301–310 of 637 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
he just released stadia, the greatest gaming console of all time
It is way too early to measure the success or failure of Stadia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the outside, it feels much more like the company is hitting a midlife crisis (feeling unsettled, not as agile as they used to be) than a young adult.
Company lifespans these days are a lot shorter than human lifespans. 25-40 years seems typical, making a company-year 2-3x a human year. By that yardstick, Google was in its young adolescence when it IPO'd (seems reasonable), was an idealistic young adult when I joined in 2009 (also reasonable), is now hitting a midlife crisis, and will die sometime around 2040.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t get it either. Google’s reputation has been lousy, there’s something weird going on among employees and the company isn’t clearly advancing in any particular area. Sundar strikes me as Google’s Ballmer. Satya, on the other hand, has been outstanding. Microsoft has transformed and looks like a company that will be dominant for at least another 20 years.
Google would be lucky if sundar was ballmer. Ballmer doesnt get enough credit for pivoting msft into enterprise...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can someone please explain why it is well deserved? For example, when I was at MSFT it was very clear why Satya deserved to be the next CEO - for leading and growing the cloud business from irrelevance to a major pillar of MSFT. What about Sundar? Is this all because he led Chrome?
He's been leading Google now as CEO for multiple years. As I said in my original comment, Larry and Sergey have devoted the majority of their time to Other Bets for a while. Sundar's promotion here is really just recognizing the role he's effectively had for some time at this point.
Alphabet and Google being a separate company makes even less sense now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont think this is pedantic and my point is exactly as you describe! There is no such thing as "unbiased" and people who are in search of that are living in a dream world.
but surely people mean something when they say "unbiased", right? (I'll take a stab at it: something like "conveyed without the intention to deceive me, especially politically/financially/etc...") I get your point, and it's an important one -- but ime conversations are a lot more productive when they're about the ideas, not the words. :)
That isn't even close to the definition of "unbiased" that I use. To me, something is "unbiased" if it based on facts without being interpreted in accordance with some preexisting belief or worldview.
Okay Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t get it either. Google’s reputation has been lousy, there’s something weird going on among employees and the company isn’t clearly advancing in any particular area. Sundar strikes me as Google’s Ballmer. Satya, on the other hand, has been outstanding. Microsoft has transformed and looks like a company that will be dominant for at least another 20 years.
Google would be lucky if sundar was ballmer. Ballmer doesnt get enough credit for pivoting msft into enterprise...