Susan Wojcicki: The most important Googler you've never heard of | Hacker News Reader

Susan Wojcicki: The most important Googler you've never heard of

mercurynews.com

77 pointsmad4413 comments

I guess I could also comment about the article itself.

It's great that Susan is an influential level-headed intuitive executive at Google, and I suppose it's somewhat noteworthy that it was her garage that was originally used as Google's office, but aside from that I'm not sure what the point is. Her style is reminiscent of several senior vice presidents at several companies I've worked at, and her contributions don't seem manifestly larger then any other SVP in charge of a major project. Sure, she makes the most money at the company, but I'm not sure that entitles her to a special spot in Google's history at the same level as the other 12 SVPs and certainly not the founders themselves.

I wonder if the Mercury News is doing a series on some of the lesser-known Google leaders. They did a profile of my VP over the summer:

http://www.physorg.com/news202108905.html

I think it's a refreshing change from the mainstream press, which seems to be "All Marissa, all the time" when they're not talking about Page/Brin/Schmidt.

I had the same response, but I realize (having worked there for a while) that there is a strong 'star' culture meme that sort of permeates the place. I wondered if she was feeling out of sorts with all the publicity folks like Marissa or Eric or some of the other 11 SVPs carry around.

Can never know for sure of course. Then again, Google may be setting her up to be COO and pointing out that 96% of all the money they make comes from groups under her would be a good way to start that conversation.

"Paul Buchheit, the founder of Gmail, had the idea to run ads within Google's e-mail service. But he and others say it was Wojcicki, with the backing of Brin, who organized the team that adapted that idea into an enormously successful product."

Nothing to do with the article, but I just find the "founder of Gmail" language a bit funny in this case. I don't normally associate the "founder" relationship with projects invested in and resourced (and, not to mention, wholly owned) by a large corporation. Being the initial developer != founder.

We often see the word "founder" used as an abbreviation of the phrase "startup founder", but that only applies when used in the context of discussing a startup.

The word itself is perfectly applicable in various contexts that have nothing to do with startup companies; charities, political parties, bands, and internal projects. As such, referring to Buchheit as the founder of Gmail is reasonable.

Internal projects is the one outlier there I don't agree with. At every single company I've worked in, I've spearheaded new ideas and new projects I think it would be worthwhile for the company to pursue. It has happened that the company chooses to invest in the idea I brought forward, but in that case I wouldn't consider myself the "founder" of "idea X". I was the origin of the idea, the main cheerleader, the developer of the prototype, the project manager, etc., but not the "founder".

I don't know, maybe it's an asinine point, but I don't think that's typically how the word founder is used, and it still seems funny to me.

I think people make an exception for GMail because in terms of innovativeness, it could easily have been a startup in its own right. People make similar exceptions for other companies, eg. Jef Raskin is often called "the founder of the Macintosh" despite it being developed inside Apple, Ray Ozzie is called "the founder of Lotus Notes" despite it being funded by Lotus.

But Ozzie was the Founder of Iris Associates -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Associates -- who actually created Notes.

And (from the article) Iris development was funded almost exclusively by Lotus, under contract, with an exclusive option to purchase all the IP generated. That sounds a lot like a wholly-owned subsidiary.

Most laypeople think in terms of products, not corporate entities. The various international Google subsidiaries are all separate corporations, yet the lawyers & VPs who set them up aren't considered "founders" of them. Meanwhile, business units that operate with significant autonomy and generate a product that's distinct from the parent company's main business usually do have a "founder" figure.

Where would you put Android on this continuum? It's a business unit within Google now. However, it's run with a large degree of autonomy, has its own codebase, and creates a product quite distinct from Google. And moreover, it actually was founded by Andy Rubin as an independent startup, but purchased well before they got to market.

The exception seems warranted for a service with 190+ million monthly users.

"Founder of gmail" might be reasonable, but to my ear, "creator of gmail" sounds more natural.

Related article from 2007 that gives further information about Susan's house and her role in Google: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinvestor/corporatenews/2007...

Interestingly enough, her mother, Esther Wojcicki is a teacher at my school.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com