5 ms·

Why I think Google is and will remain strong and innovative: "One day Larry and Sergey bought what became Android, and I didn't even know about this. They said

Why I think Google is and will remain strong and innovative: "One day Larry and Sergey bought what became Android, and I didn't even know about this. They said this is really interesting. I didn’t think about that, but now think about the strategic opportunities that created" The fact that Larry and Sergey can still pursue what they consider 'interesting' with their resources WITHOUT giant bureaucracy getting in the way speaks volumes about the health of the company IMO.

aston 17y ago
I mean, they should be able to dodge bureaucracy; they run the company. I'm missing what's so amazing here.
- davi 17y ago
  They do not own the company; they run it at the pleasure of (yes) a bureaucracy.
  - tsally 17y ago
    I'm pretty sure one of the most notable things about Google is Larry and Sergey's ability to avoid this, going back all the way to when they raised VC. They split the funds between rival firms Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital and kept control of the company for themselves.
- dkokelley 17y ago
  Well, it's the fact that they can act independently, verses having to seek the board's approval that makes this an interesting case.
brandonkm 17y ago
I don't think that particular move highlights the health of the company as much as it underscores the ability of the founders to pursue their strategies independently of the board of directors. I don't think that upper management would have protested an acquisition (in 2005) that would have moved the company into the mobile space. Android is certainly interesting, but I doubt Larry and Sergey buy companies without a clear plan of how that acquisition will (eventually) grow the bottom line.
patio11 17y ago
The fact that Larry and Sergey can still pursue what they consider 'interesting' with their resources WITHOUT giant bureaucracy getting in the way speaks volumes about the health of the company IMO. The hypothetical giant bureaucracy would be in place to prevent things like the corporation investing in the unrelated company of a director's wife, with the proceeds of the investment immediately being used to repay the loan the director gave to his wife's company. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536959021129585.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536959021129585.html (They apparently rubber-stamped it, which kind of boggles my mind.)

aston 17y ago

I mean, they should be able to dodge bureaucracy; they run the company. I'm missing what's so amazing here.

davi 17y ago
They do not own the company; they run it at the pleasure of (yes) a bureaucracy.
- tsally 17y ago
  I'm pretty sure one of the most notable things about Google is Larry and Sergey's ability to avoid this, going back all the way to when they raised VC. They split the funds between rival firms Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital and kept control of the company for themselves.
dkokelley 17y ago
Well, it's the fact that they can act independently, verses having to seek the board's approval that makes this an interesting case.

brandonkm 17y ago

I don't think that particular move highlights the health of the company as much as it underscores the ability of the founders to pursue their strategies independently of the board of directors. I don't think that upper management would have protested an acquisition (in 2005) that would have moved the company into the mobile space. Android is certainly interesting, but I doubt Larry and Sergey buy companies without a clear plan of how that acquisition will (eventually) grow the bottom line.

patio11 17y ago

The fact that Larry and Sergey can still pursue what they consider 'interesting' with their resources WITHOUT giant bureaucracy getting in the way speaks volumes about the health of the company IMO. The hypothetical giant bureaucracy would be in place to prevent things like the corporation investing in the unrelated company of a director's wife, with the proceeds of the investment immediately being used to repay the loan the director gave to his wife's company. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536959021129585.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124536959021129585.html (They apparently rubber-stamped it, which kind of boggles my mind.)