Article keeps reiteratng that Google's culture is broken, and it's Pichai's fault, but provides no examples of how the culture is broken, or what Pichai did to cause it.
But wasn't that the point? There's nothing to point to other than a handful of failures, and still as very heavy reliance on search (related revenues).
My takeaway was based on just that: The company's vision remains dominated by search, and that in turn drives the culture to be search-centric and nothing else. If there was something else to see, we'd have seen it by now.
What felt odd (to me) was that the article (initially) gave Pichai any credit at all. Why? Just about all signs point to a company with one-trick and running on auto-pilot.
