changes" - ah damn, that's when I want to use a product! Something I can rely on that won't radically change every month and cause me unnecessary frustration when doing trivial things.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.