Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Google Too Smart For Its Own Good?

Posted by kdawson on from the sowing-seeds dept.

An anonymous reader writes in with a piece in Fortune speculating on what's next for Google. The writer believes that a supersaturated solution of very smart people, plus stock that may have run out of upside, will yield what he calls Son of Google — a large wave of innovative companies created by Google graduates. And a Google less intent on hiring, and less able to hire, the very smartest people around. Could happen.

36 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. So, what's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm not worried, at least not until we get to the Revenge of the Son of Google, or maybe the Bride of the Son of Google. That's when the entertainment value really drops off.

    1. Re:So, what's the problem? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 5, Funny

      Will the odd numbered ones be good and the even numbered ones bad? Or the other way round?

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    2. Re:So, what's the problem? by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only the square root ones will be good, the rest will simply be a fraction of the good ones.

    3. Re:So, what's the problem? by smoker2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heh, you wait 'till Google Ep. 1 - BackRub Garage comes out, then it's really jumped the shark (laser equipped or otherwise).

  2. Perhaps... by PatrickThomson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps part of the google ethos and internal structure is aimed at reducing competition from former employees - the sorts of pressures that drive people to break away are diminished, with the 20% project time and a good chance of whatever you're working on becoming a proper google beta. Of course, people that just have a drive to be the boss of the boss's boss will still form companies, perhaps they are eliminated at interview?

    --
    I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    1. Re:Perhaps... by Calinous · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think becoming a Google employee is a very good start to form a business. Anyway, it is possible - just as former Microsoft employee could break in and form businesses. However, take into consideration the simple fact that after working for such a software giant, you will have non-compete clauses for several years, and quitting Google to someday form your own business seems less than attractive. And one more thing - Google only does searching (for money). All its other projects are free - bad thing to work on, if you want to start a company that will get you money. As a side note, I remember ex-Sun employee (Technology Officer or the same) quitting the company, creating a start-up that develops one thing missing from Sun (developing it well), and then being absorbed back (with their solutions and know-how) for a barrel of money. It seems fair, as while working inside Sun you might have been forced to work on something else. Again, Google employee might be able to start something like this - or not

    2. Re:Perhaps... by ufnoise · · Score: 4, Interesting


      However, take into consideration the simple fact that after working for such a software giant, you will have non-compete clauses for several years, and quitting Google to someday form your own business seems less than attractive.


      Are non-compete clauses enforceable in California? Are out of state non compete contracts enforcable in California? According to this Wiki the answer to both questions is no.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#En forceability_in_the_State_of_California

      Does anyone know if Google requires you to sign a non compete clause?

      Working at a large software company in the Silicon Valley, I just had to sign a paper when I started saying my employment was "at will". It also said I wouldn't try to get other employees to leave the company for a period of two years after I left the company.

      You can't steal intellectual property and take it with you. You can certainly continue to work in the same area, even if it means having to move to California.

  3. Google's success. by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People are forgetting the secret to Google's success.

    Luck.

    They developed the right product at the right time. Microsoft did the same. They happened to be home when IBM called and got the DOS contract.

    heir graduates can come up with quality product but will they be able to provide somethign the market really needs?

    1. Re:Google's success. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They didn't just "happen to be at home". Bill Gates' mum (!) set up a meeting for little Billy boy.

      It kind of pisses me off when Bill Gates is presented as some sort of rags-to-riches success story. He had some starting-post advantages, folks.
      That said, I don't really begrudge him his wealth - society was stupid enough to allow copyright and patent monopoly law (note that Bill Gates was hanging around washington when that was being decided - believe it or not, it wasn't until 1983 that binding U.S. precedent for software being copyrightABLE was actually set), he just acted 100% rationally to maximise his personal gain using the law as a tool.

      But damnit, if you convict an entity of being an abusive monopoly, for god's sake stop handing them monopolies on a plate! The only punishment microsoft should have had for its offences was for its copyrights and patents to be placed in the public domain. The fines and such are meaningless - look at the EU - Microsoft basically paying "fines" (bribes) to the EU Commission while the EU Commission works on introducing software patents for microsoft's benefit.

