http://bit.ly/7XwAG
Two most exciting things that happened last week are the entry and exit of the two founders of the world's largest technology companies from the day to day management of their companies. The feisty Steve Jobs took a sudden leave of absence from running Apple after resurrecting it from almost dead in 1996 to making it the most admired technology company of the decade in 2010, due to unknown medical reasons, causing the stock to plummet by 2 points despite brilliant results. Jobs 55 has taken extended medical leave twice before once for treatment of pancreatic cancer and once for liver operation and is known to be a person of indifferent health.
However before that news could be digested by rather astounded technology analysts, came the news that "adult supervision was no longer needed at Google." CEO Eric Schmidt 56 was being sent upstairs (some say canned) and the not so young Google co-founder Larry Page at 37 years ( if you compare his age to Facebook or Groupon CEO's who are all in their twenties ) would takeover as CEO taking responsibility of running the company on a day today basis.
The oncoming of Larry Page into the ring could be momentous and historic. Usually companies would announce such a top level change months ahead. A gradual build up of such news could not only help Google's image but also do wonders to its stock value given the media clout of the search engine giant. So why did Google not announce this change 6 months or even 3 months in advance like most companies changing a CEO would do. Had this something to do with Google's informal management style that does not believe in old school protocols. Or was it some other reason like disagreement over how Google was going lately. The China misadventure in which Google was forced to kiss and make-up and the fact that both Apple and Facebook today threatened its monopoly in internet advertising were enough for a wake-up call.
In all probability the real reason is perhaps because Google under Schmidt did not know how to confront future challenges. Yes, this was a decision that came out of a last minute brainstorming session possibly following the news of Steve Jobs medical leave. For months Eric Schmidt had been on the back foot as his two adversaries Apple and Facebook gradually scraped away lucrative advertisement markets away from Google and slammed its doors at Google spiders barring its entry into protected Facebook and Apple territory. Facebook also wooed away top Google employees including senior staff who were core strategists for the search engine giant. Even tiny Groupon became bold as to refuse Google's $6 billion offer because Google was slowly perceived as loosing its magic touch.
Schmidt was ageing and clearly on the back-foot as he faced street savvy Zuckerberg or iconic Steve Jobs. Google had to come up with a dynamic response but Schmidt had looked clueless when facing questioning from the WSJ Executive Director at the "Big Interview" in May. So when Steve Jobs retired the discussion at Google heated upon the future leader of the technology world. Could Zuckerberg be allowed to take a peek at the prized crown that was rightfully Google's but had been taken away since the last two years by Apple. The answer was a big resounding No. Co-founder Larry Page was given the task to ensure that this did not happen,and with Steve Jobs out of the battle at least for a few months this was perhaps the best opportunity.
Two most exciting things that happened last week are the entry and exit of the two founders of the world's largest technology companies from the day to day management of their companies. The feisty Steve Jobs took a sudden leave of absence from running Apple after resurrecting it from almost dead in 1996 to making it the most admired technology company of the decade in 2010, due to unknown medical reasons, causing the stock to plummet by 2 points despite brilliant results. Jobs 55 has taken extended medical leave twice before once for treatment of pancreatic cancer and once for liver operation and is known to be a person of indifferent health.
However before that news could be digested by rather astounded technology analysts, came the news that "adult supervision was no longer needed at Google." CEO Eric Schmidt 56 was being sent upstairs (some say canned) and the not so young Google co-founder Larry Page at 37 years ( if you compare his age to Facebook or Groupon CEO's who are all in their twenties ) would takeover as CEO taking responsibility of running the company on a day today basis.
The oncoming of Larry Page into the ring could be momentous and historic. Usually companies would announce such a top level change months ahead. A gradual build up of such news could not only help Google's image but also do wonders to its stock value given the media clout of the search engine giant. So why did Google not announce this change 6 months or even 3 months in advance like most companies changing a CEO would do. Had this something to do with Google's informal management style that does not believe in old school protocols. Or was it some other reason like disagreement over how Google was going lately. The China misadventure in which Google was forced to kiss and make-up and the fact that both Apple and Facebook today threatened its monopoly in internet advertising were enough for a wake-up call.
In all probability the real reason is perhaps because Google under Schmidt did not know how to confront future challenges. Yes, this was a decision that came out of a last minute brainstorming session possibly following the news of Steve Jobs medical leave. For months Eric Schmidt had been on the back foot as his two adversaries Apple and Facebook gradually scraped away lucrative advertisement markets away from Google and slammed its doors at Google spiders barring its entry into protected Facebook and Apple territory. Facebook also wooed away top Google employees including senior staff who were core strategists for the search engine giant. Even tiny Groupon became bold as to refuse Google's $6 billion offer because Google was slowly perceived as loosing its magic touch.
Schmidt was ageing and clearly on the back-foot as he faced street savvy Zuckerberg or iconic Steve Jobs. Google had to come up with a dynamic response but Schmidt had looked clueless when facing questioning from the WSJ Executive Director at the "Big Interview" in May. So when Steve Jobs retired the discussion at Google heated upon the future leader of the technology world. Could Zuckerberg be allowed to take a peek at the prized crown that was rightfully Google's but had been taken away since the last two years by Apple. The answer was a big resounding No. Co-founder Larry Page was given the task to ensure that this did not happen,and with Steve Jobs out of the battle at least for a few months this was perhaps the best opportunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment