With the changes occurring at Google right now, could we be feeling the impact of Page taking this advice to heart?
It seems Google are pruning a lot of stuff they must see as external to their core business, and putting happy-safe bubble wrap around services like search (see todays story about the + operator being depreciated to the dismay of advanced users).
I suppose this is Google trying to improve themselves, lets just hope they can execute as well as Apple when it comes to making super simplified products that people want.
I doubt the + thing is "happy-safe bubble wrap" - more likely they are deprecating the previous functionality in preparation for more Google+ integration into search.
Any decision that a company makes is an attempt to improve itself.
According to the article, Jobs recommended to Page that Google focus on five services - I'm curious as to which services HN thinks are core to Google's growth and success? Off the top of my head: Search, Android, Chrome, Plus and YouTube.
Why would you take advice from a competitor, especially one that is suing you over exactly the subject matter of their advice?
Really, Apple telling Google to concentrate on services is like Google telling Apple to concentrate on hardware.
Google was iirc at some point involved in developing a little phone operating system that competed directly with one of Apple's cash cows. Naturally it would be great for Apple if google forgot about phones, Android and whatever else would cause them to one day run in to Apple in the marketplace.
If google would concentrate on search then that would be great news for Apple indeed.
Android is not a service, Chrome is not a service.
This is exactly the rhetoric that Steve Jobs wanted Google to avoid, and perhaps he was exaggerating. But really, while there are many excellent products that Google has built, not all of them are capable of generating revenue and/or adoption of other Google products. That is the fat that Jobs was saying Google should trim.
I think the wind down of Google Labs and several small Google products, APIs, etc is definitely reflective of that advice. Very cool to know where they might have gotten the inspiration to do that.
Motorola's acquisition will go down in history as one of the top 5 dumbest business decisions of all time. I won't be surprised if Larry Page is replaced as CEO within 3-5 years.
Man, I have a proposal for you: if you manage to not troll the website with anything anti-Google or pro-Apple for a month, I'll pay your next year of Apple developer membership, ok?
I posted this on another thread but I think it's worth repeating. Here's why Larry Page is doing poor job.
A company's Return on Invested Capital is the ultimate measure of a company's valuation. it's not the PE, EPS, etc. Basically, ROIC is a measure of how efficient a company is in using its capital to generate returns. Warren Buffet uses ROIC to evaluate companies.
Let's compare Apple and Google's ROIC. Apple's return on invested capital is 30.4% with a 5-year average of 26.1% despite Apple having lower gross profit margins compared to Google. a 30.4% ROIC is amazingly high for a "hardware company". Google's return on invested capital is only 18.3% with 5 year aveage of 17.2%. Why?
Different types of growth earn different degrees of return so not all growth is equally value-creating. Growth strategies based on organic new product development (ie. iPod, iPhone, iPad, iMac, etc.) frequently have the highest returns because they dont require much new capital. Apple can add new products to their existing factory lines and distribution systems, without much capital expenditure. The investments to produce new products are not all required at once. If preliminary results are not promising, future investments can be scaled back or canceled. Contrast this with Google's growth strategy of acquiring companies (Motorola, Youtube, Android, Doubleclick, etc.). Acquisitions require that the entire investment be made up front. The amount of up-front payment reflects the expected cash flows from the target company plus a premium to stave off other bidders. So even if Google can improve the target company enough to generate an attractive ROIC, the rate of return is typically only a small amount higher than its cost of capital. Factor in the additional traffic acquisition costs and costs of running hundreds of thousands of servers to support Google search, Youtube, Blogspot, GMail, etc. and you'll see why Google's return on invested capital is much lower compared to Apple. Google has a habit of wasting money on money-losing initiatives with low ROIC (Google's $280-million solar power initiative, self driving cars, etc.). Wall Street perceives the $12.5 Billion Moto acquisition as an expensive and inefficient use of capital that will further dilute the company's ROIC. Motorola's acquisition does not create or add value to Google. it actually destroys value, at least until Google recoups the $12.5 Billion acquisition cost.
This is the reason why Apple is the most valuable company in the world. Meanwhile, Google's market cap's been stuck in the $170-$200B range for a couple of years now.
Here's the number one rule of conservation of value: anything that doesn't increase cash flows doesn't create value.
Facebook did not have cash flow for quite some time and it isn't like they didn't create some value during that period.
Your "ultimate measure" is questionable. It doesn't say whether a company is heading up or down in the sense of mindshare. You can have all the profits in the world and be heading down the drain (yahoo did this).
And mindshare is the only thing the supergiants (google, apple, amazon, facebook) really fight for.
Right now, the only thing that comes is more wise than intelligent: silence is golden.
Seriously, though: relax a little bit. You are still reasonably new to the site and need to get a better grasp of the rules.
For instance, you were so quick to try to respond to me that you couldn't wait for the system's "cool-off" period between responses. If you waited some 10 minutes, you would see a "reply" link under my answer, instead of forcing a break in the thread.
Or better yet: if you had taken the cool-off time, perhaps you would be able to realize that this discussion of ours is pointless, and that this back-and-forth only creates more noise.
This will be my last message on the matter. I hope you already had yours as well.
Hard to say, since the advice from Jobs was seemingly also to keep the number of employees down. It's been the reverse on Page's watch, with mad headcount growth.
Good observation, I think that's exactly what we're seeing.
It's an interesting balancing act that can sometimes go against the very grain of tech companies, especially one the size of Google. Everything we as mere mortals in the tech business are taught is to try things, fail quickly, iterate.
Jobs approach was to do a few things and do them well. Indeed, he felt the most important thing one could do, as an agent of change in that type of role, was to learn to effectively say no. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE
Page has always been very smart and a phenomenal software engineer, but his new role is different. I believe Page finds himself in a somewhat similar position to Jobs in 1997, and it will be very interesting to see how he does as a technology leader.
The companies are certainly in different spots -- Apple was floundering in 1997, while Google is growing in 2011. But I do see common threads for the roles that both Jobs played then and Page is playing now.
Jobs returned to Apple after a 10+ year hiatus. So, while returning to his roots, they were not the same team he had left behind. He had to reconstruct much of the company's management structure, which he felt was fraught with engineering mismanagement. (Saw an interview with Jobs from back then, but can't seem to find the source of those comments now.)
Page, in assuming the role as head of the company earlier this year, was taking ownership of a management team and organization that had largely been put in place by Schmidt (remember when he was needed for "adult supervision"). While Page was certainly there during that duration, he also didn't have direct responsibility for the rest of the organization. It's not an exact parallel, but Page certainly had a new organization from when he gave up the reins a decade ago. (And, he quickly responded by re-aligning several key management members).
But more so than environmental, it is the state of product development in Google I find most similar.
Jobs inherited a company that was spinning its wheels on various ideas, but not doing anything particularly well. Any vision the company held was certainly not reflected in the products it brought to the marketplace.
Page inherits a situation where, outside of search, Google doesn't do anything particularly well. I don't mean they suck, just that their product offering isn't much of a differentiator from competitors, or provides a compelling experience for users. I'm sure arguments can be made to counter my subjective opinion, but there are no product or services from Google that rivals the popularity of it's web search.
Referring back to Jobs's 1997 WWDC speech, it was about setting the bar for finding exactly what they should be working on, without regard to whether something had traction or if it was a good technical idea. I believe Page has to make those very same considerations right now.
Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I now see that there are a number of parallels—but I still think the contrasts are more striking.
First of all, Eric Schmidt did an excellent job. In 2011, Page inherited a that is hugely profitable, practically owns search, and has successfully expanded into many other markets. While there's no doubt that he'll do many things differently, you can pretty much guarantee it's not going to be anything on the order of the massive purges Apple experienced in the late 90s. Apple in 1997 was mortibund; almost nobody thought Jobs had a serious chance at turning it around.
Schmidt successfully did for Page and Brin what John Sculley was supposed to do for Jobs; provide guidance for an inexperienced founder until they can assume the chief executive role.
And while I agree with much of what you wrote, I take exception to the idea that, outside of search, Google 'doesn't do anything particularly well'. They have a range of excellent and successful products, most of them well integrated into their core business. I refuse to accept the idea that, for example, Maps, Gmail and Android aren't products 'done well'.
Certainly, Page will be buoyed by the results of Schmidt's tenure. The pressure on Jobs to improve the situation is certainly greater than the pressure on Page, at least in that respect.
My comment about Google and there other products is that they don't do anything exceedingly well over the competition outside of search. It's not that their products aren't done well, they just don't differentiate the company. Maps, as you point out, is a fine product -- but there are other map products that are just as good. Gmail vs. other web-based mail? Android vs. iOS? While fine products, they don't put Google head-and-shoulders above the market.
By comparison, nearly every product offered by Apple is considered best-in-class. The iPod. The iPhone. The iPad. The iMac desktops & laptops.
To be sure, achieving was Apple has achieved is no small matter, even for the bright minds at Google. And, it's not to say that if they don't reach that point, Page's tenure as CEO amounts to failure. But, I believe the expectations are for Google to achieve some of that best-in-class dominance, because of their position in search.
So to avoid becoming like Microsoft they're pruning initiatives deemed non-core and trying to focus on a smaller number of big bets, which ... is more or less what Microsoft has been doing for the past year and a half or so, for better or worse. Curses, foiled again!
"Nike makes some of the best products in the world. Products that you lust after. But you also make a lot of crap. Just get rid of the crappy stuff and focus on the good stuff."
Dropping products, even crappy ones, that produce revenue is difficult when investors demand non-stop growth, quarter after quarter, and your employees are afraid of losing their jobs or political fiefdoms.
Did you try my URL? Both forms work for most browsers, but only my variant (with "?...&") works for some - including my browser.
Yeah, they're misusing the spec. If they wanted to be clever, and use "#" to index the video instead of the page, they should have omitted the "t=", to look like "#13m10s". At least that would make sense. But oh no, they had to bastardize it into some hideous hybrid chimera of crossed specs.</grump>
BTW: it was a real question - did my variant work for your browser?
Yes, I tried yours and thought it didn't work in Chrome. I just tried again and yes it works :) So yours is definitely better for me.
Both didn't work in Safari if it doesn't have Flash. I think it used to when I had Flash installed, so it's probably only the HTML 5 version that wouldn't work?
Thanks! HN, where correcting someone can be educational ;-)
Yeah, sounds like a HTML5 bug; they'll probably fix it soon. Flash is a well-established platform, so I'd be surprised if it didn't work in it. Does youtube's HTML5 version work in Chrome?
FF2 in linux (long story for why I can't upgrade this machine)
It's the part where you ignore the negative feedback from Wall Street and newspapers. This type of change takes time and during the process, outsiders and even insiders will be unlikely to agree with you. Let the results do the talking. Part of good leadership.
The 'just buy more stock' was probably part joke and part personal gain. If you truly believe this is going to be good for the company, then you would believe the stock price will rise in the long term. Why not show your confidence to the insiders and make a buck out of it.
Interestingly, this is something that Rockefeller did often with Standard Oil, as I read in a biography. And also interestingly, it looks like some people (partners) really resented when Rockefeller bought their stock when they lost confidence in his bold choices, which ended up earning him billions is today's currency - and them lose that opportunity.
I guess they might have rationalized that were somehow cheated by Rockefeller; according to the biographer though the course he decided to follow was a very risky bet and nobody could have know for sure how it would have turned out.
That's pretty cool that Jobs was willing to meet with Page, particularly given how miffed he was about android.
