Google's broad mission to "organize the world's information" provided a clear justification for diverse projects like Maps and Waymo. In contrast, Meta's mission to "bring people together" creates strategic tension with new ventures like AI and VR, making diversification harder to justify internally and externally.
Meta's rebrand from Facebook, much like Google's to Alphabet, was not just a name change. It was a strategic move to signal to both employees and the market that the company's ambitions extend beyond its original core product, creating the space and permission to build entirely new business lines.
Critics argue OpenAI's strategy is dangerously unfocused, simultaneously pursuing frontier research, consumer apps, an enterprise platform, and hardware. Unlike Google, which funds such disparate projects with massive cash flow from an established business, OpenAI is attempting to do it all at once as a startup, risking operational failure.
Each FAANG company suits a different PM. Microsoft is a 'dreamland' for building without immediate business pressure. Amazon demands strict P&L ownership and execution speed. Meta is for rapid, high-stakes iteration with top engineers. Google is obsessed with perfecting the user experience.
The internal 'Code Red' at OpenAI points to a fundamental conflict: Is it a focused research lab or a multi-product consumer company? This scattershot approach, spanning chatbots, social apps, and hardware, creates vulnerabilities, especially when competing against Google's resource-rich, focused assault with Gemini.
A strategy defined only by the current product and target audience is brittle and fails to guide future development. A more holistic strategy is built on the company's underlying ethos, or 'how we do things.' This ethos provides a durable foundation for future product and marketing decisions.
Google's DNA is rooted in the high-margin search business. This cultural bias, combined with public market pressure, makes it difficult to pursue a long-term, zero-profit "bleed out" strategy for Gemini, even if it could secure a monopoly.
Canva's core mission is a "two-step plan": 1) build a valuable company and 2) do good. Crucially, this isn't a sequential plan for after an exit. They believe step one fuels step two (and vice versa), integrating purpose directly into the business model from day one.
Beyond finding a market gap, leaders should ask what unique imprint their company leaves on the world. The most powerful justification for a company's existence is providing an essential contribution that no one else would. This reframes the mission from a business goal to an indispensable purpose.
Google can dedicate nearly all its resources to AI product development because its core business handles infrastructure and funding. In contrast, OpenAI must constantly focus on fundraising and infrastructure build-out. This mirrors the dynamic where a focused Facebook outmaneuvered a distracted MySpace, highlighting a critical incumbent advantage.
The most enduring companies, like Facebook and Google, began with founders solving a problem they personally experienced. Trying to logically deduce a mission from market reports lacks the authenticity and passion required to build something great. The best ideas are organic, not analytical.