Larry Page: If you're not crazy, you're going to do something wrong.

Text/Larry Page I have been worried that there may be serious mistakes in the way we run our businesses. I have often seen reports about Google, or read about the science and technology sector, and the topic is competition. These reports read as fiercely as the sports events. But realistically, it is not easy to find a new thing that is fascinating and completely born out of competition. Learn to "Think Big" in the same industry, other enterprises are doing the same thing, beat it to show that you do the best, what can be excited? Because of this, with the advance of time, some enterprises themselves slowly decline. There may be slight changes, but overall they tend to do as they did before, because people are willing to do what they believe will not fail. But for a long time, progressive improvement is out of date. This is especially true in the technology industry, where there are non incremental changes. So, a large part of my job is to focus on things that are not just incremental. For example, when Gmail was launched, we were a search company, a product that was a big jump in order to give users 100 times times more storage space than any other enterprise-class tool. If we were just focusing on incremental improvements, such products would not occur, and such changes would not occur. So every n years we have to develop something new, something you think is really fascinating. The trick is to imagine these products. Let's take Gmail for example, and before I put it, I had a list in my head that listed 10 problems with existing products, and then we had to improve and launch new products. I've been trying to keep this list in my head and keep writing new projects. I later extended this practice to the company's operations, starting out as a lab-like ad hoc organization, now an independent department, which is what you know as GoogleX. I think we're going to do something groundbreaking and not value-added across the department. Now GoogleX can do something more independently. We have always had this argument: we have money, someone, why not do more? You might say that Apple does very little, very little, and it works for them. But I find it unsatisfactory. I think the world is still full of opportunities to use technology to make people's lives better. Google could account for 0.1%, and all technology companies could add up to 1%. That means 99% of virgin land. Investors have been worried: "You guys are spending too much money on these crazy things." "But these things are now our most exciting products, such as YouTube, Chrome, Android." If you don't do crazy things, you'll do something wrong. (Someone will mention Parc.) Editor's note, one of Xerox's departments, once had a dream-style innovation, but did not help the enterprise itself to operate) Parc has a large research organization and invented many modern computing tools, but they are not focused on commercialization. I think that innovation andCommercialization needs to be focused. For example, my most esteemed company is Tesla. They didn't really build a revolutionary new car, but they spent 99% of their energy on developing cars. I always wanted to be an inventor when I was growing up. Later I realized that inventors had many sad stories, such as Nikola (Editor's note, nikolatesla,1856-1943, Serbian-American inventors, physicists, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, and futurists). He was considered an important catalyst for the commercialization of electricity, and his many related patents and theoretical work on electromagnetics were the cornerstone of modern wireless communication and radio, and he did not have much influence because he did not turn inventions into business. It is not easy to have such a big thought. In traditional education, no one has been taught how to identify these difficult projects. If I want to know what technical projects I should be engaged in, which school I should go to, almost entirely by personal groping. You may need to receive a fairly broad range of technical education, and you need to know something about organization and entrepreneurship. But our system nurtures people in a professional way, without telling people how to pick the right items, which can have a wide range of technical implications. When I had this kind of "big thinking", why didn't I do it? We must have enough time to finish. Like auto, I want to do when I'm at Stanford. That was 14 years ago. The only change is that we have money to do now. Larger update Now there are 1 billion people using our products. I think the failure of a business is due to doing something wrong, or without ambition, not because of litigation or competition. At the company, I spent a lot of effort to make sure that all the core products had a good user experience. When you use chrome or search or Gmail, it's Google and there's a consistent feeling. In other words, it's not a good experience to have 50 ways to share content. This shows that it needs to be consolidated. We have been developing maps for a long time, and some people realize that we have spent a lot of effort and invested a lot of money, we are very happy. These achievements should now receive more appreciation. Look, you may have the best map in the world, but it doesn't make sense if nobody uses it. We also put a lot of effort into the social sphere. Like Google +, we are satisfied with its past performance. But it's also developing pretty cool new stuff. Many were also copied by competitors, so I think we did a good job. I admit that we do have problems with users sharing information and how to express their identity. Facebook is a powerful company in this area, but it has a bad place on its own products. If we want to succeed, do we have to have other companies fail? That's not true. We're actually doing different things. Our philosophy has always been to get as many people as possible to use our products. Unfortunately, in this era, it is often difficult to do so. The past network is good, we can quickly provide everyone with high-quality products. Now we're back, there's a promise in the marketMany platforms. The business enclosure will be shut out, I think it hinders the competition. It would be surprising to say that there is only one business in these areas. When we started our search, everyone said, "You're going to fail, and you've got 5 search companies." We said: "We are a search company, but we do things differently." "We also look at all areas in this way. My main concern is to see what is possible, it is not hindered by the status quo, we have this ability to identify. It is obvious, for example, that the operating system is rather bad when acquiring Android. You can't write software for them. You just have a firm conviction to invest in the long term and believe things will be better. From the number of employees, we are a medium-sized enterprise, we have a good tens of thousands of employees. Some enterprise employees will reach millions of, they are hundreds of times times the size of us. What would we do if we were hundreds of times times more employees in the future? Doesn't Wal-Mart have 1 million employees? There are 1 million employees, which may not be important to us, but I like to think about whether we can build a business of this size. We can add people, but still remain truly innovative. That's good. There will be many bigger companies around the world, we are one of them, we like to do more things, not just do what others have done, but also new things. (The writer is co-founder and CEO of Google Inc., this article is based on the author to receive "Wired" magazine interview, title is added by the editor, without my review)