One thing that irks me a bit about Google X as a “moonshot factory” is that they seem to be claiming that they’re good at moonshots but I’m not sure that’s true. (I’m not saying they’re bad at it, just questioning that they have a special edge.)
I get the basic idea, that you try lots of big ambitious projects, and most of them will fail but some will hopefully stick; but how do you distinguish between a 5% success rate and a 1% rate, say?
Deep pockets and the willingness to place big long-term and medium-term bets is crucial, but it’s not everything you need. Does Google X have processes, people, notable successes they can point to to show that they really are good at moonshots?
Maybe on the long run, this might be X's very legacy: figuring out how to become good at achieving moonshots, by pursuing a lot of them and failing at the most.
At least that's what Astro Teller is talking about a lot: Work on the approach, don't pursue single lucky punches.
Sad that loom didn't work out. If X fails eventually, I think the idea of radical corporate innovation from scratch is dead.
Then Elon seems to be the only one left with the most promising 10x or even 100x playbook: hardcore dedication to insane goals in terms of resources, work ethics and throughput.
I get the basic idea, that you try lots of big ambitious projects, and most of them will fail but some will hopefully stick; but how do you distinguish between a 5% success rate and a 1% rate, say?
Deep pockets and the willingness to place big long-term and medium-term bets is crucial, but it’s not everything you need. Does Google X have processes, people, notable successes they can point to to show that they really are good at moonshots?