[HN Gopher] Alphabet Q2 FY2022 Earnings [pdf]
___________________________________________________________________
Alphabet Q2 FY2022 Earnings [pdf]
Author : ra7
Score : 106 points
Date : 2022-07-26 20:05 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (abc.xyz)
(TXT) w3m dump (abc.xyz)
| paxys wrote:
| Marginally better numbers than expected. Stock is up ~3% after
| hours.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Worse than expected by analysts, better than expected by
| investors. It was technically a miss
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Analysts got it wrong again?
| donalhunt wrote:
| Alphabet are known for not providing any guidance to the
| analysts so I would take that with a pinch of salt.
|
| Consensus seems to be that the results could have been
| worse. Some signals that large advertisers are pulling
| spend in some areas. If that continues, you would expect Q3
| earnings to be below the upward trajectory that Alphabet
| have enjoyed for years.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Crazy good numbers given the environment and their size.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Revenue grew 13% or 8B but operating income fell as did net
| income. Yikes. Either that additional 30k in headcount really
| took a toll or they are investing heavily in other areas. That or
| acquisition costs are rising. (I'm still reading the PDF).
| donalhunt wrote:
| Capex spend is one area mentioned in the Investor Relations
| call - primarily new datacenters, office fitouts and server
| purchases.
|
| Comparing q2 in 2021 and 2022 is difficult because the pandemic
| boosted revenues in 2021 but capex spend was delayed. And in
| 2022, some revenue didn't materialise due to uncertainty but
| investments for the future are being made.
|
| As usual with alphabet, look at the mukti-year trend. And don't
| be surprised to see investment in bets that will pay off in 5+
| years time.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Ahh pages 4 and 5 make more sense now. TAC went up 2B but also
| costs of revenue as well.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Total costs and expenses 42,519 50,232 (2021-2022) cost of
| revenue tracked more or less 1:1 with rise in revenue which
| is why net income was the same. Hmmm.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Ah but remember it's "hard" somehow to give google money. I read
| it here on HN. No idea where these billions came from.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| Google: Total Rev: 70B, ads:57B, cloud 6B.
|
| Amazon: Total rev: 116B Ads: 31B cloud:71B
|
| It's reasonable to say that Google's biggest threat is Amazon's
| ad business. And instagrams not far behind.
| spiantino wrote:
| Here are accurate numbers:
|
| Google Q2: 70B, ads: 57B, cloud 6B. Net profit: $16B
|
| Amazon Q1: 117B, ads: 8B, cloud 18B. Net profit: -$4B
| jsnell wrote:
| Your Amazon ads / AWS numbers look annual, the other numbers
| quarterly. Just what kind of conclusion are we supposed to draw
| from that?
| [deleted]
| nym375 wrote:
| I think you might be mixing quarterly and yearly numbers.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Aren't Amazon ads just sellers prioritizing their listing on
| the Amazon page? Seems totally different from the ad market for
| Google
| alecb wrote:
| Amazon has a pretty developed video and display advertising
| market for publishers called Unified Ad Marketplace; for our
| business, it's typically in second behind AdX/Adsense for
| revenue and impressions won. That said, I'm not seeing any
| revenue breakout from Amazon that specifies how much this
| side of the business makes.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| Aren't Google ads just businesses prioritizing their listings
| on Google search page?
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Who will advertise a concert or any various services on
| Amazon? Or a restaurant? A conference?
|
| Very niche focus for Amazon vs broader set of customers for
| Google ads. Seems totally different to me
| kevinsundar wrote:
| Ecommerce sellers have higher margins (gross margin 40%)
| than the other services and businesses you mentioned. So
| they have more money to spend on Ads.
|
| Also Google competes with FB and has to split the
| advertising pie for those other services and businesses.
| Amazon owns basically the whole pie for the people who
| want to advertise products.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| E-commerce has terrible margins
|
| Amazon itself had negative operating margins for its
| retail business last quarter.
|
| Amazon retail: "Its U.S. segment recorded $206 million in
| operating losses, while the international side lost $1.63
| billion."
|
| Single digit margins at best, once a market is
| competitive.
|
| Edit: You edited your above, but gross margin is
| meaningless. It doesn't even include salaries for
| employees or infrastructure costs. Net margins for retail
| will always be slim, outside of specific first mover
| advantage in some subsectors.
|
| You think the Chinese companies selling $5 rubber
| spatulas are making 40% margins? Lol, try 5% or less.
