Slashdot Mirror
Google's DNA
bart_scriv writes "Businessweek confronts Google naysayers with an analysis of the company's business structure, arguing that its unique structure lends it the flexibility to adapt to any and all markets: 'Google is actually the first company with a brand that is built entirely on stem cells: able to grow and develop into whatever form it sees fit.' The article predicts significant changes for the company in communications, hardware, entertainment and localization and goes on to argue that Google is on the verge of achieving the holy grail of branding--being all things to all markets."
This comparison of Google to stem cells is rather hyperbolic. After all, many companies out there do almost everything. Microsoft has its fingers in a lot of pies, too, even though they have been playing catch up in most of the areas that they don't yet dominate. IBM is probably another example; though they're known for their computers, they are very big in software services, chip manufacturing and basic research, and they have internal projects going on a whole lot of interesting stuff that never makes it into the market.
Google does have the coolness market cornered right now, though. They have continued to do a great job on their search engine, and their email, mapping, and other web services are really well done.
I would like to see Google truly act like stem cells and develop a better car. I am willing to bet that a Googlemobile would be truly innovative. Probably it would come with builtin navigation tools such as Google Maps but beyond that it would be self-parking, highly secure from theft (because it runs Linux), and get terrific gas mileage--or else use some other less carbon-generating source such as alcohol or direct solar power.
On a less whimsical note, there's a tremendous potential for Google in branding nifty handheld devices that have easy access to the world's online knowledge, incorporate speech recog and the like. I suspect that Google's move into urban wifi is a step in this direction; if they can control the airwaves and the receiving devices they will truly have vertical integration. And Microsoft will be even more annoyed, which is probably a good thing.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
This looks like an article written about the dot-com of the week in the late 90s. When all the hype dies down, Google will likely be a success like Yahoo -- solid, but not the most amazing company out there.
Don't let Bush know! He'll demand that they do not produce any new products based on new stem cells, but only using existing stem cells. After all, using new products would be tantamount to murder and might upset his base.
If Google succeeds, the terrorists win.
But don't stem cells become static and defined after some time? I hate to say it, but I think the innovation well will dry up eventually.
I can't wait to see the horrible, mutant creation that they come up with. I mean, there's no point in using DNA unless you can make monsters.
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
Google is just another dot-com flash in the pan. There is nothing about Google's business model that provides any more sustainable competitive advantage than any other firm. Is Google a success? Is it an admirable company? Yes -- in many ways. Will that change? Count on it.
Treat Google like any other company: sprinkle its stock in a nice diversified layer over your other holdings.
>>Google is on the verge of achieving the holy grail of branding--being all things to all markets. When I'm driving my GoogleCar into my GoogleGarage after a long drive along the GoogleTurnpike, guided by my GoogleGPS to have dinner prepared by my Froogle-provided Russian mail order bride, then we'll talk.
If that's true, then pick one or two and excel in those markets the way you excel in adwords.
I hate to say it, but Google reminds me more and more of Netscape in 1996. Both companies were leaders with strong brand names and one great product (web browser, search engine, etc.). However, Netscape utterly failed to build on their success, squandered their brand name and was eventually equalled and bettered by Microsoft. I see the same thing going on now with Google as they lurch from one non-profitable project to another and other competitors start eyeing the search engine market again...
Long live the synergistic DNA based information economy. The paradigms of old cannot explain the morphous structure of such a groundbreaking and globulous company. It's ability to dynamically adapt to multi-faceted environments while leapfrogging the pure-play biases of old while creating a new dynamic for business is absolutely staggering. Business, debt, and equity analysts falter before this new way of business that completely destroys the old business paradigm while thinking out of the box in it's ultimate goal to deliver real-time, free, services while caraessing the consumer mind with visually appealing and sensual avertisements, enticing consumers to spend their way into further debt laden lives, for which there will be an exit once GOOG becomes the master of their domain and ensures economic growth of 30% per year, creating a perpetual economic boom and a wonder economy unparalled in history, even considering post-WW2 German and Japanese growth. Spearheading this will be the awesome leadership of GOOG that will never become a 800lb gorilla as they dynamically and deftly work their way through the maze of business. They will never grow to large to innovate quickly and will always be lean and agile in their persuit for the ultimate goal, the highest P/E ratio known to man and a stock price in excess of the greatest investor of all time's company, Bershire Hathaway, which is nothing more than a speck of dirt imagined by an intellectual dolt, as he cannot fathom the sheer genious of the DNA structure at GOOG.
I pity the fools.
...the article is written by Gabriel Stricker from BrandChannel. The tone seems to be a typical marketing/branding kind - lots of high-sounding assertions and phrases, and very few solid justifications for the same.
For instance, check this sentence: "Google is actually the first company with a brand that is built entirely of stem cells: able to grow and develop into whatever form it sees fit."
Huh? World's first company? Built entirely of stem cells? Into whatever it sees fit?
What is this guy smoking?
Google's decision to branch into many unrelated/related ideas is not due to any stem cells or mitochondria, but simply because it has enough money and talent to do so. More importantly, the stock market that usually punishes companies for expanding too fast/too much still seems to be in awe of Google.
Imagine Microsoft deciding to enter into server harware, or Sun into smartphones, or Dell into online dating! But when Google does it, its suddenly "stem cells" in action!
According to the article, Google is a company like no other because it is producing its own versions of things that already exist. Perhaps I've missed the point, but from where I'm sitting, this actually seems to be something that nearly every company does, and many of the bigger ones have their fingers in a lot more pies than Google do.
