7 ms·

Well then - found a company that employs half the people and become the next Google. Should be easy if your magic insights can make you twice as profitable. May

by jupp0r 4y ago

Well then - found a company that employs half the people and become the next Google. Should be easy if your magic insights can make you twice as profitable. Maybe this is not how innovation works though.

legalcorrection 4y ago
Not a good argument from you. As if the sheer number of employees is what made Google successful in the first place. And as if efficiency alone makes a successful company. Why would you think these things?
- jupp0r 4y ago
  GP was stating that 50% of tech workers at big companies are redundant. Armed with that knowledge he should be in a stellar position to found a company that is very profitable compared to its competitors who incur double the labor costs. This incredible competitive advantage will enable him to become the next Google eventually. Sounds plausible? No? I wonder where the error is.
  - reshlo 4y ago
    Having a better understanding of who the essential employees are is necessary, but not sufficient, to run a more profitable company than the current market leaders.
    - jupp0r 4y ago
      I get your point, but don’t you think that if it was really so easy, somebody would have done this already? There are other factors like key people leaving if half their colleagues get laid off. The claim itself is so extraordinary because it defies all economics.
adam_arthur 4y ago
Google could fire their entire org outside of ads, search, and android and still roughly maintain the same revenue/growth. It's quite obvious. They are dominant via first mover advantage and monopoly esque positioning in search. And they could likely even not change search at all and stay on top for 10+ years. What is the marginal value today of a given Google employee to the company's bottom line? Super low. The tailwinds driving strong growth for these companies came primarily from macro/digitalization, not because they invented feature X which enhanced revenue

by jupp0r 4y ago

legalcorrection 4y ago

Not a good argument from you. As if the sheer number of employees is what made Google successful in the first place. And as if efficiency alone makes a successful company. Why would you think these things?

jupp0r 4y ago
GP was stating that 50% of tech workers at big companies are redundant. Armed with that knowledge he should be in a stellar position to found a company that is very profitable compared to its competitors who incur double the labor costs. This incredible competitive advantage will enable him to become the next Google eventually. Sounds plausible? No? I wonder where the error is.
- reshlo 4y ago
  Having a better understanding of who the essential employees are is necessary, but not sufficient, to run a more profitable company than the current market leaders.
  - jupp0r 4y ago
    I get your point, but don’t you think that if it was really so easy, somebody would have done this already? There are other factors like key people leaving if half their colleagues get laid off. The claim itself is so extraordinary because it defies all economics.

adam_arthur 4y ago

Google could fire their entire org outside of ads, search, and android and still roughly maintain the same revenue/growth. It's quite obvious. They are dominant via first mover advantage and monopoly esque positioning in search. And they could likely even not change search at all and stay on top for 10+ years. What is the marginal value today of a given Google employee to the company's bottom line? Super low. The tailwinds driving strong growth for these companies came primarily from macro/digitalization, not because they invented feature X which enhanced revenue