4 ms·

so to paraphrase, he is a bean counter.

bmcquade 4y ago
I think he cares deeply about the company and its mission, he just lacks the ability to be a bold and decisive leader. This can be a good thing in some cases (he is good at building consensus for example), but can also be harmful.
- mft_ 4y ago
  A quick Google (natch!) suggests that the company mission is: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Does he "care deeply" about this? If we look at the direction they've taken in recent years, and the products they've launched (and/or killed) - how many of them demonstrate a "deep care" about this mission? How many of them are even tangentially related to this mission? (The projects that Google undertook in the early days --Earth, Maps, Mail, digitising whole libraries, photographing the world for StreetView-- definitely showed a dedication to this mission statement.)
  - eastbound 4y ago
    I don’t find the world information on Google when I search. Gmail works much better. It does, indeed, organize the world’s information, the world’s private and corporate information. But the only who can really search through it is the CIA. Maybe we’re not the real customers ;)
    - daniel_reetz 4y ago
      The notion of organizing private information (VS the public internet) helped me shift my perspective a bit, thank you. It also dramatically amplified my feelings about other Google products, like Drive, which do an absolutely terrible job organizing and making private information accessible. It's almost maliciously bad.
  - outside1234 4y ago
    Everything is branded for what it is not. Google’s mission is to display ads on everything. Organizing information is just an optional side quest when it enables the former.
  - KyeRussell 4y ago
    What argument are you trying to make here? This feels very “I’m going to logic you into my view”. Google is a large, nuanced organisation. The measure of Sundar “caring deeply” doesn’t have to be filtered through a marketing slogan.
    - mft_ 4y ago
      The previous poster wrote (of Sundar): "I think he cares deeply about the company and its mission..." I'm not trying to make an argument; instead, I was: 1) Checking what Google's mission is these days (as I'm not clear if the mission statement I found is indeed still their mission, and/or the one that the previous poster said that he cares deeply about) 2) If that is the correct mission statement, testing the premise that he cares deeply about it, by exploring the direction the company under his leadership has taken.
- justinclift 4y ago
  Sounds like he's more suitable to be 2IC (eg 2nd in charge, not the leader) then?
  - mrdrqr 4y ago
    Why even write 2IC if you then have to explain what it is?
    - justinclift 4y ago
      Because it's a term familiar to some, and not to others. What were you thinking the answer would be?
      - quesera 4y ago
        The better question is why did you use "eg" when you meant "i.e."? :)
        justinclift 4y ago
        Meh, no-one gives a shit. ;)
nxm 4y ago
He’s the Steve Balmer of Google
- Rexxar 4y ago
  Steve Ballmer was not a technologist but he had something more than a been counter despite all his flaws.
- ur-whale 4y ago
  >He’s the Steve Balmer of Google No, he isn't. However misguided and ridiculous Balmer was, he at least showed that he was fully alive [1] Sundar wouldn't be caught dead wearing a sweaty shirt or yelling on a stage. The dude is a fucking wax puppet. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxbJw8PrIkc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxbJw8PrIkc

I think he cares deeply about the company and its mission, he just lacks the ability to be a bold and decisive leader. This can be a good thing in some cases (he is good at building consensus for example), but can also be harmful.

mft_ 4y ago
A quick Google (natch!) suggests that the company mission is: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Does he "care deeply" about this? If we look at the direction they've taken in recent years, and the products they've launched (and/or killed) - how many of them demonstrate a "deep care" about this mission? How many of them are even tangentially related to this mission? (The projects that Google undertook in the early days --Earth, Maps, Mail, digitising whole libraries, photographing the world for StreetView-- definitely showed a dedication to this mission statement.)
- eastbound 4y ago
  I don’t find the world information on Google when I search. Gmail works much better. It does, indeed, organize the world’s information, the world’s private and corporate information. But the only who can really search through it is the CIA. Maybe we’re not the real customers ;)
  - daniel_reetz 4y ago
    The notion of organizing private information (VS the public internet) helped me shift my perspective a bit, thank you. It also dramatically amplified my feelings about other Google products, like Drive, which do an absolutely terrible job organizing and making private information accessible. It's almost maliciously bad.
- outside1234 4y ago
  Everything is branded for what it is not. Google’s mission is to display ads on everything. Organizing information is just an optional side quest when it enables the former.
- KyeRussell 4y ago
  What argument are you trying to make here? This feels very “I’m going to logic you into my view”. Google is a large, nuanced organisation. The measure of Sundar “caring deeply” doesn’t have to be filtered through a marketing slogan.
  - mft_ 4y ago
    The previous poster wrote (of Sundar): "I think he cares deeply about the company and its mission..." I'm not trying to make an argument; instead, I was: 1) Checking what Google's mission is these days (as I'm not clear if the mission statement I found is indeed still their mission, and/or the one that the previous poster said that he cares deeply about) 2) If that is the correct mission statement, testing the premise that he cares deeply about it, by exploring the direction the company under his leadership has taken.
justinclift 4y ago
Sounds like he's more suitable to be 2IC (eg 2nd in charge, not the leader) then?
- mrdrqr 4y ago
  Why even write 2IC if you then have to explain what it is?
  - justinclift 4y ago
    Because it's a term familiar to some, and not to others. What were you thinking the answer would be?
    - quesera 4y ago
      The better question is why did you use "eg" when you meant "i.e."? :)
      - justinclift 4y ago
        Meh, no-one gives a shit. ;)

nxm 4y ago

He’s the Steve Balmer of Google

Rexxar 4y ago
Steve Ballmer was not a technologist but he had something more than a been counter despite all his flaws.
ur-whale 4y ago
>He’s the Steve Balmer of Google No, he isn't. However misguided and ridiculous Balmer was, he at least showed that he was fully alive [1] Sundar wouldn't be caught dead wearing a sweaty shirt or yelling on a stage. The dude is a fucking wax puppet. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxbJw8PrIkc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxbJw8PrIkc