A Fine Line Between Arrogance and Innovation

Share via Twitter Share via Facebook Share via Linkedin Share via Reddit

When discussing Google’s Gmail application a couple of weeks back, a service that I personally felt was a revelation in terms of web application usability (not to mention storage size), the Wall Street Journal’s Walt Mossberg had virtually nothing positive to say. Gmail, he contended, was born not of brilliant, innovative design but rather an arrogant disdain for users. Here’s a bit from the piece:

I’m sure Gmail will get better and better, and will eventually adopt the new programming techniques that allow desktop-like ease of use. But I’m not sure Google’s arrogance will ever make room for user preferences on things like folders or ads, or how emails are grouped.

Yahoo’s new email program would blow Gmail away if it were widely released today. That’s partly due to its features, but also to its respect for user choice.

This Google-is-arrogant meme is the lens through which a lot of people seem to be viewing another of Google’s latest creations, the Google Reader, but personally, I’m not buying it.

I’ll set aside the question of whether Google as an organization is arrogant, because it’s pretty much a useless exercise. Certainly large organizations can exhibit institutional behavioral patterns, but saying that “Google is arrogant” is about as useful as saying “Microsoft is evil” – both assertions do a considerable disservice to the individual employees of those organizations who are anything but.

The real question here to me is simple: is abandoning traditional approaches a sign of arrogance or the willingness to innovate, to experiment? Google’s opinion on that matter is pretty clear. Dan Farber quoted Google co-founder Sergey Brin just the other day as saying:

I don’t really think that the thing is to take a previous generation of technology and port them directly, and say ‘Can we do the minicomputer on the Web on AJAX,’ makes sense.

Mossberg, on the other hand, seems to feel that innovation should confine itself to the boundaries clearly established by competing applications. I don’t know about you, but I think that’s nonsense.

Why, for example, is Google where it is today? Search and the accompanying ad revenues, obviously. Were they the first to do search? Or ads? Hardly. So how did they get to be the new 800 lb gorilla? By doing things differently – radically so. Their homepage was so simple that they had to put in the trademark notice at the bottom so that people wouldn’t wait for the page to finish loading. This was in stark contrast to search competitors that crammed so much into the home page that users got pushed out. How about Google Maps? Did they release an incremental map application? Nope; they thought about what an application could be rather than was, and pretty much reset the expectations for mapping applications overnight. Ditto for Gmail.

The point here is simple: Google got where it is today not by strictly adhering to traditional design principles, but by aggressively reconsidering them. That, in my book, is called innovation, not arrogance. In Mossberg’s eyes, I guess, such an approach is a betrayal of users that have grown accustomed to one way of doing things. The line here is a fine one, to judge by the reactions to Google’s products, but I for one would prefer innovation to stagnation.

Is radical innovation always going to result in superior products? Absolutely not. Like evolution, this approach will have its dead ends. In its current form, for example, it is unlikely that I will ever use Google’s new Reader application. When they sat down to rethink the traditional Reader approach, I tend to think they thought a bit too hard. I’ll have to wait and see how the masses react, but most of the folks I track have come to the conclusion that Google’s trying to force on them an approach that they’re not comfortable with. That’s undoubtedly the case with many of the users of Gmail as well.

But does that mean that Google should abandon that innovative approach, and stick to the boundaries marked out by competitors? Hardly. It just means that with this app, and with this user, they missed the mark. That’s all.

If anything, I wish more people were willing to push the envelope from a design perspective. While I would sooner light myself on fire than buy one, I saluted Plymouth for bringing the Prowler to market a couple of years ago, because if nothing else it was different. It wasn’t the same traditional car that every company designed and delivered; it was creative and new. And while I’ll never drive a Prowler and probably won’t use the Google Reader, I’ll sure as hell encourage the approach that brought them about. Because for every dead end, we may get something radically new, and to me that’s a price worth paying.


  1. given that Google, rather than the community, thinks "do no evil" is a policy instrument, i rather think that "arrogant" is the kind of term in which it should bu judged. is arrogance an evil? not in many people's mind. of course binary definition is often unhelpful, but given that google gives us so little in the way of clear policy or even dialogue on its choices how else are we supposed to address this. google may not be arrogant or evil but it certainly is secretive.

    and because we have no clues to what lay behind product, design and testing of course we'll speculate. that is human nature. is google's design intelligent? good question…

  2. There is another factor at play here. Innovation means putting a lot of work on the floor. Most inventors never see a payback for their efforts. That doesn't stop them being passionate. But you'll be hard pressed to find one idea in 50 making it out the door to commercial success.

    Google is in a unique position that few enjoy. It can afford to screw up big style and its ad revenue still pours in. They are so profitable they can bin millions of dollars and no-one would notice. They will get bigger for lots of reasons. One of them being this post. Does that makes them arrogant. No.

    But secretiveness jars with their 'Do No Evil' stance. I call it hypocrisy.

  3. James: i think what i'm debating is not whether or not Google as an org is arrogant or secretive, but whether or not their application development is. in my book, the answer is no. if pushing the limits of design is arrogance, i'm all for it. arrogance manifesting itself in areas outside of design, however, such as when a firm disdains open standards, is not something i can sanction.

    Dennis: agreed, and that's why i'm happy that Google's a player. like Microsoft, they can afford to take risks that few others can, and therefore have the ability to be innovative.

    as for their secretiveness, i think that's a different debate from the one here, but i do align with your thinking there. it's tremendously unhelpful, IMO.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *