←back to thread

581 points antr | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.215s | source
Show context
smackfu ◴[] No.6223589[source]
Honestly, this completely makes sense given how Google has been killing off non-profitable products lately. Why pay engineers to work on projects that will never meet a business case? This isn't the olden days of Google, where they would shovel anything out there and see if it stuck.
replies(4): >>6223739 #>>6223773 #>>6223980 #>>6224660 #
zmb_ ◴[] No.6223739[source]
The same reason why a VC fund will invest in 10 startups knowing that 9 will have to be closed down as failures. 20% time meant that Google was continually making those bets in various areas, knowing that most will fail but that a few will succeed in a big way.

They now seem to think that their management has obtained good enough crystal balls to be able to determine beforehand which of the potential products will succeed and which will fail. Meaning that they can scrap the 20% time and put all their "wood behind the few arrows" they have determined will succeed (you know, like Google+).

replies(1): >>6238294 #
1. smackfu ◴[] No.6238294[source]
It really depends on the real stats though. Because if only 1 out of 100 20% projects is worth anything, maybe it's just not a good use of your engineers. Like a VC fund with too low a success rate just goes out of business.