Everyday that Sundar is still CEO leaves me more and more bewildered. I cannot figure out how Brin and Page (who together own voting majority) look at google of 2024 and say "Yup, this is what we want Google to be".
The goal of a public company is to increase shareholder value. Hard to argue that Sundar hasn’t done that. Revenue has increased 5 years straight. Market cap with the exception of a dip during Covid is strong and is approaching its all time high.
As a Goolgle user and long time admirer, there have certainly been some disappointments and mistakes over the years. But there’s also been some major accomplishments which people sometimes overlook.
While still early, Waymo seems to be on the right trajectory and may be a key player in autonomous vehicles. Let’s not forget Googles work on transformers, which is heavily responsible for the current AI boom. That’s just two that come to mind, I’m sure there are others. Maybe these were started before Sundar, but he’s been CEO for almost 9 years now. So he gets credit.
Google may have some culture challenges to work through, brain drain, and identity issues. But I don’t think their story is written just yet. With a giant stock pile of cash they have plenty of time and resources to buy or figure their way out of any perceived issues (if that’s even what they need to do).
Microsoft did it. And if you really want to have your mind blown, go take a look at IBMs stock chart. I didn’t expect to see it approaching an all time high.
What choice can you point to that has increased Google's market cap? Google's search quality is deteriorating, Waymo is yet to make a profit, GCP is struggling, "Attention is all you need" was too early on to credit Sundar, and since then Google's reputation is flagging due to embarrassing AI models...
I think Google's market cap is increase _despite_ Sundar, not because. That said, Google does have enough resources to turn it around, I just don't think Sundar is the right person to do it.
GCP is struggling? Is that an opinion based on experience or based on actual stats? Because GCP revenue has increased every year since 2017. AWS and Azure are capturing more market share. But I’m not sure I consider third place and $33B in revenue last year a struggle.[1]
> I just don't think Sundar is the right person to do it
That was sort of my point. Does Google need to be turned around? All stock metrics and revenue metrics show that they are doing well as a company.
Sure the AI model stuff was embarrassing. But it doesn’t seem to be having an impact on the value of the company. Maybe goodwill was hurt. But if we’ve learned anything from the Meta drama over the years, people will be quick to forget about it. I don’t think a few fixable and public missteps like that will sink the company. Does anyone outside of tech even know about it? It’s possible it’s indicative of a larger internal issue thats brewing. But it’s not impacting the value of the company… yet at least.
Google Cloud Platform's growth is slowing [1]. It's finally profitable, but I don't think distant third place is what Google was looking for after 10 years of pouring billions of losses into it.
At the time of this news, Google's stock fell 5 percent, so it is hurting company evaluation, at least temporarily.
Google's stock might be rising, but what is causing that? I can't point to any material success of Google in the last 10 years to explain it, seems to me Google is coasting.
Google is in the familiar position where there numbers are good, the charts are all pretty, but when you go put your ear to the ground, you only hear sounds of trouble.
If google had proper leadership, the company would easily be worth twice it's current value. Easily. Instead we have a situation where raw capitalist inertia is carrying the company forward, while active discussions of the company are ridden with grievances and frustrations. Grievances and frustrations in a market where there are competitors that users can flee to. It's a bad spot to be in.
There is no reason Google shouldn't be the ones on the cusp of releasing GPT-5 level LLMs. None. Instead however they have a middling LLM that is scared to mention white people. So back to the drawing board so they can work out the racial kinks, while the competition blasts past them.
Google needs big company technology focused leadership 5 years ago. But tomorrow would be good too.
You make a good point about the possibility that they could be even more successful with stronger leadership and product focus. I can’t argue with that and don’t disagree.
My points were focused on the fact that the data just doesn’t currently show Google failing or declining as a company.
It’s going to be really interesting to see how the Google AI strategy plays out. I agree that they could have absolutely been the leader. They had the money, resources, and ingredients to make it happen.
I believe that AI is a threat to their current business model. How much did that influence their investment and focus on it?
