6 ms·

Their leadership has no vision. They don't know what to build, where they're going, or what problems they need to solve.. So they encourage these random projec

Their leadership has no vision. They don't know what to build, where they're going, or what problems they need to solve.. So they encourage these random projects hoping one of their employees will have a vision for them. So the organization just flails around hoping to win the lottery. Each new project is a new lottery ticket.. saving the leadership from making any hard decisions.

gowld 7y ago
What's wrong with tapping the wisdom of the rank and file? Why bottleneck 10K+ smart creative people by a few power-hoarding learders? That's usually regarded as the great "bazaar" / "free market" style of getting the best ideas out of the community. The failure is in not well supporting the good ideas that come up.
- scarface74 7y ago
  What’s wrong with putting ideas in public and then discontinuing them means that no one will invest time or money in your products. If you were a printer manufacturer would you support whatever Google comes up with to allow Android devices to support printing without needing to write specific drivers? Apple released AirPrint in 2010. AirPrint compatible printer still works with an iPad 1.
- cuban-frisbee 7y ago
  Having a vision doesn’t prevent the rank and file from contributing quite the opposite. Look at Microsoft. Nadella has a strong vision for the company and great things are constantly created from every level that aligns with that vision. The new surface neo, xbox adaptive controller, gamebar,razor components, the whole .net team. All of it is about empowerment, that is what vision can do.
_wldu 7y ago
It seems pretty bold and visionary to me. They've lucked out with gmail, chrome, golang, android, maps, etc. and they still have the best search in the world. Having a HIPPO tell everyone what to do, how to do it and when is not visionary. Letting engineers do what they want and then making money from the ideas is.
- amluto 7y ago
  > and they still have the best search in the world. Which is disappointing, since Google of ten years ago had a distinctly better search.
  - airstrike 7y ago
    Better for users, but not for investors.
  - Enginerrrd 7y ago
    Yes! As soon as wikipedia stopped being the first result for nearly everything it started going downhill. The decline in usability for me has been most notable in the last 5 years.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Chrome was split off from WebKit, Android was acquired. They didn’t build either from scratch. Compare their success to failure ratio to Apple, Amazon and Microsoft.
  - kevinslashslash 7y ago
    And Apple bought NeXT which is what macOS and iOS are based off of. A purity contest of "from scratch" isn't really relevant. Google clearly put, and continues to put, a lot of serious technical work into Chrome and Android which is reflected in their success.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Chrome isn’t a “success” because of any technical work. It’s a success because Google hocked it on their home page. How is Chrome anymore of technical success than other browsers? As far as Android, it came out in the Oracle trial that it only made about $22 billion in profit during its entire existence and the entire ecosystem is still a mess as far as security and updates compared to Windows - ie where one company controls the operating system and licenses it to other OEMs. Not to mention that the entire Android market is a profit less race to the bottom for all of the manufacturers. All that being said, Google still derives almost all of its profit from ads compared to Apple, Microsoft and Amazon who have had far more success in introducing diversified products. But if Google’s failures can be attributed to a lack of leadership, most of Apple’s current success wasn’t the result of the NeXT acquisition. It was the result of bringing its founder back.
konschubert 7y ago
Google is basically a startup builder. And a really good one. How many companies manage to stay so innovative after having found their rainmaker product? However, they should probably sell their successful startups instead of killing them. But I guess they don’t need the money.
- birdyrooster 7y ago
  I almost think they let their engineers launch products just so they can’t quit and go to another company.
  - drewda 7y ago
    You just described the official purpose of https://area120.google.com/ https://area120.google.com/
    - birdyrooster 7y ago
      Is that Google officially accepting that 20% time is actually 120% time? I’m proud of them for baring the truth even if it is a bit oblique.
  - paganel 7y ago
    I have had the exact same thought about Google for about 2 years now (and about the other big SV companies in general). I guess these golden cages are cheaper compared to doing acquihires further down the road.
  - TMWNN 7y ago
    I read recently here that FAANGs hire people not because they need them, but to keep them away from rivals.
- scarface74 7y ago
  How are they a really good startup builder? What have they built in house that has been a success since Gmail? After flailing around for a decade, almost all of their profit is still based on ads. They are less diversified than any of the big tech companies besides Facebook.
ivoras 7y ago
Though it completely goes against the grain and it's fairly tongue in cheek - sometimes I wonder if the belligerent drive to innovation is really helping anyone but the stockholders. Of course, innovation is positive and generally drives the quality of life in the civilisation, but... if Google stayed as Search + GMail + AdWords/Sense for decades and only worked to update those services to be generally useful and offer decently modern UX, who'd blame them? Sure, that'd turn them into a sort of utility, but again - who in the general population would actually lose from that?
Loughla 7y ago
>So the organization just flails around hoping to win the lottery. Each new project is a new lottery ticket.. saving the leadership from making any hard decisions. Not to be hateful, and I couldn't possibly live further from the SV area, but isn't that just a description of startup culture? Are they just being the most successful startup?
FreakyT 7y ago
Agreed -- I saw Sundar give the keynote at Google I/O last year, and while it was obvious that he was really into the tech, it was equally obvious he had no overarching vision for any of the things he talked about, outside of a general sense of "wow, isn't this cool?" Google really needs to ditch him and find a new CEO capable of providing some actual vision and direction, not just randomly lead them to chase various cool technologies.
- paggle 7y ago
  If you look at Google's stock price over Sundar's tenure as CEO you will see why it's very unlikely they "ditch him." Same thing happened with Ballmer.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    You really think Sundar is having as negative an impact on Google as Ballmer did for Microsoft? I agree Google has lost its way, but I wouldn't go that far.
  - MR4D 7y ago
    That’s not the right comparison. He should be compared to the S&P 500. Maybe even compared to large growth firms. When compared to both, he’s done about average or less, depending on which benchmark you use. [0] [0] - https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=2016&firstMonth=1&endYear=2019&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&showYield=false&reinvestDividends=true&symbol1=GOOGL&allocation1_1=100&symbol2=SPY&allocation2_2=100&symbol3=QQQ&allocation3_3=100 https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&t...
TheRealPomax 7y ago
Except when it keeps paying off, it's not so much "hoping" as just "being big enough to throw so many things at a wall that has such a high payout, anything sticking means winning the lottery. Again. And again. And again"... Google can literally _afford_ to kill off highly profitable ventures because something else will make them _more_ money. (which in itself should be reason enough to judicially split this company up, but that's apparently no longer a thing we do, so here we are)
treebornfrog 7y ago
Couldn't articulate it better.

