Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmrdporcupine | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it's so much that Google ignores the founders, so much as the founders are ignoring Google.

I was at G when L&S stepped away, and it really just felt that leading up to that, they'd become completely disinterested. S, especially, seemed completely out of touch. And L just tired.

View on HN

BG is a shrewd, cutthroat businessman on top of having a tech background. I think he's far different from L&S in that respect. But yeah it helps he hasn't disengaged as well.

Google would have probably been better off if Eric Schmidt had stayed engaged.

I don't like the guy's opinions on many things, but he was pretty good at keeping the ship headed in generally the right direction.

Or any direction? I couldn't tell what the direction of Google was if I had to.

What's the direction of Microsoft, Amazon, or Apple? They're too big to have one direction.

Google does have one direction, the same direction it's had since IPO, really.

Maximize ad revenue, to maximize share value.

Just all the other window dressing is going away.

Never liked Eric, but Google had such a clear direction and vision under his leadership. Pichai, feels like the accountants are running the business. It is ONLY about the next quarters results.

I don't think Larry and Sergey is on the same level as Bill Gates. Solo founders who have raised to and led a big tech company is a different breed. I would pick Jeff Bezos, Zuck and Larry Ellison on the same level of Bill Gates. They don't manage day 2 day but big strategies don't go through without their blessing. Even though you can say Bill does not manage, the top level executives will always think "what would Bill do" or "what would Bill think about this".

Bill Gates co-founded Microsoft with Paul Allen. If anything, Paul Allen was the instigator.

Yeah and Jobs co-founded Apple with Wozniak. Wozniak was instrumental to Apple's initial success but clearly it was Jobs who took it to the mat. Same with Gates/Allen, by their IPO in 1986 it was billg at the helm and Paul Allen doing something else.

I don't dispute Bill Gates might have been the business mind that drove Microsoft to its status today as the biggest software vendor to businesses on the planet. However, it's not because he was some sort of solo founder sigma grindset.

Allen clued Gates in on the upcoming microcomputing revolution when the Altair made the cover of Popular Electronics in 1975. And there are stories about both writing code on planes while on their way to sales meetings. So Gates arguably combined Woz’s technical chops with Jobs’ business acumen (even though I always admired the latter’s sensibility and vision more).

I think my phrasing of "solo founder" was not very good. I should have used another word.

Zuck is not a solo founder at all but what happened to the rest of the guys. Some says Google is what it is today was largely due to Eric Schimdt's involvement who is not a founder. The idea that all co-founders hold large influence in the long run of the company is not true. However, there individuals who essentially established the culture, the vision and the framework of the company.

The idea is that within the original or pivotal executive board there are people who even though left the company still holds significant influence in terms of grand strategy or vision. And those people does not include all cofounders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com