

Larry Page completes major reorganization of Google - rea
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/04/exclusive-google-ceo-larry-page-completes-major-reorganization-of-internet-search-giant.html

======
nikcub
Six large org groups, run as individual companies, individual budgets, divided
by product and all reporting to the CEO - exactly how Microsoft is structured.

~~~
joelhaasnoot
Isn't that where the similarity ends?

~~~
nikcub
and two extremely profitable groups (one in the case of Google) funding the
other four (or five, in Google's case)

Microsoft also did the 'more nimble' thing 6 years ago:

[http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Microsoft-
announces...](http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Microsoft-announces-
major-reorganization-trying-1183301.php)

Which lead to turf war, and over half the org heads were let go over the past
2 years (Ozzie, Allchin, Allard, Raikes, also Bach and Moore)

Google is now also structured as a tech conglomerate, there aren't many of
those. It is something that Microsoft went through 20 years ago (ie. going
from a one-product company to something more).

There are many parallels, just hope Google learnt something from the Microsoft
experience of structuring and management.

~~~
metageek
> _and two extremely profitable groups (one in the case of Google)_

Didn't Google announce last year that Android made a billion dollars of
profit?

~~~
nikcub
The majority of that is search revenue, so it is booked in the other org.
Android books marketplace revenue, which will eventually be a billion dollar
business but not yet.

Chrome is also profitable because of search revenue, although I haven't seen a
figure anywhere

~~~
Jabbles
Isn't "search revenue" actually mostly "Ads revenue"?

What is the boundary on the Ads group? Who controls ads in YouTube videos?

~~~
nikcub
Yes search revenue is ad revenue. I know that for Android it is accounted in
ads but I have no idea about YouTube

------
robk
I think this will be a really good move for Google and has been a long time
coming. Up until now, the SVPs all had quite a bit of autonomy but were still
burdened by their reporting structure and the friction caused occasionally
when team mandates overlapped. This divisional structure effectively flattens
the org by allowing product managers and engineers to get things done at the
SVP level w/o any other burdens.

I think the challenge will be to see how hands off Larry can be with the SVPs.
He has a natural interest in getting deeply involved in some projects, and
that could be a source of additional overhead.

Most mysterious to me is what is Sergey doing right now? Larry's getting all
the attention, but it seems like Sergey's just lying low.

~~~
solid
>Most mysterious to me is what is Sergey doing right now?

According to the article he is "focused on major strategic initiatives"

>Page and fellow Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who is focused on major
strategic initiatives, have offices next to each other in a recently renovated
building on the campus. They are down the hall from executive chairman Eric
Schmidt and surrounded by engineers working at key products for Google.

------
macrael
Where Does Gmail live now? Google Docs? If they are lumped together in
"social" then that division would seem to be much less focused than the
others. And perhaps misnamed.

------
aditya
Hmm. This isn't in any way, shape or form, like Apple - except for the one guy
at the top...

<http://www.cogmap.com/chart/apple,-inc>.

Apple seems to be divided into Design, Software Engineering, Product
Marketing, Applications, along with Operations and Legal, etc.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
That isn't like Google at all. Apple is divided up by function, Google is
divided up by product. So the Android team has it's own designers, as does
Chrome and Search. Whereas at Apple the same design team works on all the
products.

~~~
seunosewa
I'm imagining a company where each product group hires the designer group...

------
6ren
Reminds me of Dave Packard coming out of retirement to counter centralized
control - something that probably takes the clout of a founder to do.
[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-03-14/business/93031...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-03-14/business/9303191909_1_laserjet-
impact-printer-h-p/3)

Though here, in the context of "adult-supervision", Larry Page is coming out
of childhood.

------
ozziegooen
So, "The idea is to empower people, let them take risks and give them more
authority over decisions," and yet, "The reorganization also puts Page firmly
in charge of Google and its performance in much the same way Steve Jobs runs
Apple.". So Page is trying to give people autonomy while also becoming a
dictator? Those are two very different philosophies there.

~~~
dirkstoop
Having people report to one person usually empowers them more than having them
report to a committee. It also ensures 'vision control' in a much better way.
So yes, and no, they're not at all different or incompatible.

------
kylemaxwell
Which is interesting and helpful, but I'd like to have seen a comparison:
showing the before and the after, not just the after.

------
jyothi
Organisation grows when its people grow. The freedom to take risks, make their
own decisions would bring in a fresh look into how things are built & run. But
I hope each one of these have good level of stake & passion comparable to the
founders.

------
spullara
This new organizational structure almost assures that they will continue to
compete with themselves in the tablet OS space. Chrome OS vs Android will be
an interesting battle.

------
othermaciej
A couple of days ago, on another story, I mentioned that I thought the coming
reorg would be to change to more product-focused organizations:
<[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2411933>](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2411933>);

"Not even smaller operating units, it just sounds like things will be
organized according to product rather than function. Other HN articles
recently have mentioned how Google has a bunch of centralized organizations
that report all the way to the top and are not responsible to any product
group (Launch, Site Reliability, UX, Product Management, etc). What's
different about Android is not that Andy Rubin has an engineering background;
many of Google's senior managers do, even in the big functional orgs. What's
different is that Android is a product unit which largely does not depend on
these external functional teams and has all its resources built in."

Looks like I read the tea leaves right.