gowld 7y ago

What's wrong with tapping the wisdom of the rank and file? Why bottleneck 10K+ smart creative people by a few power-hoarding learders? That's usually regarded as the great "bazaar" / "free market" style of getting the best ideas out of the community. The failure is in not well supporting the good ideas that come up.

scarface74 7y ago
What’s wrong with putting ideas in public and then discontinuing them means that no one will invest time or money in your products. If you were a printer manufacturer would you support whatever Google comes up with to allow Android devices to support printing without needing to write specific drivers? Apple released AirPrint in 2010. AirPrint compatible printer still works with an iPad 1.
cuban-frisbee 7y ago
Having a vision doesn’t prevent the rank and file from contributing quite the opposite. Look at Microsoft. Nadella has a strong vision for the company and great things are constantly created from every level that aligns with that vision. The new surface neo, xbox adaptive controller, gamebar,razor components, the whole .net team. All of it is about empowerment, that is what vision can do.

_wldu 7y ago

It seems pretty bold and visionary to me. They've lucked out with gmail, chrome, golang, android, maps, etc. and they still have the best search in the world. Having a HIPPO tell everyone what to do, how to do it and when is not visionary. Letting engineers do what they want and then making money from the ideas is.

amluto 7y ago
> and they still have the best search in the world. Which is disappointing, since Google of ten years ago had a distinctly better search.
- airstrike 7y ago
  Better for users, but not for investors.
- Enginerrrd 7y ago
  Yes! As soon as wikipedia stopped being the first result for nearly everything it started going downhill. The decline in usability for me has been most notable in the last 5 years.
scarface74 7y ago
Chrome was split off from WebKit, Android was acquired. They didn’t build either from scratch. Compare their success to failure ratio to Apple, Amazon and Microsoft.
- kevinslashslash 7y ago
  And Apple bought NeXT which is what macOS and iOS are based off of. A purity contest of "from scratch" isn't really relevant. Google clearly put, and continues to put, a lot of serious technical work into Chrome and Android which is reflected in their success.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Chrome isn’t a “success” because of any technical work. It’s a success because Google hocked it on their home page. How is Chrome anymore of technical success than other browsers? As far as Android, it came out in the Oracle trial that it only made about $22 billion in profit during its entire existence and the entire ecosystem is still a mess as far as security and updates compared to Windows - ie where one company controls the operating system and licenses it to other OEMs. Not to mention that the entire Android market is a profit less race to the bottom for all of the manufacturers. All that being said, Google still derives almost all of its profit from ads compared to Apple, Microsoft and Amazon who have had far more success in introducing diversified products. But if Google’s failures can be attributed to a lack of leadership, most of Apple’s current success wasn’t the result of the NeXT acquisition. It was the result of bringing its founder back.

