Larry Page ignored Steve Jobs’ advice, and Google is doing great

The premise of the article is jobs told page to focus Google, and Page ignored that but succeeded anyway<p>However IIRR Page shut down dozens of projects (wave being a big example). Just because a large company is doing a lot of things does not mean they are not focused - I expect Page has a list of 5 things and thinks its all focused quite well

Whether or not the premise is true, can't we stop abusing the death of Steve Jobs to generate page views?

What a lame article. If you compare Google now to Google a few years ago, the difference is <i>marked</i>. I know think of Google in ters of a handful of products today; that was not the case then. Google has definitely put its wood behind fewer arrows.<p>The bigger question is did Steve Jobs have anything to do with it? It would surprise me if Page wasn't going to go down this path either way. Maybe a nudge of encouragement rather than a massive course correction.

But Page did focus Google. He focused it on Google+. Compare the current everything integrated around Google+ company and the company of two years ago. The difference is astounding.<p>I actually think Page's biggest test is to come over the next several years. With declining per ad revenue and potential competitors (in Amazon and Facebook) Google runs the risk of having its core revenue stream reduced significantly, while over in the OS space it has to deal with the death thrash of a Microsoft that knows its do or die time and several minnows (RIM, Ubuntu) that may slice off small chunks of market share and a whale in Samsung that may just walk off with the rest.<p>If Page can navigate all that then it will be worth writing articles about.

&#62; continues to be wildly and purposefully unfocused<p>Unfocused? Last two years Google killed tens of products. They even killed Google Wave. Moreover, they unified UI across many products.<p>In my opinion Larry is doing exactly what Steve advised.

This is a fluff piece. Weren't all of those products in production or development when Jobs passed away? And hasn't Page continued to cut and EOL products since then too?

What is it with blogs getting more and more clickbait-y with titles at the moment, even The Verge has gone that way.<p>Page smoothly managed Google into a position where they have <i>many</i> projects ongoing, and the <i>core</i> business is incredibly focussed. Saying he ignored Jobs' advice to focus is incredibly stupid, as he did bring a level of focus back into the business and it's working incredibly well for Google.<p>You can have multiple projects, and multiple exploratory avenues and these are healthy things, but Google for a period was throwing everything at the wall to see what stuck.

&#62; Shortly after Larry Page re-took the reigns as CEO of Google<p>He re-took the what? You don't take the reigns, you don't give free reign, and you don't loosen the reigns. It's REINS.

You could argue that Google is using a barbell strategy. Play it safe with the core business (search has hardly changed in all these years, just a few minute layout changes and algorithm tweaks. The biggest change, real-time results from Twitter, was rolled back. They have also been very aggressive about protecting search from threats/substitutes, hence vast sums spent on Android and Chrome to protect the visibility of their search ads), then have lots of small-scale dabbling in diverse, blue-sky projects.

I'm sure Steve Jobs though Apple should do hardware, Google should do web software, and as long as they both stuck to their sides of the line, they would both dominate.

Google’s Product Bloodbath: The Full Rundown <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5837043/googles-product-bloodbath-the-full-rundown" rel="nofollow">http://gizmodo.com/5837043/googles-product-bloodbath-the-ful...</a> Ignored the advice they said.(<i>chuckles to himself</i>)

Steve jobs. Larry page Both mentioned in same title Who wouldn't click?

This article is a little fanboyish. Google hasn't actually invented anything either. Google Now, Glasses, self driving cars, Google+ have all been done before many years ago.<p>What Google is doing is simply executing them in a far more polished and integrated way. Similar to what Apple does.<p>I personally believe that the real raw innovation in the industry is surprisingly coming from Microsoft.

Google has some really strong engineers, and has some incredible internal tools. Its build system (Blaze) is world class. As I get older, my admiration for its engineering culture (and emerging courage in product vision) only grows.<p>Its problem is its decrepit HR system. It needs to fire the people who came up with the "calibration scores", the 18-month lockout, and the whole closed allocation regime, yesterday.<p>If you make the error of thinking that technology is smart people stuff and HR is stupid people stuff, you end up with stupid people writing your HR policies, and disaster ensues.<p>If Google takes out the trash and reinvents itself as an open-allocation company, it'll be a real powerhouse.

<i>"Larry Page ignored Steve Jobs’s deathbed advice, and Google is doing great"</i><p>First, they were competitors so take your competitor's advice with a grain of salt, Jobs or no Jobs.<p>Second, there is a lot more to it than just saying "focus on a few things."<p>Third, Google has a lot of goodwill from way back, any potential downfall will take years. That means that people could tolerate G+, the many ads etc for a while even if unhappy.<p>Fourth, Maps, Gmail, Now etc can all be folded under one: "Mobile Apps" so Google can say we're focusing.