We just finished our Lean LaunchPad class at UC Berkeley’s engineering school where many of the teams embedded machine learning technology into their products. It struck me as I watched the teams try to find how their technology would solve real customer problems, is that machine learning is following a similar pattern of previous technical infrastructure […]
Starting from 2001, Google has made 127 mergers and acquisitions till date.
Which makes it nearly 6 acquisitions for every 7 months over the last 12.5 years. It is expected now that this M&A rate is further going to accelerate with Google – for the first time – considering forging alliances with private-equity firms to help it structure deals.
During the recent Bloomberg Next Big Thing Summit, speaking about how Google evaluates a potential M&A target, Don Harrison – Google’s mergers and acquisitions chief said
“We apply something called the toothbrush test, which is we ask ourselves, ‘Is this something people use once or twice a day and does it solve a problem?’”
Thanks to its immensely sticky nature (and aided by the current rock starstatus of Google), this toothbrush analogy has seemed to have gained an instant global popularity and is shooting to newer heights in terms of…
View original post 495 more words
What happens to a company when a visionary CEO is gone? Most often innovation dies and the company coasts for years on momentum and its brand. 
Rarely does it regain its former glory.
Here’s why.
Microsoft entered the 21st century as the dominant software provider for anyone who interacted with a computing device. 16 years later it’s just another software company.
After running Microsoft for 25 years, Bill Gates handed the reins of CEO to Steve Ballmer in January 2000. Ballmer went on to run Microsoft for the next 14 years. If you think the job of a CEO is to increase sales, then Ballmer did a spectacular job. He tripled Microsoft’s sales to $78 billion and profits more than doubled from $9 billion to $22 billion. The launch of the Xbox and Kinect, and the acquisitions of Skype and Yammer happened on his shift. If the Microsoft board was managing…
View original post 2,092 more words
It’s been a year of my product journey at a large company.Below are my thoughts about the same.
Large companies definitely look for team players. In my experience as a PM at a large company, I’ve seen the absolute importance of prioritizing the success of the team over what someone individually wants. This makes a lot of sense because as the size of the team gets bigger, the total contribution of the team is much more than the contributions of a single person.
I think one of the most important skills a PM can have at a large company is strong communication. By strong I don’t mean forceful – the best PMs I’ve seen at my company have been clear communicators who are good at aligning and connecting different groups, visions, and ideas. Having mental toughness and flexibility goes a long way to delivering the final product when there are 20 differing viewpoints and voices.
I think it’s very fair to say that larger companies, especially public companies, tend to focus on growing what is already successful. Also,most of them are willing to spend in new areas of Business.
One of the more frustrating aspects of PMing at a large company is the sheer number of people involved in decision making. For a given project blockers tend to happen because there are so many people owning different parts that there’s inevitable delay and gaps in communication.
People(Top Bosses) here doesn’t have the necessary skills to lead Tech projects and often end up creating a me-too product,with no product differentiation . With this, The “classic” growth formula(build a product, spend a million bucks in PR campaign, additional million in FB and Google ads) doesn’t work.
Answer by Jason M. Lemkin:
Let me add a few specific thoughts, about how you'll feel, and what you'll take with you:
- You may only be in the office 30, 40, 50 hours a week, whatever. But every moment of every day, of every evening, of every shower, of every run, of every moment stolen with your kids and family — you will be thinking about your start-up. For years and years and years and years.
- You won't be able to really appreciate your successes because you will be so obsessed with the next hill and doing what it takes to get to the next level.
- You will build incredible relationships with some members of your team. I'm not saying it's like going to war together, literally. That's not fair to our vets. But the intensity of achieving something, avoiding start-up death, and the struggle, together as a small team — you'll build a few life-long, incredible relationships. These connections will last decades and bind you on so many levels.
