14 ms·

Where in the World Is Larry Page?

314 points by kshatrea 8y ago

warent 8y ago
I wonder if he's been diagnosed with something that could potentially be terminal if it goes uncured (e.g. aggressive cancer) and he's trying to keep it a secret so that Alphabet's stock price isn't severely damaged EDIT I'm not sure why this is receiving so many downvotes. Is it that unlikely? I'm not saying I want him to be sick, it's just speculation.
- _jal 8y ago
  Or maybe he's on a secret spy mission to another planet!
  - IncRnd 8y ago
    Well, the FBI just closed down the NM solar observatory for Page to communicate with aliens.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  To your point, a few weeks ago someone pointed out to me that Rupert Murdoch hadn't been seen in public in a very long time. There were - still are? - theories that he was very ill or perhaps dead and it was being kept secret for the sake of the stock price and awaiting sale / deal.
pwaivers 8y ago
It is interesting that Larry Page stays out of the spotlight so much. Everyone knows who Mark Zuckerberg is, but many probably couldn't tell you who the CEO of Google/Alphabet is.
- martythemaniak 8y ago
  I think everyone knows "The Google Guys" without knowing either of them.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  But could we not flip that around? That is, Zuck goes for the limelight (why?) while his peers do not? On the other hand Dorsey isn't low profile and I don't think most (non-tech) people would recognize him. Ev Williams? Even less so. Prehaps, sometimes, it's also the media who makes or breaks public perceptions?
  - wolco 8y ago
    How many twitter movies have been made? The facebook movie pushed his platform higher.
  - creaghpatr 8y ago
    Facebook got "The Social Network", Google got..."The Internship"?
- Taylor_OD 8y ago
  I mention this on a somewhat regular basis. Most people know nothing about Sundar while they will bring up Zuck all the time. It's odd how different the two organizations operate at the top.
  - wolco 8y ago
    Sundar isn't a founder and most will forget his name when he moves on if they ever knew. Tim Cook is more well known but will never reach Steve.
    - ornitorrincos 8y ago
      wozniak I hope
- dec0dedab0de 8y ago
  I think part of that is our collective fascination of young self made *illionaires, as well as the more personal interactions a user has with Facebook vs Google. Heck, I bet more people are aware of Tom from Myspace, than they are of Larry Page or Sergey Brin.
  - meowface 8y ago
    Larry Page made his first million by 25. I can't find info about when Sergey Brin made his first million, but probably not far off from that. They definitely count as young self-made millionaires.
    - nostrademons 8y ago
      Same time - they have equal shares in Google. "First million" probably refers to Google's first angel investment, which set a valuation on the company of maybe $10M and valued each founder's shares at probably $3-4M (I'm guessing on valuation, but this would be typical for an angel investment of $700K for a company this far along. Possibly a bit higher).
- rileyphone 8y ago
  It doesn't hurt that the Zuck was the focus of a popular film.
- rifung 8y ago
  I imagine if you asked most people who the CEO of Alphabet is, they'd ask "What's Alphabet?"
kawsper 8y ago
> “What I didn’t see in the last year was a strong central voice about how [Google’s] going to operate on these issues that are societal and less technical,” That's not careful phrasing when talking about a man with paralysed vocal chords.
- zanmat0 8y ago
  This sounds like being offended purely for the purpose of being offended. I doubt even the subject of the article himself would have caught that.
snaky 8y ago
TLDR > He was also averse to the internal politics common to running a 60,000-employee conglomerate. A former senior director at Google remembers a heated debate among the “L Team,” as Googlers used to call Page’s circle of executive consiglieri, that escalated to a point where it required his mediation. “Can’t you sort this out on your own?” he told his deputies. > The company’s abrupt reorganization in 2015 elevated Pichai to CEO of Google and Page to chief of its umbrella company, Alphabet. It was perhaps the cleverest retirement plan ever devised.
dzdt 8y ago
I would feel much better about being a google user if they were standing up strongly for the original "do no evil" ethos. Where is Page indeed? It really seems like the ethical stance has faded away.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Idealism goes away once a company has reached a certain size and has to reach for big growth like Google. They all have to turn into big faceless corporations. That's why we shouldn't celebrate things like trillion dollar companies or the richest man in the world but we should celebrate small companies. That's where ethics and also innovation can happen .
  - alexgmcm 8y ago
    Big companies are just successful small companies. IBM, Bell Labs etc. did far more innovation than any Mom and Pop shop.
    - gnodar 8y ago
      > Big companies are just successful small companies. That would imply either that big companies all started as small companies which became successful and grew large, which is false (some big companies start big). Or that big companies operate the same way as small companies, just at a larger scale, which is unequivocally false.
    - PascLeRasc 8y ago
      Successful at what? "Mom and Pop" shops are totally different and provide for their small communities in ways no big company ever could. Individuals like Alexandra Elbakyan, Bram Moolenaar, and Guido van Rossum have done great things on their own without the help of corporations.
  - puzzle 8y ago
    Or maybe this is largely a manufactured issue. Alphabet sent Walker, but the committee didn't allow him to sit down. Between him and Salgado, the experts that Page and Pichai defer to, I don't think there's anyone better qualified to talk about these issues, because they deal with them all the time. If you want to have a meaningful conversation, that is. The problem is that the hearing was mostly an excuse for the senators to posture and to go on off topic rants about pet peeves. It's a media event, not a venue to get anything of substance done. Page has little tolerance for such BS. While the senators' whining was to be expected, because it largely called their bluff, I was more disappointed by the media's acceptance of the lines that Walker was not the right person to be there and that he was "a lawyer" (should we send home all politicians with a law degree?). These are policy issues, so you talk to the experts and leaders who make the policy calls.
m_st 8y ago
Disclosure: I didn't fully read the article as it's rather dull... "404 - Page not found", doesn't Bloomberg have more niveau than that? It's known that Page has problems with his vocal chords. So I wouldn't be astonished that he doesn't show up for a hearing if he's not forced to so.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  I could totally understand that in a vacuum, but Google also chose not to send Sundar Pichai, Google's current CEO, whose vocal chords work just fine. Which sends a much stronger message that Google just doesn't want to talk to Congress. My personal impression of Page and Brin's near silence of late is that they have semi-retired by effectively promoting themselves out of Google during the creation of Alphabet. Still on top, still in charge, but having delegated pretty much everything down to a lower level.
  - thrav 8y ago
    Benioff is in the process of doing the same. None of these people have any desire to run Ops for a giant corporation. They want to focus on the stuff they like. For Page, it’s the tech. For Benioff, it’s the philanthropy, social responsibility, equality, political stuff.
mediterrenean 8y ago
I like him giving the the middle finger. Why does he have to satisfy a bunch of egomaniac corrupt politician who has been net negative for the society. Why we have to watch in awe of their complete disconnect from current affairs of the society due to their total ignorance?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  You could say the same about any CEO of a large company. They are also egomaniacs who are disconnected from current affairs of society.
  - mediterrenean 8y ago
    Agree, some are truly like that. My comment, which is nothing but a rant was against the senate hearing, and the way it is conducted. It is nothing but a circus to make believe the public that senators are acting for the benefit of the public. Far from it, they just serve to certain interests. What I do not like is that they are just putting a show, and what they do is showmanship. Oh they make all those CEOs behave like a little school boy, right?!. Sweating in front of the principal, nice! How about themselves? For Iraq to be invaded these people needed to approve it. Now we know that all the evidence was bogus. Have we seen any such hearing on them? Any remorse, and resignation? They are flashing light to blind you. This is not democracy. That’s all I have to say.
- abraham_lincoln 8y ago
  Right? Dorsey is also running Square, and has to go to DC to answer questions about shadowbanning Twitter users? That is the most pressing issue of our democracy? Don't worry about college or healthcare costs when Twitter users are being 'unfairly' shadowbanned?
  - icebraining 8y ago
    I don't think the Senate Intelligence Committee handles matters related to college or healthcare costs.
- 8y ago
chosenbreed 8y ago
I might be missing something here but my thinking is that Google Inc/Alphabet is bigger than Larry Page. If for whatever reason he was not able to attend he could have sent a representative chosen from among the senior executives. It seems that neither his attendance nor Google's participation in the whole thing was not mandatory
- skummetmaelk 8y ago
  According to the article they did offer to send someone else. Presumable the senate was not satisfied with anyone other than the top guy.
  - notsofastbuddy 8y ago
    They did seem to find Sandberg acceptable.
    - dahdum 8y ago
      Sandberg is COO, on the board, and with Facebook for over 10 years. She's most definitely top level. Google offered Walker, who was just promoted to the position back in July, and has no operational control over the company.
      - kyrra 8y ago
        Kent Walker has been at Google since 2006, has testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee before[0], and just knows a lot about Google. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/01/four-takeaways-from-the-senate-intelligence-hearing-with-facebook-twitter-and-google/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/01/fo...
        dahdum 8y ago
        Yes, but only promoted recently, and has more of an advisory role than a leadership one. Certainly a talented guy, but not comparable to Sandberg or Dorsey.
chasd00 8y ago
the guy who invented Perl? ..probably trying to figure out what a script he wrote a few years ago actually does ;)
- davidcbc 8y ago
  That's Larry Wall
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lizmat 8y ago
  Very funny indeed. NOT
citilife 8y ago
To be fair, the government heavily relies on the data Google collects... I highly doubt the consequences are going to be too dire for them. On the other hand, it does appear as if Google (and many of the other mega-corps) are pretty much acting as if they are sovereign in their own right. In this case, it appears Page honestly just ditched it, but if he gets away with it - he sets a precedent.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
agoodthrowaway 8y ago
From a PR point of view Google has handled this whole privacy debacle very well. By keeping a very low profile on privacy, they’ve made sure Facebook takes the heat. Facebook’s horrendous management of the issue has also allowed Google to slide under the radar on the topic. Generally I think Page is doing the right thing by keeping a low public profile.
- godzillabrennus 8y ago
  Google didn’t play as fast and loose with sharing data as Facebook did. That helps.
  - kungtotte 8y ago
    They never got caught doing it. That doesn't mean they never have.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - jonny_eh 8y ago
      You've never been caught murdering anyone, I assume.
      - bobdole123456 8y ago
        Not the second time, and that’s really the important part.
  - chooseaname 8y ago
    Google wasn't ambiguous at all about how they manage location data.
  - dspillett 8y ago
    The sales pitches to partners were quite different, from what I can see. Google have always been selling advertising first and foremost. Their pitch is "we will put you in front of the right people". Facebook, an other social network providers, seem to have modernised this badly. The social graph and access to it was the key offering, so their pitch was "we will give you access to the right people". How did it go on like that for so long? There were four sets of entities involved who for their own reasons did nothing: 1. Those buying the access knew the difference and eagerly lapped up as much as they could. 2. The general public was blissfully unaware until the recent furore so there was no push to change anything from that side. To quite an extent, IMO, many were not just unaware but deliberately ignorant - many of us, techies like myself and active members of privacy groups, were aware and talking loudly about the issues but the majority didn't care because they didn't see how it might significantly affect them personally. 3. Commercial entities, even direct competitors, said nothing because they thought it better to try take a piece of the pie for themselves instead of sprinkling laxatives over someone else's and risk the pie shop being closed down. They are of course right now either being investigated too, or hurriedly making sure they were not (or that it can not be proven that they were) directly and knowingly culpable of the same things. 4. While there was no public or commercial push against what facebook and others were doing, the politicians had no interest. No point siring up potential commercial sponsors for their future funding drives unnecessarily...
mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
I don't know, if I were a billionaire with a private island in the Caribbean, had paralyzed vocal cords and knew damn well what would happen at the hearing (see Zuckerberg), I'd also agree with my colleagues that showing up would do no good and that staying on the sidelines would be the best course of action. Why indulge a bunch of bloodthirsty politicians when you can do pretty much anything else please like working on things you love. Bonus: stock won't tank if you slip up and say the wrong word.
Zelphyr 8y ago
It's kind-of Congress' own fault here. They so often have these... events, that are mostly for show and for the politicians to grandstand making them seem tough to voters but really have very little substance. I doubt any meaningful policy ever comes of them. Doesn't everybody know by now that they're grilling these CEO's in front of the cameras and begging them for money behind the cameras? "outrage" indeed.
- wybiral 8y ago
  The Senate Intelligence Committee hearings are usually pretty facts-first unlike the other random hearings and sessions. I watch them on C-SPAN whenever they happen (which isn't that frequent). Edit: I strongly recommend watching these directly from C-SPAN rather than the summarized spin-version from random news companies. You might be surprised how little of their time is wasted on grandstanding. Yeah, some politicians will throw in their jabs, but that's not the purpose of those committees and it's a fractionally tiny amount of the dialog. But that's what the news focuses on because it's the most sensational.
  - Retric 8y ago
    On C-SPAN those jabs don't seem like much, but they are mostly what's included on regular news coverage. Making them the main point of the exercise.
    - wybiral 8y ago
      The main point of the "exercise" is to discuss the issues and a few politicians hijack a few minutes of time to make political jabs for the media. The rest of it is still important. They're asking questions and forming their perception of the situation which they use to shape policy.
      - Retric 8y ago
        If they simply want fact finding they could do that over a phone call.* The circus is very much the point. * Granted, phone calls don't have the weight of purgery to keep people honest. But, that only goes so far.
gok 8y ago
> The vision was to stretch this tube system, arced hundreds of feet in the air, from a ground-level entry point on Google’s Mountain View campus to an exit 35 miles north, in San Francisco, so Google’s rainbow-colored beach cruisers might one day be seen flying over U.S. Highway 101. Yes, it sounds like a Hyperloop for bikes. And you're telling me this ran into problems!?
stevehawk 8y ago
In all seriousness he probably didn't show because he was offended they'd make him. He has been a large proponent of perfect data preventing crime and maintaining society and is very cooperative with the IC.
kyledrake 8y ago
> Alphabet said in a statement that it had offered its head of global affairs for the hearing and that “enabling Larry to focus on the other bets and long-term technical problems is exactly what Alphabet was set up for.” So basically they had offered someone of authority here, but the politicians wanted to have their show trial with the celebrities instead.
- wybiral 8y ago
  In the domain of information warfare and propaganda campaigns public awareness and attention is a large part of the counter strategy. So even if it were just to attract eyeballs to the issue that doesn't mean it was a "show trial". If you watch these Intelligence Committee hearings I think you'll find them to be focused on strategy, partnerships, and actions rather than some form of "trial".
  - kyledrake 8y ago
    Then they should have invited the actual experts on the topic at these companies. Google, again, says they offered someone to speak and were told it could only be Page. What if they told Facebook it could only be Mark and not Sheryl? Either way, if they actually wanted the CEO of Google, that happens to be Sundar Pichai, not Larry Page (he's the CEO of the holding company).
    - wybiral 8y ago
      I was under the understanding that they asked for either Page or Pichai. And Google basically responded with "it's either our legal team or nothing".
CodeSheikh 8y ago
It is interesting they had "GOOGLE" printed on the reserved seat. Where in reality Sundar Pichai is the ceo of Google and Larry Page is the ceo of Alphabet. So the Senate committee was actually expecting Mr. Pichai and Bloomberg got it wrong.
- 394549 8y ago
  > It is interesting they had "GOOGLE" printed on the reserved seat. Where in reality Sundar Pichai is the ceo of Google and Larry Page is the ceo of Alphabet. So the Senate committee was actually expecting Mr. Pichai and Bloomberg got it wrong. But only technically. Google is Alphabet and Alphabet is Google, just like Blackwater is still Blackwater no matter what obfuscating name they're using this week.
theandrewbailey 8y ago
At this rate, I can see Mr. Page being the rich (evil?) guy from the movies that no one ever sees or has heard from in decades, and everyone is scared of. He will pull up in a limousine, slip you a piece of paper (with bad news on it) out of a crack in the window, and drive off again.
dibstern 8y ago
I don’t understand people on here complaining about the Senate demanding that the leaders of a business answer for its actions. Sending your lawyer or an underling is (1) a show of disrespect, (2) it shows you’re not taking responsibility for your company, and (3) when the person answering the questions isn’t really in charge, they can’t answer properly and they can’t commit their companies to behaving differently. People just seem propagandistically pro-Google on here. You’re mostly pretty darn smart people. I don’t get it.
- dctoedt 8y ago
  See Zelphyr's comment just below yours (for the moment) at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17978894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17978894
- y-c-o-m-b 8y ago
  I don't think it's pro-Google, I think it has to do with the fact that these hearings are made up of a gang of angry old people with God complex that not only do not understand technology, but don't really have a desire to understand it nor the desire to really change anything. I don't blame Google one bit for not wanting to waste time and be ridiculed by these clowns.
  - atomical 8y ago
    What you wrote could easily be applied to Google. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/13/breitbart_posts_leaked_video_of_google_leadership_reacting_to_2016_election.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/13/breitbart...
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > these hearings are made up of a gang of angry old people with God complex that not only do not understand technology, but don't really have a desire to understand it nor the desire to really change anything. Those angry old people were chosen by their constituents to represent them in public affairs. Supposedly their roles and their actions are the basis of a democratic regime.
- 8y ago
l9k 8y ago
At this point, though, such a public-relations strategy feels dated. On balance, the celebrity of even the most caricatured CEO (Zuckerberg) appears to be a net positive for his company. I disagree totally with that point. The "superstar CEO" Zuckerberg is now ridiculed, hated, and negatively "meme-ed". He is now the face of censorship (for some) and a laissezfaire strategy threatening democracies (for others). Even the previous paragraph stated: "Bill Gates had become a media caricature during Microsoft Corp.’s three-year antitrust lawsuit". Page staying in the dark only generated this one article, not a real national scandal. 99% of people don't know him and won't know him after that no-show. Google's reputation is untouched. Only loss is for the Senators not getting the spotlight.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Page staying in the dark only generated this one article Eh, it’s going to generate nasty side effects. Google spends a lot on lobbying. This kneecaps those efforts. That’s bad news for a host of broader issues, including net neutrality.
  - fullshark 8y ago
    When has public attention ever been beneficial for corporate lobbying efforts?
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      When the thing they're lobbying for has broad public support.
- georgiecasey 8y ago
  i agree, in this time of outrage culture, i don't know why anybody at the centre of any controversy gives it oxygen. anything you say is another story. some would say you need to get your point of view across but i'd say people have made up their mind anyway. say nothing and the media and public move on to the next story.
m3kw9 8y ago
Didn't know he was missing till now. Maybe he is just doing some heads down work and letter another person take media duties.
lisper 8y ago
One thing this article completely neglects to mention: Larry has vocal chord paralysis and so has difficulty speaking. https://www.wired.com/2013/05/larry-page-vocal-chords/ https://www.wired.com/2013/05/larry-page-vocal-chords/ This could have something to do with why he's reluctant to do a lot of public speaking nowadays. [UPDATE] I was wrong: the article does mention this, I just missed it. I would delete this comment but I can't since it has been replied to.
- Sgt_Apone 8y ago
  It mentions that several times. >In the 1990s he was diagnosed with vocal cord paralysis, a nerve condition that eventually has made it difficult for him to speak above a hoarse whisper. “Sergey says I’m probably a better CEO because I choose my words more carefully,” Page wrote in a Google+ post in 2013, the same year he stopped joining earnings calls.
- jakobegger 8y ago
  This is mentioned multiple times in the article.
- Arubis 8y ago
  While it's true (sibling comments) that this is indeed mentioned in the article, it's well into the body, about two-thirds down. This strikes me as extremely relevant information: Page acts "as if [he] had only so many words left to speak." (ftfa) Why would he waste his breath, if it's actually limited? The mistake here wasn't in Page not showing up--it was in _nobody_ showing up.
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    That's not on Google - as the article states, Google offered multiple other officials, but that was declined, they wanted Page or nothing and so got nothing.
throwaway5752 8y ago
Google offered to send someone to the hearing, but the Senate didn't feel they were high ranking enough, so they didn't let the person fill the seat and let it remain "empty" even though Google offered. Disgraceful grandstanding by Warner.
- forgot-my-pw 8y ago
  Can't blame him for not going. They tried to crucify Mark Zuckerberg on live broadcast last time.
Jerry2 8y ago
Larry Page probably didn't attend the Senate hearings because he knew that this video was going to get leaked: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-googl... He would have been grilled for hours over it.
- eutropia 8y ago
  At the risk of sounding partisan, why should I trust a breitbart dot com link?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jerry2 8y ago
    You shouldn't. It's an internal Google video. So unless you're a conspiracy theorist who thinks it was faked, it should be eye opening.
  - seatdrummer 8y ago
    its just an unedited video. Just watch it if you care at all.
- ibejoeb 8y ago
  That video is amazing. Certainly doesn't hurt Damore's suit. edit: To all the silent salties out there: am I wrong?
- trendoid 8y ago
  He could have been grilled, sure. But I don't think that was the reason as Google was arranging someone else to show up before this leaked. Nothing in this video is surprising though. It has always been clear that the value system of people in Silicon Valley is completely different from Republican values. Their despise for Trump or his base is the most obvious connection anyone can make.
908087 8y ago
> According to one Larry loyalist, Page’s privacy, besides being a personal preference, is also a carefully considered company strategy. That's gold, given the fact that his company has set out to completely destroy the concept of privacy for the rest of the population.
paulsutter 8y ago
Long before the hearing Google said they would send Kent Walker to answer questions. He was not allowed to attend the hearing, in order to create the stunt of an empty chair. Bloomberg I’m disappointed.
ThomPete 8y ago
This is why I more or less stopped reading or watching the news. If something is important I will find out. If I want to understand the world better I will either read a book about a given subject, ask someone who knows something, explore it on my own or debate it with someone who holds the opposite view of me. News especially these days is mostly sensationalist gossip made by people who's primary incentives is to get you to click their link or share it because you are outraged so they get more clicks. I don't mind debating politics or other more problematic subjects but I don't get riled up by some article trying to paint the world in black and white, seen the other side of how the media is reporting something too many times. If you want to have another example besides this weird can completely forced article look no further to the Elon Musk interview on Joe Rogan last which made their shares drop 8% for the day because he took one puff. Everyone went berserk because you are not supposed to do something like that if you are the CEO of a large company. Instead of actually listening to the interview which was almost 3 hours and super interesting, that puff became what the media took away from it. The media is no longer in the service of the people it's in the service of the clicks that's about it because it's much more fun to be outraged and gossip than to actually try and understand. Each to their own of course but that's why I stopped following the news cycles. Now go and watch that great interview with Elon and while you are at it go watch Peter Thiel on Dave Rubin an equally great show that takes the time to unfold subjects even if that means three hour formats.
- 0x8BADF00D 8y ago
  > If you want to have another example besides this weird can completely forced article look no further to the Elon Musk interview on Joe Rogan last which made their shares drop 8% for the day because he took one puff. Everyone went berserk because you are not supposed to do something like that if you are the CEO of a large company. Instead of actually listening to the interview which was almost 3 hours and super interesting, that puff became what the media took away from it. The media is no longer in the service of the people it's in the service of the clicks that's about it because it's much more fun to be outraged and gossip than to actually try and understand. It doesn’t matter though. Let them continue to waste their brain power on meaningless nonsense like “optics” or how something looks. The rest of us will continue to learn and innovate. I learned a lot, especially about how an electric plane with VTOL works. Honestly, it was one of the most inspiring things I’ve ever watched in my life.
nostrademons 8y ago
I'd wondered about this when I heard Google wasn't sending any of their top brass. In my experience, it's very out of character for Google's top leadership to not predict when people are going to be pissed off about a decision. And it was stupendously easy to tell that Congress would be pissed off by this decision - when I mentioned the news to my wife she was like "You can do that? Just stand up Congress?" I'm reminded of Margaery Tyrell's line from the season 6 finale of Game of Thrones. "Cersei understands the consequences of her absence, and she is absent anyway, which means that she does not intend to suffer those consequences." Lest we start panicking, I don't think that this necessarily means we're all going to die in a fireball of wildfyre (though that could happen anyway). But it's likely Google actually welcomes regulation, because it will entrench their position and serve as a barrier to any new competitors emerging. They know that neither the average Congressperson nor their constituents understand economics, and so will likely pass legislation that harms Google's unborn competitors far more than it harms Google.
- advisedwang 8y ago
  Google tried to send their top lawyer, Kent Walker, but was rejected by the Senate [1] less than two weeks before the hearing. [1] https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/08/23/senate-intelligence-committee-rejects-kent-walker-as-googles-pick-to-testify/?slreturn=20180813125638 https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/08/23/senate-intelligen...
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    I know, but they (and everyone else) has to know that sending their top lawyer would piss off Congress just as much.
  - puzzle 8y ago
    Nitpick: Dave Drummond is, or at least was, Kent Walker's boss, board member and the top lawyer. He focused on business, though. Kent Walker was the policy guy. Ironically, this article from six weeks ago makes the point that he's the new Eric Schmidt when it comes to governments: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/30/google-kent-walker-svp-of-global-affairs.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/30/google-kent-walker-svp-of-gl...
refurb 8y ago
Elon Musk interview on Joe Rogan last which made their shares drop 8% for the day because he took one puff. Everyone went berserk because you are not supposed to do something like that if you are the CEO of a large company. The stock dropped because the CAO departed less than a month after starting at Telsa. Not because of the puff of marijuana.
- fossuser 8y ago
  I don’t think that’s actually true though it’s been repeated a lot - people have left without that large of a crash (and in this case it looks like they joined to help with going private so it’s not a huge surprise they left). The fast crashes seem more related to stupid media freak outs - similar to FB and the Cambridge Analytica thing.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    I don't think it's reasonable to disregard any meaningful explanation just to keep pushing a baseless assertion. Tesla's finances are a perenial source of concern and if Tesla's chief accounting officer leaves the company in the middle of another row regarding Tesla's financial health, I really doubt a puff is capable of raising more concerns.
    - fossuser 8y ago
      I think you underestimate how many market moves are because of stupid overreactions to news events. Ultimately though the true cause of these moves can't really be known so reasonable people can draw different conclusions.
  - jstandard 8y ago
    I don't see Cambridge Analytica as a "stupid media freak out", it exposed a concerning and far reaching privacy issue with the Facebook platform. Concerns about Tesla's solvency have been building for months. The departure of several high-level executives is a big concern and what moved markets. It might signal that people are jumping ship.
ataturk 8y ago
This gets into conspiracy territory, but there are rumors flying around about why Page is absent and what he was up to with North Korea. You make up your own mind, though. It does appear that Google was involved in some treachery, however. And the ongoing censorship of conservative voices on these platforms, as well as the extremely cozy relationship Google enjoys (enjoyed?) with the CIA leaves me pretty freaking cold. I no longer trust any of these companies and have been moving myself away from them--if they aren't supporting America first, let them rot. We badly need a 3rd smartphone platform.
at-fates-hands 8y ago
I can honestly see him being withdrawn as just not caring or not wanting to be apart of the company or the culture. He shows up every know and then again just to keep his standing. He can reap the financial stability it offers and still work on his moonshots or other pet projects. I know a lot of college buddies who were some of the smartest people I knew. When they hit their 30's, they just had enough of the go go go lifestyle and they suddenly wanted to be alone and just enjoy life either by themselves or with a very small group of special friends. I can see Larry being like this. He just wants to be by himself and out of the spotlight.
intended 8y ago
Doing the smart thing and retiring? Theres not much that can be said about communication online. Its going to be terrible, even without VC money thrown at it. This isn't hyperbole, its just history - even with the first ever online game, back in the text days, the first griefer existed. In old forums, we had eternal september. Communication online is just hacking the human brain more efficiently.
imhoguy 8y ago
Isn't he building Ava robot on his remote island?
dotancohen 8y ago
It was worth reading the fine article just to see this fibbed screenshot of a common error message: https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ir0HVqer5h2c/v2/600x-1.jpg https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ir0HVqer5h2... > Image text: 404 Page not found
linkmotif 8y ago
Who are these guys thinking they can make anyone show up and get grilled by a bunch of politicians looking to score some easy points? That’s offensive. That Dorsey and Sandberg showed up shows that they are desperate for attention or approval. God Bless America where the government can’t force you to waste your valuable time talking to Marco Rubio.
ddoran 8y ago
"The European Union fined the company $5.1 billion this summer in an antitrust case over the dominance of Google’s Android mobile operating system." Damn, that's sloppy reporting. The EU didn't fine Google because of its dominance, rather it was accused of using that dominance in an abusive manner to advance the search/ad business [1]. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-to-be-fined-5-billion-by-eu-in-android-case-1531903470 https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-to-be-fined-5-billion-by...
golemiprague 8y ago
I saw some of those hearings, it is just grandstanding for congressmen, they don't really try to get to the bottom of the issue or even let people answer their questions, it is more about them talking and showing off. It reminds be a bit of this Cathy Newman vs Peterson interview, no wonder Google doesn't want to be part of this.
tscherno 8y ago
What if Google knew through data-mining what the Congress was up to and thus didn't send Page to the hearing. ;-)
closetCS 8y ago
I don't see why this would be smart move for Google/Larry Page at all. If He goes, either he will fail, which would be disaster similar to Facebook for Google, or he will come out clean, which wouldn't change anything. The majority are still going to use google products regardless of public image, so not going best maintains that image.

