They don’t own a controlling stake. They own controlling voting power. This is because their shares translate to more voting power than regular shareholders.
If they do whatever they please, investors will retaliate some way, which isn't good. I don't know how that'd work in this scenario but I think that ousting them or just leaving all of the decisions to them since they can do whatever they want would work. Two people can't make the decisions an entire board should. That and they don't seem to want to be wealthier anyway, they were academic who found a way to get super rich, now it's time for them to be just academics and do what they like without worrying about tomorrow's meal or this months bills.
@@TheSeanjohn2012 As the video explain, they only have 14% of stocks, but they have 51% of vote. I don't know how that happens. Maybe 51% among the board of directors or something.
Some company have special policies about primary shares . If the primary shares with primary owner, they have 5-10 times more voting power compared with normal shares
Any company that starts with a goal of doing something will lose that goal as soon as it goes public, because majority of shareholders do not care about the goal, or making the world a better place. The only thing they care about is profit. So if you really want to change the world, never make your company public.
True, these shareholders are also pushing Google to layoff staff now. I can understand Meta laying off as their stock price has really taken a big hit, but Google is doing somewhat okay yet still there is a push for layoffs.
As a Google employee, I 100% think Larry was right, and it's a shame he didn't succeed at cutting down the management/bureaucracy. Every year we've seen an increase in management % of employees and a decrease in engineers' ability to self-select work areas, projects, promotion designations, peer reviews, etc. At this point, if you want to do/ask basically anything, you need to go through your manager, or manager's manager..
@@eitkoml The salaries are still great, although there is definitely a broader gap depending on your level in the company. The stock is still good (for me at least, with my original offer package from way back), although the value hasn't seen growth in a while and they do the deferred shares calculation based on when you receive them, not when you joined, but I think that's actually standard practice so I don't have any gripe with it. The QoL benefits matter more or less to some people; if you prefer WFH then it probably doesn't factor into your consideration, but if you enjoy cafes, gyms, on-site coffee, laundry, social events, etc., then other tech companies like FB would probably be more competitive (Google historically legendary onsite benefits haven't really come back yet in the post-pandemic, and may never). Anyways I'm not a lawyer or PR person so hopefully I don't get in trouble for sharing my opinion here, and I should probably add that the experience may vary widely depending on what part of the company you're in
slowly turning into a black sweatshop company? Innovation is the first thing to die when management gets in the way. I wonder how much of their work google engineers own in the end.
I visited Google in 2013, and I think it was the last era of true Googleyness and growth before things started to fall. That Google is definitely not the same Google that exists today. I don't know what happened, but the little girl in me who dreamed of working for Google had to give it up because that Google I dreamed of working for no longer exists.
They weren’t even hiring non Ivy League schools till 2013. By the time they were open to hire new people we don’t want them anymore. They did all this innovation but didn’t consider their company reputation
They got in bed with the govt. That's what happened. For all the crap we say about China's internet etc, we're not at all far behind, and we're far ahead in other ways. In neither of those are any good things.
As a former Googler, Sergey was always a friendly guy. Larry just wanted to focus on building cool things and tried to see if he could do that as CEO. Ultimately it wasn't the right job for him. They still retain the majority of the voting shares. One day at TGIF - (weekly all hands when company was still small) one of the employees asked Larry and Sergey if they missed coding and they both said "yes..." before elaborating on lessons they learned in management.
i will love if they come back and save google.. because from this user perspective, are not improving google docks tools ( AI, is not really a want) , dropped good services, google meets ended a scamming tool ( boy friend / girlfriend scam), the search engine show me 3 pages a not 1 relevant result. and Gmail, broke the promise of never needing to erase an email ( yep I am an old user), y got invitation. So, ruined the beat product, drop interesting ones without even marketing them, i cannot find anything in internet, wondering if I can come back to Altavista… I used to love this company, now I am frustrated with the products.
As a scientist I respect Larry’s philosophy, but good management is important for any big project that requires people to work together to succeed. Personally, I would only hire managers who have proven themselves first in a technical (science/engineering) field. I wonder if they were forced to hire too many bean counters who have no understanding of anything except money
Oversight and accountability may just be inconveniences for a hard working genius, but for the rest of us their essential. I really like that the funders just go off and do what they want, instead of being dragged into jobs their not suitable for.
I strongly think that Google would be much better off under larry's and surgey's leadership just imagine what Google would be if they haven't acquired Android , RUclips and self driving car. Back in 2014 when I was high school I use to love Google for their crazy projects like Google glasses etc they seemed so much more innovative and cool. Investors are short sighted they only care about quick profit .
Shareholders are the downfall of companies. Founders usually go public with the intention of cashing out their shares of the company and don't care if the shareholders cause the company to crash and burn. I also think that after making Sundar Pinchai the CEO the 2 founders just realized that they like things like having leisure time and getting 8 hours of sleep per day. Eventually they just decided to retire and live life as some of the richest people on earth both in terms of money and time. After all their attempts to fund the R&D for a method to make humans immortal have definitely failed by now, so they're just going to enjoy the time they have left to live.
@@eitkoml its not that plain and simple, shareholders are neither good/bad but is always case to case basis. market dynamics can also take in to place and when there are no public offering or shareholders/investors the company will not be able to fund the needed advancement before the lose the opportunity. anyperson that has stake on the company can cause its downfall, any factor that affects the company can cause its downfall.
