5 ms·

That Porat person is a serious contender for buzzkill of the year. Google makes tons of money with ads and spends it on geeky experiments to try to push a futur

That Porat person is a serious contender for buzzkill of the year. Google makes tons of money with ads and spends it on geeky experiments to try to push a futuristic envelope (and create an environments where they can sell more ads, like a self-driving car) we'll all benefit from eventually and she gets to be the person that locks the toys away because "financial discipline".

drewmate 10y ago
To be fair, though, Google is a company that exists in a country where shareholders have the legal right to say how a company is run. Google (for better or worse) does not belong to the world, it belongs to its shareholders who _paid_ for the right to own a piece of the company. Even with Google's unique ownership structure mentioned in the article, Larry and Sergey are not immune from pressure from shareholders who might want to crack down a bit on corporate costs. There will always have to be a balance, and it doesn't look like Google is completely killing off its innovative culture, just trying to find a happy medium where it can do its thing and shareholders will still be happy.
MrZongle2 10y ago
Buzzkill? Sure. But she also sounds like one of the few responsible adults in the place with a hand on the purse-strings, whose job is to ensure that there is an Alphabet and Google in 10 years, shiny toys be damned.
- tzakrajs 10y ago
  There will be an Alphabet or a Google in 10 years but it will look eerily similar to the aging behemoths of Silicon Valley today that take paltry swipes at different markets while their main revenue source slowly dwindles (up until the point they are bought by a holding company).
johan_larson 10y ago
More control was pretty much a given as the company grew. When an operation is small and doesn't do anything particularly important, you can be casual about a lot of things. It just doesn't make sense to formalize everything. But once the operation is big and doing important things, control and visibility and process become increasingly important. Something like this was going to happen. Hurray for Google for doing it before rather than after some major disaster or embarrassment.
DamnYuppie 10y ago
I don't think that is necessarily true. I am hard pressed to think of anything out side of search that Google has released that has really pushed a futuristic envelope. I feel their current approach is sensible. Research at a for profit organization has to have a path to profitability. Long term this will enable them to more efficiently distribute their funds to projects that will see the light of day, generate revenue, and feedback into the cycle. M(r)?s. Porat is merely efficiently carrying out financial accountability, which is what your CFO should be doing. Their job title should simply be "Boring Buzzkill", which if they live up to it they are doing a fantastic job!!
- euyyn 10y ago
  > I am hard pressed to think of anything out side of search that Google has released that has really pushed a futuristic envelope. You might not remember how life was before Google Maps or GMail then.
baccheion 10y ago
I'm not a fan of "cost discipline." It sounds more like stingy, conservative, short-sighted, and backward. My problem isn't with Google spending tons of money on "far out" things, it's with those "far out" things not actually being far out. If they were spending billions to develop teleportation, anti-aging (both internally and skin/beauty-wise), intelligence/fluidity increasing drugs, disease cures, etc, then I'd be all about it. Especially if they were making progress, as another problem is setting out to develop teleportation, making no progress after 5 years, then continuing anyway. There are also nearer-term things to work on like wireless charging, batteries with increased capacity (and/or more efficient/passive energy usage), solar/wind/nuclear power to add variety to energy sources, lower cost Tesla Model S equivalents (rather than the brute force approach being used by Tesla with the Model 3), etc. There also more relevant education in schools (actual knowledge and skills, rather than an indoctrination with "smile, show up on time, conform, and do what you're told"), streamlining/elimination of politics (government), elimination of middle-management and company politics, ending hunger, getting rid of prejudice and inequality, minimizing crime (especially violent crime), etc. In the grand scheme of things, they are really doing nothing, going nowhere, and spending endless amounts of money doing it. Also, there are the crap products they keep releasing. Something needs to be done to put an end to that crappiness.

drewmate 10y ago

To be fair, though, Google is a company that exists in a country where shareholders have the legal right to say how a company is run. Google (for better or worse) does not belong to the world, it belongs to its shareholders who _paid_ for the right to own a piece of the company. Even with Google's unique ownership structure mentioned in the article, Larry and Sergey are not immune from pressure from shareholders who might want to crack down a bit on corporate costs. There will always have to be a balance, and it doesn't look like Google is completely killing off its innovative culture, just trying to find a happy medium where it can do its thing and shareholders will still be happy.

MrZongle2 10y ago

Buzzkill? Sure. But she also sounds like one of the few responsible adults in the place with a hand on the purse-strings, whose job is to ensure that there is an Alphabet and Google in 10 years, shiny toys be damned.

tzakrajs 10y ago
There will be an Alphabet or a Google in 10 years but it will look eerily similar to the aging behemoths of Silicon Valley today that take paltry swipes at different markets while their main revenue source slowly dwindles (up until the point they are bought by a holding company).

johan_larson 10y ago

More control was pretty much a given as the company grew. When an operation is small and doesn't do anything particularly important, you can be casual about a lot of things. It just doesn't make sense to formalize everything. But once the operation is big and doing important things, control and visibility and process become increasingly important. Something like this was going to happen. Hurray for Google for doing it before rather than after some major disaster or embarrassment.

DamnYuppie 10y ago

I don't think that is necessarily true. I am hard pressed to think of anything out side of search that Google has released that has really pushed a futuristic envelope. I feel their current approach is sensible. Research at a for profit organization has to have a path to profitability. Long term this will enable them to more efficiently distribute their funds to projects that will see the light of day, generate revenue, and feedback into the cycle. M(r)?s. Porat is merely efficiently carrying out financial accountability, which is what your CFO should be doing. Their job title should simply be "Boring Buzzkill", which if they live up to it they are doing a fantastic job!!

euyyn 10y ago
> I am hard pressed to think of anything out side of search that Google has released that has really pushed a futuristic envelope. You might not remember how life was before Google Maps or GMail then.

baccheion 10y ago

I'm not a fan of "cost discipline." It sounds more like stingy, conservative, short-sighted, and backward. My problem isn't with Google spending tons of money on "far out" things, it's with those "far out" things not actually being far out. If they were spending billions to develop teleportation, anti-aging (both internally and skin/beauty-wise), intelligence/fluidity increasing drugs, disease cures, etc, then I'd be all about it. Especially if they were making progress, as another problem is setting out to develop teleportation, making no progress after 5 years, then continuing anyway. There are also nearer-term things to work on like wireless charging, batteries with increased capacity (and/or more efficient/passive energy usage), solar/wind/nuclear power to add variety to energy sources, lower cost Tesla Model S equivalents (rather than the brute force approach being used by Tesla with the Model 3), etc. There also more relevant education in schools (actual knowledge and skills, rather than an indoctrination with "smile, show up on time, conform, and do what you're told"), streamlining/elimination of politics (government), elimination of middle-management and company politics, ending hunger, getting rid of prejudice and inequality, minimizing crime (especially violent crime), etc. In the grand scheme of things, they are really doing nothing, going nowhere, and spending endless amounts of money doing it. Also, there are the crap products they keep releasing. Something needs to be done to put an end to that crappiness.