Interesting, when I read those answers, what I see is more or less people saying "management can sometimes be downright bad, and is often stupid". I very much doubt that many of the people (broadly) deciding which products to support and which to drop were hired via a new-grad-like interview process.
For things like moonshots/other bets, the "build something awesome but don't monetize it" makes a lot of sense, since the entire point of that division seems to be "build something awesome and see if it is sustainable too". More often than not, unfortunately, the answer is no.
In fact, if anything, I'd reverse the cause and effect in your idea. If we presuppose that there is this dichotomy in people and it affect google's motives and goals as a company, then this would influence the tech hiring practices to be the way they are, not vice versa.
> I very much doubt that many of the people (broadly) deciding which products to support and which to drop were hired via a new-grad-like interview process.
I'm confused as to why you doubt that. Google's been around for almost 20 years. Their interviewing process has been around since at least 2003.[1] It's 100% possible that somebody was hired, ended up in higher management, and graduated to making driving decisions (at least over a particular area) in that time, unless your suggestion is that nobody who enters as a new grad ever stays long enough to get to that level, which at Google (vs other SV companies) seems unlikely.
> For things like moonshots/other bets, the "build something awesome but don't monetize it" makes a lot of sense, since the entire point of that division seems to be "build something awesome and see if it is sustainable too". More often than not, unfortunately, the answer is no.
It does make sense, it's more the messaging around those kinds of projects that tends to get lost. You end up in situations where thousands or sometimes millions of users are relying on a "beta" product, which has no monetization strategy, and then gets scrapped. It's a pattern that's still unpleasant for end users and not great for Google's reputation.
> If we presuppose that there is this dichotomy in people and it affect google's motives and goals as a company, then this would influence the tech hiring practices to be the way they are, not vice versa.
That's a great point, and likely, assuming of course that Google started this way (I think it likely did, given its founders' backgrounds). It creates a self-perpetuating cycle, though, which still ends up being problematic.
For things like moonshots/other bets, the "build something awesome but don't monetize it" makes a lot of sense, since the entire point of that division seems to be "build something awesome and see if it is sustainable too". More often than not, unfortunately, the answer is no.
In fact, if anything, I'd reverse the cause and effect in your idea. If we presuppose that there is this dichotomy in people and it affect google's motives and goals as a company, then this would influence the tech hiring practices to be the way they are, not vice versa.