Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
Why There Aren't More Googles
paulgraham.com — Interesting article
globaldigger- 486 diggs
- digg it
- Neticule, on 04/16/2008, -1/+11No need for more then 1, if the 1 does everything I can think of and more :P
- leszek, on 04/16/2008, -1/+27because they do nothing!
- j3ff86, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3burried for stealing that comment from my head, Charles!
- lazybat, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2While the argument seems perfectly logical, it should be noted that Microsoft had a greater run as front-runner till google showed up. Competitors will always show up no matter what the business dynamics.... just give them time.
- Neticule, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3That could be because 95% of people used internet explorer back then, and the microsoft page was the default start page :)
- SamboyLR, on 05/23/2008, -5/+3I started reading with all the furor in the world... but then some big words started coming in and I was lost. F it.
- Pillage, on 04/16/2008, -6/+1Google's downfall will come from within. They better stop giving their employees so much free time....
- kjm2664, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6I beg to differ. Something like 80% of their most innovative projects (googleDocs, calender, picasa etc.) have come from their policy of allowing their employees to spend 20% of their work time on their own projects.
- haski, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Google Docs, Picasa, but also Groups, SketchUp, FeedBurner, YouTube, Analytics are from acquisitions. 20% time initiative produced Gmail, Orkut, Google base, Google news, AdSense.... so I don't know how about you but besides Gmail and perhaps AdSense, 20% time haven't generated nothing unique or revolutionary. I would suspect that if some guy in google would have a great idea, he would probably just start some new company on his own instead of doing hard work for google.
- philhatesyou, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Gmail and Google News are great. I can't think of a single "web app" that I use more than either of those two. Also, not all of the 20% projects are projects meant for the outside world.
- Pillage, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Then you aren't begging to differ, I was using sarcasm . It was an allusion to an article that was out a few months ago talking about how Google's downfall may come from one of those internal projects similar to those that you have mentioned(It made the front page after all).
- haski, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Google Docs, Picasa, but also Groups, SketchUp, FeedBurner, YouTube, Analytics are from acquisitions. 20% time initiative produced Gmail, Orkut, Google base, Google news, AdSense.... so I don't know how about you but besides Gmail and perhaps AdSense, 20% time haven't generated nothing unique or revolutionary. I would suspect that if some guy in google would have a great idea, he would probably just start some new company on his own instead of doing hard work for google.
- davidwasman, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Wow, pillage...jealous much?
- xaeon, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Allowing employees to use Google's resources for their own project is one of the reasons why, at one point, they were receiving over 10,000 job applications a day. Employees that feel valued are more motivated, and in the end, far better employees.
Google have done practically everything right up until now.
- kjm2664, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6I beg to differ. Something like 80% of their most innovative projects (googleDocs, calender, picasa etc.) have come from their policy of allowing their employees to spend 20% of their work time on their own projects.
- Kyrgizion, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3Google was smart. Competitors were not - not until Google was too big for them, anyway.
Also, Google innovates & doesn't stand still. Or do you think it'd be just as big with only the search engine they started with? - bizkit00, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2other countries have "googles" , see naver.com in Korea, yahoo in japan, etc
- tuntcickle, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2hmmmm...sounds like a typical disgruntled startup employee who thinks he knows where the big growth is going to happen [just like the rest of us]. too bad a market for investment already exists and none of this article's observations contribute anything beyond what we already know: that VCs want 10000% profits which they can't get from diversifying
- bosssmiley, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2You really might want to read the guy's bio page before drawing those conclusions.
Cheers.- tuntcickle, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1do i sound like the kind of person who cares?
- bosssmiley, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2You really might want to read the guy's bio page before drawing those conclusions.
- Awspire, on 04/16/2008, -0/+17"Why There Aren't More Googles"
Cause Google is buying them all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_acquis ...- addiktion, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Thanks for the link. Thats fricking amazing. They are like Warren Buffett but instead of investing in companies they essentially buy them and incorporate them into the google services for free, thus making google the good guy and dominate. It would be hard to turn down a 100 million dollar offer though when your a start up company going from a 9 to 5 salary. Whose to say these people aren't making a second business already though?
- Awspire, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Lets not forget about Microsoft, though Microsoft has been acquiring companies since 86', and Google has only been around since 98' and they already bought out over 50 companies. However, it's interesting to see that Microsoft bought up over 50 companies between 2005-2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_acq ...
- Awspire, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Lets not forget about Microsoft, though Microsoft has been acquiring companies since 86', and Google has only been around since 98' and they already bought out over 50 companies. However, it's interesting to see that Microsoft bought up over 50 companies between 2005-2008.
- addiktion, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Thanks for the link. Thats fricking amazing. They are like Warren Buffett but instead of investing in companies they essentially buy them and incorporate them into the google services for free, thus making google the good guy and dominate. It would be hard to turn down a 100 million dollar offer though when your a start up company going from a 9 to 5 salary. Whose to say these people aren't making a second business already though?
- jaybuster, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Great article. With the exception of a few top-tier firms, VC returns have pretty much sucked over the past 10 years. As Graham points out, most middle-of-the road VC funds can probably generate better returns by making smaller $500K bets across many startups instead of a larger bet in a startup with good traction that is forced to swing for the fences so that it can move the needle for the fund and its investors.
- haski, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4"Any really good new idea will seem bad to most people; otherwise someone would already be doing it."
this is ridiculous statement. I'll rather stick with what Joel Spolsky said - "people aren't going to pay you for solving simple problems - but for difficult ones". - EwMo, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Best Description EVAR.
/fallacy - dagamer34, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1What I am confused about is that there are a lot of popular current and former companies out there that technically don't make money. Especially former companies like YouTube, they really have NO business plan. It's as if the idea was to become popular, not make money. The problem is that eventually such a huge company crashes from its own weight UNLESS it's bought out.
Case in point, everyone knows that YouTube is popular and has pretty much been integrated into our daily lives. But think about it, could such a company make money on its own if it weren't bought out? And there in lies the problem. Few innovative companies are self-sustaining. And if you aren't self-sustaining, you can't be the next Google. You'll be the next company bought out by Microsoft and what not. Being owned by someone else just isn't the same thing!- imikedaman, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Places like YouTube purposely operate at a loss until they gain popularity, then the site suddenly becomes ridiculously ad-laden and the money comes rolling in.
- claphands22, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Most companies don't have the free cash flow to splurge on buying companies and treating employees like kings.
- Vo0Ds, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Define interesting...
- addiktion, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1dagamer34. I agree somewhat with what your saying. Most startup companies cant self sustain themselves. Its like this book I'm reading titled "Good to Great". I forget the authors name but it points out the difference between good leaders and the great leaders. Google obviously has more money and resources to make services that others might not be noticed or liked into exceptional packaged products or services. Thats somewhat the problem, most people refuse to give any other company a chance to compete nor do they want to because they are on Youtube all day long.
Be open to new start ups and investigate their ideas. You never know you might be using half of their things in your daily life if they can ever get to the peak where Google sits. - camino262, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2NOTHING beats purchasing DOS for $50k. (and having a few lawyers in the family)
- coresnake, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1The googles.. zey do nothing!!!
- LingNoi, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Why aren't there more Microsofts (Boxed self Operating Systems)?
- Kazanoe, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Three googles for the myspacers under a black theme,
Seven for the business-men in their halls of cash,
Nine for Great Nerds doomed to (succeed, get the babe, you name it),
One for the googleplex on his do-no-evil throne
In the Land of internets where the Protocols lie.
One Google to rule them all, One Google to search them,
One Google to bring them all and with the bots find them.
In the Land of internets where the Protocols lie.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by