There has been somewhat of a debate going on between Matt Cutts and Om Malik around whether Google has any big ideas. The debate kicked off after Google Tasks for Mobile launched and generated a bit of blogosphere buzz. Om responded to the buzz with a tweet: I think google has no big ideas. this morning they announced a to-do-list. FGS. Remember the Milk MUCH better.
To be sure, the idea of a to-do list isn’t necessarily something one would classify as big. And yes, there are plenty of great products out there that handle task management in a much more comprehensive and convenient way than Google’s late-to-market effort. Remember the Milk is a brilliant tool.
This debate seems like a complete waste of time, but I somehow feel compelled to add a perspective to the mix.
We should expect Google to be all out of ideas.
Why?
Google is a search and advertising company. As much as we like to personify the brand – “Google does this”, “Google thinks that”, etc. – it is ultimately a business and the individuals running the business will tend to make decisions that maximize revenue or minimize costs. It won’t always do this, but it will tend to, especially if it’s a public company as Google is.
Once a business comes across an idea that generates a bucketload of revenue, the decision-making process of that company tends to stifle innovation beyond this idea out of fear that these newer ideas will “cannibalize” their cash cow or will take “resources” away from making their cash cow even fatter. Again this isn’t always the case, and this analysis is a simplification, but this “defend against innovation” mentality is baked into the DNA of all businesses and is difficult to avoid. Google is no exception. Larry and Sergey identified an opportunity to build a better search engine, and eventually found a brilliant revenue stream in text-based contextual advertising. That’s Google’s big idea. Their teams executed on this idea extremely well, and now the business is swimming in cash.
Now that they’re swimming in cash, we should expect to see Google defend against innovation which may harm their revenue stream. We should actually expect that Google has no more ideas, or at least very few good ones.
The fact that individuals push their ideas within the company, get buy-in, and eventually launch – like the Tasks team – makes Google unique and interesting, and is a testament to the perserverence of those individuals.
But if we’re looking to Google to be the one true source of innovation, we’re looking in the wrong place.
Your post on Google and Big Ideas reminds me of the arguments being made by people who believe in the “Disruptive Innovation” process. They also say that established companies have a hard time doing innovation, because they all had to evolve to serve their customers. Thus eventually boxing them in.
Thanks for your comment, Ed. Yes I believe this “boxing in” effect is not uncommon in large companies that have experienced the kind of success that Google has. What makes Google unique (and Google isn’t alone in this) is that there are pockets of people within the company who resist this “boxing in” and push for their ideas to be heard and adopted. What also makes it unique is that the founders appear to embrace this resistance.