    2. Re:Google's success. by mgblst · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What has it got to do with managers? Entrepreneurs, sure, and the people who created Google are not managers, but Entrepreneus. And it is not luck, it was producing a good product at the right time. A better search engine, just when the whole world needed one. Microsoft could have had this sewn up, if they didn't underestimate the value of the internet. So could a lot of other companies, but it is a difficult thing to see the way the world is heading, especially for large businesses.

      You people make it sound like they fell into a pile of money, or the managed their way into the market which is absolute rubbish.

    3. Re:Google's success. by roaddemon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How was Google lucky? They came into an already saturated search market and collected a vast market share because they did a better job of it than everyone else. If you switched to Google in 1999 or 2000, it wasn't because there was nothing else available, and it wasn't because they had a great ad campaign; it was because of the word of mouth that a great product generates.

    4. Re:Google's success. by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Their product is text ads. Not search technology. The search engine is just a hook.

      Someone else could have come up with the text ads earlier. They didn't. Google got there first.

    5. Re:Google's success. by lilfields · · Score: 2, Interesting
      People are forgetting the secret to Google's success. Luck.
      So by your definition, anyone who is successful is so because they are lucky? I have no idea how you were modded up. That's not interesting or insightful in the least.
    6. Re:Google's success. by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. I made a mistake of implying that it was all down to luck. But Google is not inherently better than a lot of substantially less successful products. If the Stanford grads had learned about computer vision or something, they would no doubt have come up with a remarkably good image recognitiuon system, which probably would have netted them a decent reward. But they happened to research an area where at the time there was a large gulf in the market.

      Someone else would have written that thesis, and would have leapt on the chance. They might still write a thesis, but they'll find that the gulf has been filled. They lose out, because they're unlucky enough to have come to it too late.

  4. Online service providers by pubjames · · Score: 4, Insightful


    I'm not sure that online service providers are going to be naturally monolithic in the way that, say, hardware manufacturers or pre-web software companies are. I find it easy to imagine that Google's core business could be wiped out in a year by a new upstart with a better technology. Microsoft are lucky in that they have established lock-in - it will be superceded by something else over the long term rather than replaced by superior products of the same ilk. Google doesn't have any lock-in, and I think the nature of online serices is such that companies that try to establish it aren't going to be successful.

  5. Re: Is Google Too Smart For Its Own Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is Slashdot Too Political And FUD'ish For Its Own Good?

  6. Re:Google Graduates? by DarkSkiesAhead · · Score: 4, Funny
    Excuse me... (AKA Mod down at will, but,) English, motherfucker! Do you speak it.
    Small piece of advice: If you wish to complain about English usage, you will be taken more seriously if you can do so without an extra comma, a missing question mark, unnecessary capitalization, a misused ellipsis, and pointless cursing.

    Better luck next time,
    -DSA
  7. Re:Complaint? About spinoff's? by arivanov · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bollocks.

    AFAIK they still happily throw out 99.9%+ of all candidates tagged as potentials by their headhunters leaving only what they like. The "cannot hire" is when the candidates start to turn them down. This happened to Yahoo and their other major competitors very long ago. In fact as far as yahoo goes many people turn it down even before reading the job description to the end (for plenty of reasons).

    This is yet to happen to Google. I have yet to see a person who has been selected for an interview, had an offer and turned it down. At least in Europe.

    Frankly, this problem exists only in the feverish hallucinations of the media and analysts.

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  8. That's an interesting idea by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Informative

    Kind of how Failchild Semiconductor was the wellspring for many of todays semiconductor companies? This graphic (PDF warning) was the best thing I could find.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:That's an interesting idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Excellent example -- but perhaps an even better one is to look at Kleiner Perkins's previous track record -- Google itself is a son of one Kleiner company (they got theri seed money from a Sun founder, Andy; who in turn got his start from KPCB) - and Google's other money came from KPCB itself. Where'd that money come from? KP's other companies, of course - including AOL and Netscape. -- and where'd they get the money for those - From Fairchild semi, as the parent poster suggests.


      So in the same follow-the-money way that TFA describes, Google is already the son of Netscape and Sun - and the grandchild of Fairchild.