314 points by kshatrea 8y ago

I wonder if he's been diagnosed with something that could potentially be terminal if it goes uncured (e.g. aggressive cancer) and he's trying to keep it a secret so that Alphabet's stock price isn't severely damaged EDIT I'm not sure why this is receiving so many downvotes. Is it that unlikely? I'm not saying I want him to be sick, it's just speculation.

_jal 8y ago
Or maybe he's on a secret spy mission to another planet!
- IncRnd 8y ago
  Well, the FBI just closed down the NM solar observatory for Page to communicate with aliens.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
To your point, a few weeks ago someone pointed out to me that Rupert Murdoch hadn't been seen in public in a very long time. There were - still are? - theories that he was very ill or perhaps dead and it was being kept secret for the sake of the stock price and awaiting sale / deal.

pwaivers 8y ago

It is interesting that Larry Page stays out of the spotlight so much. Everyone knows who Mark Zuckerberg is, but many probably couldn't tell you who the CEO of Google/Alphabet is.

martythemaniak 8y ago
I think everyone knows "The Google Guys" without knowing either of them.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
But could we not flip that around? That is, Zuck goes for the limelight (why?) while his peers do not? On the other hand Dorsey isn't low profile and I don't think most (non-tech) people would recognize him. Ev Williams? Even less so. Prehaps, sometimes, it's also the media who makes or breaks public perceptions?
- wolco 8y ago
  How many twitter movies have been made? The facebook movie pushed his platform higher.
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Facebook got "The Social Network", Google got..."The Internship"?
Taylor_OD 8y ago
I mention this on a somewhat regular basis. Most people know nothing about Sundar while they will bring up Zuck all the time. It's odd how different the two organizations operate at the top.
- wolco 8y ago
  Sundar isn't a founder and most will forget his name when he moves on if they ever knew. Tim Cook is more well known but will never reach Steve.
  - ornitorrincos 8y ago
    wozniak I hope
dec0dedab0de 8y ago
I think part of that is our collective fascination of young self made *illionaires, as well as the more personal interactions a user has with Facebook vs Google. Heck, I bet more people are aware of Tom from Myspace, than they are of Larry Page or Sergey Brin.
- meowface 8y ago
  Larry Page made his first million by 25. I can't find info about when Sergey Brin made his first million, but probably not far off from that. They definitely count as young self-made millionaires.
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    Same time - they have equal shares in Google. "First million" probably refers to Google's first angel investment, which set a valuation on the company of maybe $10M and valued each founder's shares at probably $3-4M (I'm guessing on valuation, but this would be typical for an angel investment of $700K for a company this far along. Possibly a bit higher).
rileyphone 8y ago
It doesn't hurt that the Zuck was the focus of a popular film.
rifung 8y ago
I imagine if you asked most people who the CEO of Alphabet is, they'd ask "What's Alphabet?"

kawsper 8y ago

> “What I didn’t see in the last year was a strong central voice about how [Google’s] going to operate on these issues that are societal and less technical,” That's not careful phrasing when talking about a man with paralysed vocal chords.

zanmat0 8y ago
This sounds like being offended purely for the purpose of being offended. I doubt even the subject of the article himself would have caught that.

snaky 8y ago

TLDR > He was also averse to the internal politics common to running a 60,000-employee conglomerate. A former senior director at Google remembers a heated debate among the “L Team,” as Googlers used to call Page’s circle of executive consiglieri, that escalated to a point where it required his mediation. “Can’t you sort this out on your own?” he told his deputies. > The company’s abrupt reorganization in 2015 elevated Pichai to CEO of Google and Page to chief of its umbrella company, Alphabet. It was perhaps the cleverest retirement plan ever devised.

dzdt 8y ago

I would feel much better about being a google user if they were standing up strongly for the original "do no evil" ethos. Where is Page indeed? It really seems like the ethical stance has faded away.

maxxxxx 8y ago
Idealism goes away once a company has reached a certain size and has to reach for big growth like Google. They all have to turn into big faceless corporations. That's why we shouldn't celebrate things like trillion dollar companies or the richest man in the world but we should celebrate small companies. That's where ethics and also innovation can happen .
- alexgmcm 8y ago
  Big companies are just successful small companies. IBM, Bell Labs etc. did far more innovation than any Mom and Pop shop.
  - gnodar 8y ago
    > Big companies are just successful small companies. That would imply either that big companies all started as small companies which became successful and grew large, which is false (some big companies start big). Or that big companies operate the same way as small companies, just at a larger scale, which is unequivocally false.
  - PascLeRasc 8y ago
    Successful at what? "Mom and Pop" shops are totally different and provide for their small communities in ways no big company ever could. Individuals like Alexandra Elbakyan, Bram Moolenaar, and Guido van Rossum have done great things on their own without the help of corporations.
- puzzle 8y ago
  Or maybe this is largely a manufactured issue. Alphabet sent Walker, but the committee didn't allow him to sit down. Between him and Salgado, the experts that Page and Pichai defer to, I don't think there's anyone better qualified to talk about these issues, because they deal with them all the time. If you want to have a meaningful conversation, that is. The problem is that the hearing was mostly an excuse for the senators to posture and to go on off topic rants about pet peeves. It's a media event, not a venue to get anything of substance done. Page has little tolerance for such BS. While the senators' whining was to be expected, because it largely called their bluff, I was more disappointed by the media's acceptance of the lines that Walker was not the right person to be there and that he was "a lawyer" (should we send home all politicians with a law degree?). These are policy issues, so you talk to the experts and leaders who make the policy calls.

m_st 8y ago

Disclosure: I didn't fully read the article as it's rather dull... "404 - Page not found", doesn't Bloomberg have more niveau than that? It's known that Page has problems with his vocal chords. So I wouldn't be astonished that he doesn't show up for a hearing if he's not forced to so.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
I could totally understand that in a vacuum, but Google also chose not to send Sundar Pichai, Google's current CEO, whose vocal chords work just fine. Which sends a much stronger message that Google just doesn't want to talk to Congress. My personal impression of Page and Brin's near silence of late is that they have semi-retired by effectively promoting themselves out of Google during the creation of Alphabet. Still on top, still in charge, but having delegated pretty much everything down to a lower level.
- thrav 8y ago
  Benioff is in the process of doing the same. None of these people have any desire to run Ops for a giant corporation. They want to focus on the stuff they like. For Page, it’s the tech. For Benioff, it’s the philanthropy, social responsibility, equality, political stuff.

mediterrenean 8y ago

I like him giving the the middle finger. Why does he have to satisfy a bunch of egomaniac corrupt politician who has been net negative for the society. Why we have to watch in awe of their complete disconnect from current affairs of the society due to their total ignorance?

