Google CEO digs into rival tech companies, says industry needs more innovation
In an interview with Wired, Google CEO and cofounder Larry Page offered his take on the state of technology, saying that companies like Apple and Facebook should dedicate more resources on innovation rather than competion.
Throughout the lengthy Wired interview, which covers Page's beginnings with Google and his work with the company's Google X project, the CEO offered his thoughts on why tech companies should be focusing more on innovating the next big thing instead of working on version changes of existing products.
Page expressed concern regarding company leadership, saying there too much attention is being paid to competition. When asked about a specific case involving the late Steve Jobs' comment of "going thermonuclear war" on Google's Android mobile operating system, Page quipped, "How well is that working?"
"But it?s hard to find actual examples of really amazing things that happened solely due to competition," Page said. "How exciting is it to come to work if the best you can do is trounce some other company that does roughly the same thing?"
Speaking on the topic of Google X, the internet search giant's experimental products lab, Page said breakthroughs and non-incremental changes are key and questions why tech giants like Apple don't use their vast resources toward these goals.
"You may say that Apple only does a very, very small number of things, and that?s working pretty well for them. But I find that unsatisfying," he said, adding that the "crazy things" investors worry about spending money on are ultimately the most substantial. Page gave the examples of YouTube, Chrome, and Android, saying, "If you?re not doing some things that are crazy, then you?re doing the wrong things."
Regarding new products, Wired asked if Google's latest social networking endeavor, Google+, was a result of competition with Facebook, but Page dismissed the idea.
"It?s not the way I think about it," he said. "And, yeah, [Facebook is] a company that?s strong in that space. But they?re also doing a really bad job on their products. For us to succeed, is it necessary for some other company to fail? No. We?re actually doing something different."
Throughout the lengthy Wired interview, which covers Page's beginnings with Google and his work with the company's Google X project, the CEO offered his thoughts on why tech companies should be focusing more on innovating the next big thing instead of working on version changes of existing products.
Page expressed concern regarding company leadership, saying there too much attention is being paid to competition. When asked about a specific case involving the late Steve Jobs' comment of "going thermonuclear war" on Google's Android mobile operating system, Page quipped, "How well is that working?"
"But it?s hard to find actual examples of really amazing things that happened solely due to competition," Page said. "How exciting is it to come to work if the best you can do is trounce some other company that does roughly the same thing?"
Speaking on the topic of Google X, the internet search giant's experimental products lab, Page said breakthroughs and non-incremental changes are key and questions why tech giants like Apple don't use their vast resources toward these goals.
"You may say that Apple only does a very, very small number of things, and that?s working pretty well for them. But I find that unsatisfying," he said, adding that the "crazy things" investors worry about spending money on are ultimately the most substantial. Page gave the examples of YouTube, Chrome, and Android, saying, "If you?re not doing some things that are crazy, then you?re doing the wrong things."
Regarding new products, Wired asked if Google's latest social networking endeavor, Google+, was a result of competition with Facebook, but Page dismissed the idea.
"It?s not the way I think about it," he said. "And, yeah, [Facebook is] a company that?s strong in that space. But they?re also doing a really bad job on their products. For us to succeed, is it necessary for some other company to fail? No. We?re actually doing something different."
Comments
Even his answers are copied.
Dipsh!t, Apple's been innovating for the last 10 years.
haha
Android
10" tablet
Manufacturing your own
He's all talk.
Google are about as innovative as my left testicle. Like Facebook, they are a glorified advertising company - who fluked into Search 10 years ago. Amazon are far more innovative than Google in the last 5 years. And Apple blow both of them out of the water. Apple's products are so seamless and work so well, sometimes their innovation is invisible and not so obvious at a glance, unless you touch and use the products.
Three areas for future innovation for Apple are: even better UX on iOS (notice I didn't say more features), cloud services that are far more reliable, robust and fast, and the all-in-one TV product I've been wishing for for 7 years.
Everything else will be evolutionary for a few years, like the Retina transition, the SSD transition and other transitions.
I strongly believe Apple needs to switch to an iOS-like free update model on OS X.
And everyone here will likely disagree with me, but I think Apple needs to seriously consider purchasing Twitter. I'd go so far as to say they should buy Twitter. They should have 2 years ago. And I don't believe Twitter is not for sale, they'd sell to Apple for the right price. And Apple would make back that money in a year.
This is my wish list. Have at it, Cook.
They lack focus in almost every way - I am emended of the monkeys and Beethoven metaphor.
the original iphone, ipad, apple tv, MBA weren't incremental. When's the last time Google was first to the market. oh wait, they had Wave or Buzz or whatever that failure was.
Yeah, Google wants Apple to "innovate" and invent the next new thing no doubt, so that Google can copy it and come out with their own crappy version, just like with their phones and their crappy OS.
And sometimes it's better to do nothing than to "innovate" or change things just for the sake of changing things. A good example is Youtube, which is owned by Google. Almost every damn time that I visit Youtube, it seems that something has been changed, for no apparent reason at all, and features that you are used to using are no longer there, or have been changed for the worse. That's not innovating, that's just being clueless.
Yeah buying Motorola was a crazy thing..Google has def made some good products but it has no problem stealing on the way...they see that as innovating from the marketplace aka stealing.
Apple not innovating :iphone,ipad,ipod, ????
Sure, let the other companies innovate so google can just copy everything again. Friggin jerk.
Google has ads served with search. Everything else they do, really, is mediocre, at best, and doesn't make them much money at all, if any. Good thing that's working out well for your, Mr. Page, because we all know that online ads will live (and provide revenue) forever.
He's one to talk. Send Schmidt off to the gulag, torpedo Android... then you can talk, Larry.
Wow, from the leader of the company with the biggest case of Copyitis ever. Me thinks the fellow is feeling a little defensive about all that.
This from Mr. "We copied the iPhone UI and UX and develop a whole plethora of products that suck and are half-assed." I'd rather be (and invest in) a company like Apple that has laser-sharp focus and pays close attention to detail -- that develops and sells a few really great products -- than......what Google does.
I don't like the attitudes any of the Google executives.
YouTube was bought
Chrome, a browser, isn't "crazy"
Android's foundation partially bought, and to make it attractive the ideas was stolen, then they added non-crazy ideas.
I will give them credit for other things that I would say are crazier (off the top of my head: their massive page indexing, streetview, some tech in their infrastructure like alternative power sources and cooling or willing to use any kind of hard drive in their storage cloud), but the examples quoted are weak.
And about Apple's small range of products being unsatisfying, it is that razor focus on a small number of products that allows Apple to make sure they are more useable and seamless than most of the other competing products.
I have to agree here, if anybody out there in tech land is copying others it is Google. After using my iPad 3 for almost a year now all I see in it is innovation and advancement of the art. As you say it is sometime easy to mis Apples innovations because they are so fluidly integrated into the whole.
Interestingly I see iCloud as one of those areas where Apple has actually tried to innovate but many don't even give it the time of day. I have highly mixed feelings with respect to iCloud as some things it does well and other things it is total fail.
Speaking of SSD, the technology might not be innovation on Apples part but leading it into the mainstream as far as secondary storage on cheap computers is. In that regard AIR was true innovation in that they managed to find a way to offer what was once an expensive solution at a very affordable price. people might not see that as innovation but if you have tried to lower the cost of any part in any product you will realize it is harder work then some seem to believe.
I see no advantage to Twitter for Apple. I see it as a waste of money especially when it is fairly simple to integrate into IOS and apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Google+
Android
10" tablet
Manufacturing your own
He's all talk.
Google are about as innovative as my left testicle. Amazon are far more innovative than Google in the last 5 years. And Apple blow both of them out of the water. Apple's products are so seamless and work so well, sometimes their innovation is invisible and not so obvious at a glance, unless you touch and use the products.
Three areas for future innovation for Apple are: even better UX on iOS (notice I didn't say more features), cloud services that are far more reliable, robust and fast, and an actual all-in-one TV product, that I've been wishing for for 7 years.
Everything else will be evolutionary for a few years, like the Retina transition, the SSD transition and other transitions.
I strongly believe Apple needs to switch to an iOS-like free update model on OS X.
And everyone here will likely disagree with me, but I think Apple needs to seriously consider purchasing Twitter. I'd go so far as to say they should buy Twitter. They should have 2 years ago. And I don't believe Twitter is not for sale, they'd sell to Apple for the right price. And Apple would make back that money in a year.