Slashdot Mirror
The Final Days of Google
theodp writes "Robert X. Cringely speculates about The Final Days of Google, making a compelling case that when the end comes, it is going to be an inside job. To find the founders of a Google-beating start-up, Cringely suggests looking no further than the thousands of entrepreneurial geniuses currently working for Google, who will inevitably be driven to leave the company to realize the dreams of their rejected ideas. 'The real money is in taking existing ideas and twisting the idea just far enough to make it work in a fantastic new way. Think Google vs. AltaVista; Apple vs. all previously existing laptops and mp3 players; YouTube vs. all previously existing video sites, etc. In addition to ideas, you need creativity, resources, connections, and luck -- none of which appear to be in short supply among Google worker bees. Much of the next influx of ideas to Sand Hill Road will come not just from former Google employees, but also from groups of former Google employees who are planning their future companies over free sushi and Diet Coke late at night in Google cafeterias.'"
An innovative startup made of ex-google staffers will kill google?
But Google wasn't the end of MS, MS wasn't the end of IBM, the markets big. A new player doesn't mean the 'end' of old players.
Google does one thing really well - search. Many of the ideas brewing are not a search replacement, they are either something completely different or an add-on to search.
I am sure Google ignores many of the 20% ideas that are actually quite good, but I doubt the ones they ignore are the kind of things that make search better; that is the kind of thing these geniusses spent 80% of their week on, after all.
"Cringely suggests looking no further than the thousands of entrepreneurial geniuses currently working for Google, who will inevitably be driven to leave the company to realize the dreams of their rejected ideas. "
To destroy Google, someone would have to beat them at what they make their money on - search and ads. First off, 95% of the people in the company probably do not work in this division, and don't have the background and aren't surrounded by it enough to get ideas about it. The 5% who do probably could not start a company without running in trouble legally given all the Google trade secrets they are privy to.
So that's what Microsoft did, huh?
Maybe it's just a combination of pure dumb luck (being in the right marketplace at the right time) and the tenacity and money to keep going.
New ideas are ten-a-penny. It's having the business acumen and vision to get them off the ground and make them profitable that's the real skill.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Developmen
The most pertinent part of the article I've linked is:
Some of the perks that google gives its employees are quite devious. Why risk your money and time starting your own venture when you have it made at google?
Why do you think that the most innovative and radical ideas come from unemployed hungry developers? Who has made a concerted effort to hire said hungry developers? That's who I'd bet on to hurt google's bottom line.
http://nyamenation.org/
It is normal human perception of reality which makes us believe that everything that goes up, must come down. Still, with proper adaptive leadership I don't see why google should be around for the next (insert huge number here) years. Most companies downfall seems to be happening because their leaders can't adjust fast enough to the current market, just look at the American motor industry. Still, I don't see why we shouldn't need to search for things in the future, so the market will be there. And as is claimed, google has a lot of brainpower and even if a few of them leaves the company, it's not going to be the downfall of the company.
Why do people continue to post Cringely's stuff, and how does it continue to get on Slashdot? He himself all but admitted that he is a troll!
Oh, wait... I guess I just answered my own question.
I heard this same thing years ago about Microsoft. Yes, some smart employees left and created startups which were largely partnered with them. Same will be true for Google. I don't see any problem for Google here.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
That is... the most boring, non-threatening evil ever.
Oh no! Don't let Google pay them the agreed-upon amount with shares that recently increased in value! Oh, the humanity!
I recall redaing somethign about this relating to the ages of various entrepeneurs (I can't find the link).
Basically the study concluded that young entrepeneurs were more successful than older entrepeneurs because the elders were more risk averse. A young entrepeneur would tend to see everything as the next big thing, leading to lots of mistakes, of course, the older entrepeneur would have more experience and perspective, and so wouldn't fall into that trap.
The problem for the older entrepeneur was that they would tend to overlook the next big thing, whereas, through sheer youthful ebulliance, the younger entrepeneur would jump at it, and that fact alone was seen to be the deciding factor in success in this area - noticing the next big thing, and jumping on it.
That it happened to be because of the recklessness of youthful over-enthusiasm, didn't take away fromthe success and profit derived from it.
Translate that into businessess which need the next new thing to continue to grow and evolve, and companies that have been around a long time, unless they listen to the voice of inexperience, will miss the next new thing.
Or so the theory goes.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Paul Graham is devilishly good at keeping Paul Graham in a position where he gets enough attention that he can make money by making sure that he gets lots of attention. His essays regularly devolve into 'something happened to me, and I can explain the universe because of it'. He writes in an informative tone, but more often than not, his thesis is just an opinion(so he is actually trying to persuade you that he is correct). There are lots of people with millions of dollars sitting around trying to figure out how to turn it into more than millions, he isn't terribly good at it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Free markets are not zero sum games. If we enter a lottery, somebody walks away with the pot and everybody else loses. With trade in a free market, everyone who participates comes away a winner. So if Google employees come up with some new company, that doesn't mean that Google is harmed in any way.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The reasoning in this article is badly flawed. While nobody knows, or if they know, can't say what is in agreements, policies, and procedures within Google, one thing we can assume is that Google is not stupid. Their ideas have to be protected, developed or not. They were smart -- rather than have undocumented ideas developed in spare time, Google made it part of the job. So, there have to be the documents that describe the ideas for, if nothing else, the review that selects the best. Why should Google throw away those documents? -- they don't throw away my email.
So, my bet is that Google is or will become a resume stain for anybody who was in a development role there. Venture capitalists will be unsure whether Google would come down on them if they developed the idea. Why go with that risk when there are plenty of other ideas clamoring for support? If somebody does pitch and develop an idea, Google can sue them and there are no pockets deeper than their's. If you carry it farther, how would one prove that the idea didn't originate from Google, since obviously you can't appeal to them for proof. So, I think Google is safe and probably they have better control of their IP than most any other company.
It's "Cringeley", so don't take it too seriously, but...
Google has a fundamental problem. It became successful as a search company that ran a few ads to defray expenses. Now it's an ad agency that offers services to build ad traffic. This limits them.
How? You can do a better job at search if you don't have to suck up to the pay per click advertisers. Just throwing out most sites with pay per click ads is a good start. But Google can't do that - that's where the revenue to support their bloated operation (been to Shoreline lately?) comes from.
Google seemed to undergo a big change starting about two years ago. That's when they first started cozying up to the "search engine optimization" people. Google used to view "search engine optimization" as evil. Now they are the major sponsor of SEO conferences. And, of course, they bought DoubleClick, an advertising company so obnoxious that most Firefox users blocked their ads long ago.
Consider Craigslist, which is rapidly destroying newspaper classified advertising. Craigslist has an edge - they're cheap. They only have fifty or so employees, and the owner has no ambitions to become a Fortune 1000 company. This drives their competitors nuts, because they aren't annoying their customer base with ads and nobody can afford to compete with them. They're devaluing ad-supported media.
Doesn't this paint a different view on why Google is the best company to work for? Maybe the idea behind the free gyms, spas, 3 gourmet meals a day (sushi), etc. was to keep their employees with them instead of trying to break free.
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
You'll be really shocked when you find out how old integers are.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199