|
|
Via @glinden, I enjoyed this article on why GDrive (an early cloud document/file store) was never launched by Google:
At the time [2008], Google was about to launch a project it had been developing for more than a year, a free cloud-based storage service called GDrive. But Sundar [Pichai] had concluded that it was an artifact of the style of computing that Google was about to usher out the door. He went to Bradley Horowitz, the executive in charge of the project, and said, “I don’t think we need GDrive anymore.” Horowitz asked why not. “Files are so 1990,” said Pichai. “I don’t think we need files anymore.”
Pichai apparently went on to explain in more detail why files are no longer needed. It has to do with the notion that, in the cloud you just have data and information. Organizing that information into files is not necessary, especially when you can just start editing that information directly in Google Docs. I’m going to ignore for a moment the “don’t be evil” ramifications of data portability and lock-in that comes through the dissolution of explicit files — how am I supposed to export my data into the Microsoft Cloud Word or into Open Office or into VisiWord whatever else I’d like to use, if files do not exist? Instead, I’m going to focus on how this decision was arrived at:
When Pichai first proposed this concept to Google’s top executives at a GPS—no files!—the reaction was, he says, “skeptical.” [Linus] Upson had another characterization: “It was a withering assault.” But eventually they won people over by a logical argument—that it could be done, that it was the cloudlike thing to do, that it was the Google thing to do. That was the end of GDrive: shuttered as a relic of antiquated thinking even before Google released it. The engineers working on it went to the Chrome team.
This is what I find absolutely fascinating. Here is a company that A/B tests everything in a heavily data driven manner, down which of 41 shades of blue the link anchortext should be. So you would think that such a momentous decision about killing the whole GDrive project would be data driven. It was not. I quote again:
But eventually they won people over by a logical argument—that it could be done, that it was the cloudlike thing to do, that it was the Google thing to do.
Here is an instance where an important decision potentially very large service was made not by the data, but by a HiPPO, the highest-paid person in the room. Continue reading…
Here are the five top posts on this blog for 2010, in order:
Kasparov and Good Interaction Design Search Versus Recommendation: Not the Only Tension More on Simplicity and the Paradox of Choice What You Can Find Out Don’t Forget Explicitly Collaborative Information Seeking
Thank you to all three of my readers who made [...]
I came across an interesting blogpost today, entitled “The Paradox of Choice is Not Robust“. To requote their quote:
Benjamin Scheibehenne, a psychologist at the University of Basel, was thinking along these lines when he decided (with Peter Todd and, later, Rainer Greifeneder) to design a range of experiments to figure out when choice [...]
A tweet by @akumar prompted me to punch up this quick blogpost:
as with all controversial issues, there’s a positive in google trying bing/image – that they’re not afraid to learn from competition
What Amit is referring to is the recent addition of gorgeous photographic images as search page background. See for example this writeup: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2010/06/google-vs-bing-copycat-picture-on-prominent-page.html
He is of course correct; Google is learning from the competition. But there is another issue at play here, one that I don’t want to overlook because I feel it is very important. It is the issue of simplicity. What is simplicity? How is it defined? How is it measured? Conversely, what is complexity? What is clutter? Continue reading…
What is Social Search as opposed to Social Media? Social Search in Media? Search in Social Media?
Next week, Gene Golovchinsky and I are moderating a pair of panels at the SSM workshop. So we spent some time this week asking ourselves these definitional questions in preparation for the panel. We came up with [...]
There is a fantastic Google blog post today by Jonathan Rosenberg on the meaning (and value) of openness. Whooo-boy.. where do we start with this can of worms? Guess I’ll jump right in. Warning: This is probably the longest post I’ve written, so if you are easily bored, understand that this is not required reading. It will not be on the test.
Here we go:
At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses.
Agreed! I’m fully on board the spirit of this opening statement!
Many companies will claim roughly the same thing since they know that declaring themselves to be open is both good for their brand and completely without risk.
True. So the question arises: What happens when being open carries with it an amount of risk? Do you open up those areas of your business as well? Or do you forever keep your most valuable layer of the stack closed and proprietary, both in terms of closed source as well as not-fully-open information?
We run the company and make our product decisions based on these principles, so I encourage you to carefully read, review, and debate them. Then own them and try to incorporate them into your work. This is a complex subject and if there is debate (and I’m sure there will be) it should be in the open! Please feel free to comment.
I like the spirit of this discussion so far. I earnestly believe that Google is debating these things internally. But I also take them at their word that they would like this debate to be in the open. Consider this blog post part of my ongoing comment, and ongoing engagement in what I consider to be an extremely important area: The organization and dissemination of information. Continue reading…
I’ve been playing around with some old TREC data over the past few days and completely by chance I came across this document. I find it interesting because storytelling is a good metaphor for what we as researchers do when we construct interactive information seeking systems. The document is short enough that I think [...]
Jeff Dalton recently wrote about why he doesn’t want your search log data. It is an interesting read, and I recommend going through the whole article and comments. But I want to call attention to one thought in particular:
Academia should be building solutions for tomorrow’s data, not yesterday’s. What will the queries and [...]
I’ve added a couple of updates to my previous post about the “Google Discover Music” service that is launching today. See also Paul’s writeup.
But I have been reading Danny’s Sullivan’s liveblog of the release event, and came across a quote that made me chuckle out loud:
Bill talking about how this will let [...]
I split my blogging between this and the FXPAL blog. This morning I have a post on the latter site that asks an (imho) important question about data ownership and data liberation with respect to one’s web search history.. not just the queries, but the results produce by a mashup between those queries and [...]
|
|
Recent Comments