Microsoft > Google > Microsoft: Google wasn’t “innovative enough”???
Can’t help but comment on James Whittaker’s recent “blog” post about why he left Google (blog is in quotes because it’s posted on his new/old employers website, Microsoft). Let’s get this straight, a Microsoft “Architect” (job title from his LinkedIn profile) leaves Microsoft to become an Engineering Director on Google+, then leaves Google and returns to Microsoft because Google+ is “ruining” Google and Google is no longer the “innovation factory” it used to be, it’s just another advertising company.
Is it just me or was it pretty clear to everyone in 2009 (when Mr. Whittaker joined Google) that Google is an advertising company? And is it just me, or does it seem kinda strange to complain that the product you were apparently a large part of creating is ruining the company? And it can’t be just me that finds it funny that someone would leave a company because it wasn’t innovative enough to (return to) work for Microsoft. Let’s be honest, innovation has never been something Microsoft has been known for.
To me, this post says a lot more about Mr. Whittaker then it does about Google. I’ve known a lot of people that have worked for both companies over the years and the type of person that both enjoys and succeeds at each company are very different. A much simpler explanation is that Mr Whittaker is much more of a “Microsoft person” and I’m sure he’ll be much happier in his new role.
I’m also guessing Google+ will benefit a lot more from Kevin Rose joining the team then they will be hurt from James Whittaker leaving.