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.'"
not having read the article.....
but why does the next killer app etc have to come from within the currrent killer organisation?? just ask yourself, where did Google come from?, Microsoft?? Lotus even?? (if u are old enough to remember that).
I prefer to keep my eyes on Paul Graham and his friends in Y combinator - just wish I could be in on the deal.
Why do yo think most of the ideas are not search related? I would have thought that if you live and breath search engines for 80% of your week, working on something else would probably be enjoyable but I'm sure you can't just switch it off like that.
People used to say that Yahoo and AltaVista did search really well. Then Google came along and changed the game. If an ex-employee of google figures out a way to cut out all the spam rubbish on the search results then I'm sure almost everyone would switch overnight. It's that risk of 1 truly great idea being missed that should worry google investors. Internet search users are a fickle bunch and I'm sure they'd switch without a second thought which in turn would hit google's paid for advertising hard.
XePhi Computers sell really cheap Linux CDs! http://www.xephi.co.uk
The next killer app does not have to come out of the current killer. But it is a very well documented and repeating pattern that many of these "next killer apps" are developed within the then dominant organisation - because that's where the money is - but ignored or not understood by management. The inventors then quit and build the new killer organisation, leaving their previous employer wonder what happened. The most important observation, however, is that the very same people that went through all this later fall in the exact same trap themselves.
Remember Ken Olsen. IBM didn't believe in his ideas for smaller better and more ubiquitous computers, so he built DEC. But 20 years later he didn't believe in the PC ("there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home") and DEC ended up being bought by Compaq.
There are plenty more examples of this pattern in the computer industry.Linux user since early January 1992.
To destroy Google, someone would have to beat them at what they make their money on - search and ads.M
That's not at all true. Google likely won't be destroyed by being out-Googled - they'll be destroyed by failing to anticipate a change in the computing landscape that someone else is positioned to take advantage of. That's the way evolution usually works. That's the way that Google is "beating" (displacing for relevancy and growth) Microsoft - not by competing head-on but by being better positioned for the times.
Also at some point Google's core businesses, successful as they are now, will naturally stop growing. Online advertising will peak, or advertizing will shift to another venue (handhelds? Internet TV?) that Google fail to take advantage of. No business lasts forever. Without growth the stock P/E will collapse and the stock drop with it, employees will begin to leave, the forward momentum will be lost. Some new hot tech darling will emerge, not necessarily in Google's core business areas at all.
I find that google (at least for the stuff I search for) doesn't return a huge amount of crappy spam results and that the results I get back are usually usefull.
But if someone can make a search engine that is better than google, great.
Search engines have come along way since the days of engines like WebCrawler, InfoSeek, Yahoo, HotBot, AltaVista and DogPile (all search engines I have used in the past but now don't use in favor of google)
And also he lies about his credentials. From comments somewhere else on this same article, I wish I knew this before.
1 998/11/11/DD94762.DTL
Stanford Says Cringely Never Completed Doctorate
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/
Cringely is starting to lose it, I think. Too much time out on the edge can make you start to see things and hear voices.
Seriously, there's a lot of pressure on writers like Cringely to come up with something "counter-intuitive", "insightful", and "outside the box" and "forward thinking" to the point where, faced with a deadline or empty blog post, they throw caution to the wind and blurt out some shit that sounds smart, but if you scratch the surface is nonsense.
TFA is one of those.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Marc
-- PGP keyID: 0x4C95994D
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 can quickly change to accomodate any revolutionary new idea in the computer industry. Their business model is not tied to how computers work. If somebody found a new way to make computers and systems that made the old way obsolete, Google would just switch to the new way. By contrast, companies like Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Sun, Apple and others are married to the status quo. And if you think that the computer industry is not ripe for a revolution, think again. The algorithmic model is as old as Babbage and Lady Ada, that's 150 years old! We have a big problem called unreliability that has put an upper limit on the complexity of our systems and kept software development costs at a high level. The old way of doing things does not work well anymore. The market is screaming for a solution. And what the market wants, the market will get. I doubt that the coming revolution will come from the West, though. They have too much to lose. They can no longer change their ways because the old gurus have become demi-gods, and nobody dares question the gods. I see it coming from places like China or India. You've been warned. You heard it here first. ahahaha...
IBM is really a fraction of their size that they were back in the days of uncle lou (which is what we called him when he first started). Their decline is not a decline, but a losing of the market share that they had. Basically, IBM was the 8000 lb gorilla back in the 70's and 80's.
Likeiwse, MS is starting downwards as well. Apple and Linux are finally eating into their desktop. To really see it, step out of America.
OO and google office is starting to take some of their office monopoly. As time progresses, more govs will go the path of OO as well schools who pick up olpc.
And MSIE is down a LONG ways down from the late 90's, early 00's. Back then they owned 98% of the market. Now, they are at around 80% and still continuing downwards.
MS was never the main attack on IBM, just the last one prior to their downfall. Likewise, we are seeing MS's downfall. They will not end, but they will not own the market with free reign to crush whoever looks wrong at BG or Balmer.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You don't beat the 800 lb. gorilla by being a 750 lb. gorilla, you beat it by building a gun.
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
Do you have any idea of how much writing RMS has actually done? E.g., see his book of essays for an example of his mastery of English and essay writing. RMS will be frequently misunderstood like this as long as he is delivering an unpopular message. Moreover, the message is generally counter to the establishment. Spolsky and Graham may challenge convention but certainly not on the level that RMS _consistently_ does. The comparison in other posts that holds up Linus over RMS does not take into account that Linus simply does not indulge in controversial matters to the degree that RMS does.
RMS also can be insensitive, impatient, and unaccomodating to various norms (e.g., looks like a hippie).
Thus, RMS alienates and confuses _in spite_ of his excellent communication skills.