walkman - 6:24 pm on Oct 12, 2011 (gmt 0)
Funny, the book written by the former employee reads antagonistic at points, while the book by the outsider is 'yeah, rah, yeah' google from start to finish.
Never read it, but some free paragraphs. I smelled a rat when Google's PR team started to push it in the blogs. There is a reason why some get access and some don't. If an 'insider' (be it a Google or a White House one) wants to keep that status he cannot deviate too much from the official line.
I gained a lot of respect for Employee 59 when he talked about his departure, Google's reliance on numbers and the mess that creates some times. In a WSJ interview, he also described G+ as a data gathering instrument, not that G cares about or knows social. So he can afford to be honest.
Alyssa, thanks for the link. It's amazing.
IMo the difference is in the founders: Amazon, Apple, MS, Oracle and others had founders that risked everything to achieve what they have. Google's founders were PHD students that had an idea to use an existing rank for web search and then money flowed in from VCs and now from ads. Need to make more money? There's no need for radical new products, just add more ads, send less traffic to other sites, and add some bling to ads. Losing market share? Go into PR mode, use all these products to kill competition and keep Google in people's mind. Google also hires booksmart people, hardly the type that take risks.
There's a huge difference between college dropouts (Gates, Steve Jobs, Paul Allen, Zuckenberg, Larry Ellison) and sheltered PHD students.