[Periodic]

As someone who has worked at Google for a few years, I can't agree with the author's characterization of tech behemoths. While they have embraced the start-up mode of doing things for some new projects and are very free with their investing, their core business is everything you'd expect from a big business.

I'm not sure it's possible to grow as large as Google, Apple or Facebook and remain agile. The product and organization gains too much inertia on its own. Even if you have a brilliant idea for improving the product there are hundreds of people you need to convince, months worth of meetings and reams of design docs required.

The big companies may be innovating on the edges, but their established products are all ripe for disruption.

Of course, if you look too disruptive they'll probably just buy you with their mountain of cash.

[eru]

> [...] their core business is everything you'd expect from a big business.

I have worked for a bank before coming to Google. The biggest difference, even in the core business, is that people speak up to management and call bullshit out.

Memegen, for all its flaws, wouldn't survive one week in the open in a bank, and the perpetrators would be fired.

[EdwardDiego]

Sorry, could you please clarify? So is it in Google or in the bank that people speak up to management?

And what is the Memegen (and its flaws) you refer to? I google it and find a bunch of meme generators.

[lcpriest]

http://thefw.com/take-a-peek-inside-googles-internal-meme-ge...

[victorhooi]

I believe he's saying that Google is more open, and people are willing to speak up (including to management).

That has been my experience so far as well.

I was also in banking and financial services before, and I found people tip toe around management a lot more.

And MemeGen is an internal thing, and I won't say anything beyond that. (I understand what the poster is saying, but I don't think it's necessary to understand his/her pointl

[eru]

> I was also in banking and financial services before, and I found people tip toe around management a lot more.

Especially around bonus time.

Memegen is internal, but has been leaked and written about. See https://www.google.com/search?q=Google+memegen

[euyyn]

He means in Google. For Memegen, search for 'google memegen'.

[crdoconnor]

>Of course, if you look too disruptive they'll probably just buy you with their mountain of cash.

Or just copy you.

Even if they are 10-20% worse, they have a bigger, cheaper distribution channel than you which they can stuff their product into.

[nostrademons]

That's only if that distribution channel is your only access to the customer. If you have other alternatives, you can (and often will) still win.

Google Videos vs YouTube. Orkut vs Facebook vs Google+. Facebook status messages vs Twitter. Google Offers vs Groupon. Google Flights vs Kayak or Hipmunk. iMessage vs Whatsapp. Google Local vs Yelp.

There're plenty of examples where the big company came out with a competitor (often getting to market first, eg Google Video or Orkut), stuffed it through the distribution channel, but lost to a startup that nailed the user experience. Having a big channel doesn't matter if your conversion rate sucks.

[marincounty]

Google makes good products, but doesn't market them properly.

They can screw up great products too. I miss my old YouTube. I currently have videos up that I can't access.

It seems like tech companies are prone to an--I don't know the correct word/term, so I'll just say it. They remind me of a hiker on a mountian. At first, the company seems great. We all join. We all use their products. Then it's downhill. I honestly don't know what Yahoo even does now. I am embarrassed to use my yahoo email--for what reasons, I just don't want to hear some yahoo say, "Ah--you still use Yahoo. That brings back memories."

I don't use Yelp anymore. Why? I just don't want to be one of those people; Those whiny, picky people. See, it was once a good site. Now I cringe when ever I see their commercials. In my mind, they are going down the hill.

If I owned a big company, I would just prepare for the eventual day if goes down that sine wave.

I still think there are big opportunities in tech. I would open up my garage to the right people. I would hire Hackers. Guys with nothing to lose. I would keep a close eye on the legalities of what these "convicts" do though. I've never felt guys who take big chances, without a backup, are given enough business opportunities.

[eru]

I wonder whether Alphabet is a way to try and ride these waves.

[crdoconnor]

YouTube basically won against Google Video because they allowed pirated content. They took an enormous legal risk which Google Video didn't and it paid off. It almost didn't pay off.

Nothing to do with user experience.

[nostrademons]

It was a bit more than that: Google Video initially didn't allow user-generated content and when they did, the upload process was much more involved than YouTube's (largely because of fears of copyright infringement). They also had a much better embedded video player - I first ran across YouTube because all my friends were sharing it across LiveJournal, while Google Video embeds were awkward and ugly. And their whole experience was designed to get you to click through to another video - the YouTube founders themselves said that the site took off when they added the "related videos" feature.

But even assuming that it was all because of pirated content, that's a good example of an advantage that startups have over entrenched incumbents. If you're a 6-month-old startup and you get sued for a hundred billion dollars (and lose), you just go bankrupt and try again. If you're a 10-year-old company and you get sued for a hundred billion dollars, you lose a hundred billion dollars. The risk/reward tradeoffs are dramatically different.

[ssalazar]

Indeed, taking enormous legal risks is another advantage that isnt available to large corporations.

[Eupolemos]

"Of course, if you look too disruptive they'll probably just buy you with their mountain of cash."

Woe! :P

[lubujackson]

Unless they decline the offer, like Facebook did and Google did and almost every current big company did at some point. If you are wildly successful there WILL be that option in front of you at some point.

[tdaltonc]

Who offered to acquire google?

[sogen]

Google offered themselves to Excite, also Yahoo.

[marssaxman]

Woe to the people working for you, at least.

[udkl]

> "The big companies may be innovating on the edges, but their established products are all ripe for disruption."

It looks like a cycle. Come up with new product with a small team, add more employees, add more managers, add more cruft, slow down.

Then a startup comes along, moving faster, innovating faster, disrupting until it grows and starts to add more employees, add more managers, add more cruft, slow down.

And Then a startup comes along ......

[rubicon33]

This cycle that you're depicting, is largely sustained by fear.

Big companies buy 'disrupters' when they fear their market share is at risk. But most of the time their market share is not at risk, and they should just wait for X startup to crumble.

[estreeper]

> Big companies buy 'disrupters' when they fear their market share is at risk.

Yep. I can see why they don't wait for them to crumble though. What if they don't? That's a big risk to take.

When a potentially disruptive product gets bought, it virtually always means death of the product. You get fed a line about how it's going to keep going, and then a few months down the line, it has all been integrated into some existing big company product.

What's sad to think about is that sure, a lot of these companies would have failed, but how many would have succeeded? We'll never know. I don't blame founders: it's pretty hard to say no to a mountain of cash when your future is so uncertain. But deep down, I still wish more would take the gamble.

[eru]

We shouldn't complain too much: the potential of the buyout draws many founders into the game in the first place.