undefined | Better HN

0 pointsprepend2y ago0 comments

> Sundar was the right person for this role.

Was he? What is the evidence that he succeeded? Or even had more positive influence than random decisions?

Does google have consensus over what it’s doing? Or is Sundar specifically a “safe,” milquetoast CEO chosen to not show up previous CEOs. I don’t know Sundar, but it seems he was picked because google leadership assumed supremacy and thought that they just needed a steady hand to coast for a few years.

0 comments

Fricken2y ago

Sundar was chosen following a series of failures by megalomaniacal executives Larry had appointed/approved to head various departments, including Andy Rubin, Tony Fadell, and Anthony Levandwoski. Sundar was a move in the opposite direction.

morelisp2y ago

Don't forget Vic.

It's somewhat amazing how many failed, some nearly sociopathic, almost-CEOs Google had.

sangnoir2y ago

Ironically, Vic was was empowered to counter a similar panic an upstart more formidable than OpenAI. He brought a bold vision alright, but that's not sufficient to be a good leader.

1 more reply

retrocryptid2y ago

Aren't CEOs supposed to be sociopaths? (Asking for a friend.)

raverbashing2y ago

Ugh

Overly opinionated people like that could thrive under Jobs, who was the biggest opinion setter, which made them fight for the most important things while getting a pushback on the most controversial areas and not waste time with minor stuff

Take that and they start going crazy (yes I'm talking about Johnny Ive)

awill2y ago

I think you have this exactly right.

Sundar is like Neville Chamberlain. Maybe ok during peacetime. But now Google is at war, and needs a Churchill.

retrocryptid2y ago

Meh.

War is sort of the opposite of "business as usual." The normal rules are abandoned. You still have the same high level strategic objectives, but the tactics are radically changed.

I would love to see Google go to war. Wake me up when they figure out how to do that.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsprepend2y ago0 comments

> Sundar was the right person for this role.

Was he? What is the evidence that he succeeded? Or even had more positive influence than random decisions?

0 comments

Fricken2y ago

morelisp2y ago

Don't forget Vic.

It's somewhat amazing how many failed, some nearly sociopathic, almost-CEOs Google had.

sangnoir2y ago

Ironically, Vic was was empowered to counter a similar panic an upstart more formidable than OpenAI. He brought a bold vision alright, but that's not sufficient to be a good leader.

1 more reply

retrocryptid2y ago

Aren't CEOs supposed to be sociopaths? (Asking for a friend.)

raverbashing2y ago

Ugh

Take that and they start going crazy (yes I'm talking about Johnny Ive)

awill2y ago

I think you have this exactly right.

Sundar is like Neville Chamberlain. Maybe ok during peacetime. But now Google is at war, and needs a Churchill.

retrocryptid2y ago

Meh.

War is sort of the opposite of "business as usual." The normal rules are abandoned. You still have the same high level strategic objectives, but the tactics are radically changed.

I would love to see Google go to war. Wake me up when they figure out how to do that.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse