Not going to lie, it just sounds like he failed to adapt and be a good CEO in this new system. What did he say about needing to do with people who can't adapt a

Not going to lie, it just sounds like he failed to adapt and be a good CEO in this new system. What did he say about needing to do with people who can't adapt and don't have the skills needed at a new stage of company growth? Fire them? Well him leaving might give Waze a new life, if they find a CEO with more experience working in bigger companies, who knows better how to navigate the political landscape of a place like that. Also, my personal issue is that, being part of Google, he seemed to still only focus on the success of Waze, not on the success of Google. And that's contradictory to his own statement of needing to align with company success and investors success. I mean, even his "does nothing for users" argument fails for me, when Waze was acquired I dreamed of all its features just rolling up into Google Maps and Waze going away, so that the best of Maps and Waze would combine into a better Map app. The only thing I can agree with, but honestly that's really not new insight at this point, is promotion driven development. Though I think he undermines a little how that favors new ventures and moonshots over continued refinement of existing products. Yes this is a common criticism of Google, but it's also how Gmail, Maps, and a lot of the really big money maker success of Google happened. It's not that the promotion process is "bad", but it optimises for people to always try and grow brand new products and enter new markets. Which arguably could be best for Google investors.