3 ms·

"Google is chasing facebook when they should be chasing HBO, and amazon, and the discovery channel. It's like they live in a giant mansion with a huge lawn wher

by larrys 13y ago

"Google is chasing facebook when they should be chasing HBO, and amazon, and the discovery channel. It's like they live in a giant mansion with a huge lawn where a bunch of super talented people have been camping out for a while, trying to figure out how to make the next generation of video work. And everyday google gets out of bed, looks out over that scene, grunts, scratches its ass, thinks maybe they should just call the cops to get rid of the hooligans, then goes off to watch Judge Judy." I really like the way you put that. This is a result of perhaps super success at an early age (the founders), not enough hunger (to much money), hiring what you think are the best and the brightest (surprise - all those tests don't really work as our high achievers who designed them thought they would) and not recognizing the role of luck in your previous success. Used to be known in the past as becoming "fat and lazy" - I think that was the saying.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
I had typed up something similar already but abandoned the post. But that's pretty much exactly it. Google managed to build something early on that is difficult to compete with, and now they are resting on it. The company revenues are split up into 3 parts: search/ads, backbone internet, and "other". Where "other" is a tiny fraction of the whole that is almost inconsequential to their profit margin. It's a "problem" that a lot of companies have where they are in a position where revenue is actually too easy. That may seem like a blessing but it has many downsides and typically chokes growth potential. The consequences for failure at a functional company are usually pretty significant. If SpaceX builds a rocket that doesn't work or if Toyota builds a car that absolutely nobody wants that hurts the bottom line. And it drives the company to do better. But at google what are the consequences? If someone at google makes an unprofitable product, well, that's the norm. It just gets tossed in the "other" bin with everything else and everyone laughs and goes back to their free lunches and complementary massages. It's a romper room filled with nerf toys. And many folks at google are seemingly content to luxuriate in that environment. Why would anyone at google willingly push themselves out into the cold, unforgiving, and desolate world of real-world business where actions have serious consequences when they can just futz around in the "other" play room, slap ads on their "products" and call it a day? Google has no drive to make youtube the best it can be. And the same goes for gdocs, gmail, app engine, or any other thing they make.
- larrys 13y ago
  I've always had this theory that a company that operates as you say with the examples of SpaceX or Toyota, one that life is never easy for (that can't rest on their laurels) really operates in a way that is much more motivating. Another example would be the entertainment industry. Or I guess advertising industry or sports team... Creative or highly competitive. Because you can't hit it so big that the losses don't matter. You are only as good as your last hit film, tv show, or game win. Google has this tremendous cash cow. Warren Buffett has plenty of cash. But for him the game is taking that cash and trying to get more cash. (And of course keeping up the image of being Warren Buffett drives him as well). And he has competition for his investment dollars as well.
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    The interesting thing is that google started out as such a company. Search was a very different business in the '90s. Google came in with their revolutionary way of doing IT/datacenters, their hard-CS centered coding, and their excellent search algorithms and they wiped the floor with everyone. They pioneered a new business model with usable search that was fast and low cost, making it more easily directly monetizable (instead of having to draw in more page views through "portals" and whatnot). But then they succeeded so quickly that they haven't had that same level of hunger to actually do something risky that needed to succeed. Today google is just as likely to shut down an old project than to launch something new.

by larrys 13y ago

InclinedPlane 13y ago

I had typed up something similar already but abandoned the post. But that's pretty much exactly it. Google managed to build something early on that is difficult to compete with, and now they are resting on it. The company revenues are split up into 3 parts: search/ads, backbone internet, and "other". Where "other" is a tiny fraction of the whole that is almost inconsequential to their profit margin. It's a "problem" that a lot of companies have where they are in a position where revenue is actually too easy. That may seem like a blessing but it has many downsides and typically chokes growth potential. The consequences for failure at a functional company are usually pretty significant. If SpaceX builds a rocket that doesn't work or if Toyota builds a car that absolutely nobody wants that hurts the bottom line. And it drives the company to do better. But at google what are the consequences? If someone at google makes an unprofitable product, well, that's the norm. It just gets tossed in the "other" bin with everything else and everyone laughs and goes back to their free lunches and complementary massages. It's a romper room filled with nerf toys. And many folks at google are seemingly content to luxuriate in that environment. Why would anyone at google willingly push themselves out into the cold, unforgiving, and desolate world of real-world business where actions have serious consequences when they can just futz around in the "other" play room, slap ads on their "products" and call it a day? Google has no drive to make youtube the best it can be. And the same goes for gdocs, gmail, app engine, or any other thing they make.

larrys 13y ago
I've always had this theory that a company that operates as you say with the examples of SpaceX or Toyota, one that life is never easy for (that can't rest on their laurels) really operates in a way that is much more motivating. Another example would be the entertainment industry. Or I guess advertising industry or sports team... Creative or highly competitive. Because you can't hit it so big that the losses don't matter. You are only as good as your last hit film, tv show, or game win. Google has this tremendous cash cow. Warren Buffett has plenty of cash. But for him the game is taking that cash and trying to get more cash. (And of course keeping up the image of being Warren Buffett drives him as well). And he has competition for his investment dollars as well.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  The interesting thing is that google started out as such a company. Search was a very different business in the '90s. Google came in with their revolutionary way of doing IT/datacenters, their hard-CS centered coding, and their excellent search algorithms and they wiped the floor with everyone. They pioneered a new business model with usable search that was fast and low cost, making it more easily directly monetizable (instead of having to draw in more page views through "portals" and whatnot). But then they succeeded so quickly that they haven't had that same level of hunger to actually do something risky that needed to succeed. Today google is just as likely to shut down an old project than to launch something new.