Remember that Google has never managed to get a single AR app for their $2 Cardboard in a decade and absolutely failed Google Glass. Who could fail such a gift?! Only the not-super-smartest.
Remember that the new Google has never managed to get a single AR app for their $2 Cardboard and absolutely failed Google Glass. Who could fail such a gift?! Only the not-super-smartest.
While I agree with Larry's anti management stance, every corporation needs to be held accountable by some outside entity. We have seen all the proof we need that corporations will violate every common sense decency in the book in the pursuit of profits, so they must be closely regulated for the benefit of the public.
@@CrispyOkra That is one example of many when it comes to corporate malfeasance. The fact that there is never any real accountability proves how much control corporations have over gov't regulators.
*You just did not realize/heard that Larry is LITERALLY the type of guy who does not care about pursuit of profits but pursuit of groundbreaking changes and innovations.* Google under his management would have done even more tech breakthroughs without government reins.
Well, it is very easy. As soon as public shareholders take over there is no vision anymore. It is about one thing, and one thing only, profit. If it was allowed and profitable they would engage in child trafficking and whatever. There is zero morale, zero vision, just profits. It is no surprise that Google's massive innovation left together with Sergey and Larry.
I guess "Don't be evil" was easy to implement at the start, but then they had to bend backward for investors and NSA/US government. After that, the slogan became a slogan for double morals. But, besides that, I guess they are not doing too badly on the evil part.
Remember that Google has never managed to get a single AR app for their $2 Cardboard in a decade and absolutely failed Google Glass. Who could fail such a gift?! Only the not-super-smartest.
I think the last rule was always the first rule "don't be evil" that's what their goal, unfortunately as you grow and have to answer to others probably,most likely, highly guarantee even to the government...thennn you start losing interest in what you start it all for....I think they had a different idea but between competition and making investors happy........that "dont be evil" written on code lines disappeared and they also did...
I love Larry and Sergei. In fact the moment they cut down on Google X lab projects and pushed Larry and Sergei, there start demise of Google innovation.
you should never ever kick founders out of a company. I don't care what they did. its there company not ours, yes we are shareholders and lucky to go through the roller coster ride with them. but, when you are investing in a company you are no investing in the company, you invest in there creativity and there Passion. That Apple for example, Steve Jobs my not be present but his soul is still blended into the company. the only reason Apple exist is because of him.
I believe the opposite. The wealthier a person is.. it's wiser to avoid public attention. I have lots of respect for Larry Page in that regard. He stays away from people who cause drama and stays out of the limelight.
As google grew and went public, it simply outgrew their management capabilities. It's really that simple, it wasn't their strength. Hardly the first time this has happened in tech. Brin checked out a long time ago. Now they can sit back and enjoy all the money they have from their initial idea that made them both billionaires many times over.
Love this. As an Engineer myself, resonate with these guys opinions. I love building software to solve the problems I face, but when someone keeps telling me that no, don’t do this, it is quite frustrating. Good for them.
It does depends. If you are building software for clients, then clients will tell you what to do, through project managers or customer success managers. You can't just build whatever you want, without knowing what the customers or target demographics are looking for. You are building something for OTHERS to use, which means you need to know how they will use it, not how YOU will use it.
Google Books was a very great service. I used it a lot some years ago. But today the service is mostly broken. No more fulltext, only fragments. It shows you that your search query appears in the book, but it doesn't show you the text of the search result anymore. I don't know, maybe there is a premium subsription or something, but not even that is clearly apparent.
I believe in the power of research and so many people find great careers, information and inspiration from the internet. From 2 PhD students looking to bring information and knowledge to the masses, having had their idea chopped to making money off of what's viral had to be a hard pill for academics to swallow. True academic is always about learning and about the knowledge. In 20 years or so when social media will be doomed evil and less profitable then maybe a shift for actual research and knowledge will take a hold. Only time will tell
I completely have to agree with Larry. Tech people should NEVER report to non-tech people in development. Good people need no managers. They manage themselves. Set goals, revise offer support, and stop programs if needed. All of those require that you understand the technology.
Yes, but that will never work when you are using someone else's money... So much money in tech - it honestly boggles me that many founders prefer to have overlords...
@@arodvaz1528 I am yet to be convinced they are worse than other groups.. they may be left-leaning, so biased, though, but not my a huge margin', I'd say..
Larry and Page shouldn't have left Google. They are the reason why Google is different from other big tech with long history like IBM, Oracle, etc.. Now, Google will become IBM in due time. This is sad. I guess every human will eventually worn out. Sad...
@@LogicallyAnswered Examples: Game companies having aggressive monetization schemes (microtransactions), car and any device manufacturers trying to outlaw your right to fix your devices you own (right to repair) not to mention BMW asking for a subscription to use a heated seat that’s a physical object preinstalled on your car, printer companies to monopolize what ink you can use on your machine, music and movie companies to demand more harsher copyright policy at the detriment of legitimate rights of any users. All of these cripple your digital rights, are being anti-consumer, or just outright create a problem and rent a solution (not sell, rent, as in a subscription).
@@LogicallyAnswered Shareholders are therefore asking for an economic crash. Already there’s too many greedy corporations asking for more. And there’s currently inflation. With purchase power being in decline, eventually there’ll be no more cash in the well.
@@ghb323 i won't defend anyone here but I think game companies should continue with the microtxs. If they put up their game for free then they need some sort of source of rev and ig the best way they found is through microtxs.
Creepy surveillance aside, it's always good for a company when the founders realise that the the company that they created can flourish more with the right people which might not necessarily be them... Or they could turn into Facebook
Vision is the foundation of any organization and company. The more steady the vision the stronger it can become. If the vision is not strong enough to sustain something as massive as Google. Then the vision needs to be changed for the better.
That's a good point. The founders are often NOT the people to manage a company once it reaches a certain size, especially on the scale Alphabet has become.
perhaps they could use the money (and experiences) they gained to start a new one that they're happy with. they're still young. john carmack is one example.
@@Archipelagoes Envisioning a new technology and a related business can occur in a flash, sometimes in a waking dream or the middle of the night. The qualities required to develop, lead, and manage one of the world's biggest business based on the vision can be entirely different. Elon Musk, for example, bought into one of the world's greatest companies--something that the founders could very likely not come close to achieving.
If bunch of smart engineers can work together as a team by putting their personal ego aside then obviously managers would not be required, but that’s not the case unfortunately.
He didn't get the book thing right, it came down to copyright law. Also, they created a very good browser however, that doesn't mean you can be all things to all aspects of a company like this. That is why it's best to build a team to support the areas you are not good at.
No , it is always wise to put smart minds in charge after some time .. just like our children, We can't keep them life long . They should be left free. To grow to greater heights.
10:47 they didn't want for Google to lose its identity as a research institution either, now I might understand why its initial project to access all the books globally was demoted.
This hits at the heart of a truth most people don't want to see, and this truth is that most founders are not superspecial enlightened beings, they are capable people yes, but mostly they were at the right place, at the right time, and with the right tool. Google and Facebook are excelent examples of this, all of them would have had brilliant tech or research carreers, but they kind of 'stumbled' into something that was perfect for the moment. Because what if Larry and Sergey had been born 15 years before or 15 years after? Would the world wait for their search algoritm? Or someone else would have come up with something similar just 5 or 10 years later? Same for FB, how long before someone comes up with a good social network? Would Zuckerberg still beat said network if he comes even 5 years later? I'm not discrediting or saying they don't have merit, what I'm saying is that these are "normal" people catapulted by incredible success. The thing is that creating an amazing math algorithm doesn't make you know the best way to manage even an small company. But the individual swept by this huge success starts thinking they are indeed all knowing people and that they know best at every single matter, no matter how far this is from their actual field of expertise.
Well put. They largely succeeded by hiring professional managers that knew how to manage large originations. It was either of the founder's strength. Brin realized that before Page and quickly backed away.
Unlike Zucks, Brin and Page gave up the company as soon as they took it public and gave up their majority stakes....Brilliant innovators don't necessarily convert that brilliance into other spheres. Not that Zucks is such a great businessman, but he was smart enough never to have given up control of his own company.....
Neither did these two. While the (vast) majority of shares are now public, the ones that Page and Brin (and Schmidt) hold have ten times the voting power of regular shares. Page and Brin still have a combined 51% voting power. So they could stop this company "being evil" tomorrow if they wanted to..
Brin and Page have adapted well and successfully. Zucks, on the other hand, well just take a look the $$$ incurred for Metaverse that has never taken off.
Some constructive criticism: work on the way your say some words, like when you said 51% you said it way too fast. I had to listen to it 4 times before I could hear it. Your videos would become better if you improved your narrating.
I think giving managers too much power is always bad idea. Speaking from experience. Gotta side with them. They are like mediators who doesn't add any value and waste everyone's time by scheduling random conference calls.
A bank manager at my bank. when I was opening a second account told me that windows 7 would not be insecure just because Microsoft would no longer be maintaining it . He also believed that windows took care of everything through updates--he really got miffed when I suggested that most computer hacking fiascos were the result of Management thinking it knew more than IT ! I'm kind of a Noob so, I may be wrong here in thinking he didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground .
Larry was always very altruistic and seeking ways to help all of mankind / the planet. However, with his head in the clouds, he was difficult to work effectively with and wasn't good at the day-to-day running of a business. Sergey was trying to build the cool new thing, was not invested in making incremental improvements to existing organizations or processes. He was never executing to get to some eventual desired state.
That tendency hasn't gone away though, the Google Graveyard has numerous new plots every year as the company gives up on projects and products. It's to the point that it seriously damages future prospects - wariness of Google pulling the plug is a big part of why Stadia failed, for example (along with a bad business model that was never reevaluated). As a company, Google continues to chase the Next Big Thing, and doesn't tolerate or retool if something doesn't work out in the first couple years, or is only moderately profitable.
Here's one thing I like about this vid. In the first 2 minutes you answer the question. You don't leave it for the end like so many other vids do to force me to stay. You answer it and then, if I want more info, I can choose to stay. This is a good thing. Gonna subscribe just to encourage this even though I probably won't view many other of your videos. Keep up the good work.
So basically you gonna sub him but won't help him gain watch hours and hence funds to produce such videos 😂 that's precisely where engineers and product managers would fight on how to progress
I actually think them five rules actually worked for the company, It led to some amusing things in there Google Labs project. Obviously only the best stuff from the labs made it to the final Google. But it was excellent at asking users there viewpoints on things and made the user feel like they had some input on Google.
Pure project managers with little to no introspection in what's being done is very overvalued... Very... A lot of project managers add really little value in a lot of scenarios...
"Don't be evil" is a phrase used in Google's corporate code of conduct, which it also formerly preceded as a motto. Following Google's corporate restructuring under the conglomerate Alphabet Inc. in October 2015, Alphabet took "Do the right thing" as its motto, also forming the opening of its corporate code of conduct.
they got old and decided they prefer $$$ than to follow their ideals. Since they don't have enough balls to push things that direction on their own, they hired someone else to do the dirty job for them while they just count $$$. It's really sad: I used to respect them a lot back in 2000s... I remember Sergey announcing in 2010 that Google would move its business out of China as he didn't want his company to participate in censorship: I thought to myself then: "that's the man to follow!". now all of that is gone...
yeah, then proceed to censor, what US wants to censor hahaha, almost forgot, Democratic Societies don't use censor. they just have an adult decision to just remove some things that shouldn't be mention
Remember that Google has never managed to get a single AR app for their $2 Cardboard in a decade and absolutely failed Google Glass. Who could fail such a gift?! Only the not-super-smartest.
Well, AFAIK theY have dropped that motto quite a while ago and some of the scandals coming to light also point to the fact that not being evil is no longer a central tennet of the corporate ethics. Overall I still think they are better than Microsoft or Facebook though. However, It is quite clean that Google has lost its ability to make moonshots turn into viable business. The reason is probably that no technologist with a tech-vision is driving the company.
Google used to be exciting. They were taking on lofty/outlandish goals. They appear to be on cruise control today. Rather than blazing their own path, they’re just looking at their bottom line and keeping pace with their competitors. I lost my interest in the company.
i hate these flash cuts of quotes. Barely enough time to read the bloody quote never mind catch any context. I know you are far from the only channel to do this, but when you're using stock image videos of 'business' types, I would think a little more actual content would be relished.
If they still own a controlling stake, then why should they even care about someone else's opinion?
They don’t own a controlling stake. They own controlling voting power. This is because their shares translate to more voting power than regular shareholders.
@@LogicallyAnswered so basically they get the final say on board decisions?
If they do whatever they please, investors will retaliate some way, which isn't good. I don't know how that'd work in this scenario but I think that ousting them or just leaving all of the decisions to them since they can do whatever they want would work. Two people can't make the decisions an entire board should.
That and they don't seem to want to be wealthier anyway, they were academic who found a way to get super rich, now it's time for them to be just academics and do what they like without worrying about tomorrow's meal or this months bills.
@@TheSeanjohn2012 As the video explain, they only have 14% of stocks, but they have 51% of vote. I don't know how that happens. Maybe 51% among the board of directors or something.
Some company have special policies about primary shares . If the primary shares with primary owner, they have 5-10 times more voting power compared with normal shares
The most searched word on Bing is "Google".
Hahaha, that’s actually hilarious 😂
The owner of bing would have been very pissed.
If you don't know how to change your default search engine then you're not a demo that matters
And most of the rest are coming from DuckDuckGo, which works much better than Google nowdays.
Now Google says pregnant women should smoke 3 times a day
Any company that starts with a goal of doing something will lose that goal as soon as it goes public, because majority of shareholders do not care about the goal, or making the world a better place.
The only thing they care about is profit.
So if you really want to change the world, never make your company public.
True, these shareholders are also pushing Google to layoff staff now. I can understand Meta laying off as their stock price has really taken a big hit, but Google is doing somewhat okay yet still there is a push for layoffs.
As a Google employee, I 100% think Larry was right, and it's a shame he didn't succeed at cutting down the management/bureaucracy.
Every year we've seen an increase in management % of employees and a decrease in engineers' ability to self-select work areas, projects, promotion designations, peer reviews, etc. At this point, if you want to do/ask basically anything, you need to go through your manager, or manager's manager..
It's just a regular job now. Are the salaries and stock options still awesome?
@@eitkoml The salaries are still great, although there is definitely a broader gap depending on your level in the company. The stock is still good (for me at least, with my original offer package from way back), although the value hasn't seen growth in a while and they do the deferred shares calculation based on when you receive them, not when you joined, but I think that's actually standard practice so I don't have any gripe with it.
The QoL benefits matter more or less to some people; if you prefer WFH then it probably doesn't factor into your consideration, but if you enjoy cafes, gyms, on-site coffee, laundry, social events, etc., then other tech companies like FB would probably be more competitive (Google historically legendary onsite benefits haven't really come back yet in the post-pandemic, and may never).
Anyways I'm not a lawyer or PR person so hopefully I don't get in trouble for sharing my opinion here, and I should probably add that the experience may vary widely depending on what part of the company you're in
google is a cancer - thanks a lot
that's why Google will be doomed
slowly turning into a black sweatshop company?
Innovation is the first thing to die when management gets in the way.
I wonder how much of their work google engineers own in the end.
ironic that Larry does not like oversight since he built the largest surveilance company in the world
That might’ve factored into why he left
It's possible this was not his intention
Not really
Brainwashed by Apple. It's not how it works at all.
nope you wrong that island idea of their can tell us that they were feed up from usa gov spy requests
I visited Google in 2013, and I think it was the last era of true Googleyness and growth before things started to fall. That Google is definitely not the same Google that exists today. I don't know what happened, but the little girl in me who dreamed of working for Google had to give it up because that Google I dreamed of working for no longer exists.
They weren’t even hiring non Ivy League schools till 2013. By the time they were open to hire new people we don’t want them anymore. They did all this innovation but didn’t consider their company reputation
They got in bed with the govt. That's what happened. For all the crap we say about China's internet etc, we're not at all far behind, and we're far ahead in other ways. In neither of those are any good things.
Yes. Glass was a complete failure that exposed how bad things were
Same. I was there in 2008. But over time I preferred building my own company.
Investors and Management Consultants always destroy anything good, for the good and adding another penny to balance sheet.
As a former Googler, Sergey was always a friendly guy. Larry just wanted to focus on building cool things and tried to see if he could do that as CEO. Ultimately it wasn't the right job for him. They still retain the majority of the voting shares.
One day at TGIF - (weekly all hands when company was still small) one of the employees asked Larry and Sergey if they missed coding and they both said "yes..." before elaborating on lessons they learned in management.
Sergey is now casually coding GPT on a day to day basis with OpenAI.
Idk why but this is such a cool motivational story ty
i will love if they come back and save google.. because from this user perspective, are not improving google docks tools ( AI, is not really a want) , dropped good services, google meets ended a scamming tool ( boy friend / girlfriend scam), the search engine show me 3 pages a not 1 relevant result. and Gmail, broke the promise of never needing to erase an email ( yep I am an old user), y got invitation. So, ruined the beat product, drop interesting ones without even marketing them, i cannot find anything in internet, wondering if I can come back to Altavista… I used to love this company, now I am frustrated with the products.
But Google growed under Larry so i may assume that he was a good CEO? He just didn't like the role maybe
I miss a Google with Larry and Sergey in the spotlight. Unpretentious CEOs, loved it.
Honestly sounds like what Mark should have done.
Savage
As a scientist I respect Larry’s philosophy, but good management is important for any big project that requires people to work together to succeed. Personally, I would only hire managers who have proven themselves first in a technical (science/engineering) field. I wonder if they were forced to hire too many bean counters who have no understanding of anything except money
Google already removed their slogan "Don't be evil" couple of years ago.
Hahaha, I wonder why
I don’t think it’s removed, believe it’s just moved further back down on their annual docket.
@@LogicallyAnswered Because the comprises that have been committed by this company have bedeviled it & thus this title would suffer abject sarcasm.
There was an internal argument over it and they changed it to "Do the right thing"
its now do the right thing
Larry Page is a genius and an entrepreneur, not a businessman.
Oversight and accountability may just be inconveniences for a hard working genius, but for the rest of us their essential.
I really like that the funders just go off and do what they want, instead of being dragged into jobs their not suitable for.
The simple answer is "He was secretly laid off" 🤨
I strongly think that Google would be much better off under larry's and surgey's leadership just imagine what Google would be if they haven't acquired Android , RUclips and self driving car.
Back in 2014 when I was high school I use to love Google for their crazy projects like Google glasses etc they seemed so much more innovative and cool.
Investors are short sighted they only care about quick profit .
Shareholders are the downfall of companies. Founders usually go public with the intention of cashing out their shares of the company and don't care if the shareholders cause the company to crash and burn.
I also think that after making Sundar Pinchai the CEO the 2 founders just realized that they like things like having leisure time and getting 8 hours of sleep per day. Eventually they just decided to retire and live life as some of the richest people on earth both in terms of money and time. After all their attempts to fund the R&D for a method to make humans immortal have definitely failed by now, so they're just going to enjoy the time they have left to live.
@@eitkoml its not that plain and simple, shareholders are neither good/bad but is always case to case basis.
market dynamics can also take in to place and when there are no public offering or shareholders/investors the company will not be able to fund the needed advancement before the lose the opportunity.
anyperson that has stake on the company can cause its downfall, any factor that affects the company can cause its downfall.
Remember that Google has never managed to get a single AR app for their $2 Cardboard in a decade and absolutely failed Google Glass. Who could fail such a gift?! Only the not-super-smartest.
Get this man to 1 million subs already.
That’s the dream :)
the old Google was better. It stood for something. They were trying to build things that were greater for humanity.
Remember that the new Google has never managed to get a single AR app for their $2 Cardboard and absolutely failed Google Glass. Who could fail such a gift?! Only the not-super-smartest.
While I agree with Larry's anti management stance, every corporation needs to be held accountable by some outside entity. We have seen all the proof we need that corporations will violate every common sense decency in the book in the pursuit of profits, so they must be closely regulated for the benefit of the public.
Like RUclipss out of hand censorship and demonetization.
@@CrispyOkra That is one example of many when it comes to corporate malfeasance. The fact that there is never any real accountability proves how much control corporations have over gov't regulators.
*You just did not realize/heard that Larry is LITERALLY the type of guy who does not care about pursuit of profits but pursuit of groundbreaking changes and innovations.* Google under his management would have done even more tech breakthroughs without government reins.
@@pcost Your willful ignorance annoys me.
Well, it is very easy. As soon as public shareholders take over there is no vision anymore. It is about one thing, and one thing only, profit. If it was allowed and profitable they would engage in child trafficking and whatever. There is zero morale, zero vision, just profits. It is no surprise that Google's massive innovation left together with Sergey and Larry.
I guess "Don't be evil" was easy to implement at the start, but then they had to bend backward for investors and NSA/US government. After that, the slogan became a slogan for double morals. But, besides that, I guess they are not doing too badly on the evil part.
I forgot what they changed it to but they don't use the don't be evil policy any more.
I think Google would be more Googley with original founders but not as financially successful.
True
We don't know that. Those guys built something remarkable, until managers came in and changed it.
@@mailmeabhilash Founders build startups, CEO's scale corporations. They cannot run Google.
Remember that Google has never managed to get a single AR app for their $2 Cardboard in a decade and absolutely failed Google Glass. Who could fail such a gift?! Only the not-super-smartest.
I think the last rule was always the first rule "don't be evil" that's what their goal, unfortunately as you grow and have to answer to others probably,most likely, highly guarantee even to the government...thennn you start losing interest in what you start it all for....I think they had a different idea but between competition and making investors happy........that "dont be evil" written on code lines disappeared and they also did...
The "Don't be evil" thing is, well, just a memory, a memory of an idea that never really existed!
I love Larry and Sergei. In fact the moment they cut down on Google X lab projects and pushed Larry and Sergei, there start demise of Google innovation.
you should never ever kick founders out of a company. I don't care what they did. its there company not ours, yes we are shareholders and lucky to go through the roller coster ride with them. but, when you are investing in a company you are no investing in the company, you invest in there creativity and there Passion.
That Apple for example, Steve Jobs my not be present but his soul is still blended into the company. the only reason Apple exist is because of him.
Larry and Sergei deserve more public attention than they get.
I believe they don't want to be on spotlight :) in comparison to some attention whore :D
@@tomasprochazka6198 hahahah yea, u definitely have a point :)
I believe the opposite. The wealthier a person is.. it's wiser to avoid public attention. I have lots of respect for Larry Page in that regard. He stays away from people who cause drama and stays out of the limelight.
that's the goal :)
I don't think the guys share the same opinion. W/o the spotlight, Sergey is now banging whoever he wants. he is have a blast!
As google grew and went public, it simply outgrew their management capabilities. It's really that simple, it wasn't their strength. Hardly the first time this has happened in tech. Brin checked out a long time ago. Now they can sit back and enjoy all the money they have from their initial idea that made them both billionaires many times over.
Public companies’ Achilles’ heel, Investors…
*1:55* one of the founders' goals was *"don't be evil"* Google is one of the most evil companies now.
there are a lot of companies much more evil than Google.
Evil cause the investors only care about the cash not the future...
Love this. As an Engineer myself, resonate with these guys opinions. I love building software to solve the problems I face, but when someone keeps telling me that no, don’t do this, it is quite frustrating. Good for them.
And project managers with deadlines based on their wishes are not helpful. More than anything, they slow things down.
@@TheBooban especially the ones with no technical background. They're the worst.
It does depends. If you are building software for clients, then clients will tell you what to do, through project managers or customer success managers. You can't just build whatever you want, without knowing what the customers or target demographics are looking for. You are building something for OTHERS to use, which means you need to know how they will use it, not how YOU will use it.
Especially when they don’t have a technical background.
You will build according to what your client asks of you, definitely not what you want. You can do that in your free time.
Google Books was a very great service. I used it a lot some years ago. But today the service is mostly broken. No more fulltext, only fragments. It shows you that your search query appears in the book, but it doesn't show you the text of the search result anymore. I don't know, maybe there is a premium subsription or something, but not even that is clearly apparent.
I believe in the power of research and so many people find great careers, information and inspiration from the internet. From 2 PhD students looking to bring information and knowledge to the masses, having had their idea chopped to making money off of what's viral had to be a hard pill for academics to swallow. True academic is always about learning and about the knowledge.
In 20 years or so when social media will be doomed evil and less profitable then maybe a shift for actual research and knowledge will take a hold. Only time will tell
Zuckerberg needs to follow them and leave what they created
Microsoft will eventually buy Google
I completely have to agree with Larry. Tech people should NEVER report to non-tech people in development. Good people need no managers. They manage themselves. Set goals, revise offer support, and stop programs if needed. All of those require that you understand the technology.
Yes, but that will never work when you are using someone else's money... So much money in tech - it honestly boggles me that many founders prefer to have overlords...
Sure! As we all know, tech people are the paragon of ethical values.
@@arodvaz1528 I am yet to be convinced they are worse than other groups.. they may be left-leaning, so biased, though, but not my a huge margin', I'd say..
Larry and Page shouldn't have left Google. They are the reason why Google is different from other big tech with long history like IBM, Oracle, etc.. Now, Google will become IBM in due time. This is sad. I guess every human will eventually worn out. Sad...
Amazing how this channel keeps producing so many films a week! Thank you! (... and yes, they are films)
Hahaha, thank you so much man!
@@LogicallyAnswered you're on a roll man. Your consistency is off the charts!
It's AI generated voice
manusia yg jd api teriak/menjerit 5m decibel (satan) yg siksa Allah swt (manusia dari tanah liat derajatnya lebih tinggi)
Google is amazing
i like larry. he understands technology. investors are a necessary evil
The only reason why Pichai is CEO is because he has that india connection to cheap labor just like Microsoft does. That is the reality.
How you can say that?
Should shareholders be the blame of why corporations lose their soul and become corrupted?
Probably
@@LogicallyAnswered Examples: Game companies having aggressive monetization schemes (microtransactions), car and any device manufacturers trying to outlaw your right to fix your devices you own (right to repair) not to mention BMW asking for a subscription to use a heated seat that’s a physical object preinstalled on your car, printer companies to monopolize what ink you can use on your machine, music and movie companies to demand more harsher copyright policy at the detriment of legitimate rights of any users.
All of these cripple your digital rights, are being anti-consumer, or just outright create a problem and rent a solution (not sell, rent, as in a subscription).
@@LogicallyAnswered Shareholders are therefore asking for an economic crash. Already there’s too many greedy corporations asking for more. And there’s currently inflation. With purchase power being in decline, eventually there’ll be no more cash in the well.
yes
@@ghb323 i won't defend anyone here but I think game companies should continue with the microtxs. If they put up their game for free then they need some sort of source of rev and ig the best way they found is through microtxs.
Seeing what Alphabet is doing with Boston Dynamics tells me they forgot about "Don't Be Evil."
Creepy surveillance aside, it's always good for a company when the founders realise that the the company that they created can flourish more with the right people which might not necessarily be them... Or they could turn into Facebook
Vision is the foundation of any organization and company.
The more steady the vision the stronger it can become.
If the vision is not strong enough to sustain something as massive as Google. Then the vision needs to be changed for the better.
@@ArchipelagoesTruDat
That's a good point. The founders are often NOT the people to manage a company once it reaches a certain size, especially on the scale Alphabet has become.
perhaps they could use the money (and experiences) they gained to start a new one that they're happy with. they're still young. john carmack is one example.
@@Archipelagoes Envisioning a new technology and a related business can occur in a flash, sometimes in a waking dream or the middle of the night. The qualities required to develop, lead, and manage one of the world's biggest business based on the vision can be entirely different. Elon Musk, for example, bought into one of the world's greatest companies--something that the founders could very likely not come close to achieving.
If bunch of smart engineers can work together as a team by putting their personal ego aside then obviously managers would not be required, but that’s not the case unfortunately.
He didn't get the book thing right, it came down to copyright law. Also, they created a very good browser however, that doesn't mean you can be all things to all aspects of a company like this. That is why it's best to build a team to support the areas you are not good at.
Is it ironic Larry Page is the co-founder of Google Page rank?
Hahaha
And made PageRank, to rank pages. Not Page's rank. It was simply his destiny to give us the perfect search engine. Until the tracking came in :/
It's not ironic it's appropriate
Why is it ironic? He's a STEM graduate, I think he's got a maths degree.
Most commenters did not get the joke lol
No , it is always wise to put smart minds in charge after some time .. just like our children, We can't keep them life long . They should be left free. To grow to greater heights.
If they weren't greedy to get big, they would still be innovating there.
At the end of the day, the investors own the company - Lowkeyy
Have a great day. 😊
10:47 they didn't want for Google to lose its identity as a research institution either, now I might understand why its initial project to access all the books globally was demoted.
This hits at the heart of a truth most people don't want to see, and this truth is that most founders are not superspecial enlightened beings, they are capable people yes, but mostly they were at the right place, at the right time, and with the right tool. Google and Facebook are excelent examples of this, all of them would have had brilliant tech or research carreers, but they kind of 'stumbled' into something that was perfect for the moment. Because what if Larry and Sergey had been born 15 years before or 15 years after? Would the world wait for their search algoritm? Or someone else would have come up with something similar just 5 or 10 years later? Same for FB, how long before someone comes up with a good social network? Would Zuckerberg still beat said network if he comes even 5 years later?
I'm not discrediting or saying they don't have merit, what I'm saying is that these are "normal" people catapulted by incredible success. The thing is that creating an amazing math algorithm doesn't make you know the best way to manage even an small company. But the individual swept by this huge success starts thinking they are indeed all knowing people and that they know best at every single matter, no matter how far this is from their actual field of expertise.
Well put. They largely succeeded by hiring professional managers that knew how to manage large originations. It was either of the founder's strength. Brin realized that before Page and quickly backed away.
If you're a hammer everything looks like a nail and managers are most assuredly a hammer.
Unlike Zucks, Brin and Page gave up the company as soon as they took it public and gave up their majority stakes....Brilliant innovators don't necessarily convert that brilliance into other spheres. Not that Zucks is such a great businessman, but he was smart enough never to have given up control of his own company.....
Neither did these two. While the (vast) majority of shares are now public, the ones that Page and Brin (and Schmidt) hold have ten times the voting power of regular shares.
Page and Brin still have a combined 51% voting power. So they could stop this company "being evil" tomorrow if they wanted to..
@@sigi9669 still got booted from their own company
Brin and Page have adapted well and successfully.
Zucks, on the other hand, well just take a look the $$$ incurred for Metaverse that has never taken off.
Some constructive criticism: work on the way your say some words, like when you said 51% you said it way too fast. I had to listen to it 4 times before I could hear it. Your videos would become better if you improved your narrating.
I think giving managers too much power is always bad idea. Speaking from experience. Gotta side with them. They are like mediators who doesn't add any value and waste everyone's time by scheduling random conference calls.
A bank manager at my bank. when I was opening a second account told me that windows 7 would not be insecure just because Microsoft would no longer be maintaining it . He also believed that windows took care of everything through updates--he really got miffed when I suggested that most computer hacking fiascos were the result of Management thinking it knew more than IT ! I'm kind of a Noob so, I may be wrong here in thinking he didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground .
@@edwardmacnab354 not wong at all XD
Larry was always very altruistic and seeking ways to help all of mankind / the planet. However, with his head in the clouds, he was difficult to work effectively with and wasn't good at the day-to-day running of a business.
Sergey was trying to build the cool new thing, was not invested in making incremental improvements to existing organizations or processes. He was never executing to get to some eventual desired state.
That tendency hasn't gone away though, the Google Graveyard has numerous new plots every year as the company gives up on projects and products. It's to the point that it seriously damages future prospects - wariness of Google pulling the plug is a big part of why Stadia failed, for example (along with a bad business model that was never reevaluated). As a company, Google continues to chase the Next Big Thing, and doesn't tolerate or retool if something doesn't work out in the first couple years, or is only moderately profitable.
Google has become more bureaucratic, less innovative and in my opinion less competitive since Larry.
Larry's heart was definitely in the right place, and I miss his Google.
WHY IS GOOGLE LEAVING GOOGLE?
DON'T
UNO
NO
NO
WHAT YOU ARE DOING 4FREE?
AND+AMEN
emang ada Allah swt di dunia ini(pemerkosa dan konco2nya yg mocking dg syahadat)
They want to escape the matrix.
1. Make a billions.
2. Off the grid.
Here's one thing I like about this vid. In the first 2 minutes you answer the question. You don't leave it for the end like so many other vids do to force me to stay. You answer it and then, if I want more info, I can choose to stay. This is a good thing. Gonna subscribe just to encourage this even though I probably won't view many other of your videos. Keep up the good work.
True
So basically you gonna sub him but won't help him gain watch hours and hence funds to produce such videos 😂 that's precisely where engineers and product managers would fight on how to progress
@@aniketprasad3128 lmao and exactly why youtubers leave the answers until later in the video.
Low key, they dropped off the face of the earth!! Crazy to see and hear!!
For real, especially given their power and status
@@LogicallyAnswered China: See. Everybody can catch the Jack Ma flu and must retire.
I think you had also made 2 videos earlier on this channel on Google founders but nonetheless got some new information.
Yep :)
I actually think them five rules actually worked for the company, It led to some amusing things in there Google Labs project. Obviously only the best stuff from the labs made it to the final Google. But it was excellent at asking users there viewpoints on things and made the user feel like they had some input on Google.
Google would be much better under Larry and Surgei
Larry Page seems far more mentally stable than Sergey Brin.
Pure project managers with little to no introspection in what's being done is very overvalued... Very...
A lot of project managers add really little value in a lot of scenarios...
I couldn't understand the story...
Managers feeling humiliated after being insulted in front of a group. Omg my heart weeps for them.
Hahaha
Non technical PMs are very much a waste of money.
Can you please stop making this addictive video.
Seriously, I can't stop watching and I need to go to sleep.
I’m sure sundar talks to Larry and Sergei every week
The slogan was changed a few years ago. It's not don't be evil anymore
He couldn't solve the leetcode problems.
Fast forward a couple years, everyone is trying to get rid of middle managers....
"Don't be evil" is a phrase used in Google's corporate code of conduct, which it also formerly preceded as a motto. Following Google's corporate restructuring under the conglomerate Alphabet Inc. in October 2015, Alphabet took "Do the right thing" as its motto, also forming the opening of its corporate code of conduct.
I like 4 of the rules though lol. Nothing on Larry's partner though.
Pls stop putting that music in the BG 😢I can't focus on the content
Wasn't this video published last year too?
Yeah, this one focused on different factors and reasons
The day google did buy Yutube then 4K play buffers too slow.
Right, Schmidt didn’t know they bought Android in 2005 when Schmidt was on Apples board and the iPhone came out 2 years later in 2007. Right.
Sunder has killed Google.
they got old and decided they prefer $$$ than to follow their ideals. Since they don't have enough balls to push things that direction on their own, they hired someone else to do the dirty job for them while they just count $$$. It's really sad: I used to respect them a lot back in 2000s... I remember Sergey announcing in 2010 that Google would move its business out of China as he didn't want his company to participate in censorship: I thought to myself then: "that's the man to follow!". now all of that is gone...
😔
yeah, then proceed to censor, what US wants to censor hahaha,
almost forgot, Democratic Societies don't use censor.
they just have an adult decision to just remove some things that shouldn't be mention
Remember that Google has never managed to get a single AR app for their $2 Cardboard in a decade and absolutely failed Google Glass. Who could fail such a gift?! Only the not-super-smartest.
image of a person or ceo matters alot, these are tech companies, and soo vulnerable. that can dust in a sec. . so trust must b within companies.
Well, AFAIK theY have dropped that motto quite a while ago and some of the scandals coming to light also point to the fact that not being evil is no longer a central tennet of the corporate ethics. Overall I still think they are better than Microsoft or Facebook though.
However, It is quite clean that Google has lost its ability to make moonshots turn into viable business. The reason is probably that no technologist with a tech-vision is driving the company.
12:25 They did now is "Do the right thing"
Google used to be exciting. They were taking on lofty/outlandish goals. They appear to be on cruise control today. Rather than blazing their own path, they’re just looking at their bottom line and keeping pace with their competitors. I lost my interest in the company.
Google is best . Google is the amazing engine
Why is Netflix the source for all the Mr. Robot scenes? They’ve never hosted that show…
Wow!
I think that's the first time you've used the word "Ironic" correctly.
Congrats!
Hahaha
They dropped that "Don't be Evil" slogan a long time ago.
This explains why the quality of googke products when down in the last decade.... from search results, to gmail, maps, youtube ,Android , etc...
i hate these flash cuts of quotes. Barely enough time to read the bloody quote never mind catch any context.
I know you are far from the only channel to do this, but when you're using stock image videos of 'business' types, I would think a little more actual content would be relished.
Google is best wvwr
Because others have done nothing.
Google is too Big To Fail.
He found out page 21 of search results never exist
I turned 14 on August 10 2015. 0 :11 - 0:25
never go public folks
Hey brother, hope you’re having a great week!!
Thanks Daniel! I wish you the same!