Don't misunderstand me, it isn't dislike, its amazement. Some things really do well under multiple companies, think BASF or Siemans where the core that holds them is something common to all the sub-companies. But historically tech companies do not prosper in that model, and generally for a similar reason, there isn't anything in common between the companies except maybe there are smart and talented people working there.

The original Sun vision was that Sun Hardware would sell SPARC architecture machines running any OS, SunSoft would sell Solaris for any type of hardware, Sun Labs would license their innovative research rights to anyone who wanted to productize them. Except ...

Nobody really wanted to run their OS software on Sun hardware because SunSoft had an inside track on what was coming out. Sunsoft couldn't really make Solaris on x86 just as powerful as it was on SPARC because it would undercut Sun's HW arm, and Sun Labs? They could never really license a technology to a Sun competitor without the other two companies vetoing it. The whole reason FirstPerson was created (the shell company that was developing Oak which became Java) was to keep the politics and other constraints off what could be done with the software. And when the group told Sun it was going to ship first on "Chicago" (aka Windows 95), Scott McNealy blew a gasket.

Pretty much everyone I've talked to about that decision in depth thought it was a net negative for Sun and that had we had a chance to do it again, they would do something different. And since Eric was right in the middle of that, I would have expected him to advise Larry and Sergei that it wasn't the best choice. And maybe he did, and maybe they have a scheme that will avoid the problems Sun had. I'm surprised though that they chose that route.

The difference I see is that Google isn't unbundling their core businesses from each other; we're not getting something like Sun splitting SPARC and Solaris.

Search, Android, Chrome, YouTube, Maps, etc. are all staying under Google. The stuff that's going under other Alphabet subsidiaries is the stuff that's totally disconnected from Google's core businesses, like Calico, Life Sciences, etc.

Joel Spolsky's Strategy Letter V is something that I think is interesting in this Sun conversation

> Sun is the loose cannon of the computer industry. Unable to see past their raging fear and loathing of Microsoft, they adopt strategies based on anger rather than self-interest. Sun's two strategies are (a) make software a commodity by promoting and developing free software (Star Office, Linux, Apache, Gnome, etc), and (b) make hardware a commodity by promoting Java, with its bytecode architecture and WORA. OK, Sun, pop quiz: when the music stops, where are you going to sit down? Without proprietary advantages in hardware or software, you're going to have to take the commodity price, which barely covers the cost of cheap factories in Guadalajara, not your cushy offices in Silicon Valley.

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html

By keeping Google as one, presumably around search, Google has a shot at avoiding the same fate.

Joel has always seen things from Microsoft's point of view. And we are actually living in the world he mocked: both hardware and software, on the server side, have been largely commoditized.

He didn't mock the world, he mocked Sun's strategy and it played out exactly like he said causing Sun to die off.

One could say Sun read the tea leaves of the industry correctly, they just didn't couldn't shed their history quickly enough to execute on it. Cloud services are the new proprietary and Sun had begun building that shortly before Oracle came knocking.

Sun got its dream come true (and `the network is the computer', too), but it lost as a company.

Awesome insight and backstory about one of SV's iconic companies, so thanks for sharing. Maybe the new Alphabet structure, despite similar failures at Sun and other tech companies, is the best option for maximizing innovation even though it also carries a high probability of failure (an "alpha" bet if you will, hah). Or maybe they did devise an ingenious scheme to neutralize the shortcomings of the Planets model, but it would be pretty cool if they didn't and are knowingly exposing themselves to risk and ridicule in the name of innovation.

I fully expect that they have thought it through. And I do presume that Eric shared all of the pitfalls that befell Sun when it tried Planets. So yes, no doubt the idea is fully vetted from that perspective. Given the pain for Sun, and Eric's direct experience of the same, I am surprised that this is the path they are taking.

If their goal is to maximize the odds of innovation, not minimize the odds of failure, which path would you advise? And please share more Sun stories. These were entertaining and informative. It should have been Sun leading the cloud revolution, but that's the Innovator's Dilemma for you. :(

I'm enjoying all your Sun reminiscing in this thread, very interesting.