Too few people in computer science are aware of some of the informational challenges in biology and their implications for the world. We can store an incredible amount of data very cheaply.
Today, if you want to access a typical out-of-print book, you have only one choice - fly to one of a handful of leading libraries in the country and hope to find it in the stacks.
Before Google, I don't think people put much effort into the ordering of results. You might get a couple thouand results for a query. We saw that a thousand results weren't necessarily as useful as 10 good ones.
We wouldn't survive if people didn't trust us.
It is ironic since whenever I have met with our elected officials they are invariably thoughtful, well-meaning people. And yet collectively 90% of their effort seems to be focused on how to stick it to the other party.
We deal with all varieties of information. Somebody's always upset no matter what we do. We have to make a decision; otherwise there's a never-ending debate.
I am sometimes something of a lazy person, so when I end up spending a lot of time using something myself - as I did with Google in the earliest of days, I knew it was a big deal.
I'd like to get to a state where people think that if you've Googled something, you've researched it, and otherwise haven't, and that's it.
It's a romantic notion that you're going to have one brilliant idea and then everything is going to be great... but the execution and delivery are what's key.
I feel there’s an existential angst among young people. I didn’t have that. They see enormous mountains, where I only saw one little hill to climb.
Generally, health is just so heavily regulated. It's just a painful business to be in. It's just not necessarily how I want to spend my time.
If you had all the world's information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you'd be better off.
In the future, search engines should be as useful as HAL in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey-but hopefully they won't kill people.
We came up with the notion that not all web pages are created equal. People are – but not web pages.
It's not enough not to be evil. We also actively try to be good.
When it’s too easy to get money, then you get a lot of noise mixed in with the real innovation and entrepreneurship. Tough times bring out the best parts of Silicon Valley.
Any conversation I have about innovation starts with the ultimate goal.
The name was supposed to be 'Googol,' which is the mathematical term for a 1 followed by 100 zeroes. It was before the Google spellchecker existed.
Too many rules will stifle innovation.
We are currently not planning on conquering the world.
You can make money without doing evil.
As we go forward, I hope we're going to continue to use technology to make really big differences in how people live and work.
Technology is an inherent democratizer. Because of the evolution of hardware and software, you’re able to scale up almost anything. It means that in our lifetime everyone may have tools of equal power.
Currently we don't have plans on conquering the world.
People try new things all the time. By now, the people who succeed have to be very sophisticated.
Ultimately you want to have the entire world's knowledge connected directly to your mind.
If what we are doing is not seen by some people as science fiction, it's probably not transformative enough
Google actually relies on our users to help with our marketing. We have a very high percentage of our users who often tell others about our search engine.
The kind of environment that we developed Google in, the reason that we were able to develop a search engine, is the web was so open. Once you get too many rules, that will stifle innovation.
If Google Books is successful, others will follow.
