by anvarik on 10/16/14, 5:11 AM with 108 comments
by WoodenChair on 10/16/14, 8:03 AM
Sorry for my cynicism/sarcasm, but I see the book campaign as Eric Schmidt positioning himself for his next role. He's trying to secure his personal Google legacy as he gets ready for an exit. I can't imagine it's all that enticing to go from CEO to chairman in a company where the founder takes back the CEO role... how much influence does that leave you?
by q_revert on 10/16/14, 6:39 AM
I asked a senior team member to have a look at the notes I had made, and see if they were ready to show to the wider team.
His advice?
"Go build something, then we can have meetings"
Coming from an academic background I find this type of thinking very refreshing.
by sz4kerto on 10/16/14, 7:50 AM
by dalke on 10/16/14, 4:19 PM
It list three examples which are mostly true. But the same answer could easily have been said any time in at least the last 120 years -- and it was. I think the complaint about the shallow content in this presentation is completely justified, because there's nothing really new about the idea of change.
Steam power. Electricity. Telegraph. Telephone. Mechanical calculators. Slide rules. Cheap aluminum. Flight. Punch card sorting machines. Linotype machines. Each of those are examples where technology transformed business sectors.
The telegraph made it possible for information to reach around the world on the same day it happened. Ham radio enthusiasts talked to each other around the world, including bouncing TV signals off the moon. Scratch off the names and it's the same ideas that this presentation promotes as something somehow new. It's assumes the fallacy that what you grew up with was slow and unchanging.
It's difficult to read much of the research literature from the 1960s without hearing people talk about the "information explosion" and there being too much change and things out of balance.
Mail order is an 1800s example of "barriers to entry melting away" and is how Sears gained its fame. So was the rise of the daily newspaper, subsidized by advertising that made is possible for people to know what was available.
"Power has shifted from companies to consumers" ... Hello, the 1930s called. Consumer Reports wants to know if you would like a subscription so they can pay for rigorous testing. Or do you seriously think that mass edited unrestricted feedback can't be gamed?
"Individuals and small teams have a massive impact." etc. That sounds a lot like the HP Way, which has as point #1 "We have trust and respect for individuals"
Except, oddly enough, the Google way doesn't mention ethics. Compare to the HP Way where "We conduct our business with uncompromising integrity." and that as a good corporate citizen HP will "meet the obligations of good citizenship by making contributions to the community and to the institutions in our society which generate the environment in which we operate.
Does Google consider ethics less important than business nirvana?
What is new in this presentation that HP didn't cover in the 1960s?
by skrebbel on 10/16/14, 6:51 AM
by msutherl on 10/16/14, 6:34 AM
This might mean that we can make the world a better place by raising their expectations even higher. In other words, if no one will work for Google unless they are given the environment and autonomy to do truly great things, as measured by a well-considered external standard, then Google might just be forced to do great things.
We all know Google has done some things that are not so great. Regulation is one tool the public wields, but perhaps we can do something about that from the inside as well.
by g123g on 10/16/14, 7:17 AM
by rmsaksida on 10/16/14, 10:42 AM
There are places that simply don't give a shit about "smart creative" types, and there are places that claim to have a Google-like culture but in practice are just regular old boss-centric jobs. Every CEO wants to be like Google, but very few actually commit to it.
It usually starts like this: the CEO wants to have smart creatives and delegate decisions. But then he thinks about all that hard-won money he'll be throwing at an employee, so he hires someone middle level or fresh out of college "with huge potential". Then he systematically micromanages the guy, because he just can't make that jump. The poor soul either abides (not so smart creative after all) or quickly runs out of steam (this guy will quickly start looking at job posts). Eventually the new hire disappoints in some way and the CEO cynically complains about the failed promises of the cool tech company culture which he tried to implement.
Seeing a very successful company like Google follow these principles, and win, might influence decision makers in a positive way.
by galago on 10/16/14, 6:55 AM
Upper middle class dudes from elite academic institutions create businesses. What's the new thing? Maybe I'm misstating this and I'm just going to piss away what few points I have less, but hasn't business always been this way?
Railroads killed the stagecoach, the lightbulb killed gas lamps, Craigslist killed the newspapers. Amazon might well kill Google, but if they do, its not necessarily a new thing.
by plainOldText on 10/16/14, 9:06 AM
I'm curious, why is everyone nowadays so obsessed with growth? Is growth really that much more important than revenue? What if you strike a balance between the two?
I remember reading what one of the WhatsApp's founders once said: "[..] we focused on business sustainability and revenue rather than getting big fast [..]" And it looks like they did alright.
by christiangenco on 10/16/14, 6:37 AM
by ardoi on 10/16/14, 9:04 AM
by andy_ppp on 10/16/14, 8:18 AM
by dothething on 10/16/14, 2:32 PM
by freshflowers on 10/16/14, 12:08 PM
Seriously, who upvotes this?
by bsaul on 10/16/14, 8:38 AM
They've launched two succesful products in their entire history (search engine and gmail), the rest has been bought or only work because they're given away for free.
An from what i've heard, internal culture with meetings that explain what should people at google think to really be a "googler" is turning into an orwelian nightmare ("but it's for the general good" isn't an answer to limited personnal opinion).
by barrystaes on 10/16/14, 7:55 AM
by quickdraw46 on 10/16/14, 6:52 AM
by pXMzR2A on 10/16/14, 7:26 AM
by junto on 10/16/14, 8:20 AM
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/howgoogleworksfinal1-14101217...
(Technical knowledge + business expertise + creativity)
You also need:
Luck + Hard (smarter) work
by Leander_B on 10/16/14, 11:14 AM
by modx07 on 10/16/14, 11:17 PM
Not an exact quote but an idea that was expressed in the slides. I'm curious as to how one achieves this....if this was a sincere bit of advice then I'd love to learn more about what he meant!
by jason_slack on 10/16/14, 3:17 PM
Anyone remember this?
by peterwwillis on 10/16/14, 2:39 PM
Uhh.... I think at least a hundred commenters on HN who've gone through Google hiring would disagree with you.
by dennisgorelik on 10/18/14, 9:37 PM
by pibefision on 10/16/14, 8:00 AM
by general_failure on 10/16/14, 8:11 AM
by tonydiv on 10/16/14, 5:57 AM
by phreanix on 10/16/14, 8:28 AM
by codeonfire on 10/16/14, 7:03 AM
by frozenport on 10/16/14, 11:03 AM
by diltonm on 10/16/14, 2:34 PM