Challenges have piled up for Mr. Page since he assumed his post in April. They include a broad U.S. antitrust probe of the company's practices; the settlement of a long-running criminal investigation into Google's advertising business; and shifting industry forces that led him to make a deal to buy mobile-device maker Motorola Mobility Holdings..
In his short tenure, he's shipped Google+, coordinated the redesign of several Google properties and reorganized the entire company [1].
Even if he wasn't focused on these long-term projects, it would be foolish to judge him this early on. This piece speaks more about the cynicism of WSJ than of Page & Google.
I absolutely agree with you but unfortunately, none of those you mentioned are currently creating "value" for shareholders, which is what these short-sighted Wall Street analysts are looking for.
In fact, two things that "destroyed" value (at least in the short term) happened under Larry's watch. 1) 12.5 Billion acquisition of Motorola 2) $500 Million settlement with the DOJ.
Ha they dropped 9.1% compared to the market's 8.4%? So the only dropped 0.7% below market average. That's really not so much. Sounds like they are trying to make it seem larger by phrasing it that way. The whole article seems a little sensational. A lot of this stuff doesn't have so much to do with him.
This whole article is quite silly. It puts a negative spin on his tenure as CEO by downplaying the single most important fact: under Page, Google+ actually shipped, and was actually good! Gundotra and Horowitz led the operation, true, but it's hard to believe Larry Page wasn't heavily involved with that.
All the rest is short term ephemera. 9.1% vs. 8.4% is, as you note, nothing. The Motorala deal is for the patents, and they'll probably spin off the hardware end after the deal closes. Expensive but well within Google's budget. As for the $500 million payment, the federal government is suing every company it's not bailing out. Nowadays some sort of federal shakedown is just a cost of doing business in the US, unfortunately. Heck, some guy even recently tried to get Dropbox in trouble with the FTC. You get big enough and you're just a target for all kinds of this stuff.
In his short tenure, Page cleaned house, fired tons of nonperforming "VP Bizdev" types, and catalyzed nothing short of an engineering renaissance at Google. Google+ in particular is tremendous for internal company morale and has stemmed the tide of defections to FB. Page knows what's important, but Amir Efrati, the author of this Journal piece, clearly does not.
They're playing to their audience. This is a way to get a nice little schadenfreude fire burning in the hearts of all their readers who think their MBAs actually contribute in some essential way to their business acumen.
Yeah. This article has the weird feeling of being some sort of hit piece on Page and/or Google. It seems to willfully ignore the successes coming out of Page's tenure (G+ being, if perhaps too early to call, very promising). And it overemphasizes factors largely attributable to market forces, or at least to forces not entirely within Page's direct control.
Strangely, when I follow your link and click the top link, I still only get 2 paragraphs. If I do my own google search (paste your search query into a fresh google search box), I get the whole article..
So, apparently the order went out, and with typical news corp subtlety the WSJ is going after Google. Last week the piece with them and Apple, now this.
So who wants to speculate on motivations: Murdoch business interest? Or a sense that Google and Obama are friends?
It's always been easy to point out a few Google products that essentially own their category and a few more that are dying quietly on the vine. What would really worry me is if that culture of calculated gambles goes away.
[+] [-] m0th87|14 years ago|reply
Even if he wasn't focused on these long-term projects, it would be foolish to judge him this early on. This piece speaks more about the cynicism of WSJ than of Page & Google.
1: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/04/exclusive...
[+] [-] chugger|14 years ago|reply
In fact, two things that "destroyed" value (at least in the short term) happened under Larry's watch. 1) 12.5 Billion acquisition of Motorola 2) $500 Million settlement with the DOJ.
Read my other comment below for more details.
[+] [-] mindstab|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ramanujan|14 years ago|reply
All the rest is short term ephemera. 9.1% vs. 8.4% is, as you note, nothing. The Motorala deal is for the patents, and they'll probably spin off the hardware end after the deal closes. Expensive but well within Google's budget. As for the $500 million payment, the federal government is suing every company it's not bailing out. Nowadays some sort of federal shakedown is just a cost of doing business in the US, unfortunately. Heck, some guy even recently tried to get Dropbox in trouble with the FTC. You get big enough and you're just a target for all kinds of this stuff.
In his short tenure, Page cleaned house, fired tons of nonperforming "VP Bizdev" types, and catalyzed nothing short of an engineering renaissance at Google. Google+ in particular is tremendous for internal company morale and has stemmed the tide of defections to FB. Page knows what's important, but Amir Efrati, the author of this Journal piece, clearly does not.
[+] [-] Estragon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonnathanson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yuhong|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smoody|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmbass|14 years ago|reply
Actual Google search link that will work when clicking through to WSJ.
[+] [-] bostonpete|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChrisLTD|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewljohnson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbooth|14 years ago|reply
So who wants to speculate on motivations: Murdoch business interest? Or a sense that Google and Obama are friends?
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] saturdaysaint|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yuvipanda|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abbott|14 years ago|reply