I find it hard to believe there aren't worse ones out there. But off the top of my head I actually can't think of any...
Quite incredible that you can say a sentence like that, while talking about something within Google(/Alphabet) that's actually an important area for them (not just some random little side project), and yet it isn't hyperbolic, it's sincere!
Everyone there overseeing it (from direct management all the way up to C-suite) should truly feel embarrassed.
Off the top of my head: workaday
Eric Schmidt even predicted the issue in How Google Works, there are "whales" who have no business staying in their role but have become so senior that they basically control entire small towns worth of people.
Edit: I want to add I'm not naive enough to think they can just fire senior people willy nilly. I could have worded the question better but I hope people understand the spirit of it. I understand there must be reasons why this is hard to solve, I am looking to understand why it's hard.
I imagine this is compounded by the fact that anybody who has risen to control of a fiefdom at a prestigious place at Google is surely highly intelligent, driven, and is either highly competent or at least highly adept at projecting competence. I can't imagine spectacularly obvious dunces rise to such heights at Google.
To be clear... I'm a million miles from Google and have zero inside knowledge, just speculating
Just make a judgement call. It might be completely wrong a small % of the time, which is better than being mostly wrong all of the time.
I wonder: is this still true? The impossible projects being possible part, I mean. What projects has Google done recently that would be impossible for other large tech companies like Meta, SpaceX, Nvidia, OpenAI, Anthropic, etc to do?
My sense is this used to be sort of true, but hasn't been true for a while. And the "easy projects feel impossible" part unfortunately does seem like it's still true, at least, looking in from the outside.
There's a difference between impossible projects are possible at Google, and no one else can do the impossible. If you really want to get into it, why didn't Google do Starlink? Project Loom was the shittier, cheaper version of Starlink.
What Google's done lately though is Waymo. Other companies are doing it too, but holy shit, computers can drive cars now?
The easy things are impossible just makes me want to link broccoli man though.
Which are amazing! Argon’s insights on code review and copywriting are phenomenal, and make these hoops well worth it! But geez, it’s horrifying that we had to figure this out!
Argon also tends to write particularly warm copy and external messages - unsurprising with Google's particular access to email data and caches of writing from the early internet.
We haven't really used it to write code from scratch - generally, we're wary of these exact things, and feel like Claude continues to have good enough architectural instincts that we've doubled down into the Claude ecosystem, with mods and tooling (including this multi-agent reviewer) that accelerate our workflows.
Eventually I gave up. Anthropic/OpenAI took < 10 minutes to get things going.
Enabling the same service via Apple Developers meanwhile took me minutes and I never felt lost, confused or frustrated.
Please, Google, just pick a random dev off the street and ask them to do something (that should be) simple on GCloud, then on e.g. Cloudflare. Analyse why they took longer (and cursed more) in GCloud and fix that. The fact that (despite Cloudflare having awful docs as well) my first ever Workers deploy including third-party DNS setup and R2 took less time then getting an API key from GCloud says something
They do return their services if you search for the name of some AWS services, which is helpful.
Claude used to allow editing prompts which created branches, but imo it was a much crappier version of branching versus what I could do in AI studio. Alas, Anthropic have even removed that functionality for some reason (if someone knows how to branch in Claude please lmk).
Sometimes I just want to block off all web search and sample from LLM’s knowledge only. I guess I can tell Claude to not search the web, but I prefer doing it deterministically like AI studio.
I also like that I can set a different system prompt per session, and all my system prompts get autosaved for future use.
I find it quite surprising that with all this AI, my history of sessions is still such a mess despite my efforts to keep it organized (in both AI Studio and Claude). At least Claude finally added folders, but they are still buggy (for sessions older than a few months, for example).
https://x.com/thsottiaux/status/2083596911060324570?a=iif1W7...
Their backend looks very confused too. I consume their models through OpenRouter and requests are processed randomly by AI Studio or Vertex. API key management had several entry points for a while too, with the option to query the same model with a GCP, Firebase and/or AI Studio API key.
you could pin the provider to always get one or the other
When I signed a few devs at work up for Gemini for Code I had to go into Google Cloud, jump through several different screens, assign special permissions to each dev to make it work and even when it did work...it was insanely confusing compared to every other option out there.
It's to the point where I'm better off asking Grok Bot set it up for me rather than ever deal with figuring it out again.
Is this true anymore? I feel like a lot of the best talent have better opportunities elsewhere where they won't get bogged down by entrenched bureaucracy. Not to mention the Google interview process and physical locations filter out a lot of talented people from even wanting to apply.
This. There are so many hoops to jump, so many links to click, so many pages to read. I just don't know why people would even bother with it.
My guess is that some GCP's VP won the argument that Gemini must go through AI Studio. These VPs don't use their product, so they don't give a shit about UX. As for their engineers and product managers? Well, that beats me.
No longer true. Not since CFO Ruth Porat IBMified the compensation policy in the name of efficiency. Btw this is exactly you can't get away with underpaying tech talent - something new will come along that threatens to eat your lunch and if your team doesn't have the best people, you're finished. And you can't reverse reputation erosion overnight - part of the attractiveness of taking a high-paying job is that everyone knows you're being paid high.
The effort to fix it vs. the risk seems weirdly asymmetrical. Why do all the hard things right and then trip up at the last hurdle?
It's been a baffling question for over a decade (or more)
Right. They lack no resources. Therefore, what is happening must be what they want to happen.
Eng was neutered at that large org. Product people had the "vision" and the say. A lot of product people just used our team's product as a stepping stone onto their next role and in the end it showed. I would hope Google has a better culture...but theres a good chance it doesn't.
Vertex AI existed as an ML platform before the GenAI era. DeepMind was doing it's thing in another silo. Then Gemini products came along. Then they acquired the Windsurf folks.
A smaller company would have no choice but to focus on one team and one product. Google has a Darwinian ecosystem and someone has to come along and smash teams together, clumsily refactoring the technology and user journeys.
Their employees read HN though and their VPs hear customers complain about onboarding. I hear there is an effort underway to create one unified agentic platform.
Do they still have 5 messaging apps or did they finally trim it down.
You also have to hire for taste.
unfortunately, the so-called "best talent" is being hired in management, not engineering or design or UX. :-(
This could be used as a preface for so many things.