5 ms·

WSJ: A Very Gloomy Picture Of Larry Page's Short Tenure As Google CEO

20 points by chugger 15y ago

Challenges have piled up for Mr. Page since he assumed his post in April. They include a broad U.S. antitrust probe of the company's practices; the settlement of a long-running criminal investigation into Google's advertising business; and shifting industry forces that led him to make a deal to buy mobile-device maker Motorola Mobility Holdings..

m0th87 15y ago
In his short tenure, he's shipped Google+, coordinated the redesign of several Google properties and reorganized the entire company [1]. Even if he wasn't focused on these long-term projects, it would be foolish to judge him this early on. This piece speaks more about the cynicism of WSJ than of Page & Google. 1: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/04/exclusive-google-ceo-larry-page-completes-major-reorganization-of-internet-search-giant.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/04/exclusive...
- chugger 15y ago
  I absolutely agree with you but unfortunately, none of those you mentioned are currently creating "value" for shareholders, which is what these short-sighted Wall Street analysts are looking for. In fact, two things that "destroyed" value (at least in the short term) happened under Larry's watch. 1) 12.5 Billion acquisition of Motorola 2) $500 Million settlement with the DOJ. Read my other comment below for more details.
smoody 15y ago
If you don't subscribe to WSJ (like me), then you can pull the full article by clicking on it from a google search results page: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=For+Google+CEO+Larry+Page%2C+a+Difficult+Premiere+Role http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&#3...
- andrewljohnson 15y ago
  Doesn't work for me... probably have cookies?
  - nickgeiger 15y ago
    I deleted all WSJ cookies then clicked the link from the Google search results and it worked.
- bostonpete 15y ago
  Strangely, when I follow your link and click the top link, I still only get 2 paragraphs. If I do my own google search (paste your search query into a fresh google search box), I get the whole article..
- ChrisLTD 15y ago
  You can also "Google" the url and view the cached version.
- dmbass 15y ago
  http://www.google.com/search?&q=For+Google+CEO+Larry+Page%2C+a+Difficult+Premiere+Role http://www.google.com/search?&q=For+Google+CEO+Larry+Pag... Actual Google search link that will work when clicking through to WSJ.
mindstab 15y ago
Ha they dropped 9.1% compared to the market's 8.4%? So the only dropped 0.7% below market average. That's really not so much. Sounds like they are trying to make it seem larger by phrasing it that way. The whole article seems a little sensational. A lot of this stuff doesn't have so much to do with him.
- yuhong 15y ago
  Yea, this should be a clue as to who likely wrote this.
- ramanujan 15y ago
  This whole article is quite silly. It puts a negative spin on his tenure as CEO by downplaying the single most important fact: under Page, Google+ actually shipped, and was actually good! Gundotra and Horowitz led the operation, true, but it's hard to believe Larry Page wasn't heavily involved with that. All the rest is short term ephemera. 9.1% vs. 8.4% is, as you note, nothing. The Motorala deal is for the patents, and they'll probably spin off the hardware end after the deal closes. Expensive but well within Google's budget. As for the $500 million payment, the federal government is suing every company it's not bailing out. Nowadays some sort of federal shakedown is just a cost of doing business in the US, unfortunately. Heck, some guy even recently tried to get Dropbox in trouble with the FTC. You get big enough and you're just a target for all kinds of this stuff. In his short tenure, Page cleaned house, fired tons of nonperforming "VP Bizdev" types, and catalyzed nothing short of an engineering renaissance at Google. Google+ in particular is tremendous for internal company morale and has stemmed the tide of defections to FB. Page knows what's important, but Amir Efrati, the author of this Journal piece, clearly does not.
  - ansy 15y ago
    I think the jury is still out on the Motorola deal. That is a lot of money just for patents. Even for Google's checkbook. And if Google intends to spin off the hardware business expect it to take an even bigger loss on its investment. If Google+ stemmed defections to Facebook that is a good thing. But hopefully a lot more is in store than what Google+ delivered. It was not nearly enough to undo Facebook's market dominance. Eric might have found another solution to the Motorola merger if he was heading the company. But who knows if it would have been better. He already passed on both Palm and Sun. Together they would still have been much less than Motorola and probably twice as useful.
abbott 15y ago
sensationalist (headline, article, author, etc.).
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jbooth 15y ago
So, apparently the order went out, and with typical news corp subtlety the WSJ is going after Google. Last week the piece with them and Apple, now this. So who wants to speculate on motivations: Murdoch business interest? Or a sense that Google and Obama are friends?
yuvipanda 15y ago
That didn't sound gloomy to me at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
saturdaysaint 15y ago
It's always been easy to point out a few Google products that essentially own their category and a few more that are dying quietly on the vine. What would really worry me is if that culture of calculated gambles goes away.

