All those acquired products were nearly non-existent compared to post-Google era. The founders may deserve some credits, but it's mostly Google's job that bring them into the real products. Let us not be that idea guy; what really matters to success is execution.
EDIT: typo
Add in a company that can fund operations, provide user flow, provide a pool of advertisers, real compensation to engineers, and you have a real success.
I give Google a lot of kudos on this.
Do we really want another SUN Microsystems happenning?
False analogy, because:
- Software provides the most utility, not the hardware, which is why IBM needed Microsoft more than vice versa, and why Android wouldn't have been nearly as much of a success if they'd been absorbed into a single phone hardware company.
- Google in 2005-2010 was a very different company to IBM in 1980; i.e., much more innovative, fast-moving and highly motivated to grow fast to rival the iPhone.
And maybe that would have been for the best. If we look, within a year of the HTC Dream (G1, First commercial Android phone) Nokia released the N900, an amazing device running real Linux.
We could have had Maemo instead of Android.
Maybe it's more accurate to say that Google are one of the best companies in the world at buying products.