|
| The theory that Amazon retail would grow revenues rapidly
| and then eventually expand to high operating margins will
| never come to fruition. Margins will be below 10% in
| perpetuity
|
| But sure, ignore all costs of running the business and
| look at gross margins.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Amazon loses money on every sale, yet somehow they are
| far pricier than ebay (which is profitable), and that is
| far pricier than aliexpress.
|
| A quick sample of like-for-like products shows that
| typical sale+delivery price on amazon is 30% more than
| aliexpress and 18% more than ebay.
|
| I really don't see how you can charge 30% more than a
| profit making competitor, sell in larger volume, yet make
| a loss.
| [deleted]
| kevinsundar wrote:
| A quick search says 40% gross margins for e-commerce. So
| Income - COGS. Which is pretty damn high. Most of these
| sellers are selling cheap Chinese goods so I bet it's
| even higher on Amazon.
|
| And Amazon retail margins is way different and in no way
| comparable to SELLER margins.
| oezi wrote:
| Give it 5 years (3?) and they might just sell many of
| these. Concert tickets, restaurant bookings/take out
| aren't so hard to imagine.
|
| I think Amazon's ambition is endless.
| stingrae wrote:
| No. They are ads all over the internet through AdSense.
| next_xibalba wrote:
| Huh? Isn't the ecomm component of Amazon's "Total Rev" several
| hundred billion?
| BlackJack wrote:
| Amazon Ads 31B is an annual figure. Last quarter it was ~8B.
| Same thing with cloud; AWS pulled ~18B last quarter.
|
| Amazon Ads is a legit threat to Google, especially with product
| searches. Instagram struggles to monetize commercial queries to
| the same degree as Goog/Amzn.
| abledon wrote:
| Amazon has PrimeVideo, BlueOrigin, Trucking Fleets etc... so
| diverse. What is google doing with all the cash its sitting on?
| Is Waymo their only bet? They definitely aren't innovating with
| youtube, 3rd rate copycat features like 'shorts' etc... poor
| livestreaming/chat design. Maybe they'll just end up buying
| rocketlab for their space project ...
| rohitnair wrote:
| Blue Origin is not part of Amazon.
| abledon wrote:
| Ok technically yes, but their IP is probably shared.
|
| For instance, Elon Musk has mentioned the Materials Science
| team he has works for all 3 companies
| Tesla,SpaceX,BoringCompany etc...
| londons_explore wrote:
| There are close Google <=> SpaceX links too... The
| Starlink backbone network uses Google Cloud features that
| appear custom built/aren't available even to big
| customers. Nearly all Tesla tech seems built on top of
| Google tech - for example they use various private maps
| API's for the in-car map display. And everything is built
| on top of protocol buffers, google's in-house
| RPC/serialization format.
| donalhunt wrote:
| Protocol buffers have been public for 10+ years (since
| 2008 according to Wikipedia). Given the mobility between
| tech companies, it's hardly surprising that the same
| ideas / solutions are reused across companies.
| [deleted]
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_Inc#Structure
| Foe wrote:
| They're spending it on feeding their engineers with free food
| and massages.
| [deleted]
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| Went over the list of new (consumer facing) products from
| Google from the last decade that actually got somewhere and
| concluded that Google Cast and Chromebooks are close to the
| only one (I may have missed some, but there can't be many).
| Nothing that compares to Gmail, search, etc.
|
| Additionally, their existing services are getting worse and
| worse. YouTube is a mess, requiring at least an ad-blocker,
| and preferably also an extension like Unhook[1] . Google
| search requires a site blocker to prevent ads and spam
| domains from dominating the results.
|
| Instead of furthering the development of good products it
| appears that the culture is focusing on creating new products
| to get a promotion just to let it die before it gains
| momentum (see https://killedbygoogle.com/).
|
| If Google is still part of the FAANG (or is it MAANG now)
| accronym at the end of the decade I'll eat my top hat (I
| don't have one but I'll buy one just for this).
|
| [1]: https://unhook.app/
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| To be fair, it looks like Meta and Netflix are in a lot of
| trouble too.
| HeyItsMatt wrote:
| Netflix has always been in trouble and has never been
| cashflow positive once they started making content.
| Problem is now we're in a recession and the free money
| has run out. Swimming naked when the tide goes out and
| all that...
| HeyItsMatt wrote:
| Google has lacked product leadership since Sergey Brin and
| Larry Page left. Since the early-2010's Google has suffered
| enormous management bloat and exclusively taken a quarterly
| profit focus.
|
| Always wondered why Larry and Sergey ran for the exits, I
| assume they had their kids threatened by a TLA and quietly
| cashed out. I assume it has something to do with the
| Snowden revelations that their inter-datacenter links were
| unencrypted on purpose.
| open1414 wrote:
| https://www.vox.com/new-
| money/2017/4/19/15357290/juicero-400...
| [deleted]
| arberx wrote:
| The earnings call will be interesting.
| chollida1 wrote:
| What specifically about this particular earnings call will be
| interesting? I can't see anything of note that hasn't happened
| 20x before.
| arberx wrote:
| Tiktok threat, current macro conditions, future quarter
| expectations, layoffs...so many things
| chollida1 wrote:
| I mean, sure but those are run of the mill things that can
| be said for almost every earnings call.
| arberx wrote:
| Okay, I just said it would be interesting...it can be run
| of the mill + be interesting...
| gok wrote:
| Is the goal that Google Cloud just loses money forever?
| abledon wrote:
| by 2025 they will use a 3rd color other than white and blue for
| their 'material design' cloud console.
| [deleted]
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| Over the last few years, I've increasingly had to append
| site:reddit.com before any search query if I want some actual
| information.
|
| Product reviews on Google are garbage, but everyone knows that
| already. What really disappointed me is searching for any
| slightly complex medical condition. Most of the top results are
| just repetitive, generic advice from "trusted" names like Webmd.
| Not helpful at all.
| muro wrote:
| https://youtu.be/NT7_SxJ3oSI
|
| The ending has the point
| quux wrote:
| FWIW my WaySus 22 has been great
| [deleted]
| greatpostman wrote:
| Nearly every negative google comment is downvoted
| ushakov wrote:
| on HN this is usually the other way around
|
| at least as far i can remember
| greatpostman wrote:
| Same, I'm surprised
| MegaButts wrote:
| This always happens when there's a popular post about big tech
| on HN. Google is a big company with lots of employees and lots
| of investors and HN is no longer a tiny corner of the internet.
| Just ignore the astroturfing and look for the signal in the
| noise.
| summerlight wrote:
| Among three most downvoted comments, one comment is very (and
| likely intentionally) misleading and the rests are
| uninteresting, repetitive sarcasm which deteriorates the signal
| to noise ratio. This might be very surprising conclusion to
| some of ordinary HN audiences, but could there be any realistic
| possibilities of those comment deserving some downvotes?
| chollida1 wrote:
| Numbers:
|
| - Q1 EPS $1.21 vs EST $1.32
|
| - Q2 Rev. of $70B vs est of $70B
|
| - Ad Rev. $56.3B vs EST of $56B, grew 12% on the year, good job!!
| but growth is way down from last year.
|
| - this add revenue is good, which indicates they aren't really
| affected by the Iphone privacy changes like META is.
|
| - operating margin came in at estimates
|
| - cloud lost $858M which is higher than expected
|
| - cloud Rev was 6.2B which is about what was expected
|
| - Other Bets lost $1.7B, which is small enough no one will care
|
| - other best revenue is $190M
|
| - stock is down about 24%, wich is a beta of almost 1, maybe
| googles growth is done and its becoming a typical old boring
| stock that just makes money now
|
| To Watch:
|
| - all advertising is slowing, Twitter, Snap and Pins are all
| below their IPO price and META is down big, whatch for GOOG
| advertising, though normally you'd expect search advertising to
| be more resistant
|
| - watch youtube add numbers, it really seems like they are
| playing alot more adds, normally I see 2 before each video now
|
| - will google cloud start to approach the big 2 of azure and aws
|
| - will they talk about hiring or layoffs
|
| Notes:
|
| - add revenue held up ok, compared to peers
|
| - other bets continues to not matter, at some point waymo has to
| put up or get shut down
|
| - will cash on hand grow or shrink? Looks like its down by about
| $10B
|
| - cloud unit disappoints with revenue
|
| - shares relatively flat after hours( up maybe 2%), probably a
| good trade to buy their peers now(snap, pins, etc, meta)
|
| - whoever runs Google cloud must have blackmail material on
| Pichai, AWS and MSFT run big profitable operating margins and
| google cloud is losing money, this is something they should be
| good at, but they are somehow the only one that has figure dout
| how to lose money on what is a cash cow for the big 2.
|
| What is going on with their cloud offering??
|
| - zero hedge tweet that they've repurchased $15B of stock
| hrpnk wrote:
| > - this add revenue is good, which indicates they aren't
| really affected by the Iphone privacy changes like META is.
|
| ad density would be an interesting figure. YouTube is
| unwatchable with ads turned on.
| shawabawa3 wrote:
| > stock is down about 24%
|
| I thought you meant it had massively crashed on this earnings
|
| It's down ~24% YTD (along with basically every other stock).
|
| Up ~2% after hours on this earnings report
| oneoff786 wrote:
| Why is cloud a loss for Google but a cash cow for Amazon?
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| A lot of the cost structure is ~fixed (and high). It's pretty
| much the ultimate scale game.
| gerbler wrote:
| Lots of capex
| Kstarek wrote:
| Because Google is playing catch up and needs to pay higher
| salaries to poach from MSFT and AMZN and also pay much more
| for infra than what Amazon paid for theirs initially.
| fdgsdfogijq wrote:
| Google has been "playing catch up" for a decade now. They
| also pay less than Amazon (source levels.fyi)
| arebop wrote:
| Google does not pay less than Amazon (source levels.fyi h
| ttps://www.levels.fyi/?compare=Amazon,Google,Salesforce&t
| ra...).
|
| I have heard people claim that Amazon pays more and by
| that they mean that if you hold your Amazon stock until
| vesting, it appreciates so much that it ends up being
| worth more than whatever the Google grant would have been
| worth. But then you have to ask if the relative
| performance of the stocks will remain stable over time
| despite having changed recently, and factor in
| differences in employee churn and so on.
| fdgsdfogijq wrote:
| They pay about 100,000 less. Its widely known, not sure
| why you are arguing this. Amazon also raised their
| paybands massively, so a blanket comparison doesnt
| reflect reality. Look at individual data over the last
| year or so. Google also downlevels, so comparing levels
| makes less sense, compare years of experience instead
| mandeepj wrote:
| > Amazon also raised their paybands massively
|
| that $350k base limit is top of the band, not everyone
| walking inside the door is going to get that. A friend of
| mind got an offer from AWS about a month ago, his base
| was offered $180k
| jnwatson wrote:
| Back last July, AWS couldn't come close to what Meta or
| Google could offer when I was looking.
| [deleted]
| scottyah wrote:
| From what I hear they paw software engineers less, but
| find it harder to attract sales personnel, as it's easier
| to sell the industry leader (IBM, Oracle vs ???). No
| sources, just some posts a few months ago.
| ra7 wrote:
| What does Google still need to catch up on in cloud?
| Building products/services? Sales? AFAIK, they have
| comparable cloud services to most AWS/Azure offerings.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Mostly I think it's just acquiring customers. The big
| cloud providers go to great lengths to lock their
| customers in, so convincing them to switch is hard.
| Requires a much better product which seems pretty much
| impossible against aws and azure or a much cheaper price.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Trust for one thing. They just cut off customers services
| with line of recourse. Also shut down products with
| little warning.
| ra7 wrote:
| I don't think shutting down products applies to GCP
| services. Even if it did, it doesn't explain the $858M
| loss. They are spending big on something to "catch up",
| I'm just not sure what it is.
| RandomBK wrote:
| IIRC it's mostly incentives for large companies to jump
| ship
| ushakov wrote:
| > shutting down products applies to GCP services
|
| they regularly deprecate old API versions in favour of
| new ones, which are not backwards compatible and usually
| more expensive
|
| any time Google Cloud APIs change you have to update your
| code
|
| and they break stuff, introduce bugs more often that
| you'd expect and prioritize new features over fixes (see
| bugtracker for confirmation)
|
| this is why i'm never again touching GCP
| lucasbm wrote:
| Probably because Amazon is better at retail sales. For larger
| companies both Amazon and Google give an enormous amount of
| incentives to secure the accounts, so they have lower
| margins. Where they thrive is with smaller and medium
| businesses. Amazon is better at the market of selling to the
| average joe.
| the_duke wrote:
| Microsoft is also good at upselling Azure through existing
| customer relationships, and almost every company is a
| Microsoft customer.
|
| Sales also just isn't in Googles DNA.
|
| It's an uphill battle for Google.