- You'll actually really understand a business, a company, a category, as a whole, how it all really works — probably for the first time in your life. Whatever you did before, as an individual contributor, or a manager — you only understood a slice. Now, you'll understand how your space and company works at every single level, in every way, how it all really comes together. This will give you holistic insights forever that non-founders can never understand.
- You will feel truly alive without a safety net for the first time. In a way you can't if you just work at Google or Apple or whatever. Or even as a consultant, even if you worked for yourself, you can always pick up another project. Running a post-traction start-up, with employees, users and customers — you will feel things viscerally in a way you most likely never have before. It's not all good. It's raw. It will make you sick sometimes. It will exhaust you. But it's very real. I miss it.
Answer by Jason M. Lemkin:
Vesting.
The most important thing is vesting.
You’ll be tempted to give yourself lots of credit, lots of upfront vesting, no cliff, to protect against the future. Against the VCs. Against the acquirers. Against the unknown that will try to Steal Your Stock later. Against the whatever.
But it will turn out, lots of times, co-founders don’t work out. (Far more often that your stock is “stolen”). Your commitments, for whatever or no reason, don’t end up being equal. At least not 1, 2, 3, 4 years down the road. And as a result, the less committed founder will end up with way too much stock. Lots of times.
If you are the most committed founder, it’s in your interest to have the longest vesting schedule with the least vesting upfront and a true cliff.
Even if it seems otherwise.
Graph from here: Equity Vesting Schedules for S&P 1500 CEOs – Equilar
Answer by Balaji Viswanathan:
- Ending Polio among 1.3 billion people – Ending polio in India is world's greatest health achievement, says Bill Gates
- Mission to Mars – India’s mission to Mars has smaller budget than hit film Gravity, says PM
- Mission to Moon that gave further evidence of water in the Moon – Chandrayaan helps NASA detect water on Moon
- Right to Information – An achievement that has turned thorn govtin flesh – The Times of India
- Golden quadrilateral and other new highways – Over 40,000 km of highways/expressways added in the past 15 years. We are still not near the quality of US interstates, but in terms of length of highways, we are near there (US interstates is about 76000km). NDA regime constructed 50% of national highways laid in last 30 years: Centre
- Entering the nuclear club – For years, India was a nuclear pariah, getting to nuclear bomb little later than the top 5 powers. However, since 1998 explosion in Pokhran India has slowly gotten recognized as a nuclear power. This has helped avoid a fullblown war with Pakistan in 1999 and helped India resist temptation to fight Pakistan in two provocations (2001 attack on Parliament and the 2008 attack on Mumbai).
- Built a software industry from nowhere. 20 years ago, Indian software industry was almost non-existent. Now, it has grown more than 100 times in 20 years. In the next decade, India would have a few dozen billion dollar software companies.
Size of Indian software industry in billions of dollars
- Over 200 million people have been brought out of illiteracy. India's literacy rate rises to 73 per cent as population growth dips and student enrollment for ages 6-14 goes up to 98%.
Not enough to bask in the glories, but enough to feel that things have started moving. Tiny baby steps. Miles to go.
Answer by Christopher VanLang:
This game was definitely one of the more traumatic breakdowns in football history. Going into the game, I anticipated Germany being the stronger side and Brazil struggling with the lack of Thiago Silva and Neymar but nothing like this.
There are all sorts of psychological and emotional reason why this game was lost (or won depending on your perspective). But from a tactical standpoint, this was like a video game where Germany knew the secret winning combination and continued to use it and Brazil never figured out how to stop the bleeding.
As Landon Donovan would have said, Scolari didn't set up Brazil to succeed. Immediately by looking at the starting lineup, you knew that Germany was built to beat a side like this. There were several glaring reasons that were easy to see but there are pretty systemic reasons why the Brazilians weren't put in a place to succeed.
Formation battles
Brazil started the game in a 4-2-3-1. In addition to the obvious changes of Dante for Silva, and Bernado for Neymar, the key shift was the shift of Oscar to the 10 position.
