LOL, you're assuming anyone gets promoted by fixing issues at Google. Wrong. You build some new shit and switch teams. Someone pitches a new project and builds from scratch. Rinse and repeat.

This particular issue happens (at least that's my recollection a few years ago) frequently enough at Google that there were memes about it internally. Not sure giving additional feedback would help.

This is so glaringly apparent as a user. I think Google makes some fantastic products, but the number of "This has to be so exceedingly easy to fix, but Google just doesn't give a damn" issues I've hit is crazy.

Here's one simple one: the number of volume steps in Android is only 16: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/37035441 . This means that the difference between off and the lowest level volume can be pretty big if you're trying to be quiet, e.g. avoid waking someone in the same room. I almost wish they would just close issues with a "We don't give a shit" resolution status.

I don't think it is as simple as a singular person or a single room saying "I don't give a shit". It's a matter of prioritization. (In this particular case, even from a UX perspective alone, you could argue that increasing friction in sharing could net-net hurt the average user.)

I don't think Google (if we can anthropomorphize it at all) is blind to this general phenomenon though--it's a trade-off you have to make about what company you want to be. Is it better for you to invest resources into incremental improvements to polish the final 2% or try again and maybe make a breakthrough. You have to look it from multiple angles too: are you going to attract the most talented people giving them such gruntwork or will they quit? Is there any meaningful incremental business you could get from polishing Android (remember, polished Android is more expensive and has to compete head-on with a company whose focus is to polish and is best set up to do so). It's complicated. There's a place for multiple models.

> Is it better for you to invest resources into incremental improvements to polish the final 2% or try again and maybe make a breakthrough.

I would argue that maybe they should try Option 1, instead of sunsetting their Nth chat app, or migrating everyone from Google Music (which would very much benefit from some polish) onto Google Youtube Music (which I don't understand the value of for me as a listener.)

Who cares how much talent you have if nothing works. Perhaps they have too much talent and not enough meat and potatoes.

"Nothing works" is certainly not an accurate description of the reality (It's more like 80-90% works just great). As for who cares, your colleagues certainly do (there are limits on how much "potato and meat" you can mix with talent before messing the recipe up). Also note that the companies we are talking about here are not in the technology business, they are in the empire business, so they certainly care about who gets to help control the empire and who defects to a competitor.

I mean they're printing money from their ad services so something must be working

I could buy the "either/or" proposition with other companies, but not with Google. They have so much money and so many people they could easily (a) fix lots of these things that drive users nuts and (b) make a "breakthrough" (but as other commenters have pointed out, if their "breakthrough" is another chat app, maybe they should pull back).

They quite simply don't incentivize teams to fix this shit.

It's not just a resource limit issue. It's more akin to designing the tax code. At the top, you have to design a performance review system that trickles down to 100k people who operate in different parts of your organization without special casing too much to incentivize the desired behavior (special casing or discretion may add complexity, potential unfairness and bias, or effectively segment the company reducing internal mobility or make some products less attractive drawing away subsets of talent you may need there). To make the matters more difficult it's not like the CEO gets to write it on a tablet; as with the tax code, it is not designed in a vacuum, and the people who write it have existing political incentives too. Life is complicated.

iOS also has 16 volume steps

Many organizations work like this. People get credit for orphaned projects they no longer work on.

Then, more responsible developers have to waste their lives maintaining code that was designed to be orphaned from the start.

Googler here promoted twice by taking over a team/project, simplifying it, and making it hum.

This is a common narrative about Google. There is some truth to it but the blanket "nobody gives a shit about anything other than launches" claim is bogus.

Yes, obviously there's hyperbole in that statement, but there's no denying the fundamental incentive structure is at heart of most of polish issues of this nature; that said, as I argue in my followup comments, I personally don't see the bias towards launches is a bad choice for the organization at large, especially since personal craftsmanship from some individual employees and their own values more often than not covers up the shortcoming in corporate incentives.

The sad reality is that this is the only way to ever get anywhere with Google's seemingly build it then abandon it services. You build something to move up the ladder while someone else is tossed at your ladder that is on its way crashing down at varying speeds.

Now they embrace, extend, extinguish, and sometimes just shut it down cause it's not being marketed for a price at all.

Did you ever see the time where spammers could share calendar invites with you that would automatically get applied to your calendar without you accepting it...

Google eventually added an option to change this behavior. Guess it will take a critical mass of complaints to get something similar for Google Drive.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-calendar-spam-is-on-the-...

I thought this would be years old but this article was written late August 2019.

iCloud had a similar problem in 2016.

Bonus points for slipping your resume past the HR filters this way.

I just tried this. Let's see what happens.

Please share the email address (use a throwaway account) so that everyone can do it as well. Otherwise it's pointless.

No, I’m sorry I cannot do that, for me that would be doxxing. I work for a government contractor and have access to a databases of executive contact information. I think if you spent a little time with a search engine you might be able to accomplish the same thing otherwise.

That sounds kind of unethical. Or is the reasoning, you could have found it on Google anyway, so you might as well do it the easy way?

Just because I have access to resources that you don't doesn't mean I should do the work for you. That's an entirely new level of wokeness.

I wasn't suggesting you give me the information, but that you probably shouldn't have obtained it in that way. It might also be illegal?

So you used your database to look up information to intentionally share files with an unwilling party? Interesting.

If they didn’t want files to be shared with them, Google employees are empowered to fix this in ways non-employees are not. If they show up in the share list, one can only presume they consented to this, as there is a way to opt-out; there should be a menu to configure this setting as well, and that is a good point to make, but it is a different, related point.

HN is not 4Chan

I had to Google what 4Chan means. Fair enough.

More likely for your google account to get suspended than for them to make a product change.

That won't work, you should find whoever the product manager responsible for Google Drive sharing is, and start sharing files with them.

What's your technique of finding the name of a relevant product manager?

Ask someone you know at Google who is high enough up to make an intro.

LinkedIn

Genius!