Tag Archives: Google

When Google wasn’t (yet) Google…

A friend of mine just gave me a bunch of old Upside and Red Herring magazines. For those who are too young, these were the references in high-tech and entrepreneurship in the late 90’s and early 00’s! I plan to go through them and when something will attract me, I might mention it here. So here is the first example:

In May 2000, search engines were still nice internet tools that did not make that much money. Google was a hot start-up with two brilliant Stanford PhD students, and no real CEO. SO here is what Upside was saying:

Searching for profits. By John F. Ince, Upside Magazine, May 2000.

The pioneers had to expand to make money. Will the next wave fare any better?

During meetings, they bounce on huge rubber exercise balls. “It helps us to think better,» explains one employee. Between meetings, they blow off steam in the air hockey room, rollerblade; and ride bikes at the bay-front park, or go downstairs for a massage. At lunch and dinner, they dine on gourmet meals prepared by Charles le Chef, previously employed by members of the Grateful Dead and diverse upscale restaurants. Classical music from a baby grand piano will soon waft through the lobby. Welcome to Googleplex, home of a hot, new search engine that two Stanford Ph.D. candidates are riding like a cresting wave on an ocean off avorable publicity into a Never Never Land, where money is as plentiful as 3D-foot waves at Maverick’s, and nobody seems too concerned about wipeouts or ever having to turn a profit.

In November 1999, Fortune wrote, “Google seems to exhibit inscrutable magic.” But the biggest mystery is that the company seems to give such short shrift to the more mundane aspects of developing corporate strategy, penetrating new markets, and creating revenue. Nor does anyone in Googleplex have a clear timetable for when Google will turn search technology into profit. “Our number one priority,” says co-founder Larry Page, “is improving our technology and the user experience. We are insanely focused on that.”

In terms of pure technology, Google is getting the best reviews. According to a competitive survey conducted by NPD Online Research, Google came out at the top of the list in overall user satisfaction and loyalty. The survey included the top 13 search and portal sites and was commissioned by 13 major Internet companies, including America Online, Ask Jeeves, HotBot, LookSmart, Lycos, Excite, Go Network, GoTo.com, Netscape, WebCrawler, and Yahoo. What makes Google’s technology so cool? “It is a sophisticated next-generation search engine that uses complex mathematical algorithms to determine the importance and relevancy of Web pages,” says CEO Larry Page. Whereas most search engines use a keyword or metasearch technology, Google emphasizes making sure that the most important result comes up first. To do this, Google takes advantage of the expertise of millions of the “highly qualified editors,” out there who are creating, formatting and linking their Web sites. Google is hypertext-based and takes a gestalt view of information, analyzing all the content on each Web page. It considers such factors as fonts, subdivisions, and the positioning of all the terms on the page. It also factors in what’s happening in the site’s neighborhood. It looks at links and comes up with results that more often than not are superior to other searches in the critical category of relevancy. Google also provides searchers with an excerpt from the Web page with search terms highlighted in boldface type.

“I was very impressed, especially with their commitment to technological excellence,” says John Doerr of Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield, and Byers. Kleiner eventually invested and : Doerr took a position on Google’s board, as did Sequoia Capital’s Moritz.”People thought we were crazy, both investing and both going on the board of yet another search engine,” says Doerr. “But their search numbers kept going through the roof, and still do.” In a little over two years since the release of its beta site, Google’s capability has gone from 50,000 searches a day to more than 10 million. Half of those searches emanate from Google’s Web site, google.com, and half from co-branded Web sites that contract with Google to provide search.

