4 ms·
1. No company has as many smart people as Google. Really? Because I'm less than impressed with what Google has done lately: Wave, G+, etc. 2. No company is as
by david927 13y ago
1. No company has as many smart people as Google.
Really? Because I'm less than impressed with what Google has done lately: Wave, G+, etc.
2. No company is as ambitious as Google.
3. No company is working on as many hard problems as Google.
4. No company makes as many big bets as Google.
10. Only one CEO is more ambitious than Google’s Larry Page.
There are hundreds of startups working on hard problems, making big bets and which are shamelessly ambitious. The company that will make Google irrelevant may not exist yet, but if it does, you haven't heard of it.
6. No company has more data than Google.
That's a silly point. My startup works with big data and it's all about making it useful. Having lots of data in-and-of-itself is not as huge a win as it seems. It's raining data right now.
9. No company is as ruthlessly efficient as Google.
Except every two-person startup in existence, anywhere.
- fredgrott 13y agoPR play by author..essay lacks certain depth to give validity to the points stated by the author
- davidgerard 13y agoJason Calacanis' #1 product is Jason Calacanis. This is the most relevant point of everything he says and does anywhere. Human clickbait.
- Tyrannosaurs 13y agoHe needs a better product manager, his product is all over the place.
- hugofirth 13y agoI am not disagreeing with your comment per-se. However, with regards to point 9, I feel it worth pointing out that Calacanis was clearly talking about the efficiency of Google in the context of companies with the (man/brain/political/financial) power to drive social and technological change on a global scale. By their very nature, 2 person startups are far more efficient per employee than any large corporation. The per employee bit is important however. Small startups are wondrous things, given to us by people who are crazy and brave in equal measure. They are almost unquestionably the best means of catalysing change that I can think of - they're also going to have a really tough time driving change, which is one of the many reasons why such companies inevitably grow. Side note: I find that some on Hacker News are often so enamoured with the startup culture (obviously, considering the basis for the community) that large corporations end up getting demonized by contrast. People forget that the two cultures are not mutually exclusive.
- oxplot 13y agoPerhaps you missed number 5: No company is willing to make as many crazy acquisitions as Google Google acquires startups/established companies on weekly basis. Their workforce increases by hundreds every week. A recent one I can recall was Boston Dynamics. Not even a two person startup. Google's main revenue stream only goes up. I see no slowing down of this machine.
- Tyrannosaurs 13y agoInterestingly most acquisitions (generally, not specific to Google or tech) don't work out and managing growth on that scale is a significant challenge in itself. I work for a highly acquisitive company and while we're no Google, I can tell you, as often as not the whole thing is a damn mess which does little but drive staff turnover. The theoretical synergies are great but for the most part they're very hard to realise and the hard work starts with the purchase rather than ends with it. The occasional crazy / interesting acquisition I think is a good sign but I'm not sure that it's a list you want to be top of.
- mark_l_watson 13y agore: "No company is as ruthlessly efficient as Google." No ruthless per se, but their technology stack and internal developer tools are really good. A small startup lacks this, as well as the ability to easily run very large computations.