>>> Frankly, if I could offer Larry Page once piece of advice it would be to take Tony out front of TGIF and fire him publicly

T: Realized that we made him an "advisor", dealing with backlash from that

(Seriously, Google is kind of odd.)

I never got upvoted more on HN.

I feel the same way about washing dishes. I care about having clean dishes but I really don't like washing dishes. Even now with a dishwasher, I get annoyed having to hand-wash the dishes that aren't dishwasher-safe.

In my case it's jeans and a t-shirt, clean jeans are piled next to clean t-shirts, I work my way down both piles until there is one of each then I put the entire laundy basket through the wash and re-pile them.

Unless it's a special event or a meeting I really don't care, jeans and a t-shirt is fine for day to day wear and one t-shirt is much the same as another.

Clothing choices are a pretty big stressor for my SO and by extension me.

What it really is, is someone making a statement about how important their decisions are.

Lots of well off people still wear interesting clothing.

http://gawker.com/5848754/steve-jobs-on-why-he-wore-turtlene...

That's bullshit. Wearing the same outfit added some mystic to Steve Jobs. It may not work on the public persona of every CEO but it obviously did for Jobs.

I still get to make a decision about which color shirt I'm going to wear that day, but don't need to think about even reaching for socks, since they're already in the shirt roll.

http://www.xkcd.com/1205/

(admittedly the outfit choosing part was only about 5 of those minutes, but still a good chunk of time over 5 years)

edit: oh yeah, I don't even choose a color. I just line them up ROYGBV.

Recommended. I have a "uniform" that I wear[1][2] that works very well for me across different weather, places and events. I established it about ten years ago and have reaped quite a return from that initial investment.

Now, in addition to my default "uniform" I also have codified what I wear the rest of the time into 2-3 different other[3] "uniforms" that are better optimized for a few different situations. I hope to get at least 10 years out of these investments.

[1] Jeans, Next Level poly/cotton vintage t-shirt, long sleeved patagonia capilene 2 (black). Running shoes.

[2] Since I have at least 10 of each item, I always have something clean to wear.

[3] Casual warm, casual cold, manual labor.

Do no evil indeed.

But let's be real for a moment -- the guy was probably not fired because he's a prick. Who knows the reason, but ultimately Alphabet is a public company that demands results (and returns) from assets (companies) it invests in (acquires). My hunch is that Nest (and/or it's subsidiaries) were not delivering, and the CEO is ultimately responsible.

It probably didn't help that the guy is an asshole, but let's not pretend that Larry Page walked through the Nest offices like a white knight, sensed a "negative energy", interviewed the sad-looking office manager, and determined the CEO was "damaging to company morale" and therefore MUST be replaced.

Page is the CEO of the one of the largest and most important publicly traded companies in the world. He has a legal and fiduciary responsibility to do right by shareholders. If the Nest CEO was putting up numbers, he'd still have a job, period, asshole or saint.

In that case (Tony being fired despite performing well), Larry (the firing knight/king) would be an asshole.

Consider these alternate (admittedly extreme) realities:

A. CEO is an asshole, but manages to bring in $1M/employee in revenue for a company with 500 employees.

B. CEO is a nice guy, but doesn't manage to bring in enough revenue and has to fire 250 of 500 employees.

In reality A, those people who don't think they are paid enough for the abuse, will leave, as they should. In reality B, the choice of who leaves and stays is almost random.

What you say is that firing a reality A CEO is "the right move". The problem is you're extremely likely to get either a reality B CEO, or an asshole with reality B revenue. HP's history since Carly Fiorina would give you a good case study.

So, from almost anyone's perspective, armchair generals excepted, it is NOT the right move.

Edit: oh, and to my original point - in no scenario I can think of would firing someone for abusing their employees or co-workers make one an "asshole".

We don't act like sociopaths and put profits and duties towards boards before people.

But we should not be ignoring the reality, which is that many CEOs are sociopaths (as are many successful politicians). Larry Paige is not, as far as I can tell, a sociopath, but because he does actually have to report to shareholders, he is unlikely to fire someone like Tony Fadell for mistreating his employees as long as he delivers. Fadell didn't, and that's why he's out -- not because of how he treated his employees.

You do propose HP as a case study, but why is it "extremely likely" to lead to that negative outcome?

Also, isn't it possible for a "nice guy" CEO to also bring in high revenue?

I don't think "nice" necessarily equates with "ineffective" in a CEO (for some definitions of "nice").

Competent assholes are far less common than incompetent assholes.

There's a bizarre myth that being an asshole somehow correlates with business competence.

But that doesn't take any account of the large number of asshole CEOs who are crash-and-burn fuck ups.

Looking from far away and from previous experience, it seems like Google has decided move into a different direction. They want to get rid of NEST.

If anyone is expecting Marwan to be the leader and build NEST business, then you couldn't be further from the truth.

This is one of their big AI-driven products. I would be surprised if this is part of a larger AI draw down -- that deep learning wasn't up for this type of task. I would also be a little surprised that they would get rid of an "AI enhanced" product given their recent push towards AI.