I don't really agree with this article saying more companies should follow Google's path in spoiling their employee. Not that company have money to burn like Google. There is no analysis that can be done to calculate whether money spent per employee is well earned.
Most employees acquired from any acquisitions are a waste in term that they don't really contribute significant value to Google (companies acquired usually for their proprietary technology, much cheaper to buy them than buy their patent). So there it is really inevitable that Google would, in the near future, became bloated and too big for their own growth. To spin any business unit off is suicidal, because I can't really see any other core business for Google but ad-related business. Any effort spent in research is, I think, in effort to acquire new hits or maintain old ones (I don't think hits are considered significant anymore, but I forgot the newer term).
Google shouldn't really be called a tech company, it should be more of EO company, if not marketing company. This is a curious statement.
Most employees acquired from any acquisitions are a waste in term that they don't really contribute significant value to Google (companies acquired usually for their proprietary technology, much cheaper to buy them than buy their patent). So there it is really inevitable that Google would, in the near future, became bloated and too big for their own growth. To spin any business unit off is suicidal, because I can't really see any other core business for Google but ad-related business. Any effort spent in research is, I think, in effort to acquire new hits or maintain old ones (I don't think hits are considered significant anymore, but I forgot the newer term).
Google shouldn't really be called a tech company, it should be more of EO company, if not marketing company. This is a curious statement.
Comments