Slashdot Log In
Is Google Too Smart For Its Own Good?
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Dec 06, 2006 05:36 AM
from the sowing-seeds dept.
from the sowing-seeds dept.
An anonymous reader writes in with a piece in Fortune speculating on what's next for Google. The writer believes that a supersaturated solution of very smart people, plus stock that may have run out of upside, will yield what he calls Son of Google — a large wave of innovative companies created by Google graduates. And a Google less intent on hiring, and less able to hire, the very smartest people around. Could happen.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
So, what's the problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So, what's the problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Perhaps... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, take into consideration the simple fact that after working for such a software giant, you will have non-compete clauses for several years, and quitting Google to someday form your own business seems less than attractive.
Are non-compete clauses enforceable in California? Are out of state non compete contracts enforcable in California? According to this Wiki the answer to both questions is no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#E
Does anyone know if Google requires you to sign a non compete clause?
Working at a large software company in the Silicon Valley, I just had to sign a paper when I started saying my employment was "at will". It also said I wouldn't try to get other employees to leave the company for a period of two years after I left the company.
You can't steal intellectual property and take it with you. You can certainly continue to work in the same area, even if it means having to move to California.
Parent
Google's success. (Score:4, Interesting)
Luck.
They developed the right product at the right time. Microsoft did the same. They happened to be home when IBM called and got the DOS contract.
heir graduates can come up with quality product but will they be able to provide somethign the market really needs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And even that is not that big a deal. They can always buy the start up company when it proves successful, saving google tons of R&D money.
Assuming it's an arena in which Google chooses to compete, and assuming the principals involved choose to merge back with Google. Which, if they leave in the first place, isn't all that likely. Bottom line, it doesn't work for Google if its best people leave. Best case scenario in your suggestion, Google ceases being an innovative engineering company and turns in
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It kind of pisses me off when Bill Gates is presented as some sort of rags-to-riches success story. He had some starting-post advantages, folks.
That said, I don't really begrudge him his wealth - society was stupid enough to allow copyright and patent monopoly law (note that Bill Gates was hanging around washington when that was being decided - believe it or not, it wasn't until 1983 that binding U.S. preced
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone else could have come up with the text ads earlier. They didn't. Google got there first.
Luck?! (Score:3, Insightful)
A little off-topic, but in an interview the golfer Bernard Langer was once told that he was extremely lucky to sink a particularly difficult put.
He responded 'The more I practise, the luckier I get!'.
I don't believe the successes of Google or Microsoft are down to luck. Neither do I think that Warren Buffett is a lucky investor.
Being opportunistic and taking a calculated risk sounds more like it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You people make it sound
Online service providers (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure that online service providers are going to be naturally monolithic in the way that, say, hardware manufacturers or pre-web software companies are. I find it easy to imagine that Google's core business could be wiped out in a year by a new upstart with a better technology. Microsoft are lucky in that they have established lock-in - it will be superceded by something else over the long term rather than replaced by superior products of the same ilk. Google doesn't have any lock-in, and I think the nature of online serices is such that companies that try to establish it aren't going to be successful.
Re: Is Google Too Smart For Its Own Good? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
--
Wi-Fizzle Research [wi-fizzle.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting idea (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So in the same follow-th
Maybe, but (Score:4, Insightful)
people.
The kind of people who will form their own companies will do so irrespective of whether they work for google first.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's much easier with $100,000,000 of stock option money in the bank...
Re:Maybe, but (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Hubris, The ancient Geeks knew this, Jesus knew this. Almost all other major religion know this. But a lot of "Smart" People tend to ignore this. Excessive Pride is Bad MmKaaa. This closes your mind, it prevents you from listening to what the "Less Smart" People who are saying. Because you assume just because you are smarter then them that you ideas are always more correct. Which is wrong.
2. Wisdom. The concept of wisdom is a rather nebulous concept. Wisdom comes from experience, and your own personal insight. It is a case where a 5 year old could solve the problem and not you. Just because the 5 year old just recently experience a similar concept during play. a lot of "Smart" people tend to limit themselves from experiences, Book Worms, Video games... So they do not gain as much wisdom as say someone who never went past high school but has explored the word.
3. Work ethic. A lot of "Smart" People will just flat out refuse to do a job that is beneath them, past their confront zone, or just not in their area of specialty. Like a parson with a BS In Computer Science with a 4.0 GPA and a highly skilled programmer being ask to help out lay network cable from Data Center A to the the New Data Center which is 100M away. Or an Artificial Intelligence expert refusing to program a Database Query. Or Refusing to learn a new language that the company is moving to. Also there are the smart people who just stop working when it is not fun any more.
4. Hunan Skills, Human skills are important because what ever your job is at some level it will used for the benefit of humans. And you cannot advance in your career without human skills.
I am sure anyone who worked for Technical Support has realized People with PHD are the worse group of people to to Technical Support for. Because when they call you they are already embarrassed that they needed to call technical support because they think of themselves smart enough to fix the problem themselves with out the help of some 2 Year vocational school grad. Then when you do talk to them on the phone they are less then honest on following your instructions. Finally when you give them instructions they will not follow it. compared with Blue Collar Factory workers (Which I have learned are actually very smart people too) they are not afraid to call when the problem is minor and can get it fixed before it becomes major, they tell you exactly what they did, they follow your instruction on how to fix it. They also write them self a note on how to prevent it in the future.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No the content of his post was insightful, if you're not able to ignore some minor spelling mistake (maybe it was late in his timezone, or he was in a hurry, etc), go away.
Your post isn't insightful at all, the GP is right there are many different type of intelligence and being labelled smart doesn't mean that you have all these skills, only a few specialised.
Sounds like an unlikely scenario (Score:2)
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which wally thought that the primary motivation for programmers was making money?
Pretty much every study of programmers motivations i have ever read has shown them to be intrinsically motivated by the opportunity to solve puzzles, and to be able to hang out with birds of similar feather. The fact is that money isn't that much of a motivator for coders, provided there is sufficient to buy toys. The latest laptop. A 30" lcd into which to plug said laptop. A plasma telly and an xbox 360 on which to play halo.
Starting up a company is risky, there is a bucket load of work to do that isn't coding, and you have to stop talking to all the other coders who you like chatting with at work. Wtf?
Someone has NO CLUE how coders think. And this made it to the front page of slashdot how, exactly?
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've got three or four full retirement's worth of vested stock. Almost* everybody has some cool thing they'd like to work on, and being independantly wealthy means you get to work on it whenever you want, not just 20% of the time you spend working for someone else for wages.
There are some people who don't have cool projects they want to work on. Those people are generally uncreative and lack internal motivation, and probably are not on Google's roles. Oh, and thos
Re: (Score:2)
You don't graduate FROM google... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the reasoning is if you have a pile of money in Google stock, you might want to take that and start a company to work on your own stuff 100% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is doing fine (Score:2)
I work for Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Two things -
1. Academic != Smart. The amount of small minds here (particularly the worst kind; small minds with large egos) is unreal. Just because you have a PhD does not make you smart.
2. Most Google employees are total sheep. They are the type of people who want to join a cult. This goes against everything business owners stand for.
3. Setting up a business has nothing to do with being smart or academic. Only certain kinds of people (generally, the kind of people who like selling, i.e. not nerds) enjoy and succeed at setting up businesses.
People totally overrate Google employees. It's funny/sad.
being "smart" (Score:3, Interesting)
Google is not Mensa. Mensa is not even Mensa. If Google really was stocked with geniuses, it would suggest that they a) know how to find geniuses, b) know how to lure geniuses, and c) know how to make geniuses work together for corporate success. Frankly, I do not believe that ANYONE can do it. It would take... genius.
Software
Google too smart for it's own good (Score:3, Insightful)
If Google is "too smart for it's own good", I suppose same people would say "Microsoft is too dumb for its own bad".
Then suddenly it all makes sense. Right? Nope. But still good 'nuf for Slashdot, start the presses!
Remember Lucent (Score:3, Interesting)
Could happen, probably won't (Score:3, Interesting)
What do I mean? They've got a vast selection of food that they could want to eat; they have fairly undisciplined day schedules; they've got no overt worldly responsibilities. And, what's most important, they can spend their days however they want working on things that interest them. They may not be golfing or doing 'leasurely' activities, but most academic types don't care for those kinds of entertainment anyway.
When you enjoy every activity of your day (well, at least 'almost') why would you throw it away to try and compete against such an environment?
Re:Google Graduates? (Score:5, Funny)
Better luck next time,
-DSA
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
AFAIK they still happily throw out 99.9%+ of all candidates tagged as potentials by their headhunters leaving only what they like. The "cannot hire" is when the candidates start to turn them down. This happened to Yahoo and their other major competitors very long ago. In fact as far as yahoo goes many people turn it down even before reading the job description to the end (for plenty of reasons).
This is yet to happen to Google. I have yet to see a person who has been selected for an interview, had a
Re:Innovative projects (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
They can sure make a good OS, but other companies are aldready doing that, and I don't know what they could do much better than others.
The thing they can do however, is use their large userbase, to make that OS known by its users. I think they're starting to do something like that for the web browser with Firefox. Maybe the next step will be the OS ?
Re: (Score:2)
Growth stocks trade on P/E (price/earnings per share) ratios, with people willing to pay premium above-market P/E ratios for stocks with premium growth rates. Slow the growth, and the price will drop because people will pay a lower P/E for slower growth. The absolute $ price per share of a stock has got NOTHING to do with it's value. 1M shares ar $500 or 10M shares at $50 would both give the same company v
Re:Poor Google! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)