That's not the problem at Google -- Google's issue isn't tech/UX competence at all (when they want to, they're stellar at it).

To the contrary, Google culture (including, presumably, Pichai's views) is explicitly to try lots of competing ideas within Google and to disrupt from within. What other company would have Gmail and (previously) Inbox, multiple music services, a gazillion messaging apps, and so on?

This isn't a failure of management or accountability, this is consciously chosen policy at the highest levels. Resources go towards self-disruption by launching more new things in the same category, rather than choosing to focus on one and committing to it. This is why people are promoted for launches rather than for maintenance and support.

The upside is that Google launches way more products and could dramatically up its odds of success in a category. The downside is products fail because they don't get the support to see them through, consumers are totally confused by redundant products, and Google gets a reputation for cancelling products which might actually hinder future adoption (at least in some tech circles).

Obviously Google still seems to think the upside outweighs the downside... while many on HN come to the opposite conclusion. :)

Historically that's was Google's approach, but now it seems like a weird Frankenstein mash of that+strategy.

E.g. the topical buying Nest, but then force folding it into Google Home

That's the opposite of letting the best solution among competing options win.

The broader issue is that it doesn't seem like there's a CEO who shows up in the Google Home's team meeting and live demos the broken and missing features, shows them on Nest, and then demands answers for why this wasn't done before they forced migration.

As has been quipped on here, Pichai seems to act more like a Google advocate who avoids rocking the internal boat, versus the rabid user advocate that Gates / Jobs / Bezos reportedly were.

And when there's no one you're afraid of at the top... of course the organization devolves into petty fiefdoms and bickering, at the expense of users.

Yeah, the other downside I should have mentioned is they have no good strategy for what to do when they're left with multiple products after years.

They eventually choose to sunset one, and simplify brands, but in a really haphazard, broken-features way, just like we're seeing here.

But again, the issue isn't that the CEO's not checking up on the details. It's not one of quality control. It's that they don't care. It's not process, it's goals. I can't imagine Sundar wasn't briefed that the migration will involve missing features, and he signed off on that.

Because Google's core values are about trying lots of new things, with a focus on scalability and search and machine learning and metrics. Google's core values are very specifically not about maintaining consistent quality, committing to products, or guaranteeing features -- or being a "user advocate" as you mention.

So this is all just to reiterate. These aren't process failures. These are Google's processes working as intended. The Nest failures here are simply a reflection of Google's actual goals.

They're just rolling the dice over and over again trying to repeat the blow-out self-sustaining revenue success they had with AdWords. And it will never happen.

From the outside, Microsoft seems to have a complete undivided focus on the customer. It may be on helping, or it may be of fucking the customer, but it's on the customer.

That makes it impossible to ship their organogram.

Apple seems to have escaped it mostly by centralizing power, but I don't think they are currently keeping it.

I think it's that what Microsoft had in the 90s and what Apple had in the 2010s (and to some degree now) was an existential clear mission. Forking off into idiocy was obviously discouraged by leadership but also the profit and survival and success motive was clear: ship improved iPhones and make revenue on them, improve and ship Office or Windows, etc. That's the source of revenue, that's the clear mission.

Google's consumer products lack that. Google has an ad machine that just produces seemingly infinite cash. The hardware and consumer facing stuff is a sideshow. So it escapes project discipline.

At least OSes and phones have intrinsic value, and the leadership can lead with that mandate alone.

For Google, it's hard to pretend to be the Good Guys when your main (and only) business is monopolizing internet ads.