konschubert 7y ago

Google is basically a startup builder. And a really good one. How many companies manage to stay so innovative after having found their rainmaker product? However, they should probably sell their successful startups instead of killing them. But I guess they don’t need the money.

birdyrooster 7y ago
I almost think they let their engineers launch products just so they can’t quit and go to another company.
- drewda 7y ago
  You just described the official purpose of https://area120.google.com/ https://area120.google.com/
  - birdyrooster 7y ago
    Is that Google officially accepting that 20% time is actually 120% time? I’m proud of them for baring the truth even if it is a bit oblique.
- paganel 7y ago
  I have had the exact same thought about Google for about 2 years now (and about the other big SV companies in general). I guess these golden cages are cheaper compared to doing acquihires further down the road.
- TMWNN 7y ago
  I read recently here that FAANGs hire people not because they need them, but to keep them away from rivals.
scarface74 7y ago
How are they a really good startup builder? What have they built in house that has been a success since Gmail? After flailing around for a decade, almost all of their profit is still based on ads. They are less diversified than any of the big tech companies besides Facebook.

ivoras 7y ago

Though it completely goes against the grain and it's fairly tongue in cheek - sometimes I wonder if the belligerent drive to innovation is really helping anyone but the stockholders. Of course, innovation is positive and generally drives the quality of life in the civilisation, but... if Google stayed as Search + GMail + AdWords/Sense for decades and only worked to update those services to be generally useful and offer decently modern UX, who'd blame them? Sure, that'd turn them into a sort of utility, but again - who in the general population would actually lose from that?

Loughla 7y ago

>So the organization just flails around hoping to win the lottery. Each new project is a new lottery ticket.. saving the leadership from making any hard decisions. Not to be hateful, and I couldn't possibly live further from the SV area, but isn't that just a description of startup culture? Are they just being the most successful startup?

FreakyT 7y ago

Agreed -- I saw Sundar give the keynote at Google I/O last year, and while it was obvious that he was really into the tech, it was equally obvious he had no overarching vision for any of the things he talked about, outside of a general sense of "wow, isn't this cool?" Google really needs to ditch him and find a new CEO capable of providing some actual vision and direction, not just randomly lead them to chase various cool technologies.

paggle 7y ago
If you look at Google's stock price over Sundar's tenure as CEO you will see why it's very unlikely they "ditch him." Same thing happened with Ballmer.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  You really think Sundar is having as negative an impact on Google as Ballmer did for Microsoft? I agree Google has lost its way, but I wouldn't go that far.
- MR4D 7y ago
  That’s not the right comparison. He should be compared to the S&P 500. Maybe even compared to large growth firms. When compared to both, he’s done about average or less, depending on which benchmark you use. [0] [0] - https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&timePeriod=4&startYear=2016&firstMonth=1&endYear=2019&lastMonth=12&calendarAligned=true&initialAmount=10000&annualOperation=0&annualAdjustment=0&inflationAdjusted=true&annualPercentage=0.0&frequency=4&rebalanceType=1&absoluteDeviation=5.0&relativeDeviation=25.0&showYield=false&reinvestDividends=true&symbol1=GOOGL&allocation1_1=100&symbol2=SPY&allocation2_2=100&symbol3=QQQ&allocation3_3=100 https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&t...

TheRealPomax 7y ago

Except when it keeps paying off, it's not so much "hoping" as just "being big enough to throw so many things at a wall that has such a high payout, anything sticking means winning the lottery. Again. And again. And again"... Google can literally _afford_ to kill off highly profitable ventures because something else will make them _more_ money. (which in itself should be reason enough to judicially split this company up, but that's apparently no longer a thing we do, so here we are)

treebornfrog 7y ago

Couldn't articulate it better.