Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Fall and Rise of Larry Page

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the back-story dept.

Google 99

schnell (163007) writes "Slate has a long, detailed story about how Larry Page founded Google, how he struggled with its growth, and ultimately how he came back to reinvigorate it. The story recounts fascinating details about Page's relationship to Sergey Brin, the combative culture Page fostered in the company's early years, his resistance to having engineers managed by non-engineers, the company's struggle through its rapid growth, and how Page once even wanted to hire Steve Jobs as Google's CEO."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Error, "Engineer" is not defined! (0)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about 6 months ago | (#46852693)

What's GOOG's definition of "engineer"? Do they always do drive the train to work? Do they all have to design something?

Re:Error, "Engineer" is not defined! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46852733)

An engineer is someone who Google would employ, because Google only employs engineers, duh.

Re:Error, "Engineer" is not defined! (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46852801)

They're designing browser engines and search engines. So, logically, they're engineers!

Re:Error, "Engineer" is not defined! (1)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about 6 months ago | (#46854237)

I would have called such people "Programmers" but that's just me.

Re:Error, "Engineer" is not defined! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854321)

A "programmer" is a shit version of a software engineer; a person with a CS degree and a love for computer science instead of Computer Business Whoring.

Re:Error, "Engineer" is not defined! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46854755)

Bah! To me, any person with a CS degree is more like an applied mathematician of the more practical variety. And some of them happen to program, just like some poets also happen to write. :-)

Re:Error, "Engineer" is not defined! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46957765)

K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

Re:Error, "Engineer" is not defined! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46855171)

An electrician can do hookups and run wires and follow a distinct plan. An electrical engineer can come up with new circuits and layouts that meet a specific goal. While there's some overlap, there is still a significant difference between an electrician and an electrical engineer.

A programmer is like an electrician. A software engineer is like an electrical engineer.

Re:Error, "Engineer" is not defined! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46957761)

K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

non-Slate link (2, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 6 months ago | (#46852715)

Here's the original [businessinsider.com] .

Besides all the fallacy-ridden trash Slate publishes, it's started spamming my Facebook-unique email address recently (I once clicked 'like' on an article there, apparently, before I knew to block all those trackers) so I try to avoid it now. Wasn't paying attention to the hover, so Slashdot got me. :/

Re:non-Slate link (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46853515)

For a moment when I was reading it yesterday, I thought "there might be hope yet for Slate" but it turned out to be a Business Insider piece. Maybe Slate's only hope is to actually outsource all of their actual *articles* to other publications, so the staff can continue writing navel-gazing "articles" where the author, or another Slate writer’s TED talk, is the subject. Or a terrible review of an unappealing book by someone with the same surname as one of the staffers.

How to block trackers. Google on the way down. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 6 months ago | (#46854165)

"... before I knew to block all those trackers..."

Ghostery for Firefox. [mozilla.org]
Ghostery for Chrome. [google.com]

Google is on the way down, sadly. Part of the URL for Ghostery for Chrome is: mlomiejdfkolichcflejclcbmpeaniij

This Slashdot story is about Google, but the linked story only gives "facts" that are apparent on the surface. Below the surface, Google is going the way of Hewlett-Packard, Fairchild Semiconductor [wikipedia.org] , and Tektronix: Slow and sometimes fast degradation. Yes, I feel I am qualified to make that statement.

Re:How to block trackers. Google on the way down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854333)

A guy by the name of Friedman calls this Creative Destruction.

And given their global politics ambitions, Google going into the sink would be a Good Idea(TM). See Schmidt's and Cohen's book on how to fuck over the world by means of all the data collected by Google on billions of people.

Re:How to block trackers. Google on the way down. (1)

nobodie (1555367) | about 6 months ago | (#46895419)

I used to ride my bike past Fairchild Semiconductor when I was working in Suzhou China. Yeah, they still exist, probably not making circuit boards like the old days, but who knows?

When I saw the name I had to Google it to remember what they were and discover how many times they had changed hands in the previous decade....

Re:non-Slate link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46861467)

No one smells even a HINT of guilt behind such DETAILED narratives as to how a company was_ founded? Started. All engineers, EH? Dont tell me... >38-(> Oops! I think I missed saving another girl from the BOGEY-MAN.

Amazing discovery in this article (4, Informative)

rockout (1039072) | about 6 months ago | (#46852723)

Spoiler alert: the article basically spends most of its time saying "Larry Page is a genius, and like many geniuses, is socially awkward." Wow. How ground-breaking.

That said, I did find it interesting enough to keep reading it.

Re:Amazing discovery in this article (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46852757)

"Socially awkward" is a fashion statement these days. SO QUIRKY AND GEEKY AND READS XKCD AND LIKE SHELDON/AMY IN THE BIG BANG THEORY LUL etc.

Nobody who is socially awkward, as opposed to not quite being a high school jock, would be able to form the kind of relationships necessary to succeed in business.

Re:Amazing discovery in this article (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#46852831)

Huzzah, I'm a genius!

It's bijective, right?

Re:Amazing discovery in this article (1, Insightful)

Mabhatter (126906) | about 6 months ago | (#46853121)

i think both of Google's founders were smart enough to understand they were GEEKS and not try to run the business themselves. So they went out and got Eric Schmidt, an experienced industry professional to run things for them. Then they got out of the way and spent 10 years "growing up". This let the company and their employees flourish and avoided all those early mistakes Steve Jobs made because he was young and cocky at 25 with tens of millions of dollars.

Now they are grown up and coming back to their company after learning about BUSINESS and have a plan for what they want to do with it. It's not exciting, but very very smart of those guys.

Re:Amazing discovery in this article (3, Informative)

hankwang (413283) | about 6 months ago | (#46853191)

i think both of Google's founders were smart enough to understand they were GEEKS and not try to run the business themselves. So they went out and got Eric Schmidt

TFA explains that Page was not very cooperative to get a mature CEO. Essentially, he had Schmidt shoved through his throat:

Page had never been behind hiring [Schmidt] -- or any CEO, for that matter. Google's investors made him do it. (...) And for a long time, Larry Page was very unhappy.

Re:Amazing discovery in this article (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 6 months ago | (#46853233)

Eric Schmidt is known as the most expensive babysitter in the history of the world. But he let his charges do enough right things to be worth the money.

beta sucks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46853381)

... and like most babysitters, he raided the fridge and molested the children.

Re:beta sucks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854341)

An he foisted YACC on arseholes like you. Something which you will probably never be able to appreciate, you semi-literate FATBOY.

Re:beta sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854775)

Eric Schmidt did Lex, not YACC

Re:beta sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854889)

... and like most babysitters, he raided the fridge

Ha ha... yeah, it's funny because it's true....

and molested the children.

Wait... what?!

Dude, I know that it does happen sometimes, but if your experience led you to believe that "most babysitters [..] molest the children", then I can only assume your parents chose all your babysitters from a registry of sex offenders :-O

Re:Amazing discovery in this article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854371)

TFA explains that Page was not very cooperative to get a mature CEO. Essentially, he had Schmidt shoved through his throat:

Get on your knees, I'll shove something else down your throat...

Re:Amazing discovery in this article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854533)

mature CEO

You really think there's a maturity difference between 28 and 46? That's very naive. Also, schmidt is a douche.

"growing up" != accepting exploitative biz model (5, Interesting)

globaljustin (574257) | about 6 months ago | (#46853585)

I want to end the notion that young tech founders need to "grow up" or find a "grey hair" to actually run their business.

It's bullshit and ruining our industry.

I'll be the *first* to admit that the techies who make the systems that define new awesome products/services are not trained or experienced in running a high finance business...that's well known

The dispute comes in the **fix** for the above problem.

Hiring some dipshit as a figurehead for investors...that addresses absolutely **none** of the **original problems**

When tech companies need to hire businesspeople, they need to hire businesspeople that are as innovative and progressive as the engineers, not someone to "hold them back"

What happens instead is that a new, user-centered company becomes spoiled by typical US MBA-type heirarchal capital hogging, data selling, evil corporation.

There is a 3rd way! Just say "no"!

CEOs must understand the companies they coordinate (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 6 months ago | (#46854337)

Mod parent up to +10. A CEO of a technological company should have technical knowledge.

Not like Steve Ballmer, [futurepower.net] fired from Microsoft. (The paragraphs about Steve Ballmer link to a BusinessWeek magazine cover that calls Mr. Ballmer "Monkey Boy", an article that says he was the "worst CEO", and an article about Ballmer's "temper tantrums".)

Not like Paul Otellini [wikipedia.org] , fired from Intel. Quote from that Wikipedia article: "Otellini was considered a departure from the norm when he was promoted to CEO because he was not formally trained as an engineer."

Re:"growing up" != accepting exploitative biz mode (2)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#46855115)

Hiring some dipshit as a figurehead for investors...that addresses absolutely **none** of the **original problems**

It does if the only "original problem" was that the investors wanted a dipshit figurehead, and you wanted their money.

Re:"growing up" != accepting exploitative biz mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46855919)

Yes, there is that 3rd way - but if you want to tap mainstream money, you need to take the mainstream approach for management, otherwise the money will walk.

If you don't need/want investors, or you are happy to tell most of the investors out there, essentially "F-off, I don't care what you think," then, sure, Just say "no" and go your own way. But, if you want/need that money, the most reliable way to get it is to do what the majority of the people with the money want - or at least look like you are doing what they want when you write your quarterly reports.

Re:"growing up" != accepting exploitative biz mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46856647)

Sure, you can say no if you don't want that money. I suppose nowadays you could do a Kickstarter, but that is fraught with dangers and in terms of the amount of money you can get is limited. If you can grow organically, then great, but most companies can't or at least a rate where they actually can make a difference and bring a product to market when it needs to.

Also most investors only want a typical capital hogging, data selling, evil corp if said corp makes money and returns their investment. They also like a nice gentle corp that makes money and gives a good ROI as well.

Eric Schmidt had been CEO of a failing Novell. (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 6 months ago | (#46853813)

"... Eric Schmidt, an experienced industry professional..."

Eric Schmidt was the CEO of Novell [wikipedia.org] , a VERY badly managed company. He was experienced in knowing little about what he was doing.

The entire Business Insider article [businessinsider.com] is, in my opinion, obviously written by someone with little or no understanding of technology, a writer who doesn't have much depth of understanding about what really happened.

Re:Amazing discovery in this article (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 6 months ago | (#46854191)

i think both of Google's founders were smart enough to understand they were GEEKS and not try to run the business themselves. So they went out and got Eric Schmidt, an experienced industry professional to run things for them.

You must have lived in a bubble back then, failed to read TFA, be a serious fanboy, or some other form of being terminally clueless. It's well known both that Schmidt was hired at the behest of investors, and that Page and Brin weren't particularly happy about it. Slashdot wasn't either back in the day, if you listen carefully you can probably still hear the echoes of the howls.

Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46852751)

Funny, I thought the message of the story is that money will let you make your dreams come true.

Re:Funny (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#46852839)

My guess was "succeeding is easy if you can throw money about".

Re:Funny (3, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 6 months ago | (#46853385)

My guess was "succeeding is easy if you can throw money about".

What happened to Windows 8 then?

Re:Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854489)

It's 8.1 now. Try and keep up. At least it's not as confusing as the linux kernel, which really hasn't progressed past a .8 version anyway. Just run PC-BSD, it's the same thing - without the crybabies.

Re:Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46856253)

What happened to Windows 8 then?

What about it? Do you mean the second most used desktop/laptop OS on the planet? Yeah, a real failure.

Yes I'm aware that it's hard to fail if your OS is on virtually all new PCs currently sold, and it might still be critically unpopular with a lot of people. But it's still in use, and still smashing anything the various Linux distros can muster in terms of raw user counts, so I don't see it as a lack of success. If you're arguing that it needs to overtake Windows 7 to count as a success, I consider that short-sighted. If success counts as making money, I'm certain Windows 8 is doing so.

Nothing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46857481)

I guarantee you Microsoft will get people to move along from WIn7. It might not be Windows8(.1), but there will be time when MS will have biggest share with some upcoming version of their system. They have money, and they keep throwing it about untill some version sticks. That's the succeeding part.

Alternate Future: Steve Jobs, CEO of Google? (2)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 6 months ago | (#46852769)

My imagination is struggling to fathom a timeline where Steve Jobs became CEO of Google. Anyone care to hazard a guess?

Re:Alternate Future: Steve Jobs, CEO of Google? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 6 months ago | (#46852827)

You mean a timeline where Apple adopts BeOS instead of the kludge they (were) bought (by) instead?

Alternate Past: Steve Jobs Google CEO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46852877)

Which happened before the founding of Google

Re: Alternate Future: Steve Jobs, CEO of Google? (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | about 6 months ago | (#46855387)

You mean a timeline where Apple adopts BeOS instead of the kludge they (were) bought (by) instead?

Yes because bringing Gasse back - the person who almost killed Apple by insisting that they don't make lower cost Macs - would have been the definite ticket to success. Do you really think that the iPod, iTunes, the iPhone, or the iPad would have happened without Jobs?

Re:Alternate Future: Steve Jobs, CEO of Google? (0)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#46852845)

Sorry, still struggling with those Nazis riding dinosaurs.

Re:Alternate Future: Steve Jobs, CEO of Google? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 6 months ago | (#46852901)

Don't worry, the UN will defeat them.

Re: Alternate Future: Steve Jobs, CEO of Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46853255)

It would look "cooler" and cost a dollar a search

What I'd like to read... (5, Interesting)

Richy_T (111409) | about 6 months ago | (#46852811)

How the darkness spread through the heart of Google, infesting its ethos of "Don't be Evil" with its corruption and engendering a perverse desire to force Google Plus on all.

Re:What I'd like to read... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46852885)

When was Google ever "good"? All the worst things foisted upon the world start off with the most tremendous sales push, and can even start off by actually having a positive effect. timei danaos, &c.

Re:What I'd like to read... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46853037)

Not evil != good. An amoral entity is neither.

Re:What I'd like to read... (2)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 6 months ago | (#46853423)

When was Google ever "good"?

The early days, before they got comfortable with being, not just "an" advertising company, but the most insidious and powerful advertising company in history, grander in scale than George Orwell could ever have fathomed?

They just (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854369)

...realize the American Dream. Like Monsanto, Exxon and ITT.

At some point of that endeavour DOLLAR becomes the one and only objective. Also see HP Co and how they destructed their soul by "going computer".

Re:What I'd like to read... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46852927)

IPO

Re:What I'd like to read... (1)

yuhong (1378501) | about 6 months ago | (#46854607)

It is not that simple, but I do think Vic Gundotra needs to be fired for a while now.

Re:What I'd like to read... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46856459)

He is already gone... looks more like retirement than fired though.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/24/5649366/google-boss-vic-gundotra-is-leaving-the-company

Re:What I'd like to read... (2)

Swampash (1131503) | about 6 months ago | (#46856633)

How the darkness spread through the heart of Google, infesting its ethos of "Don't be Evil" with its corruption and engendering a perverse desire to force Google Plus on all.

October 2000, launch of Google Adwords. Although they didn't realise it at the time - many still don't - as of that moment all those bright geeks were now working for an advertising company.

first=win (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46852929)

Has anyone ever won who wasn't first? Has anyone ever cloned a technology and defeated someone who was first? Basically success is related to being first. (Blackberry is the exception which proves the rule. Only monumental failure of epic proportions can erase the advantage of being first. Apple's iOS, Google's search, and so on haven't failed that badly.)

Re:first=win (4, Informative)

russotto (537200) | about 6 months ago | (#46853015)

Has anyone ever won who wasn't first? Has anyone ever cloned a technology and defeated someone who was first?

Microsoft.

Re:first=win (2)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 6 months ago | (#46853093)

Has anyone ever won who wasn't first? Has anyone ever cloned a technology and defeated someone who was first?

Microsoft.

Excellent example. Let's also not forget Ampex, Palm, VisiCalc ... Oh wait, most people have already forgotten them because someone else took their idea and made it big..

Re:first=win (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46856699)

Has anyone ever won who wasn't first? Has anyone ever cloned a technology and defeated someone who was first?

Microsoft.

Apple are said to have made the GUI a success whereas its inventors did not. Score 2 for evil corporations.

Re:first=win (1)

nanoflower (1077145) | about 6 months ago | (#46865241)

Though one could say that Apple was the first to bring the GUI to the general public. Xerox had the GUI first but they didn't have an interest in taking it to the general public. I played around with one of their systems and they had all the hooks there to make it a success if they brought the cost down and tried to sell it to more people but for some reason they kept coming up with great ideas but not wanting to take it to the world.

Re:first=win (1)

pr100 (653298) | about 6 months ago | (#46856835)

Not to mention google. There were plenty of pre-google web search engines.

Re: first=win (1)

Plethos (83504) | about 6 months ago | (#46861805)

Boeing wasn't first. The Comet's string of catastrophic decompression accidents due to then-unknown fuselage micro fractures overcame its "first"ness and allowed the 707 and its descendents to capture the industry for decades.

Re:first=win (2)

etash (1907284) | about 6 months ago | (#46853281)

android (iphone is eating the dust of android phones)
google search (if you think that google was the first ever search engine, yahoo, altavista says hello to you)
facebook (myspace is still angry you know)
need more example of non-first runners winners?

Re: first=win (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | about 6 months ago | (#46855405)

android (iphone is eating the dust of android phones)

"Success" for a profit seeking public company is defined as making a large profit. Have you seen Apple's latest results?

Please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46857575)

iPhone wasn't first either, not even the first smartphone ( Nokias, motorola, blackberry )
yahoo and altavista are also very new, try Lycos (for commercial, or several one that were years ahead, but weren't commercial successes)
myspace was about ten years late to the game ( guess this could be argued, but there sure were things like geocities 10 years before myspace. Wasn't that different really)

Re:first=win (2)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about 6 months ago | (#46853293)

Facebook, iPod, Ford Model T...

It's a lot easier to "win" if someone else has spent money and effort pruning the search tree of possible ideas before you so that you can focus on executing the ideas that have been proven to work.

Re:first=win (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46853517)

Boeing.

Re:first=win (1)

LiENUS (207736) | about 6 months ago | (#46853807)

There's plenty of non firsts who succeeded
iPhone, macbook, iPad, iPod iMac. Are you noticing a pattern here?

Re:first=win (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46853913)

Yeah, just look at where AltaVista is now.

Re:first=win (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 6 months ago | (#46855141)

being 2nd is usually better. you can copy what works, throw out what doesn't -- and still be new enough to grow the market yourself.

first!=win (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46858163)

Google search is a slightly improved Alta Vista.

Apple IOS is a slightly improved XNU, and even the name wasn't originated by Apple, and similar smart phones existed before Apple entered the field.

Windows and MacOS and GEOS were all just slightly improved (well, Windows 1.0 wasn't really any sort of improvement, I admit) of the Zerox Alto and Star.

So essentially your point has been nonsense since the mid 20th century (at least!) you're just too young to remember the precursors of your so-called "firsts".

Newton said we're all pygmies standing on the shoulders of giants. Progress is cumulative and most useful works are derivative, and that's why co-operative societies (like the free software community) are more creative than coercive ones.

Re:first=win (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46862353)

There's so many, MS, Google, Apple, Facebook, all the car manufacturers, all financial institutions, all printer companies, etc etc etc.

The point is that being first gives you a head start, but at the end it all comes down to doing it right, not doing it first.

CEO Steve Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46853433)

A man... barely alive. Ladies and Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world's first zombie CEO. Steve Jobs will be that man. Better than he was before. Better...stronger...faster.

(Bionic sound effects)

Re:CEO Steve Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854381)

Just raid his grave and get a gram of DNA. Silicon Valley tech+paid mother will do the rest.

Google has sucked since Gmail (1, Interesting)

globaljustin (574257) | about 6 months ago | (#46853551)

pagerank, adsense, gmail...that's google

everything else is a major mistake...and the world will discover it one day

here's how I know this:

1. 'just search' Larry Page wrote the original algorythm for search indexing...that's it...that's why we *all* used google over webcrawler or yahoo when it came out...it was *just search*

2. Brin's relationship with current Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer. She was his girlfriend and spent millions of Google's money to justify her existence, then she hired her own PR team to get her a new bigger job...she didn't do *shit*...her title was "main page designer"...are you laughing? do you remember google.com's main page for about a decade? yeah just a logo, search field and two buttons

3. Glass, Google+, Google Wave, and maps redesign...it's clear now that Google has no idea how to make new products people want to use...and when they **do** Forrest Gump their way into a cool new thing (Wave) they cancel the project

4. this quotation from TFA:

Page had outlined a plan to scan all the world’s books and make them searchable online, but somehow no one was working on it

why??? b/c of...idk...it's the most egregious copyright violation in computing....even bigger than a service like Napster

Page is a good engineer...Brin is an airhead....they stopped sticking to the knitting long, long ago

Re:Google has sucked since Gmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854115)

Brin's relationship with current Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer. She was his girlfriend and spent millions of Google's money to justify her existence, then she hired her own PR team to get her a new bigger job.

I hate to interrupt you when you're on a roll, but it was Page who dated Meyer, not Brin.

and I forgot Maps (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 6 months ago | (#46855513)

yeah I got those switched but the concept of making poor life decisions (dating a B1tc4) and then costing your company millions and infinite headaches to keep her happy

also: Google Maps is an awesome product I use virtually every day...forgot to list that in their "win" file

Re:Google has sucked since Gmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854313)

algorythm

Is that what Al Gore dances to?

MOD PARENT UP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46855257)

LOL

Re:Google has sucked since Gmail (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 6 months ago | (#46854401)

I think, though, that Google purchasing and fostering Android was a positive contribution at a later date than you set. I have strong hopes of Android outlasting Google.

Right now Android is at this point equivalent to shitty MS-DOS in it's heyday. Like MS-DOS it has caused the buildup of a bunch of fairly openish hardware. (that's where Linux came in, in 1993-4)

Re:Google has sucked since Gmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854441)

Yeah, just re-implement all the Android hardware drivers with their NSA-exploitable bugs and your are safe.

Re:Google has sucked since Gmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854615)

Yeah, just re-implement all the Android hardware drivers with their NSA-exploitable bugs and your are safe.

Unlike iOS. The NSA doesn't have to bother with drivers, there, they can have their backdoors in the main OS. It's much more efficient.

Re:Google has sucked since Gmail (1)

hibiki_r (649814) | about 6 months ago | (#46854433)

The first google maps almost put the entire competition out of business, mostly due to their brutal UI advantage. Big map windows, instead of tiny squares. Scrolling and zooming that made sense. It was as disruptive to a market as anything else Google has ever released.

Re:Google has sucked since Gmail (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#46855151)

On mobile, google maps used to have killer features like being able to save arbitrary rectangles for offline use.

These days if you want advanced features like that, you have to use open source mapping apps, because nobody else has any features other than navigation... and localized ads.

Re:Google has sucked since Gmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46855351)

On mobile, google maps used to have killer features like being able to save arbitrary rectangles for offline use.

These days if you want advanced features like that, you have to use open source mapping apps, because nobody else has any features other than navigation... and localized ads.

When you are in maps, try searching for "OK Maps".

forgot Google Maps (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 6 months ago | (#46855529)

Just want to make a correction: Google Maps is pretty awesome and I use it everyday

their re-design of Maps is textbook bad design though! removing and hiding features under memory-intensive animation you have to click to see

Re:Google has sucked since Gmail (1)

Eythian (552130) | about 6 months ago | (#46855903)

google maps used to have killer features like being able to save arbitrary rectangles for offline use.

Open maps, press on the search box, scroll to the bottom of the list that pops up. It's sorta hidden, but it's there.

Re:Google has sucked since Gmail (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#46855975)

it's sortof there, but they threw out most of the functionality

Re:Google has sucked since Gmail (1)

Xest (935314) | about 6 months ago | (#46857095)

"She was his girlfriend and spent millions of Google's money to justify her existence, then she hired her own PR team to get her a new bigger job...she didn't do *shit*...her title was "main page designer"...are you laughing? do you remember google.com's main page for about a decade? yeah just a logo, search field and two buttons"

Yet she's the first CEO at Yahoo in about a decade that actually seems to be turning the company around and raising it's share price.

"3. Glass, Google+, Google Wave, and maps redesign...it's clear now that Google has no idea how to make new products people want to use"

Except glass, maps and such are the most used products in their category because they still blow the competition out the water.

"why??? b/c of...idk...it's the most egregious copyright violation in computing...."

Because you don't know? because you can't see how making the entire history of human knowledge searchable might be a useful thing? The problem here definitely seems to be you. I think to most people it's quite obvious why that might be a good and useful thing. Sure it's a violation of copyright, but the implication of that statement is that we should not do something that would be a massive advancement for human knowledge because of copyright. How retardedly stupid. Copyright needs to die in it's present form for precisely this reason, good on Google for flagrantly violating it in this way for the sake of trying to do something far more important.

"Page is a good engineer...Brin is an airhead....they stopped sticking to the knitting long, long ago"

Yes, you're right, they're currently the only tech company actually demonstrating that they're getting somewhere producing anything new and interesting right now, from glass, to a decent OS for smartwatches, to self-driving vehicles, to robotics research, to AI research. Fact is, no other tech companies are doing so much varied and fruitful research at the moment. Or what, you think all tech companies should be like Microsoft? has-beens that rarely actually do anything new anymore? You seem to think it's a bad thing that a tech company diversify away from one thing, Search, it's not. On the contrary, that's how you grow a business - by diversifying into other markets, possibly even creating new markets. You probably think Apple shouldn't have made the iPod, iPad and iPhone too and should've just stuck to desktop computers right?

Re:Google has sucked since Gmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46862261)

I've heard that Microsoft Research actually does a fair amount of new research. Presumably they patent any discoveries but bury them to avoid competing with their existing product lines.

Re:Google has sucked since Gmail (1)

Xest (935314) | about 6 months ago | (#46866417)

MS does do a lot of research, there's no doubt about that, but it's not fruitful, or at least, they often have no idea how to put it in a real actual product.

The difference seems to be that Google finds difficult problems and tries to solve them, whilst Microsoft just researches whatever the researchers feel like researching and hopes it'll somehow be useful.

I don't think the Microsoft way is useless or without merit, but I think Google's approach is more fruitful in moving towards new products. Google is working on solutions for real actual problems, Microsoft is working on solutions in search of a problem.

Larry Going Down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854231)

Google owes France $1 Billion.

Let Larry cut the check. Ergo Larry down to $23 billion from $24 billion. Not a lot when Bill Gates can masturbate and get $10 Billion for less than an ounce of his sperm.

Google Down ... Google Down ... Google Go'n Way Down ... Down Down ... Beneath The Ground.

Ha ha.

Wow. All that Schmidt did to get the thousands of unregistered Swiss bank accounts. Wow. Big Loozer.

YANDEX.COM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854265)

One of the few alternatives which are genuine search engines, not just portals to the Google search engine.

For best hygiene, use with TOR.

Or submit to NSA and use Google.

Plus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46854393)

vkontakte.ru
mail.ru

Don't put all eggs into the nest circled by the NSA eagle.

AltaVista. How did Google really succeed? (3, Interesting)

aberglas (991072) | about 6 months ago | (#46855479)

Contrary to what all journalists think, the first major internet search indexer was not Google but AltaVista, circa 1995. It was written by just three people at DEC. The goal was not to sell advertising, nor even to make money. The goal was to show off their new Alpha servers that were so powerful that they could index the entire web (which was tiny at the time).

In the early days the web was small, there were no spamers, and things like Meta tags could be depended on. PageRank only became useful when the web grew. It is sensible, but is exactly what academics have used to rank papers for centuries -- citation citations citations... It is also an old idea from the hypertext community.

So the question is, how did Google succeed as a start up several years later? I would have written off their business plan as hopless. Internet search is an obvious thing to do, it has already been done, and if anyone will compete with AltaVista it will be the big boys throwing money at it. Yahoo, Microsoft etc.

But I would obviously have been wrong. Partly the reason is that Google back then was not run by MBAs. They did not try to extract as much advertising out of the search engine as possible. Nor full of flashing banner ads. Main search results relatively untainted by advertising. But it is still weird.

Weirder is the success of Android. There were giants like Nokia with decades of experience and bucket loads of cash. How could Apple and then a nothing company like Android blow them away?!!!

Better, was better, in the beginning (2)

ExChicken (662668) | about 6 months ago | (#46860473)

There was also the mere fact that Google's search engine was shockingly fast compared to the alternatives at the time and returned much more relevant content. You didn't want to use any other search engine and wait, wait, wait for dubious, and mostly garbage responses. Generally speaking, it made other search engines of the time irrelevant.

Re:AltaVista. How did Google really succeed? (1)

rk (6314) | about 6 months ago | (#46863337)

I think Google succeeded because Altavista threw away their lead in search to become one of those trendy but useless "portal" sites. Google's search page had the clean simplicity of what had been Altavista prior to then. Even today, the main Google page is pretty clean, with the other stuff kept fairly unobtrusive.

There was Webcrawler before Altavista too, but it was never very good (but better than nothing). Altavista was heads and shoulders above it when it came out.

the trick of emphasis (1)

epine (68316) | about 6 months ago | (#46857283)

If you just s/Android/Google+/g the tone of that whole piece goes from being a hagiography to a funeral dirge.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?