20 points by chugger 15y ago

m0th87 15y ago

In his short tenure, he's shipped Google+, coordinated the redesign of several Google properties and reorganized the entire company [1]. Even if he wasn't focused on these long-term projects, it would be foolish to judge him this early on. This piece speaks more about the cynicism of WSJ than of Page & Google. 1: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/04/exclusive-google-ceo-larry-page-completes-major-reorganization-of-internet-search-giant.html http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/04/exclusive...

chugger 15y ago
I absolutely agree with you but unfortunately, none of those you mentioned are currently creating "value" for shareholders, which is what these short-sighted Wall Street analysts are looking for. In fact, two things that "destroyed" value (at least in the short term) happened under Larry's watch. 1) 12.5 Billion acquisition of Motorola 2) $500 Million settlement with the DOJ. Read my other comment below for more details.

smoody 15y ago

If you don't subscribe to WSJ (like me), then you can pull the full article by clicking on it from a google search results page: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=For+Google+CEO+Larry+Page%2C+a+Difficult+Premiere+Role http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&#3...

andrewljohnson 15y ago
Doesn't work for me... probably have cookies?
- nickgeiger 15y ago
  I deleted all WSJ cookies then clicked the link from the Google search results and it worked.
bostonpete 15y ago
Strangely, when I follow your link and click the top link, I still only get 2 paragraphs. If I do my own google search (paste your search query into a fresh google search box), I get the whole article..
ChrisLTD 15y ago
You can also "Google" the url and view the cached version.
dmbass 15y ago
http://www.google.com/search?&q=For+Google+CEO+Larry+Page%2C+a+Difficult+Premiere+Role http://www.google.com/search?&q=For+Google+CEO+Larry+Pag... Actual Google search link that will work when clicking through to WSJ.

mindstab 15y ago

Ha they dropped 9.1% compared to the market's 8.4%? So the only dropped 0.7% below market average. That's really not so much. Sounds like they are trying to make it seem larger by phrasing it that way. The whole article seems a little sensational. A lot of this stuff doesn't have so much to do with him.

yuhong 15y ago
Yea, this should be a clue as to who likely wrote this.
ramanujan 15y ago
This whole article is quite silly. It puts a negative spin on his tenure as CEO by downplaying the single most important fact: under Page, Google+ actually shipped, and was actually good! Gundotra and Horowitz led the operation, true, but it's hard to believe Larry Page wasn't heavily involved with that. All the rest is short term ephemera. 9.1% vs. 8.4% is, as you note, nothing. The Motorala deal is for the patents, and they'll probably spin off the hardware end after the deal closes. Expensive but well within Google's budget. As for the $500 million payment, the federal government is suing every company it's not bailing out. Nowadays some sort of federal shakedown is just a cost of doing business in the US, unfortunately. Heck, some guy even recently tried to get Dropbox in trouble with the FTC. You get big enough and you're just a target for all kinds of this stuff. In his short tenure, Page cleaned house, fired tons of nonperforming "VP Bizdev" types, and catalyzed nothing short of an engineering renaissance at Google. Google+ in particular is tremendous for internal company morale and has stemmed the tide of defections to FB. Page knows what's important, but Amir Efrati, the author of this Journal piece, clearly does not.
- ansy 15y ago
  I think the jury is still out on the Motorola deal. That is a lot of money just for patents. Even for Google's checkbook. And if Google intends to spin off the hardware business expect it to take an even bigger loss on its investment. If Google+ stemmed defections to Facebook that is a good thing. But hopefully a lot more is in store than what Google+ delivered. It was not nearly enough to undo Facebook's market dominance. Eric might have found another solution to the Motorola merger if he was heading the company. But who knows if it would have been better. He already passed on both Palm and Sun. Together they would still have been much less than Motorola and probably twice as useful.

abbott 15y ago

sensationalist (headline, article, author, etc.).

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jbooth 15y ago

So, apparently the order went out, and with typical news corp subtlety the WSJ is going after Google. Last week the piece with them and Apple, now this. So who wants to speculate on motivations: Murdoch business interest? Or a sense that Google and Obama are friends?

yuvipanda 15y ago

That didn't sound gloomy to me at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

saturdaysaint 15y ago

It's always been easy to point out a few Google products that essentially own their category and a few more that are dying quietly on the vine. What would really worry me is if that culture of calculated gambles goes away.