[harlysparks]

Perhaps you need to first define "innovation" and maybe also rationalize why that view of innovation is the end-all of determining CEO performance. Otherwise you're begging the question here.

Google's stock performance, revenue growth, and political influence in Washington under his leadership has grown substantially. I don't disagree that there are even better CEO's out there, but as an investor, the framing of your question is way off. Given the financial performance, why would you want to replace him?

[caturopath]

I didn't say that innovation was the end-all of determining CEO performance, though producing new products and creating new markets is the angle that tech tends to go for. I mentioned Google's struggles to execute: they have an astoundingly hard time getting shit done compared to the other largest tech companies.

The counterfactual isn't Google having average performance. You're crediting the stock performance, revenue growth, and political influence (don't really agree this last one was a place Google shined over this period) to Sundar's leadership; I think it has a lot more to do with the company he was handed.