The IBM-ification of Google?

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Claims that Google is “turning into IBM” prompt debate over whether the company is stagnating or simply maturing while still leading in areas like AI, YouTube, and self‑driving technology. Many criticize Google’s habit of killing products, aggressive monetization (e.g., YouTube Shorts, search AI overviews), and weak enterprise support exemplified by incidents like the Railway Google Cloud outage, arguing this erodes user trust and developer goodwill. Others counter that constant experimentation, ruthless resource reallocation, and a dominant ad and AI stack keep Google exceptionally strong, making comparisons to IBM’s decline overstated or premature.

Product shutdowns, risk-taking, and trust

  • Some defend Google’s “launch many, kill many” strategy as normal risk-taking; unprofitable or low-priority products should be cut.
  • Others say the pain is that widely loved, low-maintenance products (e.g., RSS reader, chat apps, Stadia) were killed for strategic or ad reasons, not lack of quality.
  • Repeated shutdowns are seen as eroding trust, especially for hardware tied to cloud services and for enterprise buyers who expect decade-long support.
  • A proposed alternative: keep old products running in “zombie” mode with minimal updates to preserve trust, though critics note this has real opportunity cost.

Innovation vs stagnation

  • Some argue Google remains on the frontier in AI, self‑driving, quantum, custom hardware, etc., and that its bets have driven massive market cap.
  • Others perceive stagnation in user-facing products like Gmail and Search: shallow or annoying changes (AI inbox, AI Overviews) instead of long‑requested usability improvements.
  • Debate over Gemini: some call it “pretty good” and fast/efficient; others see it as clearly behind competing LLMs and more copycat than category‑defining.

YouTube, shorts, and user sentiment

  • Many dislike Shorts and “unavoidable” engagement features, calling them anti-user and emblematic of enshittification.
  • Workarounds exist (history off, third-party apps, new settings), but often don’t fully remove Shorts.
  • At the same time, YouTube is described as uniquely valuable; people “hate it but still use it” due to unmatched content and network effects.
  • Some insist broad sentiment toward YouTube remains positive, with users caring more about creators than platform knobs.

Google Cloud, Railway, and enterprise reliability

  • The Railway GCP account-ban incident is widely discussed as a trust crisis: a large startup’s account was auto-suspended, apparently without effective safeguards.
  • Clarifications in-thread: Railway had reps and phone contacts, and support did help restore service, but not fast enough to prevent major impact.
  • Some blame Railway for not having the right enterprise relationship; others reject this as victim-blaming, arguing automated bans for big accounts are unacceptable.
  • Comparison with other clouds: Microsoft praised for responsive account management, AWS for strong technical support, Google’s account teams often seen as weak or revolving.
  • Hetzner is cited as cheaper but also prone to sudden, unexplained terminations; “getting Hetznered” is a known risk.

Google vs IBM and industry trajectory

  • Some call the IBM comparison inapt: IBM is seen as a services-heavy, legacy player; Google still drives core innovation that powers its ad business.
  • Others say the analogy fits in a different sense: a shift from bold product leadership to safe, incremental moves and “enterprise” behavior.
  • Broader debate on whether big tech is now “too entrenched to die” versus historical patterns that even giants eventually decline.

Internal culture and hiring

  • Several comments describe a perceived influx of middle managers and weaker hiring standards, especially post‑2020.
  • Support and direct customer interaction are said to be culturally undervalued inside Google, with automation prioritized over hands-on help.