      The same pattern repeats - KPCB generates hype - dumps it on the public market - and takes the money and people to invest in the future.


      Pretty much all of silicon valey can be traced back to those roots -- or perhaps to Fred Terman himself who turned Stanford Engineering into a business-friendly environment and recruited Shockley here which lead to Fairchild.

  9. Maybe, but by joss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hiring mediocre people backfires a lot sooner than hiring only really smart
    people.

    The kind of people who will form their own companies will do so irrespective of whether they work for google first.

    --
    http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    1. Re:Maybe, but by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But really smart people can also be mediocre people as well. It is a common misconception especially among geeks who place their status on intelligence. You could be the smartest person on Earth and still a Mediocre person/employee. Things like...

      1. Hubris, The ancient Geeks knew this, Jesus knew this. Almost all other major religion know this. But a lot of "Smart" People tend to ignore this. Excessive Pride is Bad MmKaaa. This closes your mind, it prevents you from listening to what the "Less Smart" People who are saying. Because you assume just because you are smarter then them that you ideas are always more correct. Which is wrong.

      2. Wisdom. The concept of wisdom is a rather nebulous concept. Wisdom comes from experience, and your own personal insight. It is a case where a 5 year old could solve the problem and not you. Just because the 5 year old just recently experience a similar concept during play. a lot of "Smart" people tend to limit themselves from experiences, Book Worms, Video games... So they do not gain as much wisdom as say someone who never went past high school but has explored the word.

      3. Work ethic. A lot of "Smart" People will just flat out refuse to do a job that is beneath them, past their confront zone, or just not in their area of specialty. Like a parson with a BS In Computer Science with a 4.0 GPA and a highly skilled programmer being ask to help out lay network cable from Data Center A to the the New Data Center which is 100M away. Or an Artificial Intelligence expert refusing to program a Database Query. Or Refusing to learn a new language that the company is moving to. Also there are the smart people who just stop working when it is not fun any more.

      4. Hunan Skills, Human skills are important because what ever your job is at some level it will used for the benefit of humans. And you cannot advance in your career without human skills.

      I am sure anyone who worked for Technical Support has realized People with PHD are the worse group of people to to Technical Support for. Because when they call you they are already embarrassed that they needed to call technical support because they think of themselves smart enough to fix the problem themselves with out the help of some 2 Year vocational school grad. Then when you do talk to them on the phone they are less then honest on following your instructions. Finally when you give them instructions they will not follow it. compared with Blue Collar Factory workers (Which I have learned are actually very smart people too) they are not afraid to call when the problem is minor and can get it fixed before it becomes major, they tell you exactly what they did, they follow your instruction on how to fix it. They also write them self a note on how to prevent it in the future.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Maybe, but by renoX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >A piece of advice? Find another language to rant in, please.

      No the content of his post was insightful, if you're not able to ignore some minor spelling mistake (maybe it was late in his timezone, or he was in a hurry, etc), go away.

      Your post isn't insightful at all, the GP is right there are many different type of intelligence and being labelled smart doesn't mean that you have all these skills, only a few specialised.

    3. Re:Maybe, but by ginbot462 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, I am a computer parson that has the Hubris to learn how to cook some Hunan (maybe Mongolian as well).

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
  10. What? by DMouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right, lets role play here for a minute. I'm a phd coder employed at google. I have a good chunk of cash in google shares that will vest soonish. So I'm going to take that money and go and start a startup because?

    Which wally thought that the primary motivation for programmers was making money?

    Pretty much every study of programmers motivations i have ever read has shown them to be intrinsically motivated by the opportunity to solve puzzles, and to be able to hang out with birds of similar feather. The fact is that money isn't that much of a motivator for coders, provided there is sufficient to buy toys. The latest laptop. A 30" lcd into which to plug said laptop. A plasma telly and an xbox 360 on which to play halo.

    Starting up a company is risky, there is a bucket load of work to do that isn't coding, and you have to stop talking to all the other coders who you like chatting with at work. Wtf?

    Someone has NO CLUE how coders think. And this made it to the front page of slashdot how, exactly?