IMO rather than proving Google are somehow "built almost entirely out of stem cells", this actually shows that Businessweek publishes artices built almost entirely out of bullshit.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Google is on the verge of achieving the holy grail of branding--being all things to all markets.
The fastest and surest was to displease everyone is to try and please everyone.
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
The nonsense about AdSense
Remember how in US airports a person could be denied to take a flight, but due to "national security" wasn't allowed to see which law was applied? "National security". Um... yeah. Right.
Well, Google can remove your membership because of "Click fraud", but due to "trade secret" you weren't allowed to see the fraudulent traffic.
Um... yeah. Right.
Google Beer. I can hardly wait!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
From the article: Google Entertainment? Yeah, its DNA can do that...
Google Hardware? Genetic mission accomplished... The stem-cell question for prospective consumers is, Where would you prefer to buy this hardware...?
Guys like the author are the reason scientific terms get degraded and clouded in the mind of the public. £10 says this guy couldn't give a coherent description of DNA, stem cells OR why he thinks they apply to the business world.
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
"What naysayers don't understand is that the DNA of the Google brand is unlike anything ever seen in the modern market landscape. Google is actually the first company with a brand that is built entirely of stem cells: able to grow and develop into whatever form it sees fit."
I'm not really sure what DNA has to do with stem cells in this sense. The first sentence implies we're going to hear about Google's "parents", perhaps the companies the employees worked at before coming to Google. The following sentence about stem cells is comlpetely unrelated, as DNA isn't really what makes stem cells interesting, especially not in this case.
I know it's kind of nitpicky, but frankly it's annoying to see this kind of stuff when the audience is relatively scientifically well-versed, at least compared to the general public.
They grow everywhere. They are showy and fun for kids to play with. They are showy and superficially attractive, but in reality are destructive weeds that need to be mercilessly extirpated. They can lead to false conclusions, such as that there must be a way to brew wine from analogies. In the end, their seeds are carried by the wind and, thus, they blow.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Others have pointed out that this article is very hyperbolic, but Google itself is built entirely on hyperbole. It is perhaps the greatest con job ever perpetrated on Wall Street and the business community, and on its own terms. Look at what Google has become. Google is just Yahoo more than five years ago, just with a better interface and a stronger marketing brand.
Let's look at the main services Google has rolled out: Search, News, Mail, Maps are the principle ones. All available on Yahoo fairly quickly after the Web took off. Image Search and Froogle - I'm not necessarily sure that Yahoo had these linked off their main site, but such search engines for images and pricing did exist back when Yahoo had reached critical mind share and Google was relatively unknown. It's arguable as to whether the improved interfaces are because of good design, or more capable Web browsers (I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between).
This is not to impugn Google's business acumen. In fact, they have proven themselves most capable in this respect. Heck, they were even dictating to Wall Street how their IPO would go. But the bottom line is that Google has offered absolutely nothing truly new that wasn't available years and years ago when you look at the big picture of service offerings. They are simply another Web portal, which were in vogue around 1997 or so. I know people will come out of the wood work saying well they have this beta lab app that Yahoo didn't have, but, you know what? That's a beta lab app. Until they roll it out and no one else has it, big deal, and, from a business perspective, is there actually a revenue stream there or is it just a technical novelty? The only actual significant thing that Google does that makes money is sell text ads.
The question now becomes how long can Google keep this marketing charade up before people realize it's just another Web portal and move on? So far, so good, but keep your fingers crossed.
"Stem cells" are the best and the brightest engineers and, although I've heard that google hires such talent, I was rather disappointed when I actually went through their interview process. Basically, I met 5-6 people, many of which were Ph.D.'s but some of which had dropped out, and all of them asked me the same inane questions: implement BFS in C on the board, implement a linked-list on the board, implement some-other-stupid-algorithm-for-which-you-would-no rmally-just-download-some-code on the board...
I was thinking "if I really have to do this kind of thing on the job, I don't want this job." And anybody who nails these questions because they think about these kinds of things on a daily basis is by definition NOT the best and the brightest; they are code monkeys. so, google is hiring a bunch of code monkeys with (or without) Ph.D.'s. I don't see how that equates to "stem cells."
I am doing top research (or so I think) at a top cs Ph.D. program in the country, and had several ideas that I thought would really help the company, but nobody asked me about these nor did I have the opportunity to talk to anybody about any interesting ideas whatsoever. It seems that google will hire anybody who can win a speed coding contest, but "stem cells" are people who can figure out *what* to implement, not just *how* to implement it.
Frankly, I sold my google stock after going through their interview process, because I don't see google continuing its old growth with the kind of people they are currently hiring.
First, Exxon's operating costs are surely many times what Google's are. Servers and bandwidth are cheap compared to moving oil tankers around.
But second, and much more importantly, you're measuring power ("the most powerful company in the US") in terms of dollars. When you consider the number of people that use Google for information, suddenly it becomes much more powerful than a simplistic numbers game reveals. A slight tweak here improves this company's visibility immeasurably; a slight tweak there shoves a webpage into obscurity. Censorship, control of who sees what, determination of market visibility.. I'm not saying Google does or would do any of these things, but they could, and that makes them immensely powerful.
Whether they ever become "the most powerful country in America" is almost irrelevent -- and that's probably not even their goal. But don't make the mistake of using raw revenue as a useful metric. Plenty of companies rake in billions of dollars annually, but ultimately don't do much other than act as useless middlemen.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.