[JumpinJack_Cash]

> > The former builds things and creates new paradigm

Why the religious talk? This sort of talk only happens in SF.

Google is a product/service which serves customers to propel their convenience and quality of life. There is nothing more to it.

Also Google just happened to be the winner in a winner-take-all market which was made of 10s of search engines.

So it's true, MBAs might care about profits, but all the above is very clear to them, founders instead are blinded by these sort of mythological figures who build a cult-like following around them, whereas in reality it's just survivorship bias.

[unity1001]

> Why the religious talk? This sort of talk only happens in SF.

Something being exploited in SF does not invalidate it. The last 20 years' of tech progress did create new paradigms. From search to social to Open Source. The last one even became a culture in which we are living today. People are so used to its paradigm that they think its 'normal' and not something different. The world of 90s was a totally different world, including how people worked.

> Google is a product/service which serves customers to propel their convenience and quality of life. There is nothing more to it.

It also made accessing knowledge and anything much easier compared to before. There is no comparison of the search after Google and before, like how it was with Altavista, Yahoo et al. There is even less comparison of the world before search and after.

> founders instead are blinded by these sort of mythological figures who build a cult-like following around them, whereas in reality it's just survivorship bias.

Many technical founders, or rather, 'non-MBAified' people just want to build things. Make something happen. And those things change how we do things. People mythologizing successful, actual founders does not make it any less valid.

...

The world today is totally different from how it was in 1990s. Thanks to technology and people who build things with that technology. "MBAification" of things is not a problem only in technology - it always afflicted all the other sectors too. Some people build things and change the way we do stuff, others come to milk it at the cost of destroying it.

[JumpinJack_Cash]

> > The last 20 years' of tech progress did create new paradigms . The world today is totally different from how it was in 1990

I feel the opposite, if anything the rate of innovation is slowing down, and besides this sort of religious type words should not be used in the context of business.

And if were to be used it should be reserved for something that really changes human life in a pivotal manner in the same way as the invention of fire or the wheel did back in the days.

I don't know what it could be that can be compared to fire and the wheel but Google and opensource isn't it.

[unity1001]

> I feel the opposite, if anything the rate of innovation is slowing down

Of course it is. The sector has been 'MBAified' after the first decade and a half. Its about extracting maximum value by providing the minimum. It happens to every sector - look at computer games. First decade is full of innovation and firsts. Then big corporations take over and consolidate the sector. Now its about milking what already existed by rehashing them.

> religious type words

They are not religious words. They are accurate words. Knowing the difference in between the attitudes in society and tech life are important in deciding what direction to go. Identifying destructive 'MBAification' (or whatever you may want to call it) of things as opposed to 'building' things and telling them apart is critical.

> I don't know what it could be that can be compared to fire and the wheel but Google and opensource isn't it

Wheel is exaggerated. People used other means before the wheel.

However Open Source is a major change in most attitudes. It even changed the hierarchical, feudal work relationships and organization that corporations inherited from early Victorian corporations. But that's a long topic that involves history and social sciences.

[JumpinJack_Cash]

> > of things as opposed to 'building' things and telling them apart is critical.

Innovators of the past would call Brin and Page 'MBAs type' like you do, or better yet they'd call them not imaginative or risk taking enough given that MBAs didn't exist back then. It recursively goes like this the more you go back into the past.

In the end it's all about risk. You think MBAs are risk averse. People like Edison and Rockefeller would think Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are risk averse.

Guys like the Montgolfier brothers and Christopher Coloumbus would laugh at Edison and Rockefeller for being risk averse and they themselves would be subject to the same ridicule from the guy who invented fire and the wheel.

This is coherent with the idea that the rate of innovation is slowing down because of less risks being taken.

The only difference between my stance and yours is that you only analyze the last 10 years and identify a bogeyman in the MBAs, and hail founders as the great pioneers, whereas in reality it's a phenomenon which traces its roots way back into the past.

As kids say: 'fuck around. Find out'

I don't think MBAs were the first figures who refused to 'fuck around' and I don't think Silicon Valley founders are the kings of the 'fuck around' either, that title belongs to our early ancestors

The rate of risk and innovation will never be as great as the time that we invented the wheel and fire. As I said it has been slowing down ever since, mostly because people 'fuck around' less and less. Not just MBAs but everybody.

[unity1001]

> Innovators of the past would call Brin and Page 'MBAs type' like you do

They objectively wouldnt. The science and engineering history of late 19th century is filled with people like Brin and Page getting 'MBAified' out of their inventions. Tesla and Westinghouse is a good example of such stories.

> Christopher Coloumbus

A genocidal profiteer is the last person who you would want to invoke as an example of such people. He didnt invent or innovate anything, he didnt want to change anything, he didnt bring about any new paradigm.

> because of less risks being taken

Equating innovation with taking risks is a faulty concept to start with. You can bet that the 'person' who invented the fire or the weel didnt take any risks. To start with, those were not invented by singular people 'taking risks' but invented by entire species (likely more than one) by adopting them gradually through observation from nature and learning from each other. Likewise agriculture. If anything, risk-taking was not something that early human ancestors or their close relatives would risk themselves.

> The only difference between my stance and yours is that you only analyze the last 10 years and identify a bogeyman in the MBAs

Sorry, but its otherwise. Thinking that fire or wheel were invented by singular people shows the lack of insight into science of history, leaving aside the history of this species.

[JumpinJack_Cash]

> > Equating innovation with taking risks is a faulty concept to start with. You can bet that the 'person' who invented the fire or the weel didnt take any risks. To start with, those were not invented by singular people 'taking risks' but invented by entire species

Back then people were making human sacrifices and starting wars because 'the Gods told them to do so'.

Innovation happens when risks are taken (eg. Montgolfier brothers, Wright Brothers, the guy who discovered testosterone by self injected blood taken from the testicular veins of horses...) and given that risk and confidence are a state of mind much less a business practice, you cannot conflate it just to science and technology but said risk and confidence will be visible all around society. So wars, genocides, violence and genearlly stuff considered bad.

The rate of innovation has been slowing down due to the diminishing in the standard deviation of human behavior. Or as kids say: 'Less fucking around, means less finding out'

Standard deviation of human behavior goes both ways, people rejoice that we eliminated the negatives but we have also eliminated the positives. No Einsteins without Hitlers, no Archimedes without Alexanders etc.

So even if the guy who personally discovered fire or the wheel didn't take risks personally (I doubt it) he operated in an environment where the standard deviation of human behavior was much larger. For sure there were people jumping off trees with wooden wings, wars, genocides, much more violence. And that is statistically enough to make sure that at least one unit in the sample stumbles into something great like fire or the wheel.