Arrogant Google?

Jeff Jarvis notes that Google is selling shares to raise $4bn, and wonders what it’s about to buy. It certainly doesn’t need the cash for operations - it currently holds $3bn+ in cash and cash equivalents.

Later, Jeff quotes the Wall St Journal which points out the size of the offering is 14,159,165 shares - or the first eight digits that follow the decimal in the value of pi. “Am I the only one who finds that too-cute-by-half?” he asks, adding:

“If this bubble ever bursts and little old ladies are left penniless, this is the kind of arrogant business-as-playground that doesn’t sound so darling on the other side of the curve. In itself, it’s no big deal, of course, just an inside joke. But it’s another of many signs of Google’ arrogance.”

I know what he means, although the Google bubble is at least founded on a company that’s wildly profitable, with superb, proprietary knowledge and a dominant market position. There are worse companies for little old ladies to invest in, although I’m not sure little old ladies should be doing anything quite so speculative.

And I’d also add that, in this day and age, it’s a little easy to call a successful company with a very clear strategy arrogant, because they’ll be the ones not flexing with the wind as everyone tries to find a way through the confusion.

Finally: playfulness is a large part of Google’s success - the now-mythologised Googleplex, with its grand piano in the lobby, M&Ms on tap and wonderful canteen could be seen as simply the physical elements of a carefully constructed corporate playpen, perfectly designed both physically and culturally to encourage its people to muck around with stuff. The share issue is just an example of this culture living on.

I’m not sure that’s something to be dismissed. Indeed, for those of us who worry about Google’s growing power, it’s perhaps something we should be learning from.

COMMENTS / ONE COMMENT

Anyone who’s a customer of Google can vouch for the fact that they are extremely arrogant, and unbelievably hostile to those who bring them revenue.

The image of Google as a playful, “not evil” company is carefully cultivated (The Economist has more at http://economist.com/business/.....id=4135286), but and while there may be some basis in fact for the playful bit, the fact is that they are at least a little evil. This piece (http://www.bazaarz.com/archives/2005/08/googles_ethics.php) gives only part of the story on this. Say what you will about Microsoft, they never actively tried to put their customers out of business.

Another strange thing about Google — though it does not make them evil, certainly — is that everything it does is totally controlled by Larry Page, Sergei Brin, and Eric Schmidt. Every CV that comes into the company? LSE vet it first (this is according to Google employees in California HQ). According to those same employees, the only ones who really have any power to affect change or do anything within Google are LSE. It’s not even a matter of passing the buck, but simply that not even managers have the authority to make decisions. There’s flat structure, and then there’s extreme control freakery from the top down.

Google really seems like a great company, and certainly it does do some incredibly cool stuff, but the allegations of arrogance are a very small fraction of what they would be if people really knew how they do business.

Google Customer thought this on Aug 20 05 at 10:26 pm

SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated. I'll delete unpleasantness. Email me if you spot a comment that crosses the line.