The day Google founders asked Steve Jobs to be CEO | Hacker News Reader

The day Google founders asked Steve Jobs to be CEO

pocket-lint.com

12 pointslotusleaf19878 comments

This "article" is misleading. The video which this link-bait inaccurately describes states "they visited Steve Jobs just to meet him because he was a hero of theirs and they said to John Doerr after the meeting 'Why can't he be our CEO?'" (The section of the video pertaining to the CEO hiring starts around the 24 minute mark.)

The video makes it seem as if that question was basically a joke and also that it wasn't ever directly posed to Steve Jobs. I resent being lied to by the puff piece, but it is interesting to think about how such an outcome would have changed things (bmelton's thoughts being an example).

Wow, how flattering to Schmidt.

I'm not terribly fond of him, personally.

Not surprised that Jobs was unwilling to give up a hardware business. The profit margins might be worse but it's less volatile.

Not surprised that Jobs was unwilling to give up a hardware business.

I'm not surprised Jobs was unwilling to give up a business he built (twice!) for a business someone else built.

apple has an unbelievably high profit margin which beats many software companies.

http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/Ratio...

Google would, quite obviously, be a VERY different company with Jobs on board, and I honestly doubt that Google would be anywhere NEAR as close to 'cataloging the world's information' as they are now with Jobs in charge.

Google has been quite happy to acquire when it made more sense than building it in-house.

Google has been quite happy to spread into entirely new markets. Apple shares this, sort of, but all their growth has gone into media markets, and Google has gone into some VERY un-sexy spaces.

Google is more than happy to throw together a minimum viable product and release it, as they have with Wave, GMail, their numerous other 'beta' programs, etc. I can only imagine how much Jobs would have slowed this process, making sure that everything was just perfect.

Mostly though, Google has way too many pots for Jobs to have had his hand on everything, which likely means that they wouldn't be shipping a tenth of what they are.

Apple's release schedule is slow, but generally worth the wait -- Google 'ships early, ships often', as so many of us advocate, sometimes to great success, and sometimes to early failures.

In many ways, Google still operates like a start-up, and Apple, in my opinion, does not.

The other edge of the sword is that some of the products that failed may have succeeded had someone paid attention to the word "viable" in the phrase "minimum viable product."

Also, AppleTV is evidence that Jobs/Apple is willing to be patient with a product if the circumstances warrant.

I agree with everything you said except the fact where you said that Apple doesn't act as a start-up, see here: http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jun2010/id20100...

Apple has refocused their strategy on core products, in contrast to Google. Encouraged openness and debate. And finally, created cohesion across business units. Apple is a different beast than Google, but I don't think that because they operate in differing ways that makes one more of a start-up than another.

Perhaps I misspoke, but I essentially meant it in regards to the way they launch new products. In more ways than not, Google is ultramegacorp. They're buying companies left and right, striking deals with Telecoms and sitting on who-knows-how-many companies' boards.

But, when it comes to launching something new, they definitely have no qualms about throwing the proverbial pasta against the metaphorical wall, and seeing if it sticks, hypothetically.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com