    1. Re:What? by GrumpySimon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly - google will start losing talented people only once they stop doing cool things. As long as they keep putting out new shiny toys, what geek wouldn't want to work there?

      --
      henry -- the human evolution news relay
  11. You don't graduate FROM google... by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You graduate TO google. The reason this will not happen is that people are still heading towards Google to make cool products. They will pay you to work on your own stuff at least 20% of the time, what better investment could you get?

    --
    stuff |
  12. Re:Innovative projects by TheJasper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree completely. As I understand it you are even required to spend 20% of your time on your own project. One of the smartest people I know will probably go to Google soon, so I don't think they have a problem with hiring. As to spinoffs, sure maybe there will be some, which is a good thing too. However, if you get to work on your cool idea on company time, and get bonuses in relation to the succes of your project, why start up your own company. Do you want to become a manager who has to run a business, or do you want to play with your toys. Google works by making it profitable not to start your own company. Sure, you might not make 1 billion dollars with a brilliant idea, but who needs that much money? If google makes it that your brilliant idea earns you millions and does the boring admin and pays you to work on your next crackpot idea that may or may not work then why would you leave.

  13. I work for Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Going anon obviously.

    Two things -

    1. Academic != Smart. The amount of small minds here (particularly the worst kind; small minds with large egos) is unreal. Just because you have a PhD does not make you smart.

    2. Most Google employees are total sheep. They are the type of people who want to join a cult. This goes against everything business owners stand for.

    3. Setting up a business has nothing to do with being smart or academic. Only certain kinds of people (generally, the kind of people who like selling, i.e. not nerds) enjoy and succeed at setting up businesses.

    People totally overrate Google employees. It's funny/sad.

  14. Luck?! by superbrose · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A little off-topic, but in an interview the golfer Bernard Langer was once told that he was extremely lucky to sink a particularly difficult put.
    He responded 'The more I practise, the luckier I get!'.

    I don't believe the successes of Google or Microsoft are down to luck. Neither do I think that Warren Buffett is a lucky investor.
    Being opportunistic and taking a calculated risk sounds more like it.

  15. Google too smart for it's own good by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What a major plot twist.

    If Google is "too smart for it's own good", I suppose same people would say "Microsoft is too dumb for its own bad".

    Then suddenly it all makes sense. Right? Nope. But still good 'nuf for Slashdot, start the presses!

  16. Re:Poor Google! by Columcille · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well it's nothing new, Microsoft has already been there, done that. Give it 10 years and Google will be the new company geeks love to hate. It's already getting that way for a growing minority.

    --
    I love my sig.
  17. Re:Poor Google! by backwardMechanic · · Score: 2, Funny

    Remember, hire dumb people, so they're never a threat to your business...

  18. being "smart" by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unless we define "smart", this is just a silly thread. Being smart is much more than a set of metrics, as you suggest. Many programmers themselves are not even good at programming.

    Google is not Mensa. Mensa is not even Mensa. If Google really was stocked with geniuses, it would suggest that they a) know how to find geniuses, b) know how to lure geniuses, and c) know how to make geniuses work together for corporate success. Frankly, I do not believe that ANYONE can do it. It would take... genius. :o)

    Software engineering reminds me of Herman Hesse's Glass Bead Game: an abstract obsession detached real human values. Many people in the field think they are brilliant because they think what they are doing is brilliant. It is not.

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
  19. Remember Lucent by carn1fex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My uncle lost a ton of money in Lucent because his philosophy for success centered around them having the highest percentage of staff with PhDs in the industry. Take heed?

    --

    ---------

    No matter how thin you slice it, its still baloney.

  20. Could happen, probably won't by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It could happen, but it probably won't. Here's why: Google's employees live better than kings.

    What do I mean? They've got a vast selection of food that they could want to eat; they have fairly undisciplined day schedules; they've got no overt worldly responsibilities. And, what's most important, they can spend their days however they want working on things that interest them. They may not be golfing or doing 'leasurely' activities, but most academic types don't care for those kinds of entertainment anyway.

    When you enjoy every activity of your day (well, at least 'almost') why would you throw it away to try and compete against such an environment?

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers