Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/hottakes
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
maurelian pfp
maurelian
@maurelian.eth
The gnashing of teeth over @dwr.eth's use of "revealed preference" comes down to a simple difference of perspective: He's a product guy, he just wants you to use his product. As long as you use it, then whether or not you want-to-want to use his product is not a matter of concern.
2 replies
0 recast
26 reactions
shazow pfp
shazow
@shazow.eth
It reminds me of 2010-era Google days when "data" was used to justify whatever decision the PM/VP was trying to shovel that day. Just a rebranding of the same premise, laundering superficial outcomes as driving forces. Tbf 2012-era Google was all SVP vibes and fear driven, so that wasn't an improvement.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
maurelian pfp
maurelian
@maurelian.eth
LOL what are SVP vibes?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shazow pfp
shazow
@shazow.eth
When I was there, I had the displeasure of working with Vic, the Google+ SVP (my Twitter analytics startup got acquired to build Google+ analytics) and every decision made was largely out of fear and ignorance. Google+ had great numbers, but Vic was terrified of revealing that despite having 10M followers or whatever, his posts only got 100K views. (Forget exact numbers, but I had experience knowing that these funnel impression numbers were better than Twitter's.) This was a year ahead of its time (Twitter launched their version of it later), we would have been the first social network to publicly share impressions (and we put in a ton of effort to make it privacy-preserving with various fuzzing techniques). Anyway, got to sit in a lot of meetings where lots of dumb decisions were made out of fear of public impression, or incorrect understanding of how competitors work, etc. Our product was ultimately blocked from launching, my team burned out, I quit, Vic ~~got fired~~ left a couple years after.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
shazow pfp
shazow
@shazow.eth
But that was the high level situation at Google which led to the disaster that was Google+. Everything was reactionary, everything was done out of fear of becoming irrelevant. Bad decisions were made left and right, almost every org was forced to be merged into Google+ in some shape during the leadership power struggle (I'm sure there was plenty of data showing that end-to-end integration of every product with every other product is the revealed preference of customers). Google is still paying for those bad decisions, long after. Remember the dozen different chat apps? This is the reason things like that happened.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions