7 ms·

This year’s Founders' Letter

119 points by gordon_freeman 10y ago

apsec112 10y ago
This makes me nervous about Google's long-term prospects. There just aren't any new ideas here. Pichai has been very focused on mobile, and that's not a bad idea exactly, but it's just riding a wave created by Apple almost ten years ago. He's now starting to talk about virtual assistants, but that was kicked off by Siri's launch, almost five years ago. To have long-term success, Google will need to develop genuinely new ideas, ones that not everybody has already heard about. You can't be the biggest player in technology if you never take any risks. (disclaimer: former Google employee here)
- educar 10y ago
  What is pichai's claim to fame? It's very hard to figure out what exactly he has done to suddenly rise up to the top. Just a very likable person? I am yet to see anything visionary from him.
  - btian 10y ago
    I think Google Toolbar was his idea.
    - apsec112 10y ago
      Per Wikipedia, Toolbar was launched in 2000 but Pichai joined in 2004.
  - sievebrain 10y ago
    Being a competent manager. Sort of like Tim Cook. He managed Chrome well, and then Chrome and Android, and now Google as a whole. Visionaries are quite rare and unfortunately sometimes their visions aren't actually that great. See: VicG and Google+. Vic was a visionary who had unconditional support from the top, but in the end it wasn't enough to have a big impact.
- sytelus 10y ago
  I'm actually worried about short term issues in Google search. After the introduction of "AI" in to search, the keywords are far more frequently being ignored and results are astonishingly less relevant than about a year ago in my experience. There also isn't any easy way to force the keyword in queries because "+" operator has been reassigned to Google+.
  - cma 10y ago
    Quote the word by itself.
throwaway_xx9 10y ago
Many Indians project the image of zen calmness at work, as humility is perceived to be a major virtue in that culture. But they are stern taskmasters to their family and mistresses, and often have a major "keeping up with the Jones' complex." So it's all a charade.
- anonexnester 10y ago
  Feel bad for you being downvoted, your observations seem to the point. But they don't answer the parent's question.
- jrochkind1 10y ago
  Many Americans project the image of dispassionate competence at work, as always being in control of everything is perceived to be a major virtue in white men's culture. But they are often assholes to their co-workers and families, yet friendly with their drug-dealers, and typically have a major "i am losing my shit complex". So it's all a game of roulette (russian).
- dang 10y ago
  There's no way a comment like this can have good effects on HN. People sometimes think it's ok to post them if they come from that background themselves (not sure if this is true in your case, of course) but it still won't have a good effect. The combination of sweeping generalization with denunciatory language is bound to lead to a flamewar no matter how the chips fall. Things that mitigate this effect are: rolling back the grand generalities, stating things neutrally, and (if relevant) talking about your personal experience and observations. I'm not sure those things would be enough to take a comment like this out of net-negative territory but they'd at least shorten its blast radius. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11592793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11592793 and marked it off-topic.
xigency 10y ago
So, not much from the founders then.
tdaltonc 10y ago
Even after the birth of Alphabet, Google still has a lot of seeming unrelated parts. Should it have been broken up further? Does it make sense to have YouTube, Google Cloud Platform, and android (but not Fiber or Google Capital) all in the same company? Is there anything other than "profitable" that determines who is in the google-core?
- nostrademons 10y ago
  AFAICT, it really is "profitable". The Google/Alphabet split is really for investors' benefit; the only folks who care about corporate structure are Wall Street and the government, so the corporate structure is such that it pleases Wall Street, which lets the people actually working at Alphabet focus on their respective businesses.
  - sunshiney 10y ago
    As a small business owner of private businesses, I care about corporate structure! it affects financials and banking and employee organization, as well as private capital infusions. Just saying... I do agree re Alphabet/Google though.
- bane 10y ago
  When they first announced it, I thought it was some kind of strange attempt to put products into companies and for Alphabet (ABC) to be a holding company on that. This would have brought more visibility into the truly profitable bits of Google and the parts that are huge money holes. Instead, it looks like Google already knew this all along and what seems to be happening is that Alphabet seems to have been formed to divest Google of financial drag, breaking out money pits to see if they can more easily be killed or sold off for parts. I've noticed that in financial news, ABC is still basically just talked about as "Google".
  - tormeh 10y ago
    The stock is still GOOG and GOOGL. I think that and popular perception (Google is a household name) is the reason.
pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
this year's founders' letter: brought to you mainly by a non-founder. little boys afraid to lead.
nxzero 10y ago
While not directly stated, to me, the letter is a reminder that at some point in the near future AI will not be the next big thing. Any (reasonable) thoughts on what's next for Google after AI - and how you believe Google will get there?
- kmnc 10y ago
  My guess is health and psychology, they get there by creating exceptionally good personal "life coach" bots. Basically like the movie Her minus the FOOM. I guess that is AI, but really it is more a UX problem, a truly engaging positive thinking bot doesn't have to be too complex to change people's lives. It simply needs to be so well designed that it becomes apart of people's lives. Design may be far from googles strength now but results are and if googles bot can improve my life that is all that maters.
TY 10y ago
A pretty generic letter with nothing new that the HN crowd would not know.
sievebrain 10y ago
This continues the impression I have that Larry and Sergey have lost interest in Google.
- ericjang 10y ago
  What are they interested in nowadays, then?
  - nostromo 10y ago
    Presumably the other parts of Alphabet: longevity, health, AI, etc.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Larry seems to be of the megalomaniacal persuasion, his interviews focus on wanting to run cities, airports, etc. Somewhere on the side of "it would be making the world better if it wasn't a dystopian vision". There's the whole curing death thing too somewhere in there. Sergey seems more interested in the Google X toys, as he always has.
    - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
      There's this weird pattern that happens to geeky types when they become rich and powerful. They suddenly buy into the whole command-economy top-down philosophy when their success and wealth only exists because of the largely decentralized nature of technological markets and tech's low regulatory environment. All of sudden they think they can mastermind everything to perfection. The 20th century had a horrific experiment with centrally planned masterminding that cost humanity 94m lives. This should give every central planner some pause. Pie in the sky rich guy stuff like immortality (Page, Kurzweil) and central-planning stuff like robot run cities, AI controlled airports, etc are just mindless futurism that either will never happen or will be too impractical or unethical to ever properly attempt. Heck, Page can't even deliver a thermostat that doesn't regularly fuck up in spectacular ways. He wants this cowboy engineering to run cities and fly planes? Meanwhile, Google has competely missed the boat on some real futurist stuff that is actually panning out like VR or private spaceflight. The only person I can think of who didn't fall into this bizarre pattern is Gates, who just funds a foundation that hands out grants to various organizations, mostly non-profit and NGO, who might get things done. I think this is by far the wiser approach and the one that has the potential for the most change. Live long enough to see yourself become the villain seems to be in effect here. Most super successful people don't have a second act. They peak and either disappear or just become weirdos who have spent too much time around yes men and in echo chambers.

119 points by gordon_freeman 10y ago

This makes me nervous about Google's long-term prospects. There just aren't any new ideas here. Pichai has been very focused on mobile, and that's not a bad idea exactly, but it's just riding a wave created by Apple almost ten years ago. He's now starting to talk about virtual assistants, but that was kicked off by Siri's launch, almost five years ago. To have long-term success, Google will need to develop genuinely new ideas, ones that not everybody has already heard about. You can't be the biggest player in technology if you never take any risks. (disclaimer: former Google employee here)

educar 10y ago
What is pichai's claim to fame? It's very hard to figure out what exactly he has done to suddenly rise up to the top. Just a very likable person? I am yet to see anything visionary from him.
- btian 10y ago
  I think Google Toolbar was his idea.
  - apsec112 10y ago
    Per Wikipedia, Toolbar was launched in 2000 but Pichai joined in 2004.
- sievebrain 10y ago
  Being a competent manager. Sort of like Tim Cook. He managed Chrome well, and then Chrome and Android, and now Google as a whole. Visionaries are quite rare and unfortunately sometimes their visions aren't actually that great. See: VicG and Google+. Vic was a visionary who had unconditional support from the top, but in the end it wasn't enough to have a big impact.
sytelus 10y ago
I'm actually worried about short term issues in Google search. After the introduction of "AI" in to search, the keywords are far more frequently being ignored and results are astonishingly less relevant than about a year ago in my experience. There also isn't any easy way to force the keyword in queries because "+" operator has been reassigned to Google+.
- cma 10y ago
  Quote the word by itself.

throwaway_xx9 10y ago

Many Indians project the image of zen calmness at work, as humility is perceived to be a major virtue in that culture. But they are stern taskmasters to their family and mistresses, and often have a major "keeping up with the Jones' complex." So it's all a charade.

anonexnester 10y ago
Feel bad for you being downvoted, your observations seem to the point. But they don't answer the parent's question.
jrochkind1 10y ago
Many Americans project the image of dispassionate competence at work, as always being in control of everything is perceived to be a major virtue in white men's culture. But they are often assholes to their co-workers and families, yet friendly with their drug-dealers, and typically have a major "i am losing my shit complex". So it's all a game of roulette (russian).
dang 10y ago
There's no way a comment like this can have good effects on HN. People sometimes think it's ok to post them if they come from that background themselves (not sure if this is true in your case, of course) but it still won't have a good effect. The combination of sweeping generalization with denunciatory language is bound to lead to a flamewar no matter how the chips fall. Things that mitigate this effect are: rolling back the grand generalities, stating things neutrally, and (if relevant) talking about your personal experience and observations. I'm not sure those things would be enough to take a comment like this out of net-negative territory but they'd at least shorten its blast radius. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11592793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11592793 and marked it off-topic.

xigency 10y ago

So, not much from the founders then.

tdaltonc 10y ago

Even after the birth of Alphabet, Google still has a lot of seeming unrelated parts. Should it have been broken up further? Does it make sense to have YouTube, Google Cloud Platform, and android (but not Fiber or Google Capital) all in the same company? Is there anything other than "profitable" that determines who is in the google-core?

nostrademons 10y ago
AFAICT, it really is "profitable". The Google/Alphabet split is really for investors' benefit; the only folks who care about corporate structure are Wall Street and the government, so the corporate structure is such that it pleases Wall Street, which lets the people actually working at Alphabet focus on their respective businesses.
- sunshiney 10y ago
  As a small business owner of private businesses, I care about corporate structure! it affects financials and banking and employee organization, as well as private capital infusions. Just saying... I do agree re Alphabet/Google though.
bane 10y ago
When they first announced it, I thought it was some kind of strange attempt to put products into companies and for Alphabet (ABC) to be a holding company on that. This would have brought more visibility into the truly profitable bits of Google and the parts that are huge money holes. Instead, it looks like Google already knew this all along and what seems to be happening is that Alphabet seems to have been formed to divest Google of financial drag, breaking out money pits to see if they can more easily be killed or sold off for parts. I've noticed that in financial news, ABC is still basically just talked about as "Google".
- tormeh 10y ago
  The stock is still GOOG and GOOGL. I think that and popular perception (Google is a household name) is the reason.

pg_is_a_butt 10y ago

this year's founders' letter: brought to you mainly by a non-founder. little boys afraid to lead.

nxzero 10y ago

While not directly stated, to me, the letter is a reminder that at some point in the near future AI will not be the next big thing. Any (reasonable) thoughts on what's next for Google after AI - and how you believe Google will get there?

kmnc 10y ago
My guess is health and psychology, they get there by creating exceptionally good personal "life coach" bots. Basically like the movie Her minus the FOOM. I guess that is AI, but really it is more a UX problem, a truly engaging positive thinking bot doesn't have to be too complex to change people's lives. It simply needs to be so well designed that it becomes apart of people's lives. Design may be far from googles strength now but results are and if googles bot can improve my life that is all that maters.

TY 10y ago

A pretty generic letter with nothing new that the HN crowd would not know.

sievebrain 10y ago

This continues the impression I have that Larry and Sergey have lost interest in Google.

ericjang 10y ago
What are they interested in nowadays, then?
- nostromo 10y ago
  Presumably the other parts of Alphabet: longevity, health, AI, etc.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Larry seems to be of the megalomaniacal persuasion, his interviews focus on wanting to run cities, airports, etc. Somewhere on the side of "it would be making the world better if it wasn't a dystopian vision". There's the whole curing death thing too somewhere in there. Sergey seems more interested in the Google X toys, as he always has.
  - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
    There's this weird pattern that happens to geeky types when they become rich and powerful. They suddenly buy into the whole command-economy top-down philosophy when their success and wealth only exists because of the largely decentralized nature of technological markets and tech's low regulatory environment. All of sudden they think they can mastermind everything to perfection. The 20th century had a horrific experiment with centrally planned masterminding that cost humanity 94m lives. This should give every central planner some pause. Pie in the sky rich guy stuff like immortality (Page, Kurzweil) and central-planning stuff like robot run cities, AI controlled airports, etc are just mindless futurism that either will never happen or will be too impractical or unethical to ever properly attempt. Heck, Page can't even deliver a thermostat that doesn't regularly fuck up in spectacular ways. He wants this cowboy engineering to run cities and fly planes? Meanwhile, Google has competely missed the boat on some real futurist stuff that is actually panning out like VR or private spaceflight. The only person I can think of who didn't fall into this bizarre pattern is Gates, who just funds a foundation that hands out grants to various organizations, mostly non-profit and NGO, who might get things done. I think this is by far the wiser approach and the one that has the potential for the most change. Live long enough to see yourself become the villain seems to be in effect here. Most super successful people don't have a second act. They peak and either disappear or just become weirdos who have spent too much time around yes men and in echo chambers.