Starting Gmail:

Paul Buchheit, the creator and lead developer of Gmail, began working on Gmail as a side project in 2001. The project’s aim was to explore innovative ways to access and organize the vast amounts of information contained in emails. There was no initial plan, but Buchheit began by creating a system to index and search his email, which laid the groundwork for Gmail’s search functionality.

Iterative Development:

The development of Gmail was an iterative process that took a couple of years, involving a core team that eventually grew to about a dozen people. Features were added based on periodic brainstorming sessions and by observing users’ email behaviors. This helped the team discover that most email systems at the time didn’t accommodate how people actually used email, which led to the development of features that simplified email management.

Understanding User Behavior:

By watching people use their email systems, the team found out that users often maintained a complex system of folders that they aspired to use but usually defaulted to keeping all emails in the inbox. This led to the development of Gmail’s archiving and search features, which eliminated the need for intricate sorting.

Invitation-Only Launch:

Gmail was initially launched on April 1st, 2004, as an invite-only service. The invitations were so sought-after that they were being sold on eBay for hundreds of dollars.

Feature Decisions:

The team relied on a collaborative, iterative process to decide on Gmail’s features. They conducted interviews and observations to understand the challenges people faced with their existing email systems. This led to innovations such as automatic organization into conversations, which greatly reduced the need for manual labor in email management.

Technological Impact:

One of the most impactful aspects of Gmail was its front-end development using JavaScript. This moved the perception of webmail from being a “toy” to a serious competitor against standalone email clients like Outlook. Gmail’s browser-based interface was influential in demonstrating the power of web-based applications, inspiring other developers to explore what could be achieved with modern browser technology.

Advice for Users:

Buchheit suggests that people shouldn’t feel guilty about their email management habits, as there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Gmail was designed to accommodate various user behaviors, particularly those who don’t prefer to spend time organizing their emails into folders.

Early Days at Google:

Paul Buchheit was the 23rd employee at Google and played a pivotal role as the developer of Gmail. During the initial phase of the company, most employees were focused on search technology and advertising, making Gmail somewhat of an anomaly within the organization.

Challenges in Building Gmail:

The development of Gmail faced internal skepticism. Many questioned its necessity, viewing it as a distraction from Google’s core focus on search. Technically, it also posed unique challenges compared to web search. While losing web pages in a search engine was not a significant issue, the email system required meticulous data management to prevent any loss of emails.

Organizational Perception and Complexity:

At the time, Google was often seen as primarily a search technology company, even powering search for platforms like Yahoo. Within this framework, building a consumer email product seemed incongruent and even threatened existing partnerships. For example, Yahoo was likely not pleased with Google developing an email service.

Success and Impact:

Despite initial internal doubts and challenges, Gmail eventually gained wide adoption. It not only attracted users but also shifted them away from traditional desktop email systems, marking it as a success both in terms of user numbers and impact.

The discussion reveals how a transformative product like Gmail can emerge from within an established focus, albeit not without internal strife and technical hurdles.

Reliability Concerns:

Paul Buchheit addresses concerns about Gmail’s reliability after a recent outage. He suggests that while outages can be frustrating, they are part of the reality of most systems, including Gmail. Buchheit draws a comparison with the frequency of power outages in his own home, arguing that in the grand scheme of day-to-day problems, such issues are rare and perhaps overemphasized.

Reliability Vs. Profit-Motive:

The discussion touches on the different motivations behind service reliability, contrasting public utilities governed by local governments with profit-motivated corporations like Google. Despite different operational frameworks, both can experience issues with reliability, illustrating the complex nature of maintaining uninterrupted service.

Financial Viability and Advertising:

When queried about the financial aspect of Gmail, particularly concerning ads, Buchheit agrees that the ad targeting system is often surprisingly relevant to users. He notes that even though the ads may be clicked on infrequently, their high relevance and low operational cost make the service financially viable. The system was optimized to ensure that it didn’t need to generate enormous ad revenue to cover operational costs.

Operational Costs and Sustainability:

Buchheit also mentions the challenge of keeping operational costs low, which is vital for Gmail’s economic sustainability. The system has been optimized to be efficient enough to sustain itself financially, even if users only occasionally interact with the advertisements.

The discussion sheds light on the balance Gmail strikes between maintaining a reliable service and achieving financial sustainability, highlighting that both aspects are interlinked and critical for its long-term success.

