5 ms·

I've never seen this mentioned so I'm doing to mention it. I suspect Google+, and the cannibalizing of other projects, was directed by Page. He became CEO in

I've never seen this mentioned so I'm doing to mention it. I suspect Google+, and the cannibalizing of other projects, was directed by Page. He became CEO in April 2011. G+ launched in late June 2011. April-May-June is about 90 days. From the article: > The massive Google+ launch effort had all the hallmarks of a technology corporation: a code name ("Emerald Sea"), an artificial timeline (100 days to launch!), a dedicated secret building (with the CEO relocated there) and a full PR blitz once completed. The CEO puts his office in the G+ building. I see that as Page being the driving force behind this. The article says: > "Vic was just this constant bug in Larry's ear: 'Facebook is going to kill us. Facebook is going to kill us,'" says a former Google executive. "I am pretty sure Vic managed to frighten Larry into action. And voila: Google+ was born." But for what actually happened to have happened, Page had to have bought into the idea independently (assuming he is independent). Every article I've seen about G+'s failure fails to mention anything about Page's role - this article goes out of its way in this strange way to try to say Page was just 'whispered to too much'. > By early 2014, less than three years after its big launch, the Google+ team had moved out of its coveted building to a spot on campus further from Page. Gundotra announced his departure from the company that April — in a Google+ post, of course — to pursue "a new journey." The G+ push/force was still in full-swing on the consumer side through 2014. Evidence that Page was the driving force, not Vic. This was an organization-centric article, but I wish it had mentioned the other potential causes for G+'s failure, such as being invite-only during the media attention, and the rude forcing of people over from other platforms (Reader, YouTube, Maps, business listings, etc).

this_user 11y ago
Also worth mentioning is that Eric Schmidt resigned as CEO to make room for Page. I have my suspicions that he and Larry disagreed on the G+ strategy which led to the latter taking the helm (or the former offering his resignation first) in order to do what he thought was necessary.
mycelium 11y ago
> The CEO puts his office in the G+ building. I see that as Page being the driving force behind this. No, that reads as Vic Gundotra being the driving force behind this and Page buying in fully. If Page was the driving force, Gundotra would have put his office by Page's. > Page had to have bought into the idea independently (assuming he is independent). I don't think Page was independent. He was a brand new (in some sense) CEO with a lot to prove to shareholders and he had to make a big splash. Although his leadership has improved and he clearly came back to power with a vision to unify Google's services, he still had a vibe of being a bit unsure. My perception of the management at Google is that they mostly come from the engineering side and don't typically do things like overhype themselves or their projects—they generally call the importance of their projects as they see them. So along came Gundotra, who had spent 15 years at Microsoft in the most political meat grinder on the planet and was wayy more politically savvy then the rest of the management—and sells Facebook as an existential threat and G+ as salvation with unflinching confidence, plus a little bit of brown-nosing that would go a long way with an insecure new CEO. Feeling this versus the even-keeled/mildly pessimistic reporting styles that the rest of his engineering management had, I think Page bought into it hard, and G+ was history. Although it's circumstantial evidence, the conditions inside the G+ team were insanely political versus other Google orgs. I think this is a mirror of Gundotra's style. > The G+ push/force was still in full-swing on the consumer side through 2014. Really? Everyone knew it was dead. I perceived that as merely consolidating the unified logon/identity system they'd build in G+.
chengiz 11y ago
I agree. These articles seem way to eager to name a scapegoat. The "whispering in his ear" thing has been around for a while historically speaking, and apparently it's still not gotten old.

this_user 11y ago

Also worth mentioning is that Eric Schmidt resigned as CEO to make room for Page. I have my suspicions that he and Larry disagreed on the G+ strategy which led to the latter taking the helm (or the former offering his resignation first) in order to do what he thought was necessary.

mycelium 11y ago

> The CEO puts his office in the G+ building. I see that as Page being the driving force behind this. No, that reads as Vic Gundotra being the driving force behind this and Page buying in fully. If Page was the driving force, Gundotra would have put his office by Page's. > Page had to have bought into the idea independently (assuming he is independent). I don't think Page was independent. He was a brand new (in some sense) CEO with a lot to prove to shareholders and he had to make a big splash. Although his leadership has improved and he clearly came back to power with a vision to unify Google's services, he still had a vibe of being a bit unsure. My perception of the management at Google is that they mostly come from the engineering side and don't typically do things like overhype themselves or their projects—they generally call the importance of their projects as they see them. So along came Gundotra, who had spent 15 years at Microsoft in the most political meat grinder on the planet and was wayy more politically savvy then the rest of the management—and sells Facebook as an existential threat and G+ as salvation with unflinching confidence, plus a little bit of brown-nosing that would go a long way with an insecure new CEO. Feeling this versus the even-keeled/mildly pessimistic reporting styles that the rest of his engineering management had, I think Page bought into it hard, and G+ was history. Although it's circumstantial evidence, the conditions inside the G+ team were insanely political versus other Google orgs. I think this is a mirror of Gundotra's style. > The G+ push/force was still in full-swing on the consumer side through 2014. Really? Everyone knew it was dead. I perceived that as merely consolidating the unified logon/identity system they'd build in G+.

chengiz 11y ago

I agree. These articles seem way to eager to name a scapegoat. The "whispering in his ear" thing has been around for a while historically speaking, and apparently it's still not gotten old.