I think the criticism would be that if their philosophy used to be focusing solely on search, and now they are doing other things, these side projects were never part of the "endgame". Perhaps they suffered from this.
I was just implying that a lack of vision generally reduces a project's value. The more something seems to accurately predict the direction of the web, the better the vision.
If a project looks spontaneous, it could indeed be a great idea, but often it can look like something created because it's what everyone else is doing.
Do you really think it isn't a problem that Google is building and brining to market two different competing operating systems? Google is pretty great at most things they do, but I think that they are straying from "It's best to do one thing really, really well." and that numbers among their problems.
It's fantastic that Google is developing 2 different operating systems. Even more so that they might compete in the market with each other. That's healthy. That's a company that has refused to impose strategy tarrifs on itself, a company that doesn't view itself as an empire but as a bustling hive of talent and opportunity.
Which is better: the market telling Google which (or both) of its two operating systems are viable or some VP making that decision?
The empire complex ruins big companies. It's the biggest threat to google's ability to remain a vital, innovative company in the long-run. It's good to see they haven't succumbed to it yet.
