> The fact is that the startup process is able to do what big companies are simply incapable of doing.
They aren't incapable of it, they do it too. They just have different priorities. A company's goal is to grow as large as possible. They want to shut out competition.
Both of those reasons explain why they acquire start-ups -- one, to feed the beast. Two, to stop any threat to their gluttonous expansion.
Microsoft's core is still Windows, Word, and Excel. Google's is still the search they started with when they were a start-up (every big company was once a start-up), not any of the start-ups they've since acquired. The core products pay the bills; the rest is filling up the cracks.
The numbers game is of crucial importance because large companies externalize the cost of the selection process. Google will pay a little for dedicated people and a lot for a big audience to sell ads to. Everyone's just still stuck on the old paradigm of either some time-wasting interview process ("what are you interviewing for?" "A job!" "To do what?" "I don't know exactly!") or buying a start-up with a self-selected people/problem combination that already seems to work.
> Why doesn't intense determination to develop something great qualify as a methodology?
I think we're getting a little carried away here with hyperbole. There are few "great" ones, that's not a methodology, although self-deception might qualify. Steve Jobs had an intense determination to develop something great -- the Mac. Hardly anyone falls into that category. Most start-ups now are excited kids who mainly want to make some quick bucks.
And I note the Mac was created BY a gigantic company, by someone who was already rich (and a bunch of engineers on minimum salary -- hey, it's Jobs). It's WHO, not WHERE, and I note design-by-committee-with-endless-meetings has been recognized as a mistake for a long time (Apple III).
And yes, the code does matter.
> Can you spot the contradiction?
No, it's 5 am, I'm up because my neighbor was crashing around, I don't even know what I'm writing. I seem to be talking myself into agreeing with PG.
They aren't incapable of it, they do it too. They just have different priorities. A company's goal is to grow as large as possible. They want to shut out competition.
Both of those reasons explain why they acquire start-ups -- one, to feed the beast. Two, to stop any threat to their gluttonous expansion.
Microsoft's core is still Windows, Word, and Excel. Google's is still the search they started with when they were a start-up (every big company was once a start-up), not any of the start-ups they've since acquired. The core products pay the bills; the rest is filling up the cracks.
The numbers game is of crucial importance because large companies externalize the cost of the selection process. Google will pay a little for dedicated people and a lot for a big audience to sell ads to. Everyone's just still stuck on the old paradigm of either some time-wasting interview process ("what are you interviewing for?" "A job!" "To do what?" "I don't know exactly!") or buying a start-up with a self-selected people/problem combination that already seems to work.
> Why doesn't intense determination to develop something great qualify as a methodology?
I think we're getting a little carried away here with hyperbole. There are few "great" ones, that's not a methodology, although self-deception might qualify. Steve Jobs had an intense determination to develop something great -- the Mac. Hardly anyone falls into that category. Most start-ups now are excited kids who mainly want to make some quick bucks.
And I note the Mac was created BY a gigantic company, by someone who was already rich (and a bunch of engineers on minimum salary -- hey, it's Jobs). It's WHO, not WHERE, and I note design-by-committee-with-endless-meetings has been recognized as a mistake for a long time (Apple III).
And yes, the code does matter.
> Can you spot the contradiction?
No, it's 5 am, I'm up because my neighbor was crashing around, I don't even know what I'm writing. I seem to be talking myself into agreeing with PG.