Trust in Capitalism and Google:

The conversation begins with an examination of public trust in markets and corporations, especially in times of economic crisis. This mistrust extends to Google and Gmail, where concerns are raised about the vast amount of personal data stored on Google servers.

Paul Buchheit’s Perspective on Privacy:

Paul Buchheit expresses a nuanced view on privacy concerns related to Google. He believes that Google has strong incentives to protect user data, as mishandling could significantly harm their business. His concerns lie more with the susceptibility of any electronic data to legal processes, such as subpoenas.

Legal Constraints on Google:

Buchheit acknowledges that Google, like any other entity, is subject to the law. He points out that this is a broader issue, not confined to Google alone. Data can be legally accessed whether it’s stored on Google servers or personal servers, bringing legal and ethical complexities into focus.

Ephemeral vs Permanent Communication:

The speaker delves into the issues arising from the transition of communication from ephemeral to permanent mediums. Buchheit argues that online communication, including emails and instant messages, can become evidence in legal cases, which could be problematic for multiple reasons, including the destruction of historical records.

Trust and Security Procedures:

Buchheit asserts that he trusts Google not just because of systemic incentives but also because he knows the people there. However, he also points out that this level of trust can be applied to any service provider. He highlights that risks exist both in external and internal data storage systems, arguing that Google’s specialized focus could, in many cases, make it a safer option.

The discussion provides a multifaceted look at issues of trust and privacy, particularly concerning Google. It suggests that while concerns about data privacy are valid, they are part of a complex landscape involving legal obligations and the inherent risks associated with storing digital information.

Origin of “Don’t Be Evil”:

Paul Buchheit confirms that he coined the phrase “Don’t Be Evil” during a company meeting in early 2001. The meeting aimed to establish Google’s company values. Buchheit wanted to introduce something memorable, a stark departure from typically bland corporate values.

Impact of the Phrase:

The phrase was initially met with skepticism but eventually became important within the company culture. It serves as a license for employees to question organizational decisions. Buchheit recounts instances where the phrase was invoked to debate the ethical implications of an action, emphasizing how it encourages a more thoughtful organization.

Memorability of Corporate Values:

The phrase became the most memorable among Google’s corporate values. Buchheit believes that for values to have impact, they must be memorable. He criticizes long and complex statements for being forgettable, and thereby ineffectual, drawing comparisons with other memorable corporate mottos like Ritz-Carlton’s.

Company Growth:

Although not deeply elaborated upon, Buchheit indicates that Google experienced significant growth during his tenure from June 1999 to May 2006, changing from a startup to a much larger entity.

The discussion explores the concept of company values and their real-world impact on organizational behavior and decision-making. The “Don’t Be Evil” mantra serves as a focal point, revealing how a simple but memorable phrase can influence an entire corporate culture.

Initial Expectations:

Paul Buchheit joined Google in 1999 with low expectations, primarily because the search market at that time was crowded. Big companies like Altavista dominated the sector, investing heavily in marketing and boasting large engineering teams. Buchheit doubted how a small startup like Google could compete against such giants.

Reason for Joining Google:

Despite his skepticism, Buchheit decided to join Google because he found the team to be smart and believed that it would be a good learning experience. He was also intrigued by the technical challenges and the potential for broad access to information that the company could offer.

Transition from Corporate Culture:

Prior to joining Google, Buchheit had experience working at large corporations like Intel. He found the startup environment at Google refreshing and energizing in comparison to the “big sea of gray cubicles” at larger companies.

Learning and Growth:

Buchheit describes his time at Google as a rich learning experience that he equates to post-graduate education. He gained invaluable insights into systems, product development, and many other areas. The company’s culture and smart workforce made it an ideal place for intellectual and professional growth.

Buchheit’s reflections offer an insider’s perspective on Google’s early years, including the doubts, challenges, and opportunities that accompanied its journey from a small startup to a tech giant. His account underscores the value of a stimulating work environment and the educational benefits that can be gained from such experiences.

Startup Phase and Expectations:

Paul Buchheit describes his early experience with Google, indicating that he joined with low expectations. He was impressed by the intelligent team and felt it would be a learning opportunity, despite thinking the company would struggle against industry giants like Altavista.

