Jack Dorsey Takes Over Product Again at Twitter as Executive Chairman | Hacker News Reader

Jack Dorsey Takes Over Product Again at Twitter as Executive Chairman

techcrunch.com

99 pointsJsarokin53 comments

This is all part of a plan that was laid down some time ago.

Jack is a product guy. Tremendously good (evidence being he created both Twitter and Square). Jack is not an operator of a quickly scaling company, or at least, that's what Ev has said on the record more than once.

Jack recognizes his strengths and weaknesses. At Twitter his weaknesses were "recognized" for him and he was pushed out as CEO. It was painful and left some damaged bridges. He's been maturing and growing since then and looking back, probably agrees it was the right move even if it was handled the wrong way.

Then he founded Square. He got the product launched and hired Keith Rabois, a well-known operator. A hardcore, real operator and business guy.

Jack will run product at both companies. Keith will run day to day operations at Square, probably even as CEO. DickC will continue to run day to day operations at Twitter. Jack will play to his strengths and let someone else keep the cash balances in check.

With Twitter, Jack was pushed out. With Square, he probably couldn't have hired Keith if there wasn't a plan or timeline in place for Keith to become CEO.

* This is all my speculation.

I doubt Keith Rabois joined because he felt he could become CEO. I think you're underestimating the draw of getting to work with someone as good as Jack Dorsey and on a product as exciting (to Keith) as Square.

What kind of timeline would you like to lay down a bet? 12 months?

This is very strange, because I thought Ev stepped aside as CEO to focus on product.

How can he expect any loyalty or dedication from his employees after doing this? If I was working for square, I'd be pissed that the leader of the company just cut a significant amount of time from what you're working on everyday.

Everyone initially believes they can "focus" on two big things at the same time. No one can. He's about to learn this lesson the hard way.

like Steve Jobs with Apple and Pixar?

like Elon Musk with Tesla and SpaceX?

like Peter Thiel with Founders Fund and Clarium Capital?

What's going wrong with Tesla or SpaceX? They both seem successful to me.

The parent comment is trying to point out that it is in fact possible to focus on two things at once.

It's hard to tell because, as others have said, it's not clear that everyone on the list is successfully focusing on two projects.

I think that's the point - Musk is running both successfully.

Clarium Capital has been performing terribly for years.

However, I agree with your general point (that it is possible for one person to focus on two large projects).

Still, Executive Chairman and CEO are two rather "big" titles. If he can juggle both and be successful I will be impressed. We will never really know how much effort he puts into each role.

does Steve Jobs spends as much time/effort in Apple as in Pixar? Does Steve tell Pixar animators a thousand "no" till the animation is done "right"? I would guess no.

I think Pixar relies heavily (or at least more) on Lasseter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lasseter) than on Steve Jobs

ps. I would add Carmack with Armadillo Aerospace & ID Software, altough I dont think he is the 'CEO' of both

Steve worked on-site at Pixar one day a week (Friday) until the Disney acquisition. Day-to-day management went through the executive team, primarily Ed Catmull for technical and operations, and John Lasseter for creative direction.

Thanks for the clarification :-)

Steve Jobs spent 99.999% of his time at Apple.

None of those founders were actually successful with the other project. Steve Jobs bought then sold Pixar, and later sat on its board, owning a bunch of shares but not actually being involved operationally. Peter Thiel is not successful because of FF or CC, he's successful because of Facebook and Paypal (both at different times). With Elon Musk, you may have a case but I haven't read enough details to know.

The main point the gp is making:

Peter Thiel is known for: Paypal and after that Facebook

Elon Musk is known for: Paypal and after that Tesla

Steve Jobs : enough said.

Elon Musk was supposedly almost bankrupt a year or so ago: http://smallbusiness.aol.com/2010/06/22/on-the-eve-of-an-ipo...

Clarification: He was wealthy but illiquid before the Tesla IPO. He did not realize how ungodly expensive his divorce would be - he had to pay for both sides since he was wealthier and his ex was happy to use his money to pay for legal time to maximize her take.

Details: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elon-musk/correcting-the-recor...

When your company (Square) is under competitive threats from multiple directions, you don't decide to start dating another company, even part time.

Whether or not you consider the source credible, there's wisdom in the saying, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." (Matthew 6:24a)

Um, things have really jumped the shark on HN if we're getting bible passages offered as startup advice - and someone upvoted it.

You'll note that the divided-focus argument was already being made. My observation is only that the passage echoes that.

Yes, thank you, I did notice that.

Feel free to make your original point but I think most people would agree bible passages (or those from the Qur'an, Torah, book of Dianetics, etc) don't have a place on HN.

This is absurd. I'm almost completely atheist but I still recognize a useful passage when I see one. The bible is a respected piece of literature. Judge the words based on their merit not on their source.

Charles Ghosn is the CEO at both Nissan and Renault

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Ghosn

Exec dudes in silicon valley are on everyone else's executive boards all the time.

Any thoughts on why he'd choose to do this when he is focusing on Square? Could it be that he disagrees with what's happening with Twitter and wants to steer it in the direction he wants it to go?

My guess is that he just really loves the product, and now that Ev and Biz are AWOL, he can actually do what he wants with it.

It's also a great PR response to the #dickbar.

Who knows what motivates a person, but strictly from an opportunity perspective, Twitter is a more certain outcome than Square. If NFC on the phone takes off, then Square technology may soon become antiquated.

This move certainly doesn't bode well for Square, though.

Not wanting to go off-topic but we're a long way away from NFC taking off in any time you could reasonably describe as "soon".

It's available on one semi-beta phone and that's it.

It's important to note that most of what Square brings to the table is not hardware. It acquires merchant transactions and manages payment risk. Square can simply support other hardware technology, but their focus is on the merchant side.

Is it a great PR response? It seems to me that a move like this helps solidify the #dickbar as a failure, and shows the company acknowledges it needs to fix the direction (which they have not been willing to state thus far).

I think the acknowledgment is what he meant by a great response.

Perhaps willingness to own up to your failures is actually good PR?

I haven't been able to find the answer to this: why are Ev and Biz AWOL? What are they doing now?

Biz is apparently sitting on AOL's board.

I think he just loves the product. Based on some of his recent interviews, Twitter is something he's been thinking about a long time and is based on things he's worked on his whole life (dispatch, maps, cities, networks etc.)

Maybe because Twitter is currently orders of magnitude bigger than Square and he thinks he can still contribute to it and make a difference.

Nothing against Jack, but this much management chair swapping is not good for a company. Tells me there is a lot of internal struggle going on. Perhaps the shareholders are pressing for monetization, and Ev pushed back on that (or tried and failed) and now Jack is coming in to give it a try.

The management chair swapping occurred when Ev pushed Jack out, and then later realized he was burned out and faded out as Dick stepped in.

Having Jack back involved in the company - assuming he is fully committed - is perhaps the best thing that can happen to Twitter right now. New ideas, stability and founder support.

I think it's great news for everyone, including us users.

Hopefully he can bring a working monetization model with him.

I think Jack will concentrate on the product, the monetization part will be left to Dick Costolo.

Can the two really be separated like this?

Yes

Are there any historical examples of it working?

What happened to Ev? I thought he was supposed to be the product guy.

Ev is involved less and less (from the TechCrunch article). Maybe he is preparing for his next venture.

To paraphrase from LL Cool J: Dont call it a comeback, he's been there before!

Rocking his peers. Putting suckers in fear.

Can't help but wonder how Square's investors feel about this.

It's not all bad, Square just got in the news again as a result.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com