Ok, I relent. Everyone wants to know why I left and answering individually isn’t scaling so here it is, laid out in its long form. Read a little (I get to the punch line in the 3rd paragraph) or read it all. But a warning in advance: there is no drama here, no tell-all, no former colleagues bashed and nothing more than you couldn’t already surmise from what’s happening in the press these days surrounding Google and its attitudes toward user privacy and software developers. This is simply a more personal telling.
It wasn’t an easy decision to leave Google. During my time there I became fairly passionate about the company. I keynoted four Google Developer Day events, two Google Test Automation Conferences and was a prolific contributor to the Google testing blog. Recruiters often asked me to help sell high priority candidates on the company. No one had to ask me twice to promote Google and no one was more surprised than me when I could no longer do so. In fact, my last three months working for Google was a whirlwind of desperation, trying in vain to get my passion back.
The Google I was passionate about was a technology company that empowered its employees to innovate. The Google I left was an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus.
Technically I suppose Google has always been an advertising company, but for the better part of the last three years, it didn’t feel like one. Google was an ad company only in the sense that a good TV show is an ad company: having great content attracts advertisers.
Under Eric Schmidt ads were always in the background. Google was run like an innovation factory, empowering employees to be entrepreneurial through founder’s awards, peer bonuses and 20% time. Our advertising revenue gave us the headroom to think, innovate and create. Forums like App Engine, Google Labs and open source served as staging grounds for our inventions. The fact that all this was paid for by a cash machine stuffed full of advertising loot was lost on most of us. Maybe the engineers who actually worked on ads felt it, but the rest of us were convinced that Google was a technology company first and foremost; a company that hired smart people and placed a big bet on their ability to innovate.
From this innovation machine came strategically important products like Gmail and Chrome, products that were the result of entrepreneurship at the lowest levels of the company. Of course, such runaway innovative spirit creates some duds, and Google has had their share of those, but Google has always known how to fail fast and learn from it.
In such an environment you don’t have to be part of some executive’s inner circle to succeed. You don’t have to get lucky and land on a sexy project to have a great career. Anyone with ideas or the skills to contribute could get involved. I had any number of opportunities to leave Google during this period, but it was hard to imagine a better place to work.
But that was then, as the saying goes, and this is now.
It turns out that there was one place where the Google innovation machine faltered and that one place mattered a lot: competing with Facebook. Informal efforts produced a couple of antisocial dogs in Wave and Buzz. Orkut never caught on outside Brazil. Like the proverbial hare confident enough in its lead to risk a brief nap, Google awoke from its social dreaming to find its front runner status in ads threatened.
Google could still put ads in front of more people than Facebook, but Facebook knows so much more about those people. Advertisers and publishers cherish this kind of personal information, so much so that they are willing to put the Facebook brand before their own. Exhibit A: www.facebook.com/nike, a company with the power and clout of Nike putting their own brand after Facebook’s? No company has ever done that for Google and Google took it personally.
Larry Page himself assumed command to right this wrong. Social became state-owned, a corporate mandate called Google+. It was an ominous name invoking the feeling that Google alone wasn’t enough. Search had to be social. Android had to be social. You Tube, once joyous in their independence, had to be … well, you get the point. Even worse was that innovation had to be social. Ideas that failed to put Google+ at the center of the universe were a distraction.
Suddenly, 20% meant half-assed. Google Labs was shut down. App Engine fees were raised. APIs that had been free for years were deprecated or provided for a fee. As the trappings of entrepreneurship were dismantled, derisive talk of the “old Google” and its feeble attempts at competing with Facebook surfaced to justify a “new Google” that promised “more wood behind fewer arrows.”
The days of old Google hiring smart people and empowering them to invent the future was gone. The new Google knew beyond doubt what the future should look like. Employees had gotten it wrong and corporate intervention would set it right again.
Officially, Google declared that “sharing is broken on the web” and nothing but the full force of our collective minds around Google+ could fix it. You have to admire a company willing to sacrifice sacred cows and rally its talent behind a threat to its business. Had Google been right, the effort would have been heroic and clearly many of us wanted to be part of that outcome. I bought into it. I worked on Google+ as a development director and shipped a bunch of code. But the world never changed; sharing never changed. It’s arguable that we made Facebook better, but all I had to show for it was higher review scores.
As it turned out, sharing was not broken. Sharing was working fine and dandy, Google just wasn’t part of it. People were sharing all around us and seemed quite happy. A user exodus from Facebook never materialized. I couldn’t even get my own teenage daughter to look at Google+ twice, “social isn’t a product,” she told me after I gave her a demo, “social is people and the people are on Facebook.” Google was the rich kid who, after having discovered he wasn’t invited to the party, built his own party in retaliation. The fact that no one came to Google’s party became the elephant in the room.
Google+ and me, we were simply never meant to be. Truth is I’ve never been much on advertising. I don’t click on ads. When Gmail displays ads based on things I type into my email message it creeps me out. I don’t want my search results to contain the rants of Google+ posters (or Facebook’s or Twitter’s for that matter). When I search for “London pub walks” I want better than the sponsored suggestion to “Buy a London pub walk at Wal-Mart.”
The old Google made a fortune on ads because they had good content. It was like TV used to be: make the best show and you get the most ad revenue from commercials. The new Google seems more focused on the commercials themselves.
Perhaps Google is right. Perhaps the future lies in learning as much about people’s personal lives as possible. Perhaps Google is a better judge of when I should call my mom and that my life would be better if I shopped that Nordstrom sale. Perhaps if they nag me enough about all that open time on my calendar I’ll work out more often. Perhaps if they offer an ad for a divorce lawyer because I am writing an email about my 14 year old son breaking up with his girlfriend I’ll appreciate that ad enough to end my own marriage. Or perhaps I’ll figure all this stuff out on my own.
The old Google was a great place to work. The new one?
I commend you for being honest!
Hear Hear! Here's an alike thinking mind. I'd like to unshare google with all my friends
Thanks for this post. Please post another one on 'Why I (re?)joined Microsoft'.
Enquiring minds want to know... :)
Engaging article, I appreciate the insight into the Googleplex.
Do you feel as though most people in Google felt a complete shift in Google's priorities? Do you have a sense of any departments in Google that were not affected at all?
Very unprofessional to rant and rave about your ex-employer online. Will you do the same with Microsoft when you leave again?
There's nothing unprofessional about honesty and transparency. If these sorts of rants and raves are not desirable then you'll need to ensure your company does not provide people with the motivation to write them.
I hope he does rant and rave about Microsoft. His opinion is one worth reading.
Excellently written, beautifully expressed! And I can exactly understand the way you felt about your (now ex-) company twisting around the drain. Such situations exist elsewhere too... ;-)
Almost half the commenters here question your decision to join Microsoft. It is churlish to cast doubts on your intent of course but maybe you would do well to post one on your reasons for joining back Microsoft... just to straighten the matter?
All the best for stint 2!
How lame and unprofessional to rant about Google on your Microsoft blog.
And how ironic to critisize Google for putting profit first and move to Microsoft.
I agree so much with you! "Google" was such a pleasure to work on! Each time G+ comes up with irrelevant stuff ... the urge to "kill the search" hits the peak. I loved to share my pics through old Picasa ... but, now, its so scary!! Even without my knowledge, all my pics are shared across the whole world!
Old Google or new Google, fact is Google has done nothing truly significant. I've been working in and around the internet biz for 15 years, and have been sorely disappointed at just how big of a failure it's been. For all its promise, it has transformed nothing. Before the internet, I got in my car and drove miles to work in a cubicle or office. After the internet, with all its powers of communication, I still drive miles to work in an office. People still get on planes to travel miles for business meetings. It's basically the same society, just "fruited up" a little .
A search for london pub walks, no longer produces ads... WTF?
1. Goolge+ is much better than Facebook. It’s a cleaner, more professional network that does not change every time someone at Facebook has a whim. You just didn’t realize it yet, which is ironic, considering you helped build it.
2. You started working at Microsoft… the company that is notorious at innovations... that others invented already. Moving from bad to worse… how does that make any sense?
Interesting comments, I never thought about the branding issue with facebook.com/company but that is true. I also like your daughters quote about social, though I disagree somewhat and believe social is every where and any where not just facebook. Yesterday it was at Myspace, today it is at; facebook, linkedIn, thumblr, and twitter, tomorrow who knows. I think Microsoft Phone 7 has it right (though it can get better) where I post at one spot and it goes out to many locations, this is what I always interepted the "one web" concept to be. Will love to see how you innovate moving forward at Microsoft.
"The days of old Google hiring smart people and empowering them to invent the future was gone."
They never did hire smart people. I interviewed with them in 2006 after finishing my PhD in CS. I was actually quite shocked by the lack of technical skills of the interviewers and them pretending to know everything better.
I agree with the article Google is just an advertising company. In my opinion, they never were a tech company. It has always primarily been about advertising.
Awesome insight. And sharing has some distance to go... :-) (broken? not sure)