One area where I hope Google doesn't follow Apple is in engineering culture. For instance, isn't it true that most of the engineers who worked on the original iphone literally never even saw one until it was unveiled to the public? Whether or not the "bottom up" opportunities for engineers to influence products at Google is as effective as a top down culture under the likes of Jobs and Ives is debatable, but it sure seems like working at Google is a lot more fun! (disclosure: I worked at Google, am basing my impressions on what it's like to work at Apple on anecdotes and only a couple of direct accounts from engineers who have worked there).
"For instance, isn't it true that most of the engineers who worked on the original iphone literally never even saw one until it was unveiled to the public?"
For the core team, my understanding is "no". The core team was very small, though (<50 software engineers).
Cool, I hope so. An account I heard described the engineers having had access only to test boards, but perhaps that was earlier on before physical prototypes were made.
Microsoft has some wildly successful products, like Windows, Office, XBOX, SharePoint, SQL Server, etc. That's great. But they also employ well upwards of 100,000 people (including 'contingent' staff). It does not take that many people to ship those products. Not even close.
So they productively employ some fraction of those people (I'd guess, conservatively, less than half), and they pseudo-productively distract the rest with poorly managed fool's errands. And don't think it's a case of "you don't know until you try" - in most cases, everybody knows. General Managers will seize on any misguided idea with enough plausible deniability in order to build their fiefdoms.
It's like a bizarre kind of welfare system for the upper middle class. A few people do amazing work and ship great products. For the majority, the most significant thing they accomplished was passing the hiring gauntlet. But they all get to live in big houses and drive BMWs.
An institution can work on the whole, but still be grossly inefficient.
In Jobs's optics, Microsoft tasteless and became absolutely bloated and unworkable. In the last decade, it's become a replacement for what IBM was in the 80s.
They seem to show some improvement lately, but Microsoft still looks very much like middle-management realms, a tentacular corporation with little movement and even less focus.
One of the ways that Microsoft is outside Silicon Valley culture is the degree to which a founder and early employees maintain Ownership due to Microsoft's early profitability and decision to avoid significant outside capital and the share dilution which accompanies it.
Quite simply Google could never could never replicate Microsoft's culture because there never was a time when when a large enough fraction of employees had fuck you money. Microsoft's culture is different by virtue of the fact that venture capital has never had much of a say.
Hence a positive vision of "a computer on every desk" rather than a mere admonition to not "be evil".
And I'd pay good money for a more complex iPod Classic. I need its space but the software is simple in ways that regularly annoys me; I believe there's significant room for improvement.
Agreed. In this sense I'm worried that google will lean more toward "Internet For Dummies"(e.g. losing the + feature in favor of double quotes to make way for G+), attempting to coral my internet use into certain patters the same way Apple seems to (like removing the "Reader" link from the google bar to showcase G+).
Look into rockbox (rockbox.org). Its an opensource replacement firmware. I take listening to my music seriously enough that I need a dedicated device with good software. Since I found rockbox I haven't bought a mp3 player unless they were already on the supported hardware list.
The rockbox UI structure can be a bit cumbersome to learn because there is a lot of functionality there, but I've never found anything else that comes close.
Sadly it seems the iPod Classic isn't supported... Oh well.
Honestly, if no-one beats me to it, one day I'll write my own Android music player that works the way I want. The spec's been solid in my head for years, it's just that's the first platform I've had which would make that a practical possibility. With falling smartphone and memory card prices and improving battery life, the days of the standalone MP3 player are severely numbered.
Forgive my denseness, but is "being larded with B players" a reference to employees? I'm not disagreeing, it just isn't clear to me if he's calling out Microsoft employees.
It seems Google are pruning a lot of stuff they must see as external to their core business, and putting happy-safe bubble wrap around services like search (see todays story about the + operator being depreciated to the dismay of advanced users).
I suppose this is Google trying to improve themselves, lets just hope they can execute as well as Apple when it comes to making super simplified products that people want.