| Title | Enshittification of Google and the Men Who Killed Search | |
| Date | Saturday April 27, @01:28AM | |
| Author | janrinok | |
| Topic | ||
| from the dept. | ||
https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/24/naming-names/#prabhakar-raghavan
All digital businesses have the technical capacity to enshittify: the ability to change the underlying functions of the business from moment to moment and user to user, allowing for the rapid transfer of value between business customers, end users and shareholders:
Which raises an important question: why do companies enshittify at a specific moment, after refraining from enshittifying before? After all, a company always has the potential to benefit by treating its business customers and end users worse, by giving them a worse deal. If you charge more for your product and pay your suppliers less, that leaves more money on the table for your investors.
Of course, it's not that simple. While cheating, price-gouging, and degrading your product can produce gains, these tactics also threaten losses. You might lose customers to a rival, or get punished by a regulator, or face mass resignations from your employees who really believe in your product.
Companies choose not to enshittify their products...until they choose to do so. One theory to explain this is that companies are engaged in a process of continuous assessment, gathering data about their competitive risks, their regulators' mettle, their employees' boldness. When these assessments indicate that the conditions are favorable to enshittification, the CEO walks over to the big "enshittification" lever on the wall and yanks it all the way to MAX.
https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/
The story begins on February 5th 2019, when Ben Gomes, Google's head of search, had a problem. Jerry Dischler, then the VP and General Manager of Ads at Google, and Shiv Venkataraman, then the VP of Engineering, Search and Ads on Google properties, had called a "code yellow" for search revenue due to, and I quote, "steady weakness in the daily numbers" and a likeliness that it would end the quarter significantly behind.
For those unfamiliar with Google's internal scientology-esque jargon, let me explain. A "code yellow" isn't, as you might think, a crisis of moderate severity. The yellow, according to Steven Levy's tell-all book about Google, refers to — and I promise that I'm not making this up — the color of a tank top that former VP of Engineering Wayne Rosing used to wear during his time at the company. It's essentially the equivalent of DEFCON 1 and activates, as Levy explained, a war room-like situation where workers are pulled from their desks and into a conference room where they tackle the problem as a top priority. Any other projects or concerns are sidelined.
In emails released as part of the Department of Justice's antitrust case against Google, Dischler laid out several contributing factors — search query growth was "significantly behind forecast," the "timing" of revenue launches was significantly behind, and a vague worry that "several advertiser-specific and sector weaknesses" existed in search.
Anyway, a few days beforehand on February 1 2019, Kristen Gil, then Google's VP Business Finance Officer, had emailed Shashi Thakur, then Google's VP of Engineering, Search and Discover, saying that the ads team had been considering a "code yellow" to "close the search gap [it was] seeing," vaguely referring to how critical that growth was to an unnamed "company plan." To be clear, this email was in response to Thakur stating that there is "nothing" that the search team could do to operate at the fidelity of growth that ads had demanded.
Shashi forwarded the email to Gomes, asking if there was any way to discuss this with Sundar Pichai, Google's CEO, and declaring that there was no way he'd sign up to a "high fidelity" business metric for daily active users on search. Thakur also said something that I've been thinking about constantly since I read these emails: that there was a good reason that Google's founders separated search from ads.
On February 2, 2019, just one day later, Thakur and Gomes shared their anxieties with Nick Fox, a Vice President of Search and Google Assistant, entering a multiple-day-long debate about Google's sudden lust for growth. The thread is a dark window into the world of growth-focused tech, where Thakur listed the multiple points of disconnection between the ads and search teams, discussing how the search team wasn't able to finely optimize engagement on Google without "hacking engagement," a term that means effectively tricking users into spending more time on a site, and that doing so would lead them to "abandon work on efficient journeys." In one email, Fox adds that there was a "pretty big disconnect between what finance and ads want" and what search was doing.
When Gomes pushed back on the multiple requests for growth, Fox added that all three of them were responsible for search, that search was "the revenue engine of the company," and that bartering with the ads and finance teams was potentially "the new reality of their jobs."
On February 6th 2019, Gomes said that he believed that search was "getting too close to the money," and ended his email by saying that he was "concerned that growth is all that Google was thinking about."
[Ed's Comment: This is only the beginning of the story. Go to the link if you wish to read more.--JR]
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2
| Links |
printed from SoylentNews, Enshittification of Google and the Men Who Killed Search on 2024-05-08 07:45:16