<p>Larry graduated from Stanford so I think it might be a good idea to ask Cardinals for their thoughts and opinions.</p>
<p>Googles CEO Larry Page is trying to position Google to enter the hardware business by acquiring Motorola, so he basically wants to make Google more Apple maybe by making hardware for Android to control software-hardware integration. </p>
<p>But Larry Page’s been studying software and computer science during Stanford and he literally has no experience in electrical engineering.</p>
<p>So would that be a disadvantage and affect Larry Pages operations when working with his hardware engineers in case they really decide to make a Google iPhone?</p>
<p>Looking back, would it help if Larry took a double major, electrical engineering and computer science at Stanford? </p>
<p>Thanks, the question’s weird.</p>
<p>The Motorola acquisition was less about hardware and much much more about their intellectual property - Motorola has a huge trove of patents that will help Google fight off litigation from its competitors, which was the main reason Google paid such a high price for the company.</p>
<p>Larry Page was in a PhD program (CS), where you can’t really “double major.” A PhD is about gaining depth within a field and a specific topic within that field.</p>
<p>Either way, it doesn’t harm his ability in overseeing the creation of hardware devices. His position now is manager, so if he sees an opportunity, the realization of that opportunity lies in his ability to manage the right people in creating it. It’s mostly about making the decisions to put the right people in charge, to acquire the right companies, etc. Technical knowledge doesn’t matter at that point.</p>
<p>This is part of what annoys me so much about people’s adoration of Steve Jobs - it was not Steve Jobs’ iPhone, or his iPod, or his MacBook. Sure, his vision for these products made their realization possible, but the concrete reasons that people love these products - and why they shower him in adoration - has nothing to do with him and everything to do with the brilliant designers and engineers who created the products. Jobs just directed them, but their ingenuity is why people go crazy over the products.</p>
<p>Similarly, Gates hasn’t written a line of code in decades. Zuckerberg spends little or no time in technical implementation. These people are in high-level management, at which point it’s important not to care about the nitty-gritty details (where a EE background would matter). It just matters whether you can manage people who know the nitty-gritty details - or in Page’s case, manage someone who manages someone who manages someone whose EE background is important for their work.</p>
<p>If you were asking about Brin, that’s a little different - he’s still in research.</p>
<p>By all accounts, Steve Jobs did continue to care about the nitty-gritty details of design until he had to resign. The designers at Apple, including Jonny Ive, say that Jobs’ continued attention to even minute detail inspired their ingenuity.</p>
<p>Jobs was known for his attention to detail, but I don’t think that’s the same as what the OP means. As far as I understand, Jobs’ demands were generally confined to “I like/dislike this” + “I want these specifications,” not “Here’s an innovative design for an iPhone,” so all the ingenuity still came from others. In other words, he was a great design critic (and understood the principles of design to know how to guide it) - but not a great designer himself.</p>
<p>It’s funny - before death, it’s “he’s too demanding.” After death, it’s “he inspires ingenuity.” :p</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure both his demanding nature and his inspiring qualities were duly noted at all points along the continuum. : )</p>