For the only the second time this tournament, Germany had their preferred starting lineup for their 4-3-3. A healthy Khedira meant that Low was able to use his preferred trio of Schweinsteiger, Kroos, and Khedira while pushing Lahm back out to his usual RB position.
For those who think that Tiki-Taka is dead, this is what the evolution of Tiki-Taka looks like. Box to box midfielders who can both pass and dictate the movement of the game AND physically control the center of the pitch. Combine that with 3 forwards who can shift around the pitch without losing structure, you allow for a very dynamic game.
If Brazil tried to play a 4-3-3, their trio of Fernandinho, Gustavo, and Oscar are much more limited. Fernandinho and Gustavo are much more traditional destroyers who support the front 4. As we saw from the Germany France game, Germany has one of the strongest midfield trios in the world and was able to dominate the middle of the field.
The Midfield battle
As mentioned, Germany structurally was better in the middle and were able to control the game. A huge part of the system that Klinsmann and Low implemented was the flexibility for the front six to drift.
Looking at Kroos's and Schweinsteiger's movement, they were able to move around the center of the pitch with a lot of space.
In the game against Colombia, Neymar was able to do similar work and had a huge impact on the game
However, in the Germany game, Oscar was drastically forced out of position and had to receive the ball on the wings rather than the center of the pitch.
Both Fernandinho and Gustavo failed to do their job which is to win the midfield and hold the back line
Miscommunication on the back line
As many others have noted, Thiago Silva proved his value by not being in the game. The defensive line was unfocused, undisciplined, and constantly lost their assignments.
This can be best seen with David Luiz. In the Colombia game, where he was outstanding, he was extremely disciplined with his defense and strategic with his attacks.
Against Germany, it is nearly impossible to tell that he is a central defender.
Dante was positionally sound but was outclassed. He had an extremely quiet game considering that the left flank was constantly being attacked by both Muller and Lahm and did a poor job winning the aerial battle.
Germany's Cheat Code
Where things really fell apart wasn't the defense but actually the failure for the holding midfielders to protect the space around the 18. With the exception of the corner, the 6 remaining German goals occurred with the same pattern.
- A midfield push in the middle to condense the opposition
- A pass out to the wings and a run to stretch the offsides trap
- An immediate backpass to the open space in the 18.
Here is all of the German activity during Brazil's 30 minutes of hell.
As everyone saw, Klose and Muller were incredibly clever in their movements to pull out defenders (which was supposed to be Fred's job). With no opposition from the holding midfielders, Kroos and Khedira had plenty of open space to run onto the ball to finish.
Here is the complete summary of Germany's passes in the attacking third
Notice the constant cutbacks that occur in the 25-40 yard space. This is another reflection of Germany's complete control of the midfield and the ineffectiveness of Brazil's holding midfielders. This was a tactical elements that Scolari never quite adjusted for and as many others have noted, Germany could have easily scored more goals if they didn't decide to step off the gas pedal.
Now, it's not as if Low was some genius and figured out Brazil's weakness just for this game. This is the system that he has been playing with the entire tournament.
Just to prove that this is truly a German system vs. what any distribution would look like, here is Brazil's. A much more direct style of attack with a lot of direct crosses through the middle from the full backs.
The difference between this game and the others was that the defensive midfielders were much more disciplined in pressuring the withdrawn attacking midfielders and maintaining the defensive structure throughout the game. Unfortunately, Brazil and disciplined defensive structure aren't really two words that go hand in hand. Germany had a winning combination, were willing to continue to use it, and Brazil never had an answer.
Going into this game, this was always a known weakness. Brazil was undisciplined in the back, struggles with counterattacks, and doesn't have good communication between the midfield and defensive lines. I'm really not sure what Scolari could have done about this aside making his team not play Brazilian football. Germany came into the tournament built to beat Brazil. Just no one had any idea how ready they were to do so.