“Google is a shining example of superior technology actually drawing traffic on the Internet rather than marketing,” says Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Watch. Can Page and Sergei Brinn, Google’s other 20-something founder, translate their technology into a profitable business even though they have no business experience? Will they eventually hand over the reins to a seasoned veteran, as Yahoo’s founders did with Tim Koogle? “We have had discussions,” says Brinn, “and when the right candidate appears we will hire that person.” Moritz isn’t sure the process will be so smooth. “When will we know when we have found the right candidate?” he asks. “We won’t. Jerry [Yang] and David [Filo] weren’t sure that Tim Koogle was the right guy at Yahoo. They asked, ‘How do we know that TK is the one for the job?’ We didn’t. You only find that out after.” Will Moritz and Doerr force the issue? “We are investors, not managers,” says Moritz. “We can argue our position, proffer advice, make suggestions, twist arms gently, but we can’t force them to do anything. This is their company.”

Is Google positioning itself for acquisition, like Direct Hit, or does it intend to go it alone? “We are constantly talking with the other portals and search engines about possible partnerships,” says Brinn cryptically. “It is a very small community,” he adds. According to IDC’s Parr, “If you’ve got the money to [remain independent], it’s a reasonable strategy,” He continues, “Build word of mouth, build a team, get product ready.” Google’s strategy is to make money via co-branded WebSearch, SiteSearch, and advertising. WebSearch offers commercial Web sites such as Netscape’s Netcentral portal and The Washington Post search capability for the Internet at large. Google has licensed its SiteSearch technology to other Web sites, such as Linux vendor, Redhat.com, enabling users to search for information contained only on RedHat’s site. But these contracts only provide compensation in the vicinity of S5 to $10 per thousand searches- not much of a revenue source. Google expects its new banner advertising program, highly targeted to specific users, to account for 60 percent of its revenues within two years. “When your customers are doing search, you know a lot about them,” says Page. “That knowledge base can be monetized in higher advertising rates.”

There are many lessons, but for me the most striking is that VCs do not seem to dictate what the founders will do. Of course, Google was and is an excpetion in many dimensions, but it shows that entrepreneurs are the real center of Silicon Valley. The second striking point is the fact that technology was Google’s main asset. There was a bet that their technology leadership would convert at some point into a profitable business.

The challenge of growth (2/3): Google

Following my post, yesterday, about Greiner’s paperEvolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow“, here are some data about Google. Well you know that Google is my favorite case study. I read and heard a few things recently which are related to the topic of growth and that I found interesting.

There is first the fact that Google employees generally say how impressive is the management of growth in hiring. The process is thorough with many phone and face to face interviews, assessing the quality of the future employee and her ability to work in teams. Then there is the process of managing teams which has been published under the code name Oxygen. (Thanks to Corine for mentioning it 🙂 ).

You can learn more about the project from Google Project Oxygen: Rules for good management or Google’s Project Oxygen.

What is really impressive (if true!) is that Google continues to maintain the start-up culture it had from its early days. In the early days, Brin and Page were interviewing all new hires. Google was also famous for giving math tests such as this one (extracted from the GLAT – Google Labs Aptitude Test). And finally, just as with Apple, people work in small teams (the famous “One pizza should feed the team”.) And this helps in keeping a start-up culture with not much hierarchy.

As a simple conclusion, Google tries to stay creative (following Greiner’s model).

Next and final part: some notes on the WEF report, Global Entrepreneurship and Successful Growth Strategies of Early-Stage Companies.

Google Innovation: Culture and Practices

When I heard about a talk on innovation at Google, I was obiously interested all the more that the brief summary looked great. here is the video on youtube, and below the summary:

>

It was given by Dan Russell, Research Scientist and Search Anthropologist, Google and was part of the Series of the CITRIS Research Exchange from UC Berkeley on March 16, 2011.

12:00 p.m.
Wednesday, March 16
Banatao Aud., 3rd floor, Sutardja Dai Hall, UC Berkeley
http://events.berkeley.edu/?event_ID=39124

About the talk:

As a company, Google clearly relies on innovation to keep our business alive and growing. Translating that desire into a continual innovation practice is central to the outlook and world-view that Google has as a corporate culture. Innovation isn’t just for the futurists, but a part of what everyone in the company is expected to do on a day-to-day basis.
People who work on internal processes, for example, are expected to be as innovative as engineers and product managers who drive externally visible products. Innovation isn’t something that the company can just leave to a few bright minds, but is deeply embedded in the culture of the company.

Beyond culture, though, there are a few pragmatic behaviors that help Google be innovative. A commonplace belief is that innovation originates with an identified market or user need. While we design for the user, we recognize that innovative ideas originate in many places—sometimes with user needs, but also occasionally from technology opportunities that suddenly become available. In these cases, the user need might not be clearly identified at the outset of research, but become evident only over time. Ultimately, of course, an innovation has to be user-relevant, but we understand that not everything starts that way.

One of the key drivers of Google innovation is our focus on data-driven analytics of our products. We instrument just about everything we can think of, log the data (anonymizing along the way to preserve privacy), then analyze it extensively. We recognize that innovation often proceeds in an evolutionary fashion, and that apparently large leaps in design and novel concepts are often hidden beneath a great deal of under-the-covers work the precedes the public announcement.

In user-interface design, for example, we don’t just do A/B testing, but often A/B/C/D/E/F/… testing. And one of the deep lessons of such an extensive testing program is that we recognize that our intuitions are often incorrect. Large changes in the design may very well lead to poor performance shifts, while tiny, sometimes imperceptible changes can have profound consequences. In many of our products, the UI changes significantly over time, particularly as we learn from our experiments, but also as new technology and data becomes available.

Innovation is thus often smoothly evolutionary, albeit looking like punctuated evolution from the outside, but driven by continual rapid iteration and redesign, always driven by an objective function that includes goodness-of-fit to the environment and exaptation of opportunities as they arise.

Finally, we find that innovative products really are the product of many minds. A very small team might drive the initial design and creation of the concept, but having multiple people look at, evaluate, comment-upon and lend supporting insights is valuable. The trick is to allow these additional insights to be supportive, and not weigh the original ideas down with extraneous freight. Keeping an innovation clear, clean and useful to the consumer is an important practice to avoid losing the key insight and value in the innovation.

Google, Silicon Valley and the spin-off virtuous cycle

It’s one of Silicon Valley strongest assets: entrepreneurs do not stay for long in established companies and create new ones. And it is accepted as a fact. Let us just me quote again Richard Newton: “The Bay Area is the Corporation. […When people change jobs here in the Bay Area], they’re actually just moving among the various divisions of the Bay Area Corporation.”

And what about the famous Wagon Wheel bar: “During the 1970s and 1980s, many of the top engineers from Fairchild, National and other companies would meet there to drink and talk about the problems they faced in manufacturing and selling semiconductors. It was an important meeting place where even the fiercest competitors gathered and exchanged ideas.”

The story goes on. I read today (thanks to Burton Lee) 15 Interesting Startups From Ex-Googlers from Jay Yarow. He found that since 2004, 49 spin-offs were created by former “Googlers”. Because it was a work in progress, apparently the number has increased to more than 70. See slide 2 of the pdf.

As a conclusion, let me add a study by Junfu Zhang who compared Silicon Valley to the Boston Cluster, in terms of how many entrepreneurs left their big company. He showed the big difference there was between the two regions that both Newton and the Wagon Wheel bar explain in terms of culture.


Source: High-Tech Start-Ups and Industry Dynamics in Silicon Valley – Junfu Zhang – Public Policy Institute of California – 2003

Advice to entrepreneurs

I found instructive to compare two short videos from the STVP. The first one is dated 2002 and shows Larry Page, the co-founder of Google. The seconde one, with Aaron Levie, has just been published on january 19, 2011.

And here is a comparaison

Larry Page vs. Aaron Levie
  • Work with the right people, great people you are compatible with
  • Do not compromise. Be passionate
  • Have a healthy disregard for the impossible
  • Do something which was impossible 3 years ago
  • Do not follow the hype. Good ideas always get funding.
  • If you feel comfortable, you are probably not doing the right thing.
  • Clearly passion, ambition but also self-confidence are ingredients of entrepreneurship.

