Google Solves Management Problem: Okay, Employees, You Win
June 2, 2018
I find it amusing when large corporate entities demonstrate that aircraft carriers can turn like a Smart Car. Remember Hewlett Packard when it bought Autonomy and then HP decided that Autonomy was not a great buy. Flip flow. Remarkable.
Now Alphabet Google has demonstrated its flexibility. I read “Google Plans Not to Renew Its Contract for Project Maven, a Controversial Pentagon Drone AI Imaging Program.” The main idea is that Alphabet Google responded to an RFP, invested tens of thousands of dollars in crafting a proposal, spent significant time in meetings with Googlers and US government professionals, paid lawyers to finalize the deal, discuss potential revenue from a fairly modest government contract, had some employees complain about the use of smart software for purposes the employees deemed inappropriate, read about the schism inside Alphabet Google in the “real” newspaper, learned that employees provided some information to an online information service, and then announced that it would not renew the US government contract.
There you go.
From government contract with follow on sales potential to an outfit which has probably evoked some annoyance in Washington. How long for this aircraft carrier to turn? About four days.
Remarkable.
The Gizmodo article referenced above stated:
Google will not seek another contract for its controversial work providing artificial intelligence to the U.S. Department of Defense for analyzing drone footage after its current contract expires.
I also highlighted this statement:
Google’s decision to provide artificial intelligence to the Defense Department for the analysis of drone footage has prompted backlash from Google employees and academics. Thousands of employees have signed a petition asking Google to cancel its contract for the project, nicknamed Project Maven, and dozens of employees have resigned in protest.
I assume the COTR and the team government team working on this Alphabet Google job were thrilled to learn that “the contract is of relatively little value.” Yep, “little value.”
Management agility in action.
Several questions:
- Is Google serving shareholders, customers, or employees?
- What signal does this send to companies like Amazon which are now competing for DoD work?
- What are the lawyers at the Department of Defense thinking?
- What does this change of direction say about Alphabet Google’s management approach?
- Is this decision comparable to the purchase of Motorola by Google?
My hunch is that other questions can be raised.
Net net: Alphabet Google, like Yahoo, is now generating business school case studies which are more like Hollywood movie scripts than real life.
Reality is indeed surprising.
Stephen E Arnold, June 2, 2018
Alphabet Google: Rumblings Centered in Mountain View
May 31, 2018
I noted an interesting article suggesting that Google wanted or hoped to hire the brains behind Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin. Ethereum, as you may know, is now supported by Amazon. Why not use open source Ethereum?
Answer: Google likes to have the smartest people in the world. Merely using is just not the same as having the brain itself.
I thought about Google’s “hire the guy already” approach to company and new product management. From my vantage point which one wild and crazy entrepreneur described as clueless, Amazon appears to be heading a different direction. Google, it seems, is hunting for a direction in which to go.
As a reference point, Amazon, in my opinion, knows where it is heading. Google, it seems to me, is not sure which compass point is calling to them. Therefore, the management approach seems to be hire smart people and let those individuals figure it out.
The consequences of that approach formed the guts of the story “AI Deal with Pentagon Crates Schism at Google.” To read the printer version you will need the dead tree version of the newspaper. The story appears on the first page of the paper and jumps to page A 15 in the version of the paper which sometimes gets delivered to me in rural Kentucky. There is also an online version of the story which has a different headline. Helpful, right? That version of the story is at this link.
For starters, let me say that I do not believe there is one Alphabet Google. There’s the YouTube thing. There are the low cost death ray services purpose built to kill off Microsoft Office. There are venture firms galore. There are the whiz kids at Google X who are in charge of moon shots.
From here in Harrod’s Creek, the many and duplicative products and services create a grey haze which is a “gaze” as harmful as the Hawaii “laze”.
Glowing in the middle of this digital universe is pay to play advertising centric search. That’s the money machine spewing lava like a Puna vent. After two decades in business and trying really hard to diversify is Google with its advertising revenue.
The NYT story makes a point about Googlers who want smart software to be used for “good.” News flash, Googlers: technology available to the US government is applied to specific problems given priority by a federal agency, department, unit, or inter agency working group. When those projects are classified, it is possible the companies providing the technology have zero idea about certain government activities related to a technology.
Here’s another old chestnut from the cobbled streets of Georgetown: If a company does not do business directly with the US government, intermediary firms provide a conduit for the needed technology. Obviously chatter about what firms provide these services is not usually circulated widely.
The value of the NYT article is that it provides insight into the management methods at Google. I noted three points in the write up. Let me highlight these, and simultaneously urge you to read one of the versions of the NYT article. Even though the title dates of the versions change, the basic points are the same.
Here are my highlights:
- Google chased a Department of Defense contract but developed no game plan for dealing with its employees or the individuals who write articles. Net: No tactical planning.
- Google has factions within the company who are publicly opposed to the use of smart software for warfighting. Net: No management mechanism for its employees. Some of these employees may embrace the now irrelevant “Don’t be evil” catchphrase.
- Google has been involved in US government projects for many years. Many of these are meaningless like licensing the Google Search Appliance to a clueless US government agency unit. As it turned out, Google demanded the return of the GSA because the government client wanted special customer support. No joke. Other projects are more meaningful and lack the “name in lights” visibility Maven has been receiving. Net: Nothing new with this Maven deal except that it gets the Google a seat at a table which very well could be dominated by Amazon, not just IBM and a handful of other established vendors.
Net net: The issue is not Maven. The issue strikes at what is the central weakness of Alphabet Google: Its approach to managing its employees and by extension, its business.
From jumping in and out of business sectors (remember Orkut?) to buying companies and then marginalizing them (Motorola, remember?) to starting products and then orphaning them (remember Google Answers?)—Alphabet Google has manifested situational decision making, sort of like a Delta force operator on a mission alone.
For many of the under 25 year olds with whom I talk know anything about the legal dust up about Google’s online advertising business. None know about the Yahoo, Overture, GoTo settlement with Google prior to its IPO. That was an operation which yielded revenue success. But the management method used to complete that mission is now under considerable stress. Alphabet Google is in need of more than “operators,” no matter how intelligent.
The bottom-line is that the NYT has explained the Google employee Maven issue. From my point of view, which I want you to know one wizard called me dumb, Google has struggled to diversify its revenue. Like its other efforts to generate significant, sustainable and profitable new products and services, Google has not been the sharpest knife in the kitchen drawer. Heck, I thought I was the dull implement.
When writing about Google, it’s time to leave the lore of Backrub behind. Forget the bits and bytes, Alphabet Google has reached an important way station in its new revenue journey. The question is, “What must be done to arrive at a destination?” Too bad Peter Drucker is no longer alive. Perhaps he and Vitalik Buterin (the Ethereum wizard) could share an office at Google?
Stephen E Arnold, May 31, 2018
Is Google Playing Defense?
May 31, 2018
The Search Engine Roundtable reports, “Google Has a Bias Towards Scientific Truth in Search.” Great! Now what about reproducible scientific studies?
This defense of a slant toward verifiable truth was made by Google engineer Paul Haahr on Twitter after someone questioned the impartiality of his company’s “quality raters guidelines,” section 3.2 (reproduced for our convenience in the write-up). The guidelines consider consensus and subject-matter expertise in search rankings, a position one Twitter user took issue with. Writer Barry Schwartz lets that thread speak for itself, so see the write-up for the back-and-forth. The engineer’s challenger basically questions Google’s right to discern good sources from bad (which is, I’d say, is the basic the job of a search engine). This is Haahr’s side:
“We definitely do have a bias towards, for example, what you call ‘Scientific Truth,’ where the guidance in section 3.2 says ‘High quality information pages on scientific topics should represent well established scientific consensus on issues where such consensus exists. […]
‘It’s the decision we’ve made: we need to be able to describe what good search results are. Those decisions are reflected in our product. Ultimately, someone who disagrees with our principles may want a different product; there may be a market niche for them. […]
‘I think it’s the only realistic model if you want to build a search engine. You need to know what your objective in ranking is. Evaluation is central to the whole process and that needs clarity on what “good” means. If you don’t describe it, you only get noise.’”
The write-up concludes with this question from Haahr—if Google’s search results are bad, is it because they are too close to their guidelines, or too far away?
Cynthia Murrell, May 31, 2018
Google Says, Tech Success Is Simple
May 29, 2018
Here at Beyond Search we understood that nothing worthwhile comes easy. We assume that’s why wizards work at Google and addled geese work in rural Kentucky.
A brief write-up at CNBC shares a brief interview with Google’s Anil Sabharwa—“There’s ‘a Very Simple Formula’ to Realizing an Idea in the Tech Space, Says Google’s Vice President of Product.” We wonder, if it is so simple, why is Google still dependent on a revenue stream based on GoTo.com, Overture.com, and Yahoo.com methods? Nevertheless, Sabharwal is enthusiastic about the approach, and points to the popularity of Google Photos as an example. Writer Eustance Huang quotes the VP:
“What we like to think about is a few simple things,” he added. “Where are there opportunities? Where are there scenarios where users could benefit from tremendous capabilities in technology that may not have been there years ago that we can now solve real human problems?” In the case of personal photography, Sabharwal said, a trend was noticed where people are taking “far more photos” than before.
I learned:
“Back in the day we used to only be able to take 24 photos on film, now you take a thousand photos of one sunset,” he added. With this realization that people were taking more photos, the team then sought to find a solution to a series of questions. “How do we give them peace of mind? How do we help them relive and reminisce? How do we help them share those photos with the meaningful people in their lives?” The end result of that process was Google Photos, a product which Sabharwal said was “a really great combination of a problem that was unmet in the market and a capability that Google had that really no one else had.”
Well, okay, but don’t believe the concept of identifying a new niche and filling it is any great secret. Still, positioned as advice for budding developers, the embedded three-minute video is a nice little piece of Googley PR.
I still think there is some truth in the “nothing worthwhile comes easy” truism.
Cynthia Murrell, May 29, 2018
Google Bans Bail Bond Ads
May 28, 2018
Google is moving forward with its efforts to manage certain types of advertisements.
Google has placed bail-bond companies in the same category as payday lenders, ArsTechnica reports, “Google Slams ‘For-Profit Bail-Bond Providers,’ Won’t Let Them Advertise.” The brief write-up points to Google’s announcement that it will no longer allow these companies to advertise on its platform. The post also supplies a link refreshing us on the 2016 ban placed on payday lenders. Writer Cyrus Farivar tells us:
“In a blog post, the company suggested that such ads constitute a ‘deceptive or harmful product,’ citing a 2016 study concluding that minority and low-income communities are typically most affected by such services. ‘For-profit bail-bond providers make most of their revenue from communities of color and low-income neighborhoods when they are at their most vulnerable, including through opaque financing offers that can keep people in debt for months or years,’ Google wrote….“Also in 2016, another study found that ‘there are 646,000 people locked up in more than 3,000 local jails throughout the US,’ simply for their inability to pay a bond, which is what drives many people to the services of a bondsman.”
The post cites advocacy group Color of Change, which had called for this ban. The group’s director believes it is high time corporations are held accountable for enabling what he considers the predatory for-profit bail business, and encourages other corporations to follow Google’s lead. In the meantime, Google’s ban is scheduled to take effect in July 2018.
Progress?
Cynthia Murrell, May 28, 2018
Mobile Search: The Google Focus
May 28, 2018
SEO is the ultimate moving target. Just as you get a hunch about what algorithms are looking for in order to boost rankings, the algorithms and parameters change and you practically have to start from scratch. It’s a convoluted world to navigate fresh and we were pleased to find a really competent explanation of the latest landscape change, the Mobile First Index, in a recent Search Engine Watch story, “Google’s Mobile First Index: Six Actions to Minimize Risk and Maximize Ranking Opportunities.”
According to the story:
“In any period of uncertainty there are opportunities to take advantage of and risks to manage – and in competitive SEO niches, taking every chance to get ahead is important… “Whatever your starting point – the mobile-first index is the new normal in SEO, and now is the time to get to grips with the challenge – and potential.”
Your starting point, it seems, should involve voice search. Another compelling article makes the point that the ideal pairing of Mobile First Indexing is voice search. Watch for this massive shift to happen rapidly. Critics have been eyeing the future of voice search for a while and now the pieces are finally in place.
Old fashioned keyword search seems to be less and less relevant.
Patrick Roland, May 28, 2018
Google: Excellence Evolves to Good Enough
May 25, 2018
I read “YouTube’s Infamous Algorithm Is Now Breaking the Subscription Feed.” I assume the write up is accurate. I believe everything I read on the Internet.
The main point of the write up seems to me to be that good enough is the high water mark.
I noted this passage, allegedly output by a real, thinking Googler:
Just to clarify. We are currently experimenting with how to show content in the subs feed. We find that some viewers are able to more easily find the videos they want to watch when we order the subs feed in a personalized order vs always showing most recent video first.
I also found this statement interesting:
With chronological view thrown out, it’s going to become even more difficult to find new videos you haven’t seen — especially if you follow someone who uploads at a regular time each day.
I would like to mention that Google, along wit In-Q-Tel, invested in Recorded Future. That company has some pretty solid date and time stamping capabilities. Furthermore, my hunch is that the founders of the company know the importance of time metadata to some of the Recorded Future customers.
What would happen if Google integrated some of Recorded Future’s time capabilities into YouTube and into good old Google search results.
From my point of view, good enough means “sells ads.” But I am usually incorrect, and I expect to learn just how off base I am when I explain how one eCommerce giant is about to modify the landscape for industrial strength content analysis. Oh, that company’s technology does the date and time metadata pretty well.
More on this mythical “revolution” on June 5th and June 6th. In the meantime, try and find live feeds of the Hawaii volcano event using YouTube search. Helpful, no?
Stephen E Arnold, May 25, 2018
CNBC: Poking at the Google
May 24, 2018
CNBC has become one of the more interesting outlets of “real” news. (Just joking.) I did spot a headline which lured me to click. Here is the gem:
Larry Page’s Silence Speaks Volumes as Alphabet Faces One Ethical Crisis after Another
Now I am old fashioned and like to have terms defined. CNBC does not fool around with that waste of time. But here’s a working definition of “ethics” which provides me with some context:
moral principles that govern a person’s behavior
A more beefy definition can be absorbed from Spinoza’s Ethics available at this link.
The CNBC write up asserts:
Page should take more time to communicate with stakeholders beyond the confines of the company’s walls.
CNBC notes that Mr. Page and presumably his fellow traveler Sergey Brin, have organized the Google so that neither has to “talk” unless they want to. Outputs from the Google Alphabet construct come from deputies.
I also noted this statement:
Page is the chief executive of a $740 billion conglomerate whose main division, Google, has a mission statement to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” That’s precisely what people are concerned about — the responsibility that comes with collecting, storing and analyzing massive amounts of information. How should that information be used? Who gets to decide? Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have so far borne the brunt of the rising public concern over these questions, thanks to the Cambridge Analytica data leak and that firm’s connections to President Trump. But insiders tell us that a lot of people at Google — which collects just as much or more information than Facebook — are scared of being dragged through the mud next.
Great stuff with a socko closer: “Is he worried?”
Probably not.
Stephen E Arnold, May 25, 2018
Google Magnetism Weakening? High Profile Wizard Allegedly Sidesteps Job Offer
May 22, 2018
Who knows if this “real” news item from a crypto currency online service in India is accurate? I find it interesting because it adds another straw to the pile on Googzilla’s back.
The write up is called “Google Tries Hiring Ethereum Founder Vitalik Buterin and Fails.” Now Ethereum may not be a big deal in Harrod’s Creek and similar rust belt cities. Amazon sort of has a thing for Ethereum. And despite the chatter about deanonymizing some of the blockchain-centric services, Ethereum continues to generate interest in its “platform.”
The write up states:
Search Engine giant Google tried hiring Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin to work for them. Buterin posted a screenshot of the mail he received from Google on twitter, asking his followers if he should take their offer.
The “offer” was made via a Tweet. I love that type of approach. Very trendy.
The write up adds:
Like most Silicon Valley startups, Google has also been exploring Blockchain for the past few months. In March, Google revealed that they were working on two different Blockchain products; a tamper-proof auditing system and a cloud operations platform. The recruiter may have reached out to Buterin for these projects or any upcoming unannounced projects.
Google does not allow crypto currency ads. However, the Google may have been monitoring some of the actions of super successful company and realized that the train is leaving the station.
Several observations:
- Google appears to be going for a home run play if we assume the information in the write up is accurate
- Google may be in a position which it finds uncomfortable: Back in the pack when it comes to the platformization of blockchain centric innovation
- Google may be losing its magnetism which once pulled wizards to the land of pay to play search.
Fascinating piece of possibly semi accurate, possibly real Twitter delivered information. Communicating by tweet is the new thing I assume.
Stephen E Arnold, May 22, 2018
The Guardian Reveals That Big Tech Yields Useless Products
May 21, 2018
I don’t want to be a Luddite, but it seems to me that autonomous drones carrying interesting payloads are often darned helpful. The value of the big tech which gets these puppies aloft and in theater can be questioned when the person asking the questions is sitting at a laptop in an urban center thinking big thoughts. I would suggest that if that urban beastie were under fire in a slightly less refined environment and needed a bit of air cover to make an escape from a free fire zone, the big tech in the form of a MQ-1L Predator attack drone with AGM 114 K2 Hellfire Missiles would be somewhat useful. Mostly.
My hunch is that the British newspaper disseminating real news in “Ignore the Hype Over Big Tech. Its Products Are Mostly Useless” has a keen desire to poke sticks in the eye of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Netflix, and probably other outfits. Why not toss in Palantir Technologies too? Oh, don’t forget Darktrace.
The main point of the write up struck me as:
In fact, might Duplex be a grim portal into a future in which high-flyers get digital “assistants” to do their chores, while poorly paid people have to meekly talk to computers, in constant fear that they are about to be automated into joblessness?
I like this notion of reworking a two tier society so those in the lower tier could perform jobs like booking a haircut.
The target here is Google and its demo of its artificial intelligence wizardry. Some of this magic is performed in the UK by DeepMind.
Google is now a couple of decades into its search based businesses.
Several questions occur to me:
- Where was the Guardian and other “real” news outfits in the pre IPO phase of Google when Yahoo took Google to task for finding inspiration in GoTo.com, Overture.com, and Yahoo’s “pay to play” models?
- Where have newspapers been for the last two decades as companies finding revenue streams different from print and classified display advertising on paper?
- With the insight of a skilled editorial staff and the ability to generate information, why haven’t those professionals been able to communicate the risk of taking “free lunches” every day for two decades?
Net net: The train has left the station. The “woke” folks are already at the airport with their digital assistants in their pocket and the beach on their mind.
Stephen E Arnold, May 21, 2018
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
