I'm starting to read "When Google Met WikiLeaks" by Assange. In this book Schmidt is the villain. It will be nice to match Assange's point of view with all the eulogies that we will read about Schmidt now.
Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
41–50 of 366 posts
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#42I'm starting to read "When Google Met WikiLeaks" by Assange. In this book Schmidt is the villain. It will be nice to match Assange's point of view with all the eulogies that we will read about Schmidt now.
BTW, here is an excerpt of the book: https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#43This is of course extremely subjective, and I have no knowledge of what Google was and is on the inside except for a short internship almost 10 years ago: I somehow always felt that Google with Eric Schmidt as a CEO was a much different Google than later on. Under Eric Schmidt, Google seemed like this extremely innovative company with the brightest minds in the industry. Afterwards, it seemed to instead grow into jus…
Larry hasn't been the Google CEO for some time now. I do think the company got caught up in incremental goals and internal PC struggles during Sundar's time, making it feel like yet another large company rather than a powerful disruptor it used to be.
> internal PC struggles
There's plenty of reasons for why they started taking place, that have nothing to do with who is CEO. Societal expectations have changed, formerly unpopular ideas gained both a voice, and mindshare, and Google's influence over the Internet has grown - and with it, expectations that that influence should be wielded responsibly.
Intelligent people strongly disagree as to what 'responsibly' means in this context.
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#44This is of course extremely subjective, and I have no knowledge of what Google was and is on the inside except for a short internship almost 10 years ago: I somehow always felt that Google with Eric Schmidt as a CEO was a much different Google than later on. Under Eric Schmidt, Google seemed like this extremely innovative company with the brightest minds in the industry. Afterwards, it seemed to instead grow into jus…
So, a few years ago, someone mentioned something very similar, and I asked them to elaborate because I was curious.
This was their response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14540332
It's well worth a read.
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an interesting point: is it innovative to jump into any new thing regardless of its actual potential? You could claim that yes, it is. I would argue that it actually isn't. The key to innovation is to be able to correctly evaluate where there are real opportunities for innovative technologies. It's possible "the cryptoverse" will eventually show that it has such potential, but it has stubbornly refused to do…
Jumping into a new thing regardless of its potential is a necessary, not sufficient, component of innovation. If you wait until it's obvious to everyone that something's a good idea, you're not being innovative, you're just an opportunist. Similarly, if it turns out that it's not actually a good idea, you're not being innovative, you've just wasted a whole lot of time. Innovation happens at the intersection of contra…
I'm confused by all the assumptions in this thread, including
1. That Google didn't research crypto internally and purposely decide not to pursue it.
2. That crypto is worth staking Google's time, energy, and ego on.
3. That crypto involvement is a direct reason a company is or is not innovative.
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
gen220 does an excellent job explaining (above). Essentially, somebody who was brilliant at what they did, operating at the outer edge of their skills envelope, and no replacement at a similar skill level. It's in many ways a good story for tech.
I understood that, I just don't understand why Bismarck is considered a diplomatic genius instead of reviled as the architect of a dangerously fragile diplomatic situation.
That's because the pointlessness of the butchery of WWI has largely been white-washed, and stripped of all context.
Every year, the British commonwealth celebrates the end of that war.
Every year, I ask why after the war, the public didn't string up every one of the leaders that was responsible for plunging the world into that pointless, industrial bloodbath. The silence I hear is, sadly, deafening.
Nobody cares to actually look at what caused that war. Nobody wants, or wanted to hold anyone accountable. The world collectively shrugged its shoulders, and forgot all about it.
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never understood why Bismarck doesn't get more blame for creating a system of alliances that could only be safely operated by himself.
gen220 does an excellent job explaining (above). Essentially, somebody who was brilliant at what they did, operating at the outer edge of their skills envelope, and no replacement at a similar skill level. It's in many ways a good story for tech.
A genius would have built up successors to take over the system or designed it in such a way that it could be maintained lest he be hit by a bus suddenly. It is definitely a good story for tech.
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#48Really enjoyed listening to this recent interview with Eric Schmidt. I’d never heard of Bill Campbell before, seems like he was a huge influence around Silicon Valley. https://tim.blog/guest/eric-schmidt/
For a counterpoint on Campbell as a terrific business coach read "Hatching Twitter" [1]. He was hired as Ev Williams' coach and the picture the book paints is bad. Working more for the board of directors instead the person he was hired to help. Telling Williams he was doing great then reporting to the board he was doing terrible.
The book is also a great way to understand why Twitter is such a shit show of an organization. The fundamental mismanagement from day one until now also shows the power of finding product/market fit. As the saying goes, you can mess everything else up and still succeed.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18656827-hatching-twitte...
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#49Really enjoyed listening to this recent interview with Eric Schmidt. I’d never heard of Bill Campbell before, seems like he was a huge influence around Silicon Valley. https://tim.blog/guest/eric-schmidt/
If anyone else wonder which Bill Campbell is it, I guess it is this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Campbell_(business_exe...
Re: Eric Schmidt Steps Down from Alphabet’s Board of Directors
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember that Larry was CEO twice: 1998-2001 and 2011-2015. During the first period Google was exceptionally innovative. During the second, Google attempted to be exceptionally innovative but largely fell flat on its face. I'd blame size and market position more. Google was left as one of very few profitable giants standing when the dot-com crash hit, and yet they were young enough to not have the institutional inert…
Yes it is quite amazing how they have almost complete browser dominance and video content creation/hosting dominance as well as search dominance but are unable to come up with even a simple in browser tipping system to hedge against the downfall of their almost entirely ad based revenue.
Corporations are not meant to disrupt themselves. It just doesn't happen.