Transition from Small to Large Company:

Buchheit highlights the shift in organizational methods as the company grew. Early on, the startup culture allowed for mutual risk and shared rewards. However, as the company scaled, conventional management practices were introduced, leading to complex incentives that stymied risk-taking.

Impact of Incentives:

In a large company, Buchheit says, the focus often shifts from positive to negative incentives. Employees are more concerned with avoiding mistakes than pursuing bold, potentially lucrative ideas. The stock price, for example, can be a poor indicator of individual or team performance.

Comparing Corporate Culture:

Buchheit contrasts Google with its competitors, stating that while Google has its issues, it is still more innovative and agile than many of its larger rivals, such as Microsoft. However, he cautions against the assumption that current growth rates will continue indefinitely.

Challenges in Measuring Output:

According to Buchheit, traditional industrial-era metrics don’t apply well to creative endeavors like product development. In factories, output can be measured and monitored scientifically, but in creative fields, the measure is often qualitative.

Team Dynamics:

Buchheit emphasizes the importance of peer evaluation over top-down assessment. Team members typically know who contributes the most and who doesn’t. He suggests a more democratic approach where employees have a say in choosing their teammates, as this would align well with actual project outcomes and employee satisfaction.

Competitive Threats:

Paul Buchheit discusses Bing as a potential threat to Google. While he acknowledges that Bing has produced a credible product, he remains skeptical about its ability to catch up with Google. He points out that by the time competitors seem to match Google’s technology, Google has already moved on to new advancements, creating a kind of “moving target” that’s hard to catch.

Innovation and Leadership:

Buchheit emphasizes the importance of continuous innovation for industry leaders like Google. A leader that remains focused and continues to innovate presents a considerable challenge for any competitor to overcome. This innovation isn’t just about maintaining the current standard but progressing ahead, which makes catching up a “hopeless endeavor” for competitors operating on old paradigms.

Perception vs. Reality:

The discussion touches on the public’s perception that a new product equivalent to a market leader’s product is a threat. However, as pointed out, industry leaders are often not static; they are continuously innovating to protect their market position. This dynamic is contrasted with companies that become “fat and happy,” failing to innovate and thus becoming vulnerable.

Healthy Competition:

Lastly, the idea that competition keeps market leaders “on their toes” is acknowledged. Even if a company like Bing is unlikely to overtake Google, its efforts can push Google to continue innovating, which is considered beneficial for the industry.

The takeaway is that while competition is healthy and necessary, overcoming a focused and innovative market leader is an extraordinarily difficult task. Therefore, competitors might find it more fruitful to look for “lower hanging fruit” in areas where the market leader is less dominant or focused.

Value of Competition:

Paul Buchheit, the primary speaker, expresses that competition is beneficial not just for the marketplace but also for companies like Google. He believes that having credible competitors drives innovation and improvement.

Career Interlude:

After leaving Google, Buchheit took about a year and a half off. This time was not only a break but a period for personal healing and contemplation, following significant life events such as family health issues and the passing of his brother. He then felt the itch to return to work on projects he felt passionate about.

Genesis of a New Venture:

Following his hiatus, Buchheit reconnected with other ex-Google employees, like Sanjeev Singh and Brett Taylor, to discuss potential startups. The co-founders aligned on many fronts—goals, product ideas, and philosophy—leading to the formation of a single company, Frenzy.

FriendFeed vs Twitter:

Buchheit details the unique selling points of FriendFeed, the company he co-founded, as compared to Twitter. He describes FriendFeed as a more conversational platform due to its comment feature, setting it apart from Twitter’s microblogging focus. However, he acknowledges the difficulty of standing out when you’re put into the same bucket as a larger, more recognizable product like Twitter.

Utility and Evolution of Social Media:

Both FriendFeed and Twitter evolved to serve multiple purposes over time. Twitter began as a status update tool but transformed into a microblogging platform. FriendFeed, while similar in some respects, focused on facilitating conversations.

Insights from Running:

Toward the end of the conversation, Buchheit shares his personal experience with toe shoes, prompted by a book called “Born to Run.” The book explores how modern shoe padding can be counterproductive, offering a metaphor about the importance of feedback loops—both in running and perhaps in business and product development.

Acquisition Purpose and Immediate Plans:

Paul Buchheit discusses the recent acquisition of FriendFeed by Facebook. He mentions that for the time being, FriendFeed will remain mostly unchanged. The team is focused on understanding the internal workings of Facebook and how FriendFeed’s features could be integrated into Facebook’s ecosystem.