The Next Evolution of Total Football
In case anyone was wondering, this style of play sounds rather familiar. And it should be. Essentially, everything I mentioned are essential properties of Tiki-Taka.
Using Utkarsha Mishra's answer to What does 'tiki-taka' mean?
Tiki-Taka is a playing style in football where players are not 'positioned' in a traditional football formation, but the whole team is fluid and free to move. The passing is short and quick, where you are to pass the ball within 2 seconds of receiving it and the prime focus is to retain the ball possession in both halves of the pitch.
Tiki-Taka basically requires very good quality of technical players who can defend from the front, means that even the forwards must try and get the ball from opponents half.
Here is the attacking structure of some notable Tiki-taka sides in 2014.
I think that the diagram that really sums up the future of Tiki-taka is the lineup that Germany used against Portugal. Low played with a false 9 with Lahm at the bottom of the midfield trio and 4 center backs. For this to have happened, Low needed
- A backline that is confident with the ball and are able to play with a high line.
- Midfielders who are dynamic with their positioning, able to pass quickly and accurately, and have the pace to protect the midfield.
- Forwards who are clever with their off-ball movements and are able to play defense on the attacking full-backs.
Germany's short passing style is distinct from Spain's tiki-taka. The fullbacks are more conservative and have a more disciplined role in protecting the flanks and preventing the counter attack. Schweinsteiger, Kroos, and Khedira are not Xavi, Alonso, and Busquets. They are box-to-box midfielders who are physically strong, technically sound, and with pace. Muller and Klose are much more effective false 9s who understand how to attack and/or distract the backline. Tactically, the Germans are more willing to sacrifice possession but ask their forwards and midfield to press more.
Looking forward, the next match should be extremely interesting. Both Holland and Argentina play with a 4-2-3-1. Holland has better man marking and is more positionally sound but Robben will be running head on against his club teammates Lahm and Boateng. Argentina is heavily reliant on Messi who will be playing against some of the best defensive midfielders in the world.
As always major props to FourFourTwo for helping me generate all of these figures.
Answer by Reevu Adhikary:
Freakonomics is a joyously entertaining book . It's an intellectual romp. But there are problems. Let's leave those for a moment and concentrate on the good parts. We're told early on that economist Steven Levitt is very good at asking questions. Indeed, he is. He’s also good at using the tools that he’s mastered as an economist to answer some of those questions in novel and interesting ways. That’s why this book is a charmer. Consider some of the questions as used in the chapter titles:
1.INTRODUCTION: The Hidden Side of Everything
2.What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? (This chapter is about incentives, how they work in the world and how you can analyze them.)3.How is the Ku Klux Klan like a group of real estate agents? (This one looks at the power of information in markets.)
4.Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?
(Which talks about “the conventional wisdom,” a term coined by John Kenneth Galbraith.)
5.Where have all the criminals gone? (Facts and fiction of crime, we’re told.)
6.What Makes a Perfect Parent?
7.Perfect Parenting, Part II; or: Would a Roshanda by Any Other Name Smell as Sweet?These may not sound like typical questions for an economist to ask. But Steven D. Levitt is not a typical economist. He is a much-heralded scholar who studies the riddles of everyday life—from cheating and crime to sports and child-rearing—and whose conclusions turn conventional wisdom on its head.
Freakonomics establishes this unconventional premise: If morality represents how we would like the world to work, then economics represents how it actually does work. It is true that readers of this book will be armed with enough riddles and stories to last a thousand cocktail parties. But Freakonomics can provide more than that. It will literally redefine the way we view the modern worldmy conclusion:
Levitt is not a "rogue economist" either, as the jacket claims. Instead, he's a very well respected economist. He just received the John Bates Clark medal that's awarded every two years to the person judged the best American economist under forty.ADDITIONAL: Keynes was never this much fun
The Probability That a Real-Estate Agent Is Cheating You (and Other Riddles of Modern Life)
Product Theory 