8 ms·

Microsoft should seriously consider hiring Elon Musk or a famous, Googler, Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin, or Larry Page, though the googlers might not pass anti-tru

by unono 13y ago

Microsoft should seriously consider hiring Elon Musk or a famous, Googler, Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin, or Larry Page, though the googlers might not pass anti-trust investigations. The need a PR makeover, and Google and Tesla are the best brands in tech. Another choice, PG. It would be refreshing to genuine tech talent at the top instead of another career climber. PG could turn Microsoft into a giant startup factory and literally explode the market cap to trillions. Microsoft investors need to seriously consider this option.

unknownian 13y ago
>PG could turn Microsoft into a giant startup factory Has that ever been Microsoft's goal?
- zalzane 13y ago
  I don't think it would even be financially feasible. If microsoft was to fund 500 internal startups tomorrow, what's the chance any of them would even produce any real revenue? Out of the thousands of startups that are active today, how many of them have even the remote potential to generate 1b in revenue, or even be successful? This isnt even considering how maintaining 500 internal startups would be a micromanagement nightmare. How can you tell if someone is worth keeping? With the failure rate of startups so high, does that mean you should fire startup cells when they fail? The resources that would be used to maintain such a division would probably be much better used focusing on one new, amazing product - backed with loads of market research and QA. You cant ship that kind of product with 5 developers and a years worth of hotpockets.
  - unono 13y ago
    That's a good comment, however, I have to disagree. Those management problems are software problems. And I'm sure PG, as well as the other software talents at MS would relish the opportunity to systematize it in software.
sharkweek 13y ago
I legitimately can't tell if this is serious or not
- unono 13y ago
  Totally serious. Much of Apple's meteoric rise in the 2000s was because of the Steve Jobs brand, and Apple 2000s is the success you want to copy. All the above listed are the biggest names in tech today. There are others, Gates, Ellison, Zuckerburg, but I don't consider them as talented as the ones I listed.
  - ignostic 13y ago
    Let's look outside the startup world for second. Managing large, sprawling corporations is nothing like starting a company with a few products. I'm not saying it's harder, but it requires a different skill set. Neither Musk nor Graham have a proven history managing large and diversified companies. MS doesn't want them, and I seriously doubt they'd even be interested in the job. It'd be like recruiting Lebron James to play baseball.
    - unono 13y ago
      PG hasn't been running a startup, but managing hundreds of them. A large company is just a large number of small groups. A startup is a small group. PG is someone who has proven effective at managing to give a big ROI from managing quite a few small groups. Hence he is eminently suited to running a large corporation.
      - benologist 13y ago
        YC startups are independent and autonomous, the only people running them are their own CEOs.
        unono 13y ago
        So PG would be really good at delegating, another plus point for him as future Microsoft CEO.
IanChiles 13y ago
There's absolutely no incentive MS can offer any of the named people to work for them. So I'm not sure if you're joking, or...?
- unknownian 13y ago
  Furthermore, GP assumes that having a famous famous or well-loved organization is the only measure of a good leader. I don't think I agree. There are some great leaders/tech minds that run great businesses that people don't know about. Focusing on popularity is a cardinal sin to me at least.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Is pg actually a tech talent? No offense to pg, but my understanding of the man is he is a good investor, not necessarily a technical genius or a kickass CEO.
- drblast 13y ago
  Come on now, really? http://www.amazon.com/On-Lisp-Advanced-Techniques-Common/dp/0130305529 http://www.amazon.com/On-Lisp-Advanced-Techniques-Common/dp/...
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    What? I was asking a question. Perhaps unlike many here, I don't know his full background. So sue me.
  - hnriot 13y ago
    the top review was by the man himself, Peter Norvig. That's very high praise indeed. I'd read it if it weren't about Lisp, a language that is bad for all the same reasons it is good.
- unono 13y ago
  harvard comp sci phd, repopularized lisp, successful sale to yahoo, created the biggest tech news forum (HN), Most Importantly - has almost turned creating startups into an assembly line.
  - mcintyre1994 13y ago
    Alright, all great things for a startup guy but I don't think they're the qualities required for the CEO of a multibillion sprawling company. They have no need to popularise or use lisp, no need to sell companies and I'm not convinced this is bigger than eg /r/technology? Not that that's a bad thing, but it's a bold claim to say this is the biggest tech news forum. Way more importantly though, PG hasn't turned creating startups into an assembly line. The closest thing to an assembly line he's got is converting strong founders into startups, and still the majority 'fail'. For him to continue that at Microsoft, Microsoft would need to attract strong founders consistently and there's no reason to suspect they can. My suspicion is Microsoft has about as many billion-dollar units as PG has billion-dollar investments, so the actual value is unclear. Don't get me wrong, PG has a proven history in startups, technology, investments, he writes well, he seems incredibly smart.. but I don't think he nor Microsoft think he has the qualities of a Microsoft CEO.

by unono 13y ago

unknownian 13y ago

>PG could turn Microsoft into a giant startup factory Has that ever been Microsoft's goal?

zalzane 13y ago
I don't think it would even be financially feasible. If microsoft was to fund 500 internal startups tomorrow, what's the chance any of them would even produce any real revenue? Out of the thousands of startups that are active today, how many of them have even the remote potential to generate 1b in revenue, or even be successful? This isnt even considering how maintaining 500 internal startups would be a micromanagement nightmare. How can you tell if someone is worth keeping? With the failure rate of startups so high, does that mean you should fire startup cells when they fail? The resources that would be used to maintain such a division would probably be much better used focusing on one new, amazing product - backed with loads of market research and QA. You cant ship that kind of product with 5 developers and a years worth of hotpockets.
- unono 13y ago
  That's a good comment, however, I have to disagree. Those management problems are software problems. And I'm sure PG, as well as the other software talents at MS would relish the opportunity to systematize it in software.

sharkweek 13y ago

I legitimately can't tell if this is serious or not

unono 13y ago
Totally serious. Much of Apple's meteoric rise in the 2000s was because of the Steve Jobs brand, and Apple 2000s is the success you want to copy. All the above listed are the biggest names in tech today. There are others, Gates, Ellison, Zuckerburg, but I don't consider them as talented as the ones I listed.
- ignostic 13y ago
  Let's look outside the startup world for second. Managing large, sprawling corporations is nothing like starting a company with a few products. I'm not saying it's harder, but it requires a different skill set. Neither Musk nor Graham have a proven history managing large and diversified companies. MS doesn't want them, and I seriously doubt they'd even be interested in the job. It'd be like recruiting Lebron James to play baseball.
  - unono 13y ago
    PG hasn't been running a startup, but managing hundreds of them. A large company is just a large number of small groups. A startup is a small group. PG is someone who has proven effective at managing to give a big ROI from managing quite a few small groups. Hence he is eminently suited to running a large corporation.
    - benologist 13y ago
      YC startups are independent and autonomous, the only people running them are their own CEOs.
      - unono 13y ago
        So PG would be really good at delegating, another plus point for him as future Microsoft CEO.

IanChiles 13y ago

There's absolutely no incentive MS can offer any of the named people to work for them. So I'm not sure if you're joking, or...?

unknownian 13y ago
Furthermore, GP assumes that having a famous famous or well-loved organization is the only measure of a good leader. I don't think I agree. There are some great leaders/tech minds that run great businesses that people don't know about. Focusing on popularity is a cardinal sin to me at least.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Is pg actually a tech talent? No offense to pg, but my understanding of the man is he is a good investor, not necessarily a technical genius or a kickass CEO.

drblast 13y ago
Come on now, really? http://www.amazon.com/On-Lisp-Advanced-Techniques-Common/dp/0130305529 http://www.amazon.com/On-Lisp-Advanced-Techniques-Common/dp/...
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  What? I was asking a question. Perhaps unlike many here, I don't know his full background. So sue me.
- hnriot 13y ago
  the top review was by the man himself, Peter Norvig. That's very high praise indeed. I'd read it if it weren't about Lisp, a language that is bad for all the same reasons it is good.
unono 13y ago
harvard comp sci phd, repopularized lisp, successful sale to yahoo, created the biggest tech news forum (HN), Most Importantly - has almost turned creating startups into an assembly line.
- mcintyre1994 13y ago
  Alright, all great things for a startup guy but I don't think they're the qualities required for the CEO of a multibillion sprawling company. They have no need to popularise or use lisp, no need to sell companies and I'm not convinced this is bigger than eg /r/technology? Not that that's a bad thing, but it's a bold claim to say this is the biggest tech news forum. Way more importantly though, PG hasn't turned creating startups into an assembly line. The closest thing to an assembly line he's got is converting strong founders into startups, and still the majority 'fail'. For him to continue that at Microsoft, Microsoft would need to attract strong founders consistently and there's no reason to suspect they can. My suspicion is Microsoft has about as many billion-dollar units as PG has billion-dollar investments, so the actual value is unclear. Don't get me wrong, PG has a proven history in startups, technology, investments, he writes well, he seems incredibly smart.. but I don't think he nor Microsoft think he has the qualities of a Microsoft CEO.