"Larry Page may seem to have an enviable life, but there are aspects of it that are unenviable. Basically at 25 he started running as fast as he could and it must seem to him that he hasn't stopped to catch his breath since. Every day new shit happens in the Google empire that only the CEO can deal with, and he, as CEO, has to deal with it. If he goes on vacation for even a week, a whole week's backlog of shit accumulates. And he has to bear this uncomplainingly, partly because as the company's daddy he can never show fear or weakness, and partly because billionaires get less than zero sympathy if they talk about having difficult lives. Which has the strange side effect that the difficulty of being a successful startup founder is concealed from almost everyone except those who've done it."
With the difference that unlike a poor single working mother, or some 40-something factory worker, etc., he can quit anytime, and has billions in the bank to show for it...
If you dismiss difficult aspects of a person's life because somebody else has it worse, then nobody actually has a hard life except for starving children in Africa. Maybe not even them: captives who suffer regular torture and indignity probably have it worse. Or modern-day slaves.
You just proved this part.
That quote from the essay reminds me of a Silicon Valley scene [1] where the CEO of the pseudo-Google company in the show gets vilified (rightfully so in the show) for complaining about how hard billionaires have it in this country.
I bet the creator's read PG's essay and were inspired by it.
http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230454950457...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-26/kleiner-p...
I don't get why people think Hooli is some pseudo-Google company. In the Silicon Valley universe Google clearly exists. Eric Schmidt was in their series premiere and the show's opening intro animation clearly shows Google and YouTube.
billionaires == jews?
Can something be more wrong?
As CEO of Apple, Cook is expected to deliver the Next Big Thing. So far, he hasn't, and he's running out of time. (Cars? Tough, low-margin business. VR? Niche market. Watches? Tried that. Robots? Not ready yet. Voice AI? Already doing that, need to improve. Services? Crowded field, no edge.)
I don't understand how people think they've tried the watch and failed. They've put out ONE version. The first iPod was Mac only and therefore didn't sell very well. When the iPhone launched you had to buy the device outright - no subsidy and it was lacking features that other phones had for quite a while. It was a few versions before it really took off. I think people shrugging off the watch are being incredibly short sighted (and I say this as someone who had one and sold it). It's not perfect for a mass market now but it can be. The software changes in watchOS 3 are really going to help towards that but in the long term this thing could become essential to your health and from interviews Tim Cook has done in the past it sounds like that's the direction they want to go once they've got the basic software and form factor down.
It's probably too early to write off watches thus. Technically they're probably in the 'not ready yet' category: another few rounds of improvement in size constraints, battery life and potential independence from a smartphone (especially as putting in more types of radio becomes more viable) could make a big difference. The aWatch really was too early, or at least too early to create Apple's trademark illusion of perfection in a bolt from the blue. The obvious contrast is the iPod, where Apple didn't enter the game until its distinctive strengths in UI/UX and overall quality could be applied to already-existing components (most famously the Toshiba HDD) and concepts ('Palm-Pilot-like sync', 'WinAmp clone' ...) to create such a lightning-bolt with an obvious 'value proposition' for the user. Or maybe some of the aWatch's faults are actually down to UI or design failings which weren't really forced by technical limitations, but those too can be fixed over time, with MS-style release-until-good iteration.
> VR? Niche market.
No wai! VR/AR is also in the 'not ready yet' bucket; and it's not quite ready yet, rather than being another decade away or something. Between stereo cameras on smart devices, eye-tracking hardware for foveated rendering, and continued increase in flatscreen resolutions, in a handful of years VR is going to reach the 'iPod point' where there are no technical or price barriers to Apple putting together a product that's strongly desirable to a mass market. The initial 'system-seller'/'killer app' probably won't be anything very 'natively' 3D but, basically, 2D screens pulled into the VR space, likely with some modest 3D/stereoscopic enhancements. Think 'VR mobile' rather than 'mobile VR', as it were: VR as a way to escape the screen-is-too-damn-small/device-is-too-damn-big/screen-is-too-damn-close curve that box-with-a-screen-on-it mobile devices are trapped on. Likewise the trade-off between staring down, the gorilla arm and messing with a plastic widget. It won't make box-with-a-screen-on-it devices (including clamshells) obsolete, because being blindfolded by a VR screen is unviable or too scary or dangerous in many everyday mobile-device use contexts. (Mobile AR has a much better shot in those situations, but AR screen technology still faces real hurdles on the way to 'iPod point'.) But it doesn't have to: there are enough wealthy US baby boomers who take long journeys by air that Apple could probably have a hit device if it sold the thing only to them. (And remember, they're all farsighted.) Image sharpness won't be "retina" at first, but it will be good enough thanks to continued progress in LED pixel densities, especially for things that people are happy to do on a now-high-res-but-still-small smartphone screen. (And wealthy retirees aren't the most demanding judges of image sharpness.) Foveated rendering will keep the CPU/GPU burden down to within the abilities of a contemporary Appley mobile device. (Especially since you don't need to put the CPU/GPU on the damn headset! Apple can happily run a cable down from the HMD to an iPad-to-iBook-sized device.) Head tracking will be fully positional and good enough.
Mission statement: "Act like the CEO. But you are allowed to pass the hardest 10% of your tasks to Larry. 10%. Not more.".
By the way, Sundar is a genius- absurd level of memory recall, extremely logical (vulcan-class), and pretty personable.
But with time then freed up, the question becomes how you spend it. Do you vacation? Do you start a side project, or a bevy of them? Or, do you invest your time and energy into your highest point of leverage: your existing large, profitable company.
In the latter case, you still want ultimately to be CEO. Your goal then is to structure the company, if possible, so that it continues to fulfill its mission and to grow while you focus on the things that you feel are most important and which are most well-suited to your interests and perceived talents. For some company+CEO pairs, that may in fact be the core operations themselves. For others, it may be building toward conglomeration or investing in strategic R&D.
This helps explain the Alphabet restructuring. But it doesn't mean that suddenly Page has less to worry about. He could if he chose to step back, but as long as he feels drive to make an impact, to make the highest use of his talents, and that he can do that largely through Google/Alphabet, he'll want to remain CEO, he'll want to work hard at the company, and he'll still feel the (admittedly self-induced, chosen) pressure.
Let's also quickly look at each of the aforementioned areas of focus for a CEO who continues to have drive and believes that drive is best leveraged at their existing large, profitable company.
For some company+CEO pairs, that may in fact be the core operations themselves.
Apple is a good example here. Tim Cook could delegate whatever aspects of Apple's operation that he likes. But if he continues to have drive and views Apple as a great way to realize that drive, then his best use today is in focusing on Apple's core operations. This is because Apple's continued growth and profitability is, today, almost entirely dependent on continuing to frequently ship cutting-edge devices worldwide. That requires a very heavyweight operation, and there isn't much "revenue momentum". Apple gains network effects in the power of its brand, its distribution, and its manufacturing chain. But its revenue growth and profitability are dependent, today, on each new generation of devices. Thus, Cook had best focus there, while trying simultaneously to build toward greater "revenue momentum" in the future.
Compare this to Google, who just like Apple is also primarily dependent on one profit stream. But Google's profit stream in advertising has more self-sustaining revenue momentum. This allows Google to have focused on other areas outside the core profit operation earlier, and helps explains the Alphabet restructuring. Apple may get there one day (and it seems to me they are trying to... witness all of their recent attention on and talk about services/subscriptions), but they're not there yet. In addition, Cook is an admittedly operations focused executive, while Page is more inclined toward R&D and long-term strategy.
In combination, these things help explain how both Cook and Page can delegate as much as possible, but still remain very busy (and in very different ways) at both of their companies.
The push toward conglomeracy that Google is undergoing now is largely based on build-outs of internal brands ad operations through R&D. Others, like Disney and GE, went down the conglomeration path through combinations of internal buildouts and acquisitions. While building a conglomerate, the CEO is wisest to delegate on the core profitable operations and focus on the conglomeration process itself. This is what we're seeing with Google now, and something we may see in the future with Apple. After achieving a large and diversified conglomeration, the CEO is wisest to focus on governance/guidance/measurement and strategic guidance of the groups as a whole. This is what we've seen with GE, Disney, et al in the past.
`And while he’s quick to trumpet Apple, he is also unassuming, quickly noting, after saying his job can be “lonely,” that “I’m not looking for any sympathy. CEOs don’t need any sympathy.”`
Which is exactly why Tim Cook is such a great guy.
In the startup world, I wonder whether founders can find success in emulating Cook -- or whether a harder-edged, harder-driving style is required.
> One day back then, he convened a meeting with his team, and the discussion turned to a particular problem in Asia. “This is really bad,” Cook told the group. “Someone should be in China driving this.” Thirty minutes into that meeting Cook looked at Sabih Khan, a key operations executive, and abruptly asked, without a trace of emotion, “Why are you still here?” Khan, who remains one of Cook’s top lieutenants to this day, immediately stood up, drove to San Francisco International Airport, and, without a change of clothes, booked a flight to China with no return date, according to people familiar with the episode. The story is vintage Cook: demanding and unemotional.
http://fortune.com/2008/11/24/apple-the-genius-behind-steve/
Less likely possibilities: was Cook talking to someone in the other direction and only noticed Khan? Was he thinking to himself Khan should leave immediately but wanted to give him some time to make the call himself?
Cook didn't start up Apple. I'm not saying his humble/listening approach can't work for startups, but it may not be practical when time/money are scarce. No doubt he feels pressure to perform, but he certainly isn't wondering where his next meal will come from, or if he'll be hirable again in the future, should he make a mistake and some new venture fails.
"It’s sort of a lonely job. The adage that it’s lonely — the CEO job is lonely — is accurate in a lot of ways. I’m not looking for any sympathy. You have to recognize that you have blind spots. We all do. Blind spots move, and you want to not just have really bright people around you, but people who will push on you and people to bring out the best in you. People that amplify whatever you’re good at. And then also the people who plug the parts that you’re not and may never be."
Unless Tim & co. decide to confront the reality that they're stepping up "vertical integration" model using the Robber Baron playbook when it comes to the actual arts, I think his "social responsibility" comments mean fuck-all. Go ahead, build a new environmentally friendly compound, that's great, good on you. And how's about that 30% you skim off the top of every non-Drake "Most-Favored-Nation" artist who has to go through your channels or lose out?
Actions about social responsibility speak louder than words, and right now, Braeburn Capital and billions of dollars being slushed around offshore rather than pay the tax to re-patriate those funds means talk is cheap. I'm a contrarian by nature, but I know a puff piece when I see it. So Tim is good at hitting softball questions, whoop-dee-whoo.
Of course it's lonely and isolating at the top of the mountain - just look at Kurt Cobain.
And as battery life increases, bluetooth tech gets better reach, wifi can last longer on it, and cpu/memory can handle more things right on the device, its usability will only get better.
What did you like about that statement? Your interpretation made it sound like you didn't agree with it.
The tone of the sentence seemed to me to imply that some day the Apple Watch would be a hit, but I'm skeptical.
Watch isn't even primarily a watch - it's an iPhone remote. And that's getting into rarefied meta-product territory.
So unlike the iPhone and the home computer, both of which have obvious use cases, Watch is still trying to define a compelling reason for existing.
But this just highlights the current Apple problem. Cook designs products using a very simple heuristic - smaller, bigger, thinner, more colours: basically good enough.
Jobs used to use a different heuristic - magical, original, creative, obviously useful, with world-beating production values.
It's a completely different approach. And you can see that in Watch.
Watch has no magic. It's good enough - barely, more or less. But that's all it is.
And if you're aiming for good enough instead of magical, it's too easy to fall short and end up with not quite good enough - which is where many Apple buyers are feeling the current product lines are heading.
https://twitter.com/asymco/status/753226197442654208
Puts things into perspective.
The Note 7 looks awesome due to it being waterproof and other features Apple hasn't bothered to include. Also, Google Now in terms of it understanding me is light years away from Siri, which I have used since 2011. Goigle Now's AI puts Siri to shame!
See ya Apple!
Yeah, because better CPU, GPU, camera(s), and such are not innovative enough...
>The Note 7 looks awesome due to it being waterproof and other features Apple hasn't bothered to include.
Yeah, for those of us using our phone on the shower it will be a god-send. Waterproof! Such innovation!
Overall, I want waterproof.. wireless charging... Google Now type AI vs. Siri. Their competitors have this .. iPhone 7 should have all or some of these features yet it won't.
Only good thing about the iPhone is it's more secure then Android. Putting my credit on an Android device to use Android Pay vs. Apple Pay is something I don't feel comfortable doing.
Per all my downvotes it looks like the majority still here love Apple. Personally I love innovation and Apple isn't innovating and or being the pioneer they use to be.
They're not. They're expected.
>Yeah, for those of us using our phone on the shower it will be a god-send. Waterproof! Such innovation!
Right...
