Wabewalker

location: Home

mood: elated

I’m out as of Wednesday. (Take the subject of this note any way you want.)

The company is desperate enough to avoid bad press that they’re willing to part with two extra months’ of salary per employee if we keep quiet about the internal goings-on. That’s something I can live with. As far as I am concerned, this will be the last time I ever mention Yahoo again.

Because if you’re not allowed to say something not nice, you might as well say nothing at all.

Jerry is out. Whoo.

Excuse me for not having an orgasm. This is non-news for two reasons: 1) it was expected; and 2) it will change nothing.

Jerry is the Herbert Hoover of Yahoo: he is not responsible for the collapse, but he did little to prevent it. His policies at the end were pretty much “status quo, only ever so much more so.” The company was psychotic from the Semel years, and will pretty much remain so until the rest of the Semelites ablate.

But before Yahoo can recover, it has to show humility. It has to accept that it is not, and has never been, a technology company. Nor is it a media company. It is a distributor, a syndicate, of content from both users and professional publishers. Semel couldn’t accept the fact that he wasn’t an entertainment mogul; Yang couldn’t accept the fact that he wasn’t an engineering genius.

It’s funny how some companies maintain the original personalities of their founders long after the founders have faded into the background. Google was founded by two computer science students based on a data mining algorithm they developed at Stanford; today, Google still thinks in terms of solving problems via engineering. Yahoo was formed by two students who gathered an inexplicable following for their web page of links to content they neither produced nor owned; today, Yahoo is best at managing content and maintaining a community. Microsoft, well… avarice is what best describes them: claw your way to the top via acquisitions and outright theft.

People fear Google, and rightfully so. They see another Microsoft on the horizon: a company that will so dominate the landscape that innovation will all but cease, as it did in the early ’90s. The thing that bothers me is, why put your faith in a company that has shown time and time again that it is not to be trusted? There are far safer ways to keep Google in check than to give Microsoft a ten-year extension to its monopoly.

OK, so grid computing is no longer hip, but cloud computing is? Fine. I’m cool with that because I make no claim to being the overlord of technorati fashion. But as a technical person, I feel the need to point out that there is a fundamental difference between grid computing and cloud computing.

Grid computing

Using a lot of computers in parallel to achieve an easily decomposable task.

Cloud computing

Using a lot of computers that you do not own to achieve a task. Equally, providing the hardware and infrastructure to allow others to perform cloud computing.

Got the difference? Using EC2 to launch your online social network for left-handed goldfish fanciers? Cloud computing. Using GMail because you don’t want to lug your laptop across the country? Cloud computing. Using Hadoop on a private cluster to estimate word probability in documents? Grid computing, no matter how unsexy you think it sounds.

Sorry, nameless SVP: you’re in charge of grid computing at Yahoo even if it does not look good on your pathetic résumé. If you can’t tell the difference, you should be fucking glad you have a job at all because I would have canned your ass long ago.

Personally, I’d rather work with grid computing than cloud computing. I’ve found that a technology only becomes useful after the initial hype has faded. But that’s just me: substance over style.

Here we go again. In the Washington Post article Google Ad Deal Is Under Scrutiny, we get the following gem:

“This is a complicated situation, but one of the key questions is very simple,” said David Balto, an antitrust lawyer who was competition policy director at the Federal Trade Commission during the Clinton administration. “What is Yahoo's incentive to continue to compete?”

I said it once, and I’ll say it again: Yahoo! is not in the business of competing with Google. It is in the business of making money.

If the FTC is so damn eager for a Google competitor, either split the company up — oh, wait; you can’t do that because the DoJ refused to split Microsoft — or create an artificial competitor. Neither alternative solves the real problem: the same network forces that keep Windows on your PC keeps Google as the king of search, and nothing short of a radical paradigm shift will change that. (Yahoo! is trying, I’ll give you that.) Microsoft’s traditional business model — wait, copy, then undersell — just doesn’t work for services. Too bad; don’t expect me to weep for Steve Ballmer.

I’m sure Yahoo! would be happy to accept government subsidies to stay in the search game.

I got a list of in-house business classes in my inbox today, one of which was this gem:

RAPID is a decision making framework adopted by Yahoo! in early 2007. "Decide, align and get on with it" is one of the four Yahoo! Behaviors identified as key to Yahoo!'s success. (emphasis mine)

I think that’s a big part of the problem with Yahoo!’s corporate culture and subsequent lack of success: all decisions require a full consensus before execution. It certainly explains why my current project has lapsed into “analysis paralysis.”

Strong leaders are going to offend somebody. It’s inevitable. Believing you can achieve universal alignment is a dangerous fantasy.

Norton Juster once wrote of “the Triple Demons of Compromise”: one demon said to go left, one said to go right, and the third agreed with them both. Achieving consensus is a noble, popular, fruitless, and unnecessary goal. I’ve been there; it’s a mistake I will not make again. Make decisions, make unpleasant choices, demand that your underlings follow them, and then move on.

location: work

mood: pissed off

(Yeah, yeah, I work for Yahoo!; but I am not privy to any business decisions relating to Google. This is in response to the current batch of blatherskite on the web.)

Unless you’ve been in a coma for the last few days, you are aware that Yahoo! is allowing Google to buy ads for a fraction of its search results. And you are probably also aware that the blogosphere hates the idea.

They are morons, and your Uncle Wabe will tell you why.

Somebody at Yahoo! had an epiphany — it might have even been Jerry, but I doubt that — that Google and Yahoo! are not involved in some zero-sum game. That epiphany is right: they aren’t.

Apple had a similar revelation, summed up in a classic Jobsian quote: “We have to let go of the notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose.” Jobs realized that there was no justifiable business reason to compete for low-value markets in which Microsoft dominated.

The deal with Google is a watershed moment for Yahoo!, and it is no wonder why the pundits don’t like it. The bloggers are nothing more than schoolboys huddled in a circle, chanting “Fight! Fight!” at a pair of unwilling participants, neither of whom wish to batter each other for the entertainment of the mob. In the Valley no successful company is to be unchallenged, the health of the smaller business be damned: otherwise there would be no drama, and no drama means no page views. As the Apple Turns closed up shop after Microsoft and Apple became “frienemies.”

Yahoo! had to get out of the search marketing business, because it was not good at it. Yahoo! is not in the business of being a viable competitor to Google; it is in the business of making a profit. A proper business always focuses on its strengths and quickly excises those business units that constantly underperform. Those who complain that Yahoo! invested billions into Panama and therefore should maintain it are simply subscribing to the Prior Investment Fallacy and should have their blogging licenses revoked. Reading Conned Again, Watson! at least should be mandatory before posting.

If it turns out that Yahoo! can make more money outsourcing its search monetization to Google, than what of it? Loss of confidential information? Yahoo!’s search segment is so small, there are few if any trends that can be extracted from it that cannot be done from Google’s massive data stream. Long-term degradation of the customer base? Only if Yahoo! continues to try to sell keyword-based advertising, and if the test is marginally successful that may not happen. Antitrust concerns? The government cannot force Yahoo! to stay in the search advertising market; if they really have problems, then they should break up Google. Just like they could have broken up Microsoft, but didn’t. If the DoJ blocks this, expect to hear serious screaming.

Coexistence trumps conquest; “Embrace. Extend. Extinguish” succumbs to “Accept. Adapt. Achieve.”

So where does this leave Microsoft? Up the proverbial creek. The problem with Microsoft is that over the last few decades they have amassed a (deserved) reputation for treachery and now they are suffering from it. Any potential partner needs only to read a history book to see what partnering with Microsoft is worth; unfortunately, if Microsoft is serious about competing in the keyword-based advertising space it must have partners. Columnists are fond of Microsoft because its rapaciousness made good press; now that everyone is wary, the headlines are far too tame. Tough time for pundits; don’t expect me to weep.

Let’s compare some product logos, shall we?

Now	Then

Sigh. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Sometimes meetings are so boring, you forget what they were about. For instance, I have no recollection of ever writing the following, yet it appears in my notebook:

Crap! He just said ‘Man-Month.’ Eject! Eject! Eject!

