A Quote by Leila Janah
Samasource's largest clients are technology companies such as Microsoft, Google, Getty Images, and TripAdvisor, which contract with my company rather than a traditional outsourcing company in order to participate in 'impact sourcing' - conscious efforts to reduce poverty by moving money into places that need it.
Related Quotes
Impact sourcing, a new initiative piloted by the Rockefeller Foundation and several key partners, including my company Samasource, promises to connect poor and marginalized people to digital jobs on a massive scale.
We don't have a traditional strategy process, planning process like you'd find in traditional technical companies. It allows Google to innovate very, very quickly, which I think is a real strength of the company.
Booksellers are tied to publishing - they need conventional publishing models to continue - but for those companies, that's not the case. Amazon is an infrastructure company; Apple sells hardware; Google is really an advertising company. You can't afford as a publisher to have those companies control your route to market.
Microsoft is one of those rare companies to have truly revolutionized the world through technology, and I couldn't be more honored to have been chosen to lead the company.
Speaking about our largest oil company Rosneft, and I recalled in the beginning that almost 20 percent of it [19.7] belongs to BP. Who's company is that? British Petroleum, isn't it? I suppose that is not bad. I have to tell that British Petroleum's capitalization is significantly related to the fact that it owns more than 19 percent of Rosneft, which has vast oil reserves both in Russia and abroad. This has its impact on the company's stability as well.
Google Brain, which I led, was arguably the single biggest force for turning Google into a great A.I. company. I'm pretty sure I led the team that transformed Baidu as well. So one thing that really excites me is the potential for other companies to become great A.I. companies.
We see Google experimenting in so many places outside of its core search and advertising business, whether that's bringing broadband Internet to the world or funding an entirely separate company to pursue solutions to disease and mortality. Amazon's one of the few other companies that thinks as big as Google does.
In the past, Google has used teams of humans to 'read' its street address images - in essence, to render images into actionable data. But using neural network technology, the company has trained computers to extract that data automatically - and with a level of accuracy that meets or beats human operators.
No outsourcing the "soul" of the company - let's all agree to that. But most companies are more body than soul.
If Microsoft is the new IBM, Google is the new Microsoft - the defining company of the industry.
I believe Larry Page is moving Google from an advertising-based company to a commerce-based company.
We got bigger, much scarier competitors. We ended up with Microsoft, a company with all the money in the world, the way I look at those guys. And IBM, another company that, historically, dwarfed us.
When you look at how technology companies are funded, it's not a zero-sum game. It could be 20 investors in one company, and everybody has to work together for the benefit of that company.
There is more interest in what is occurring in technology companies that impact news. Such companies don't have the same sense of transparency about what they do. They have a tradition of secrecy about products, mores and decision-making that goes along with Silicon Valley and intellectual property and technology. You cannot step onto the grounds of Google without signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement. That industrial secrecy mentality exists along with a theoretical sensibility about transparency on the Web, which is different than transparency inside companies that profit from the Web.
When I started my company in the U.S. I was always told by my mentors, 'If you want to start a tech company, you need a technical co-founder,' because outsourcing just doesn't work. It is too slow, it is too expensive, and the product is going to change a lot.
People invest in companies in order to get a share of the profit that company will make. If the Government increases its share of the profits, potential profits, at the expense of the owners of the company, the shareholders, then that makes investment in that company less attractive.
Related Authors
Anita Roddick Quotes
English
Businesswoman
Barbara Corcoran Quotes
American
Businesswoman
Carly Fiorina Quotes
American
Businesswoman
Chanda Kochhar Quotes
Indian
Businesswoman
Iris Apfel Quotes
American
Businesswoman
Ivanka Trump Quotes
American
Businesswoman
Jacqueline Novogratz Quotes
American
Businesswoman
Kellyanne Conway Quotes
American
Businesswoman
Marissa Mayer Quotes
American
Businesswoman
Mary Kay Ash Quotes
American
Businesswoman
Nancy Dubuc Quotes
American
Businesswoman
Rosabeth Moss Kanter Quotes
American
Businesswoman
Sallie Krawcheck Quotes
American
Businesswoman
Sheryl Sandberg Quotes
American
Businesswoman
Sophia Amoruso Quotes
American
Businesswoman
Whitney Wolfe Herd Quotes
American
Businesswoman