Converging Features and Shared Vision:

Buchheit notes that Facebook and FriendFeed were on a converging path, with both platforms increasingly offering similar features like comments and likes. He believes that both companies share a vision for the kind of social networking platform they want to build, which influenced the decision to work together.

User Experience and Onboarding:

On the user experience side, FriendFeed aims to be easy to try out. The platform allows users to log in using their existing Facebook or Twitter accounts, providing a seamless experience for users who don’t want to create a new, separate account.

Misperceptions About FriendFeed:

Buchheit discusses the misconception that FriendFeed is merely an aggregator of content from Facebook and Twitter. He clarifies that FriendFeed was designed to be a platform for sharing, not just aggregation. Features like automatically pulling in blog posts are intended to streamline the sharing process, not just to aggregate content.

Challenge of Feature Perception:

Buchheit admits that sometimes adding features can change how users perceive a product, and in FriendFeed’s case, it led to misunderstandings about its core functionality. He notes the challenges in communicating the actual scope and purpose of the platform effectively to users.

In summary, the acquisition by Facebook seems to be a strategic alignment of visions and features between the two platforms. FriendFeed is seen as more than just an aggregator, and its team is actively working on how best to integrate its unique functionalities into Facebook.

Technology and Human Interaction:

The host starts the conversation by highlighting the role of technology in facilitating one of the most human of activities: sharing. He acknowledges that while older generations may perceive technology as anti-human, it actually enhances human interaction by aiding in sharing experiences, thoughts, and feelings.

Impact of Lowering Friction in Sharing:

PB expands on this by stating that reducing the “friction” in sharing activities results in increased sharing. For instance, the prevalence of cameras in smartphones has transformed the way we share visual experiences. It has simplified the process to such an extent that sharing photos has become an everyday activity for many.

Personal Experience with Technology:

PB gives a personal account of using a blog to share updates about his daughter’s health condition. This not only helped him convey daily updates to his family, but also compelled his mother to learn computer skills in order to keep up with her granddaughter’s health. This example serves as a testament to the positive impact of technology.

Shift in Consumer Relations:

The ease of sharing has also caused a shift in consumer-business relationships. Consumers now have the power to influence brand reputations through online reviews and feedback, making businesses more accountable for their actions.

The Culture of Authenticity:

Both speakers agree that the shift towards easy sharing also raises questions about the authenticity of online reviews. Platforms with real identities, like Facebook, lend credibility to reviews as they are tied to real relationships. However, the risk of ‘fake’ or strategically planted reviews is a challenge that needs to be addressed.

Changing Nature of Public Feedback:

The technology’s ease has democratized the act of giving feedback. Unlike earlier times, when only those with extreme experiences would take the time to write a letter to businesses, today, “normal” people readily share their experiences online, making the feedback ecosystem more representative of general consumer sentiment.

Overall, the conversation underscores the transformative power of technology in making sharing easier, enriching human interaction, and bringing shifts in consumer relations, while also highlighting the need for a culture of authenticity.

Current Endeavors:

Paul Buchheit is currently working at Facebook and sees exciting opportunities there. He considers Facebook to have the potential to be as influential as Google in setting standards and shaping the technology landscape.

Silicon Valley’s Evolution:

Buchheit has been in Silicon Valley since the late ’90s and notes significant changes. He remarks on the end of the ’90s bubble, where companies could IPO without a solid product. Silicon Valley is dynamic due to rapid technological changes but remains fundamentally a hub for risk-taking and innovation.

Risk-Taking Culture:

The culture of Silicon Valley is highlighted as one that celebrates risk-taking. Buchheit emphasizes that when he left a stable job at Intel for a startup like Google, it was not perceived negatively within the Valley. This supportive atmosphere is contrasted with other places where such a decision might be questioned.

Social Perception and Decision Making:

Buchheit states that the perception of those around you can influence difficult decisions, like whether to leave a stable job for a startup. In Silicon Valley, the tendency is to respect and even celebrate such decisions, which can tip the balance for those on the fence about taking risks.

Closing Remarks:

The interview was part of EconTalk, and the host thanks Paul Buchheit for sharing his insights. Buchheit’s reflections offer a glimpse into the mindset that drives Silicon Valley and the factors that contribute to its dynamic nature.