I realize that Jerry is trying to make things “informal,” that he’s reïnforcing his “personal brand,” and that this is a quick one-off message to the troops (rah rah); but seriously, someone get the boy a copy of Presentation Zen stat. To wit:

• Constantly looking down to your desk to check your notes is a no–no. If you must use notes, have them written on cue cards and held next to the camera. Glancing down constantly sends two unappealing messages:
  • I am ashamed; and
  • I am lying.
  You don’t want to send either. A steely-eyed focus on the viewer sends a much more positive message.
• Kill the “ems” and “ahs.” We know you are a big fan of Steve Jobs, so take a lesson from his presentation style: rehearse, rehearse, then rehearse some more. The more familiar you are with the material you are presenting, the more confident you will be during the actual presentation.
• Hire an editor. These video updates are supposed to be informal, but re-filming segments that appear ill-paced would go a lot towards improving the confidence the troops have in your plan and your ability to execute it.

In short, my advice is: do it right or don’t bother doing it at all.

A funny thing happened at work today. Funny as in “troubling.”

I work at Yahoo! (exclamation point mandatory, sorry), and unless you’ve been under a rock for the last two months, you are aware that Yahoo! is fending off the unwilling advances of Microsoft.

Well, this appeared on the internal boards this week:

There are photos of someone on the walls of Bld A 1st and 2nd floors
(break-room, stairs etc). Why and who is this?

The response was:

I heard he is a new employee that has been planted into Y! by Microsoft.
Watch out what you say around him.

This exchange immediately brought to mind the final exchange from that story by Rod Serling:

“Understand the procedure now? Just stop a few of their machines, their telephones, their lawnmowers, throw them into darkness for a few hours, and then sit back and watch the pattern.”

“This pattern is always the same?”

“With few variations. They pick the most dangerous enemy they can find.... and it’s themselves. All we need do is sit back and watch.”

Indeed. In the immortal words of Walt Kelly, “We have met the enemy, and it is us.”

In summary:

#!/usr/bin/perl -l
@m = qw(mi cro soft);
@y = qw(ya hoo);

while (@m && @y) {
  $s = shift @{rand > .5 ? \@m : \@y};
  push @r, $s if !@r || rand > .5
}

$" = "";
print "\u@r!"';

Was not fired.

Which is amazing, considering that:

1. Through no fault of my own, I have done absolutely nothing for the last three months as projects have been cancelled, delayed, or reassigned; and
2. I have begun a not-so-covert “whispering campaign” against any and all people I report to, directly or indirectly.

I blame this on the popularity of House. People have lately decided to equate ‘asshole’ with ‘genius.’ I for one would normally welcome this attitude, but not when I’m desperate to move on.

location: 2821 Mission College Blvd, Santa Clara, CA

mood: confused

Not fired yet (but considering leaving on my own).

Not fired yet.

Not fired yet.

Just got an e-mail from the CEO: not for me personally, it was a broadcast bulletin. Nothing special, just a bunch of bland corporate-speak.

What annoyed me was the lack of capital letters. It was all lower-case, like a whiny posting to some prepubescent emochild's all-black LiveJournal page.

Is the stress of running a multinational corporation so taxing that you cannot hit the shift key?

Followup: Apparently, others are bothered by this as well.

location: 2821 Mission College Blvd, Santa Clara, CA

mood: amused

The title of an active internal mailing list thread:

“Heath Ledger found doing an impression of the Y! stock price.”

Man, if I have to die, please not let it be in the bedroom of one of the Olsen twins.

Not fired yet.

(Watch this space for bulletins)

Had the talk today at work (tick tick tick...), and as usual, this has made me introspective on software management.

Why do so many managers believe that if you officially end-of-life a product (that is, stop active enhancement), that product will suddenly stop working?

“We can’t stop development on that product! It’s vital to our revenue stream!”

“But if you stop working on it, it still will run, right?”

“That doesn’t matter! We have to keep that product alive!”

Attention Managers: since the majority of you are members of the Managerial Cult of Steve Jobs, here’s a little factoid: Jobs killed MacOS 9 five years ago, but I still run it for some old games and unported applications. A handful of businesses still run on it. Yet by refusing to enhance it further, Jobs released needed resources to move forward with MacOS X.

location: 2821 Mission College Blvd, Santa Clara, CA

mood: aggravated

ret•req |ˈrɛtˈˈrɛk| noun a bizarre behavior from software explained post facto by editing the wiki holding the requirements document once said behavior is discovered.

Origin early 21st cent.: blend of retroactive and requirement.

See Also CYA