maxxxxx 8y ago
You could say the same about any CEO of a large company. They are also egomaniacs who are disconnected from current affairs of society.
- mediterrenean 8y ago
  Agree, some are truly like that. My comment, which is nothing but a rant was against the senate hearing, and the way it is conducted. It is nothing but a circus to make believe the public that senators are acting for the benefit of the public. Far from it, they just serve to certain interests. What I do not like is that they are just putting a show, and what they do is showmanship. Oh they make all those CEOs behave like a little school boy, right?!. Sweating in front of the principal, nice! How about themselves? For Iraq to be invaded these people needed to approve it. Now we know that all the evidence was bogus. Have we seen any such hearing on them? Any remorse, and resignation? They are flashing light to blind you. This is not democracy. That’s all I have to say.
abraham_lincoln 8y ago
Right? Dorsey is also running Square, and has to go to DC to answer questions about shadowbanning Twitter users? That is the most pressing issue of our democracy? Don't worry about college or healthcare costs when Twitter users are being 'unfairly' shadowbanned?
- icebraining 8y ago
  I don't think the Senate Intelligence Committee handles matters related to college or healthcare costs.
8y ago

chosenbreed 8y ago

I might be missing something here but my thinking is that Google Inc/Alphabet is bigger than Larry Page. If for whatever reason he was not able to attend he could have sent a representative chosen from among the senior executives. It seems that neither his attendance nor Google's participation in the whole thing was not mandatory

skummetmaelk 8y ago
According to the article they did offer to send someone else. Presumable the senate was not satisfied with anyone other than the top guy.
- notsofastbuddy 8y ago
  They did seem to find Sandberg acceptable.
  - dahdum 8y ago
    Sandberg is COO, on the board, and with Facebook for over 10 years. She's most definitely top level. Google offered Walker, who was just promoted to the position back in July, and has no operational control over the company.
    - kyrra 8y ago
      Kent Walker has been at Google since 2006, has testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee before[0], and just knows a lot about Google. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/01/four-takeaways-from-the-senate-intelligence-hearing-with-facebook-twitter-and-google/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/01/fo...
      - dahdum 8y ago
        Yes, but only promoted recently, and has more of an advisory role than a leadership one. Certainly a talented guy, but not comparable to Sandberg or Dorsey.

chasd00 8y ago

the guy who invented Perl? ..probably trying to figure out what a script he wrote a few years ago actually does ;)

davidcbc 8y ago
That's Larry Wall
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lizmat 8y ago
Very funny indeed. NOT

citilife 8y ago

To be fair, the government heavily relies on the data Google collects... I highly doubt the consequences are going to be too dire for them. On the other hand, it does appear as if Google (and many of the other mega-corps) are pretty much acting as if they are sovereign in their own right. In this case, it appears Page honestly just ditched it, but if he gets away with it - he sets a precedent.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

agoodthrowaway 8y ago

From a PR point of view Google has handled this whole privacy debacle very well. By keeping a very low profile on privacy, they’ve made sure Facebook takes the heat. Facebook’s horrendous management of the issue has also allowed Google to slide under the radar on the topic. Generally I think Page is doing the right thing by keeping a low public profile.

godzillabrennus 8y ago
Google didn’t play as fast and loose with sharing data as Facebook did. That helps.
- kungtotte 8y ago
  They never got caught doing it. That doesn't mean they never have.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jonny_eh 8y ago
    You've never been caught murdering anyone, I assume.
    - bobdole123456 8y ago
      Not the second time, and that’s really the important part.
- chooseaname 8y ago
  Google wasn't ambiguous at all about how they manage location data.
- dspillett 8y ago
  The sales pitches to partners were quite different, from what I can see. Google have always been selling advertising first and foremost. Their pitch is "we will put you in front of the right people". Facebook, an other social network providers, seem to have modernised this badly. The social graph and access to it was the key offering, so their pitch was "we will give you access to the right people". How did it go on like that for so long? There were four sets of entities involved who for their own reasons did nothing: 1. Those buying the access knew the difference and eagerly lapped up as much as they could. 2. The general public was blissfully unaware until the recent furore so there was no push to change anything from that side. To quite an extent, IMO, many were not just unaware but deliberately ignorant - many of us, techies like myself and active members of privacy groups, were aware and talking loudly about the issues but the majority didn't care because they didn't see how it might significantly affect them personally. 3. Commercial entities, even direct competitors, said nothing because they thought it better to try take a piece of the pie for themselves instead of sprinkling laxatives over someone else's and risk the pie shop being closed down. They are of course right now either being investigated too, or hurriedly making sure they were not (or that it can not be proven that they were) directly and knowingly culpable of the same things. 4. While there was no public or commercial push against what facebook and others were doing, the politicians had no interest. No point siring up potential commercial sponsors for their future funding drives unnecessarily...

mrhappyunhappy 8y ago

I don't know, if I were a billionaire with a private island in the Caribbean, had paralyzed vocal cords and knew damn well what would happen at the hearing (see Zuckerberg), I'd also agree with my colleagues that showing up would do no good and that staying on the sidelines would be the best course of action. Why indulge a bunch of bloodthirsty politicians when you can do pretty much anything else please like working on things you love. Bonus: stock won't tank if you slip up and say the wrong word.

Zelphyr 8y ago

It's kind-of Congress' own fault here. They so often have these... events, that are mostly for show and for the politicians to grandstand making them seem tough to voters but really have very little substance. I doubt any meaningful policy ever comes of them. Doesn't everybody know by now that they're grilling these CEO's in front of the cameras and begging them for money behind the cameras? "outrage" indeed.

wybiral 8y ago
The Senate Intelligence Committee hearings are usually pretty facts-first unlike the other random hearings and sessions. I watch them on C-SPAN whenever they happen (which isn't that frequent). Edit: I strongly recommend watching these directly from C-SPAN rather than the summarized spin-version from random news companies. You might be surprised how little of their time is wasted on grandstanding. Yeah, some politicians will throw in their jabs, but that's not the purpose of those committees and it's a fractionally tiny amount of the dialog. But that's what the news focuses on because it's the most sensational.
- Retric 8y ago
  On C-SPAN those jabs don't seem like much, but they are mostly what's included on regular news coverage. Making them the main point of the exercise.
  - wybiral 8y ago
    The main point of the "exercise" is to discuss the issues and a few politicians hijack a few minutes of time to make political jabs for the media. The rest of it is still important. They're asking questions and forming their perception of the situation which they use to shape policy.
    - Retric 8y ago
      If they simply want fact finding they could do that over a phone call.* The circus is very much the point. * Granted, phone calls don't have the weight of purgery to keep people honest. But, that only goes so far.

gok 8y ago

> The vision was to stretch this tube system, arced hundreds of feet in the air, from a ground-level entry point on Google’s Mountain View campus to an exit 35 miles north, in San Francisco, so Google’s rainbow-colored beach cruisers might one day be seen flying over U.S. Highway 101. Yes, it sounds like a Hyperloop for bikes. And you're telling me this ran into problems!?

stevehawk 8y ago

In all seriousness he probably didn't show because he was offended they'd make him. He has been a large proponent of perfect data preventing crime and maintaining society and is very cooperative with the IC.

kyledrake 8y ago

> Alphabet said in a statement that it had offered its head of global affairs for the hearing and that “enabling Larry to focus on the other bets and long-term technical problems is exactly what Alphabet was set up for.” So basically they had offered someone of authority here, but the politicians wanted to have their show trial with the celebrities instead.

wybiral 8y ago
In the domain of information warfare and propaganda campaigns public awareness and attention is a large part of the counter strategy. So even if it were just to attract eyeballs to the issue that doesn't mean it was a "show trial". If you watch these Intelligence Committee hearings I think you'll find them to be focused on strategy, partnerships, and actions rather than some form of "trial".
- kyledrake 8y ago
  Then they should have invited the actual experts on the topic at these companies. Google, again, says they offered someone to speak and were told it could only be Page. What if they told Facebook it could only be Mark and not Sheryl? Either way, if they actually wanted the CEO of Google, that happens to be Sundar Pichai, not Larry Page (he's the CEO of the holding company).
  - wybiral 8y ago
    I was under the understanding that they asked for either Page or Pichai. And Google basically responded with "it's either our legal team or nothing".

CodeSheikh 8y ago

It is interesting they had "GOOGLE" printed on the reserved seat. Where in reality Sundar Pichai is the ceo of Google and Larry Page is the ceo of Alphabet. So the Senate committee was actually expecting Mr. Pichai and Bloomberg got it wrong.

394549 8y ago
> It is interesting they had "GOOGLE" printed on the reserved seat. Where in reality Sundar Pichai is the ceo of Google and Larry Page is the ceo of Alphabet. So the Senate committee was actually expecting Mr. Pichai and Bloomberg got it wrong. But only technically. Google is Alphabet and Alphabet is Google, just like Blackwater is still Blackwater no matter what obfuscating name they're using this week.

theandrewbailey 8y ago

At this rate, I can see Mr. Page being the rich (evil?) guy from the movies that no one ever sees or has heard from in decades, and everyone is scared of. He will pull up in a limousine, slip you a piece of paper (with bad news on it) out of a crack in the window, and drive off again.

dibstern 8y ago

I don’t understand people on here complaining about the Senate demanding that the leaders of a business answer for its actions. Sending your lawyer or an underling is (1) a show of disrespect, (2) it shows you’re not taking responsibility for your company, and (3) when the person answering the questions isn’t really in charge, they can’t answer properly and they can’t commit their companies to behaving differently. People just seem propagandistically pro-Google on here. You’re mostly pretty darn smart people. I don’t get it.

dctoedt 8y ago
See Zelphyr's comment just below yours (for the moment) at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17978894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17978894
y-c-o-m-b 8y ago
I don't think it's pro-Google, I think it has to do with the fact that these hearings are made up of a gang of angry old people with God complex that not only do not understand technology, but don't really have a desire to understand it nor the desire to really change anything. I don't blame Google one bit for not wanting to waste time and be ridiculed by these clowns.
- atomical 8y ago
  What you wrote could easily be applied to Google. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/13/breitbart_posts_leaked_video_of_google_leadership_reacting_to_2016_election.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/13/breitbart...
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > these hearings are made up of a gang of angry old people with God complex that not only do not understand technology, but don't really have a desire to understand it nor the desire to really change anything. Those angry old people were chosen by their constituents to represent them in public affairs. Supposedly their roles and their actions are the basis of a democratic regime.
8y ago

l9k 8y ago

At this point, though, such a public-relations strategy feels dated. On balance, the celebrity of even the most caricatured CEO (Zuckerberg) appears to be a net positive for his company. I disagree totally with that point. The "superstar CEO" Zuckerberg is now ridiculed, hated, and negatively "meme-ed". He is now the face of censorship (for some) and a laissezfaire strategy threatening democracies (for others). Even the previous paragraph stated: "Bill Gates had become a media caricature during Microsoft Corp.’s three-year antitrust lawsuit". Page staying in the dark only generated this one article, not a real national scandal. 99% of people don't know him and won't know him after that no-show. Google's reputation is untouched. Only loss is for the Senators not getting the spotlight.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Page staying in the dark only generated this one article Eh, it’s going to generate nasty side effects. Google spends a lot on lobbying. This kneecaps those efforts. That’s bad news for a host of broader issues, including net neutrality.
- fullshark 8y ago
  When has public attention ever been beneficial for corporate lobbying efforts?
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    When the thing they're lobbying for has broad public support.
georgiecasey 8y ago
i agree, in this time of outrage culture, i don't know why anybody at the centre of any controversy gives it oxygen. anything you say is another story. some would say you need to get your point of view across but i'd say people have made up their mind anyway. say nothing and the media and public move on to the next story.

m3kw9 8y ago

Didn't know he was missing till now. Maybe he is just doing some heads down work and letter another person take media duties.

lisper 8y ago

One thing this article completely neglects to mention: Larry has vocal chord paralysis and so has difficulty speaking. https://www.wired.com/2013/05/larry-page-vocal-chords/ https://www.wired.com/2013/05/larry-page-vocal-chords/ This could have something to do with why he's reluctant to do a lot of public speaking nowadays. [UPDATE] I was wrong: the article does mention this, I just missed it. I would delete this comment but I can't since it has been replied to.

Sgt_Apone 8y ago
It mentions that several times. >In the 1990s he was diagnosed with vocal cord paralysis, a nerve condition that eventually has made it difficult for him to speak above a hoarse whisper. “Sergey says I’m probably a better CEO because I choose my words more carefully,” Page wrote in a Google+ post in 2013, the same year he stopped joining earnings calls.
jakobegger 8y ago
This is mentioned multiple times in the article.
Arubis 8y ago
While it's true (sibling comments) that this is indeed mentioned in the article, it's well into the body, about two-thirds down. This strikes me as extremely relevant information: Page acts "as if [he] had only so many words left to speak." (ftfa) Why would he waste his breath, if it's actually limited? The mistake here wasn't in Page not showing up--it was in _nobody_ showing up.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  That's not on Google - as the article states, Google offered multiple other officials, but that was declined, they wanted Page or nothing and so got nothing.

throwaway5752 8y ago

Google offered to send someone to the hearing, but the Senate didn't feel they were high ranking enough, so they didn't let the person fill the seat and let it remain "empty" even though Google offered. Disgraceful grandstanding by Warner.

forgot-my-pw 8y ago
Can't blame him for not going. They tried to crucify Mark Zuckerberg on live broadcast last time.

Jerry2 8y ago

Larry Page probably didn't attend the Senate hearings because he knew that this video was going to get leaked: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-googl... He would have been grilled for hours over it.

eutropia 8y ago
At the risk of sounding partisan, why should I trust a breitbart dot com link?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Jerry2 8y ago
  You shouldn't. It's an internal Google video. So unless you're a conspiracy theorist who thinks it was faked, it should be eye opening.
- seatdrummer 8y ago
  its just an unedited video. Just watch it if you care at all.
ibejoeb 8y ago
That video is amazing. Certainly doesn't hurt Damore's suit. edit: To all the silent salties out there: am I wrong?
trendoid 8y ago
He could have been grilled, sure. But I don't think that was the reason as Google was arranging someone else to show up before this leaked. Nothing in this video is surprising though. It has always been clear that the value system of people in Silicon Valley is completely different from Republican values. Their despise for Trump or his base is the most obvious connection anyone can make.

908087 8y ago

> According to one Larry loyalist, Page’s privacy, besides being a personal preference, is also a carefully considered company strategy. That's gold, given the fact that his company has set out to completely destroy the concept of privacy for the rest of the population.

paulsutter 8y ago

Long before the hearing Google said they would send Kent Walker to answer questions. He was not allowed to attend the hearing, in order to create the stunt of an empty chair. Bloomberg I’m disappointed.

ThomPete 8y ago

This is why I more or less stopped reading or watching the news. If something is important I will find out. If I want to understand the world better I will either read a book about a given subject, ask someone who knows something, explore it on my own or debate it with someone who holds the opposite view of me. News especially these days is mostly sensationalist gossip made by people who's primary incentives is to get you to click their link or share it because you are outraged so they get more clicks. I don't mind debating politics or other more problematic subjects but I don't get riled up by some article trying to paint the world in black and white, seen the other side of how the media is reporting something too many times. If you want to have another example besides this weird can completely forced article look no further to the Elon Musk interview on Joe Rogan last which made their shares drop 8% for the day because he took one puff. Everyone went berserk because you are not supposed to do something like that if you are the CEO of a large company. Instead of actually listening to the interview which was almost 3 hours and super interesting, that puff became what the media took away from it. The media is no longer in the service of the people it's in the service of the clicks that's about it because it's much more fun to be outraged and gossip than to actually try and understand. Each to their own of course but that's why I stopped following the news cycles. Now go and watch that great interview with Elon and while you are at it go watch Peter Thiel on Dave Rubin an equally great show that takes the time to unfold subjects even if that means three hour formats.

0x8BADF00D 8y ago
> If you want to have another example besides this weird can completely forced article look no further to the Elon Musk interview on Joe Rogan last which made their shares drop 8% for the day because he took one puff. Everyone went berserk because you are not supposed to do something like that if you are the CEO of a large company. Instead of actually listening to the interview which was almost 3 hours and super interesting, that puff became what the media took away from it. The media is no longer in the service of the people it's in the service of the clicks that's about it because it's much more fun to be outraged and gossip than to actually try and understand. It doesn’t matter though. Let them continue to waste their brain power on meaningless nonsense like “optics” or how something looks. The rest of us will continue to learn and innovate. I learned a lot, especially about how an electric plane with VTOL works. Honestly, it was one of the most inspiring things I’ve ever watched in my life.

nostrademons 8y ago

I'd wondered about this when I heard Google wasn't sending any of their top brass. In my experience, it's very out of character for Google's top leadership to not predict when people are going to be pissed off about a decision. And it was stupendously easy to tell that Congress would be pissed off by this decision - when I mentioned the news to my wife she was like "You can do that? Just stand up Congress?" I'm reminded of Margaery Tyrell's line from the season 6 finale of Game of Thrones. "Cersei understands the consequences of her absence, and she is absent anyway, which means that she does not intend to suffer those consequences." Lest we start panicking, I don't think that this necessarily means we're all going to die in a fireball of wildfyre (though that could happen anyway). But it's likely Google actually welcomes regulation, because it will entrench their position and serve as a barrier to any new competitors emerging. They know that neither the average Congressperson nor their constituents understand economics, and so will likely pass legislation that harms Google's unborn competitors far more than it harms Google.

advisedwang 8y ago
Google tried to send their top lawyer, Kent Walker, but was rejected by the Senate [1] less than two weeks before the hearing. [1] https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/08/23/senate-intelligence-committee-rejects-kent-walker-as-googles-pick-to-testify/?slreturn=20180813125638 https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/08/23/senate-intelligen...
- nostrademons 8y ago
  I know, but they (and everyone else) has to know that sending their top lawyer would piss off Congress just as much.
- puzzle 8y ago
  Nitpick: Dave Drummond is, or at least was, Kent Walker's boss, board member and the top lawyer. He focused on business, though. Kent Walker was the policy guy. Ironically, this article from six weeks ago makes the point that he's the new Eric Schmidt when it comes to governments: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/30/google-kent-walker-svp-of-global-affairs.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/30/google-kent-walker-svp-of-gl...

refurb 8y ago

Elon Musk interview on Joe Rogan last which made their shares drop 8% for the day because he took one puff. Everyone went berserk because you are not supposed to do something like that if you are the CEO of a large company. The stock dropped because the CAO departed less than a month after starting at Telsa. Not because of the puff of marijuana.

fossuser 8y ago
I don’t think that’s actually true though it’s been repeated a lot - people have left without that large of a crash (and in this case it looks like they joined to help with going private so it’s not a huge surprise they left). The fast crashes seem more related to stupid media freak outs - similar to FB and the Cambridge Analytica thing.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  I don't think it's reasonable to disregard any meaningful explanation just to keep pushing a baseless assertion. Tesla's finances are a perenial source of concern and if Tesla's chief accounting officer leaves the company in the middle of another row regarding Tesla's financial health, I really doubt a puff is capable of raising more concerns.
  - fossuser 8y ago
    I think you underestimate how many market moves are because of stupid overreactions to news events. Ultimately though the true cause of these moves can't really be known so reasonable people can draw different conclusions.
- jstandard 8y ago
  I don't see Cambridge Analytica as a "stupid media freak out", it exposed a concerning and far reaching privacy issue with the Facebook platform. Concerns about Tesla's solvency have been building for months. The departure of several high-level executives is a big concern and what moved markets. It might signal that people are jumping ship.

ataturk 8y ago

This gets into conspiracy territory, but there are rumors flying around about why Page is absent and what he was up to with North Korea. You make up your own mind, though. It does appear that Google was involved in some treachery, however. And the ongoing censorship of conservative voices on these platforms, as well as the extremely cozy relationship Google enjoys (enjoyed?) with the CIA leaves me pretty freaking cold. I no longer trust any of these companies and have been moving myself away from them--if they aren't supporting America first, let them rot. We badly need a 3rd smartphone platform.

at-fates-hands 8y ago

I can honestly see him being withdrawn as just not caring or not wanting to be apart of the company or the culture. He shows up every know and then again just to keep his standing. He can reap the financial stability it offers and still work on his moonshots or other pet projects. I know a lot of college buddies who were some of the smartest people I knew. When they hit their 30's, they just had enough of the go go go lifestyle and they suddenly wanted to be alone and just enjoy life either by themselves or with a very small group of special friends. I can see Larry being like this. He just wants to be by himself and out of the spotlight.

intended 8y ago

Doing the smart thing and retiring? Theres not much that can be said about communication online. Its going to be terrible, even without VC money thrown at it. This isn't hyperbole, its just history - even with the first ever online game, back in the text days, the first griefer existed. In old forums, we had eternal september. Communication online is just hacking the human brain more efficiently.

imhoguy 8y ago

Isn't he building Ava robot on his remote island?

dotancohen 8y ago

It was worth reading the fine article just to see this fibbed screenshot of a common error message: https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ir0HVqer5h2c/v2/600x-1.jpg https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ir0HVqer5h2... > Image text: 404 Page not found

linkmotif 8y ago

Who are these guys thinking they can make anyone show up and get grilled by a bunch of politicians looking to score some easy points? That’s offensive. That Dorsey and Sandberg showed up shows that they are desperate for attention or approval. God Bless America where the government can’t force you to waste your valuable time talking to Marco Rubio.

ddoran 8y ago

"The European Union fined the company $5.1 billion this summer in an antitrust case over the dominance of Google’s Android mobile operating system." Damn, that's sloppy reporting. The EU didn't fine Google because of its dominance, rather it was accused of using that dominance in an abusive manner to advance the search/ad business [1]. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-to-be-fined-5-billion-by-eu-in-android-case-1531903470 https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-to-be-fined-5-billion-by...

golemiprague 8y ago

I saw some of those hearings, it is just grandstanding for congressmen, they don't really try to get to the bottom of the issue or even let people answer their questions, it is more about them talking and showing off. It reminds be a bit of this Cathy Newman vs Peterson interview, no wonder Google doesn't want to be part of this.

tscherno 8y ago

What if Google knew through data-mining what the Congress was up to and thus didn't send Page to the hearing. ;-)

closetCS 8y ago

I don't see why this would be smart move for Google/Larry Page at all. If He goes, either he will fail, which would be disaster similar to Facebook for Google, or he will come out clean, which wouldn't change anything. The majority are still going to use google products regardless of public image, so not going best maintains that image.