zlacker

>>benhur+(OP)
I feel like Google is a case study in an engineering only company. Everything is reduced to a technical problem. Incentives are aligned to solve technical problems. No one wants to work on something unless it is technically interesting and new. There is no incentive at all for delivering an excellent user experience over the long term - which usually can't be done with tech only, and involves a lot of dredge work of continuous introspection and improvement.

We see this again and again. The cynic in me sees Stadia as yet another internal promotion scheme, masquerading as a product.

I doubt this will ever change. The internal momentum of the company culture will make it so. What does it mean for investors? Google has enough money they can just buy their way into markets indefinitely. It will probably keep them going, but I don't expect huge growth. I'd probably be putting my money into other stocks if I had to choose. I honestly don't think people would miss Google much if it was gone.

>>nvarsj+P81
I wonder if it's the lack of a single founder?

Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk - founders at the top who owned it.

More directly, Gabe Newell and Valve.

It might be that google started with Page/Brin and co-ownership might have weakened that a bit, and now they are not to be found.

Not that a single founder is a surefire recipe.

>>m463+sZ1
Paul Allen, Steve Wozniak, "Paypal Mafia", For valve Mike Harrington would like to have a word with you.

Bill, Steve, Elon, Gabe, were never alone masterminds and definitely not single founders because in companies they created there always was someone else who had shares.