Uhm, this makes me think about the engineering-first of Google. I wonder if Google will end in the same path...
I think they already have. The big difference is that when Google screws up, people don't die in a sufficiently dramatic fashion to make the evening news.
I think the pure business guys can't handle the unpredictability of engineering. there is a lot of tension at company when they push for "commitments" to deadlines. Often the response is "Honestly we don't know. We can start, see how things go and cut features as needed for the deadline."
Apple survived when Jobs came back and focused on products/engineering/creativity.
Microsoft survived post-Ballmer after returning to product/engineering led decision making and power structures.
Amazon is top of their game due to their relentless focus on product innovation and research and development.
Google, I hate to say it, is Microsoft 2004-5, slipping away from product/engineering focus, using their position as business/marketing leverage rather than product/engineering/creativity focused leadership similar to how Microsoft made that same mistake.
Companies that don't realize that business and marketing should cede power to product/engineering/creativity and return more to the open mode over the closed mode, well they end in stagnation after the last bit of value is extracted and all grace and position in the market gone.
Companies that realize that product/engineering/creativity is most important and then their business/marketing teams boost those efforts in the marketplace, well those companies go on to live a long time and have well established research and development as well as risk taking adventures.
Companies that are led by product/engineering/creative respect the open and close modes you must enter so you don't force creativity but let it flow [1].
> We've become fascinated by the fact that we can usually describe the way in which people function at work in terms of two modes: open and closed.
> CLOSED MODE
> So what i can just add now is that creativity is not possible in the closed mode.
>Let me explain a little. By the "closed mode" I mean the mode that we are in most of the time when {we are} at work.
>We have inside us a feeling that there's lots to be done and we have to get on with it if we're going to get through it all.
>It's an active (probably slightly anxious) mode, although the anxiety can be exciting and pleasurable.
>It's a mode which we're probably a little impatient, if only with ourselves.
>It has a little tension in it, not much humor.
> It's a mode in which we're very purposeful, and it's a mode in which we can get very stressed and even a bit manic, but not creative.
> OPEN MODE
> By contrast, the open mode, is relaxed… expansive… less purposeful mode… in which we're probably more contemplative, more inclined to humor (which always accompanies a wider perspective) and, consequently, more playful.
> It's a mood in which curiosity for its own sake can operate because we're not under pressure to get a specific thing done quickly. We can play, and that is what allows our natural creativity to surface.
>But let me make one thing quite clear: we need to be in the open mode when we're pondering a problem but once we come up with a solution, we must then switch to the closed mode to implement it. Because once we've made a decision, we are efficient only if we go through with it decisively, undistracted by doubts about its correctness.
>Humor is a natural concomitant in the open mode, but it's a luxury in the closed {mode}.
>But here's the problem: we too often get stuck in the closed mode.
>Under the pressures which are all too familiar to us we tend to maintain tunnel vision at times when we really need to step back and contemplate the wider view.
Businesses that develop products, especially in entertainment, that kill the open mode will kill the company. But default, the HBS MBA and bizdev metric focused production as if resources are mere parts, kills the open mode first, because it isn't quantifiable.
The moment you see a research and development department killed or sapped you know that it is just a matter of time for that company unless they can return to the right focus, with business and marketing as the secondary supportive force to a solid product/engineering/creative focus.
This is also mentioned in 'How Software Companies Die' which is almost law now:
> "The environment that nurtures creative programmers kills management and marketing types - and vice versa." [2]
I wonder when this knowledge will make it back to HBS MBA business school, there are plenty of examples in the market.
Business and marketing should be the multiplier of your value, they are not the value creators, the product / engineering / creative / research / development / design departments and the people you have are the value creators.
[1] https://genius.com/John-cleese-lecture-on-creativity-annotat...
[2] http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org/rants/how-comp...
I'd also point to AMD. After AMD64 came out, Ruiz focused on marketing and cut back in engineering. He also bought ATI, which was a good long term but cost a lot of money at the time. They only turned around after betting the company on Zen, but it took 3-4 years to get the design to market. They seem to be pretty focused on engineering now - even adding staff to support Linux drivers.