    Another very good post on the topic is Should You Really Be A Startup Entrepreneur? by Mark Suster, where the reality of entrepreneurship is superbly described.

    Google vs. Facebook

    Is Google losing traction to Facebook? When I begin to read such things as Google Offers Employee $3.5 Million Not to Join Facebook or Google-Facebook : la guerre des talents est déclarée (the war for talents is declared) in the serious French newspaper Le Monde, it is probably time to wonder.

    The funny thing is that when I had lunch last week with a Swiss entrepreneur who needed contacts in Silicon Valley, I discovered that one my eBay contact was now at Facebook, one of my Microsoft contact was now at LinkedIn, so at the micro or macro level, there is something going on.

    You know Google is one of my favorite topics. I regularly look at their growth for example. So here is it again. Too early to say if they are in the slowing part of the S-curve…

    Facebook numbers? it’s rumors mostly so the graph below should be treated cautiously!

    The funny thing is that I had noticed there was a relation at Google between employees and revenues, basically $1M per employee. Facebook looks slightly less efficient.

    Silicon Valley has always been a war for talents. In the 90s, the electronics industry lost people to the Internet companies (you should remember that Yang and Filo, the founders of Yahoo! were studying in the field of electronic design automation) then Google was doing the same in the early 2000s, now it is about social networking. I would not worry too much for Google though. Not yet! As as Richard Newton was saying in EDA Cafe : “Silicon Valley and the Bay Area are cradles of innovation.” And he further added, stating a colleague of his: “The Bay Area is the Corporation. […When people change jobs here in the Bay Area], they’re actually just moving among the various divisions of the Bay Area Corporation.”

    Innovation at Google

    Google is famous for its innovation. You may check my now-old powerpoint on the company. Their “as-famous 20% free-time” to create is certainly one of their key features.

    The MIT TR35 awards (35 young innovators under the age of 35) celebrate again this unique company by including Wesley Chan in this group. Wesley Chan is an investor with Google Ventures. He was also the one who discovered and then acquired the people behind Google Analytics. You may want to read what the MIT Technology Review says about him in this pdf document.

    I extracted a few sentences by Chan from the document which are very consistent with Google early history. The search engine may have grown, some of its roots still emerge:

    – Without much money in the bank and under heavy competition from a dominant market leader, they proved themselves able not only to survive but to thrive.

    – Skeptics inside Google pointed out that Urchin was not the market leader or even the bestknown among the 30 analytics providers we considered.

    – They were the best founding team around. Great founders need the technical aptitude, motivation, and personal skills to make a product take off. […] Great founders understand how to deal with unprecedented issues and come out ahead. […] When I fund a company, I’m looking for people with the kind of potential that Urchin’s founders displayed: extraordinary entrepreneurs who can build game-changing products.

    Nic Brisbourne recently analyzed Google’s acquisitions in his blog, the Equity Kicker. You can also find them on Wikipedia. If you compare Google’s to Cisco’s acquisitions, you may see a distinctive difference: Google has a tendency to pay less and to buy start-ups much earlier. It is quite an interesting strategy (though Google seems to pay more these days).

    (Important) Post-Scriptum: writing about the MIT TR35 innovators, I must add that for the first time, an EPFL innovator is celebrated together with Google. Jochen Mundinger is a founder of routeRank and I have been lucky to meet him. Jochen is a great entrepreneur!


    © Alain Herzog, EPFL

    The Google Story

    This was the first chapter of my book! I have no real insider information about Google except my brief adventure with the Start-Up logo (that I use in this blog) when their people told me yes, no and finally yes about my right to use it. The book went out inbetween so it has a different cover but I obtained the right! I also failed in selling them a patent as they claimed they buy start-ups but not patents.

    Still, I read so much about Google, it was sufficient material for my chapter but also for many presentations I made to students, entrepreneurs and in fact anyone interested in high-tech entrepreneurship and Google in particular… so after a few years of such presentations, I thought it was a good time to put online the Google Story which I hope you will find of some interest!

    What Have VCs Really Done for Innovation?

    “What Have VCs Really Done for Innovation?” This is the title of a post by Vivek Wadhwa dated September 20. You can find the full account on Techcrunch. I have to admit I was not happy with the content. Instead of saying immediatly why, I will let you read comments made by others as I shared their point of view. You can also read the post and all the comments, but they are numerous!

    So, for example, I agreed with the following three comments:

    by Ashok
    It is true that the claims made by VCs are not realistic and vastly exaggerated. But, at the same time, we cannot forget that they have played key role in many innovative fields. By its very nature, a Venture Capitalist will invest only in a new promising project where he can hope to earn a handsome profit. There is nothing wrong in a VC selectively investing in projects. After all, we have to appreciate that for every one grand success, a VC may have seen 9 failures losing his money invested in projects which could not lead to big money. So, you have to judge the role of VCs also by their failed projects. Who would like to invest in a project which is likely to fail? Yet, it is a fact that a big percentage of projected financed by VCs fail. Does it not show the high risk involved in what VCs do? This being the position, what is wrong if they are selective in financing the projects? Therefore, the author’s observations “The fact is that VC’s follow innovation, they don’t lead. They go where they smell blood.” are not fully justified.
    What about their failed projects? Did they not smell blood? Then why did they invest? Why did they fail then?
    Unfortunately, the author has tried to present one-sided story without taking into consideration the problems which VCs might be facing.
    Of course, at the cost of repetition, I would say that the tall claims made by the VCs are also not correct. To conclude, it is neither black nor white; it is some shade of grey. Truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes

    then by Chris Yeh
    This is one of the most dangerous and wrong-headed posts that I have read all year. And I’m flabbergasted by the lack of critical thinking displayed in the comments section.
    There is definite truth to some of what Vivek has to say. The NVCA’s estimates are bogus, because they equate investing in a company with being responsible for its success. This is an egregiously egotistical assumption.
    It may very well be true that the venture industry as a whole trails index investing. It’s hard to pick winners. But so does the entire actively managed mutual fund industry.
    But the statement that “VCs at best have little to no impact on these companies and at worst have a negative impact” is absurd.
    First, there is a major survivorship bias problem with the data. By interviewing successful companies, the study fails to prove whether VC makes success more or less likely. All it says is that the majority of successful new businesses in the US do not rely on VC.
    A number of commentators seem to be of the impression that VCs make easy money by investing in companies after all the risk has been removed by the entrepreneur. This is talking out of both sides of one’s mouth. If the VCs aren’t taking risks, then how can they be delivering sub-par returns? By definition, they must be taking risks.
    Venture capital plays an important role in the startup ecosystem. It provides high-risk equity capital to startup companies. Not every company can be a bootstrapped consumer Internet company. Many important businesses (semiconductors, hardware, biotech) require significant up-front capital. If VCs went away, would there be enough funding for these business? Do you seriously think banks would start lending to these companies?
    I also wager that most of the commentators pooh-poohing VC would be glad to accept funding for their startups.

    finally by ethanboss
    … Of course there are VCs that don’t add value. As there are entrepreneurs who fail.: most of them. How ridiculous to claim that Sergey and Brin had already succeeded when KP and Sequoia invested. That shows a total lack of understanding of what it takes to build companies.
    Also, I suppose capital would also grow on the trees for these “innovative” companies to go and harvest, so there is no need for VCs…
    In the old days, when capital was hard to access there were some great entrepreneurs (few) that could get to profits without much help and capital. Some still do it but are the exception. The real world is a little different. You need capital and help with networks and other things to build a LARGE innovative company. Those things don’t grow on trees.

    so here is the comment I made on September 25.

    Vivek

    I agree with many other people that you are too single-minded. I do not fully disagree with some elements of your analysis, which explains why you have so much support, BUT…

    I was once a venture capitalist and I have neither an MBA nor a law degree but engineering degrees including a PhD and more importantly two years spent in Silicon Valley where I developed a passion for innovation and start-ups which I translated in becoming a VC.

    One more fact in addition to the other contributions:

    Surprisingly, Bill Gates had venture capitalists: this is taken from Microsoft IPO prospectus: “Mr. Marquardt has been a director of the Company since 1981. Since 1980, Mr. Marquardt has been a general partner of TVI Management. He has been with TVI Management since 1980. He is also a director of Archive Corporation and Sun Microsystems, Inc.” TVI had about 6% of Microsoft shares before the IPO.

    Now what have VCs really done for innovation? You would have been more credible by saying what are they doing. But if you use the past, let me put some historical perspective:

    – If investors (VC was not developed yet) had not funded Fairchild in 1957, Intel in 1968, Silicon Valley may not exist as it is. Your friend Vinod is maybe an exception, but there were many others. Arthur Rock helped in funding or funded directly Fairchild, Intel, Apple Computers.

    – The story of Genentech is well-known (go on my blog for more if you wish): when Bob Swanson, a former VC at KP became convinced biotech had a future, he first convinced Boyer, the researcher, then his former colleague Tom Perkins to try. Both were skeptical, so you are right Entrepreneurs are in the driving seat, but without the inventor and the investor, Genentech and then the biotech industry may not have existed. The innovation did not exist yet and the VCs contributed a lot.

    – Who do you think were the first VCs such as Gene Kleiner and Don Valentine and many others? They were former entrepreneurs who had the vision that funding the next generation would fuel innovation.

    I am also doing an analysis of startups created with Stanford technology or by Stanford Alumini. The surprising fact is that so far about 30% of the companies (I have a total of 2’700) were funded by VCs. It does not mean VCs were responsible for their success, but they had their contribution (in the group are companies such as Cisco, Yahoo, eBay, Google, Rambus, Atheros and so many others)

    Paul Graham says that for innovation, you just need nerds and rich people. I agree with him. The nerd is the brain and the investor is the blood. And then both will need a team, managers, employees which will constitute the full body. VCs do not contribute to inventions, but they help in their commercialization, which is I think the definition of innovation.

    You are not only singled minded but I think you are hurting the innovation ecosystem. I see too many entrepreneurs and future entrepreneurs scared with investors because they focus on your point of view. Of course, there have been terrible stories. But do not forget entrepreneurs need resources to succeed. Repeat entrepreneurs may bypass investors, business angels may help when resources are not too huge (maybe like in software though this is not even always true). But what about young people who develop semiconductors, biotechnologies, green technologies and have no money.

    Money is never cheap or fun. But you need it. Let me finish with two quotes which show that I support some of your views but I still disagree with your overall vision.

    In the book Founders at Work, one entrepreneur says about investors: “You can’t live with them, you can’t live without them” and even better Robert Noyce, Intel’s founders: “Look around who the heroes are. They aren’t lawyers, nor are they even so much the financiers. They’re the guys who start companies”

    cheers

    Herve

    Google’s First Steps

    An interesting interview of the Google founders dated 1998!

    googl-pagebizcard.jpg

    Quite interesting lessons:

    About the network of people: “Sergey: Basically, we talked to our advisers and other faculty whom we knew. And they just pointed us to other people. Pretty soon, we had investors, we had a lawyer, we had everything that we needed.

    About risk taking: “Larry: Silicon Valley is a little bit different. There’s not so much risk to us. If you fail in starting your company, you’re actually more fundable. You may have failed for some reason not involving yourself at all, just [due to] some random factors... Sergey: The main risk is really our time. We’re working much, much harder than we would in a normal job. It’s not a 40 hour a week job.”

    more…