The IT Strategy That Makes Google Work 112
savio13 writes "InfoWeek published an article on Google's IT Strategy, which can be summarized as: 'Use customized open source where possible, custom build where necessary , and buy if it's not related to something that will give Google a competitive advantage.' The author interviewed several senior IT folks at Google and the article is surprisingly thorough considering how closely Google guards information about their actual IT environment." From the article: "Google managers tend to be reticent on the subject of IT strategy, they're loath to talk about specific vendors or products, and they clam up when asked about their servers and data centers. But a day spent with some of the company's IT leaders reveals there's more to Google's IT operations than a search engine running on a massive server farm. Behind the seeming simplicity is a mash-up of internally developed software, made-to-order hardware, artificial intelligence, obsession with performance, and an unorthodox approach to people management."
Special sauce... (Score:5, Insightful)
The other thing that really impresses me about the company is the flat egalitarian structure that at the same time allows for tremendous independent freedom while also making much of the management fairly transparent which does tremendous things for morale. I also respect the encouragement of discourse including criticism. Not many companies can tolerate that sort of structure because they are built upon protectionism of management structures and establishment of castes of a sort. It shows that Google is one of the few companies like Apple that are succeeding because of their inherent talent. Google knows this and I would encourage them to resist the pressure to devolve into management structures that are having negative effects on tech companies as diverse as SGI, HP, Dell and Microsoft.
As an aside, Google has shows a tremendously insightful ability to pick and choose product development talent at all levels over the years. I've been impressed by many of their hires. Whoever is heading up their HR dept. is talking actively with the Google special sauce R&D folks and they know their stuff.....
Google didn't create Google Earth (Score:5, Informative)
However, credit can be given to Google in this case for recognizing when someone else is looking at old problems in new and innovative ways, and adapting their approach.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
I used keyhole back in january 2002.
I even saw it on the news shortly thereafter. (remember those cool fly-by animations durring gulf war II?)
Re:Google didn't create Google Earth (Score:4, Insightful)
>> when someone else is looking at old problems in new and innovative ways,
>> and adapting their approach.
Another company was very succesful at acquiring companies that made new and innovative applications.... Microsoft!
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Special sauce... Google HR / recruiters (Score:1, Interesting)
I was humbled
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
I heard the same thing from some kids about Flight Simulator's team...
Re:Special sauce... (Score:5, Interesting)
But Wall Street is setup so that you have to keep growing or die. You can have a healthy business in any other sense, but if you're not growing then you may as well be dead as far as The Street is concerned. Exhibit A - Microsoft. They have something like 70% profit margins, earn billions of dollars in pure profit every single quarter...yet they are considered a lackluster company and their reflects this perception.
So in order to satisfy Wall Street's appetite for growth companies keep...growing. Often way too fast. Many times this results in bad products in good potential markets, good products in bad markets, and bad products in bad markets. It takes staff to ramp up to develop all these misses. The money made before supports all these misses. You get a few too many of these misses and not only are you not growing anymore, but your bread and butter that once made you a Wall Street darling is now undercut by cheaper competition.
Exhibits B & C - SGI and Dell.
Anyway, right now Google is obviously in a growth phase. But there is nothing THAT new or innovative about what they're doing. (And many of the products people give them credit for was actually purchased by Google as many in this thread have pointed out for Google Earth.) They're just the most recent cool new company (that everyone's heard of) on the tech block.
I'd love to work with/for Google and I think they're a cool company, but a bit of perspective can be useful too. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Special sauce... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at MS as an investor and you will see why.
The founder and chairman is stepping back from the full time for the first time since the company was founded. There seems to be a general lack of confidence in the CEO.
The next version of the flagship produce is several years late and has had several key features dropped from it.
The company is sitting on a large cash pile. Why? What are they planning to do with it? When companies keep cash piles they are usually doing one of preparing for bad times, planning a huge amount of (probably risky) expansion or big (again risky) acquisitions?
Look at the valuation ratios: they are actually fairly high for a company that already dominates its industry(which limits room for growth).
You seem to object to the idea that Wall Street values growth companies more. Would you pay are much for the shares of a high growth company as a similar low growth company?
Of course you may be right that Google's growth is being over-valued, but it does not need to keep up its growth of all that long (a few years will do) to justify the current rating.
Re: (Score:1)
From MS's history - BillyG has never let the company have negative cash - no debt. MS has always had enough money to employ itself for at least a period of 2 years without a single sale. Now-a-days that does require the billions in cash that they ha
Re: (Score:1)
That is at least partly Microsoft's own fault.
Historically Microsoft refused to issue Dividends, their arguement was alway that investors made money by the share price going up and so were hugely focused on that one goal which works while a company is still growing but it can't be sustained indef
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe once the growth slows sufficiently, the board will decide to pay dividends. Paying dividends during the growth phase can hurt the company's cash flow. Going from phenomenal growth without dividends to slow g
Re: (Score:2)
I'd add that Google is doing really well economically. When the growth starts to slow, or when the money dries up-- even temporarily-- that's when we'll really know how resilient and positive the Google atmosphere is.
It's easy to be flat and transparent when you're hiring. When you're laying off, things get much harder for the manager. Obviously, we hope no company ever has to cut back, but history teaches us that eventually they all do.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Google and Apple have wildly different management styles.
Google is run for the engineers. The engineering managers are interviewed by engineers. If they don't know as much about engineering as the guys they manage, they don't get hired. So, the end result is engineers running at 100% efficiency, giving everything they have to every crazy project they come up with. The public then choose which products they like - its not like you have to splash out 1000 bucks to try a new google product out.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that something to be proud of?
Am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, but sad.
Submitter forgot to include a relevant URL (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Submitter forgot to include a relevant URL (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Submitter forgot to include a relevant URL (Score:5, Funny)
To obtain that, run the following command - $cat
And make sure it ALL prints out.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Just a small correction: I think you meant
[I hate watching all those virtual particles dropping inert to the ground...]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Submitter forgot to include a relevant URL (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It should have said... (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone's talking about how bloated and old Microsoft is... give Google 10 or 15 years - rest assured we'll be seeing comments like "Where Did Google Go Wrong?" or "Google Delisted" or something like that.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
On a more serious note, I agree with you. I'm sure Microsoft had a very fresh and innovative approach to HR back in the day, and surely there were a few dozen articles discussing just that. Round and round we go...
Re: (Score:2)
Let's settle this once and for... (Score:4, Funny)
Are the network cables bought pre-made at fixed lengths or does an army of interns who spend the summer making cables instead of coding?
Why isn't google releasing their modifications? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why isn't google releasing their modifications? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why isn't google releasing their modifications? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why isn't google releasing their modifications? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know the structure of Google's "contributions" Maybe you never see code submitted by "Google". But aren't there Google employees who are paid to be full-time open-source developers, some of them contributing regularly on major projects?
Re:Why isn't google releasing their modifications? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AFAIK, the GPL specifies that *if* they distribute a modified Linux kernel, then they must legally distribute the source of the modified kernel under the GPL as well. However, using or modifying the kernel does not require them to distribute the kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Google doesn't ship code to customers, so are under no obligation to release source. I don't believe the GPL v 3 would change that, either.
case in point (Score:5, Interesting)
Want to read about some cool Google "cooked up" technology?, read this white paper [google.com] on the Google File System (one of the coolest, simplest, most elegant file systems I've seen).
Re: (Score:1)
mash-up (Score:1)
*!*SMACK*!*
Stop with the "mash-up" already!
Re:Appliance (Score:4, Informative)
http://code.google.com/mirror/gsa.html [google.com]
which is the code they use on their search appliances that they are required to release.
But, you know, that might have been an oversite on your part?
Re: (Score:2)
What about the rather large amount of webservers using apache and mysql, are they required to notify clients that they are open source and link to the source?
gimme a break
Strange use of mashup... (Score:2)
At first, I though the word 'mashup' was misused, but this wikipedia entry for Mashup [wikipedia.org] tells me I'm somewhat wrong. Somewhat because there's no application involved. But it doesn't matter, misusing a word can be seen as writing with style
I prefer my IT strategies... (Score:1)
Don't fry your IT strategies... (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Duh!
Beer (Score:2)
Opinions aside, very interesting article. (Score:1)
I Should Have Paid to RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Competitive Advantage (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
2. I run mostly MS software at my business, but the MS software that I run is highly customized. MS offers tons and tons of API's. Many more than most proprietary software companies than I've seen, in fact. If you want to find out more, visit: http://msdn.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com]
3. And, if you'll notice... companies like Google that use custom software to gain a competitive advantage certainly don't open sour
Re: (Score:1)
2) The API only lets you change the software within the boundaries set by Microsoft. Also, the API doesn't allow you to roll out that MS application to hundreds of thousands of nodes without an increase in licencing. The more your
Re: (Score:1)
NIH is a killer. (Score:3, Interesting)
It consistently bugs me that so many companies think they can save money by taking the “not invented here” philosophy on as much as possible. I am convinced, especially after learning about the inner workings of Google, that this just does not work. So much time and effort is wasted getting third party products working for very specific tasks and when all is said and done, you can often put together a solution that meets your needs exactly in nearly the same amount of time. And then in the long run, even if you are successful at first, you will fight a larger maintenance and cost nightmare as your vendors shift and change directions and you find yourself wishing you had more specificity in the solution.
Re:NIH is a killer. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
But I think I agree with your thoughts: I've seen far better productivity come from small teams creating simple solutions than from much larger teams attempting to implement huge commercial platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
A bigger point that needs to be made though is why strategies like google's are slightly misguided. Third party software can be successfully integrated into an internal system. The challenge is performing the proper due dillegence on the software and making sure it meets your needs in terms of functionality, sustainability, support, and all the other factors that tend to be ignored during the purchasing phase. When the right commercial softw
Calling all Geezers: 21st Century SABRE system (Score:5, Interesting)
But again, the basic approach was to start from scratch and build the biggest fastest business application system they could design. The problem with SABRE is that change control and management were nightmarish in their complexity.
What I'd be interested in learning is how Google handles patch management, security APARs, change control, health checking and all those mundane process driven chores that catch us all up.
And yes I am old geezer. I did extensive work in high performance CICS systems such as running CICS as a continuous communications task.
Re: (Score:2)
I learned about SABRE in University, I could have sworn they told it ran *all* the airlines' reservation systems.
That said, your comment about patch management, change control, and so forth are on the money. There HAS to be a better to do it that what I'm doing now (failover, patch, failover, patch, failover patch...)
MS (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
-CF
Contributions to the Linux Kernel... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Contributions to the Linux Kernel... (Score:5, Interesting)
Office stripping... (Score:1, Funny)
"Everything that's done privately is done publicly here," he says. (As if to make the point, Merrill took off his T-shirt during our photo shoot, showing off his tattoos.)
Guess there had to be a downside to working at Google as well..
Jebus! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I've [slashdot.org] been [slashdot.org] waiting [slashdot.org] ages [slashdot.org] for [slashdot.org] an [slashdot.org] article [slashdot.org] about [slashdot.org] Google [slashdot.org] ! [slashdot.org]
Old Dog (Score:2)
custom build where necessary , and buy if it's not related to something that will give Google a competitive advantage
Hi. Welcome to everyone's IT strategy. So Google uses OSS too. What's the news?
Easy on the Google Worship (Score:2)
It all depends whether the company is a tech producer or consumer. Tech consumers buy or outsource everything but their core competency. This eliminates the risk of in-house development. Tech produce
Universally accessible data? (Score:1)
Yeah, universally available to all those living outside of China.
Re: (Score:1)
Much more techie info about Google IT by Rob Pike (Score:2)
Did you know for example, that he says fancy cooling is only necessary, if your components are in a box. Wrap them to racks with velcro, drop the boxes, and you need no active cooling.
Great today but great to stay? (Score:1)
The problem is, of course, that there is a very strong pull to devolve to the mean. To become average, normal, or safe. It takes a HUGE a
Why Yahoo is better than Google (Score:1, Troll)
Um, what? (Score:2)
>4. Yahoo's Mail service actually works: Unlike Gmail,
>Google's mail service, Yahoo Mail actually works. Gmail has been in BETA for years.
What about GMail doesn't work? I use it constantly and successfully.
>8. Stock Price: Google is trading at a 600% EPS premium over Yahoo.
>This is what happens when emotions trump logic in the stock market.
So short it
Hypocrites (Score:2)
Is it worse to be a hypocrite than to do evil? Yahoo has done all the evil that you accuse Google of. Their lack of a claim to "not do evil" is no defense whatsoever in my book.
I think everyone should hold themselves to the highest standard. Sometimes you will fail to meet that standard. You should recognize your failures and try to do better. To hold yourself to n
Re: (Score:1)
Is that not inventive? (Score:1)
Now that would be one hell of a water cooling setup.
Google Open Source (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)