| ghaff wrote:
| AWS was actually able to add enterprise sales after
| realizing it needed to. Not clearly Google has done
| _nearly_ as good a job.
| HeyItsMatt wrote:
| Google has a cash cow and isn't hungry. Their employees
| can half-arse the rest of their business and still be
| confident they'll get paid at the end of the week.
| Amazon's retail arm bled when AWS was started, and still
| bleeds. Success is a matter of urgency.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| AWS early mover advantage?
| loeg wrote:
| Because Google is absolutely awful at Cloud and they have to
| subsidize heavily to attract customers.
| echelon wrote:
| Their cloud platform is fantastic if you're trying to stay
| on vanilla k8s and standard managed DBs without getting
| into vendor lock-in territory.
|
| Their management UI is an order of magnitude better than
| AWS garbage. It's clean, informational, and easily
| navigable.
|
| Spanner great, but I'm not using it for my startup.
| Kstarek wrote:
| I don't think Waymo will contribute meaningfully to the bottom
| line for at least another 3/4 years, however people had the
| same mentality of "put up or get shut down" regarding YouTube a
| few years ago, and we all know how that turned out. That said,
| I'm still very bullish on both the stock and Waymo
| specifically.
| bushbaba wrote:
| Waymo won't contribute meaningfully for at least 2 decades.
| Bottom line = profit. Top line = revenue.
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| Adding more ads and bringing down video serving costs are
| tangible, achievable goals. Solving self driving is not. I
| honestly don't think Google has the right culture to deliver
| either. There's no hunger to win there.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm not sure self driving is a matter of Google culture.
| It's just become pretty evident that, while maybe some
| limited fully self-driving use cases will become viable in
| the next decade or so, this idea that you can have your
| personal chauffeur whisk you door to door even in an urban
| environment perhaps in your lifetime so you never need to
| own a car is not happening. And that really disappoints
| some people who bought into the idea.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| I certainly hope AGI happens in my lifetime.
| ghaff wrote:
| 1. I doubt it
|
| 2. Be careful what you wish for
| dmitriid wrote:
| Main numbers are these:
|
| --- start quote ---
|
| - Q2 Rev. of $70B vs est of $70B
|
| - Ad Rev. $56.3B
|
| --- end quote ---
|
| 80% of revenue is advertising. That's all you need to know
| about the company's direction and incentives.
| azinman2 wrote:
| It's their cash cow. Why would they stop?
|
| But that 20% isn't advertising is much better for Alphabet
| than compared to 10 years ago. Waymo is the next big bet.
| dmitriid wrote:
| Waymo isn't a bet. At least, isn't a bet that is projected
| to be even remotely cash positive, much less having a
| significant percentage in Alphabet's revenue, in any
| foreseeable future.
| azinman2 wrote:
| That's not how I heard it was viewed internally a few
| year ago.
| DannyBee wrote:
| By who?
| azinman2 wrote:
| Nothing that's public.
| verdverm wrote:
| I would submit that knowing the trend of ad revs as a
| percentage of the whole would tell you more than a single
| snapshot, which has no direction itself.
| cromwellian wrote:
| That's down from 97%+, the direction is more important than
| the current number since the change over time indicates how
| the company is evolving and it is obviously moving towards
| diversification.
| dmitriid wrote:
| It has been hovering around 80% for a few years now, hasn't
| it?
| sidibe wrote:
| > at some point waymo has to put up or get shut down
|
| obviously noone is expecting significant revenue there last
| quarter or any near future ones so it's pretty irrelevant how
| they do on quarterly reports. It's been over a decade and they
| seem to now be making serious progress. That "some point" isn't
| going to be this quarter or next quarter or sneak up by
| surprise on anybody
| ghaff wrote:
| That sounds like the sorts of results that tend to hammer a
| company. Some barely beats on low expectations. A bunch of
| expectations barely or misses.
| [deleted]
| compiler-guy wrote:
| Google added nearly 30k employees in the prior year.
|
| No way that amount of growth is sustainable. I doubt even half of
| those employees are up to speed sufficiently to add value to the
| company. Just absorbing that many people means scores of new
| teams, hundreds of new managers, and mountains of additional
| hardware.
|
| I'm sure they are seeing this in the costs.
| Aethella wrote:
| Every employee they add also takes potential talent away from
| adding value to a start-up or competitor trying to catch-up.
| It's one way to protect your monopoly when there is a shortage
| of skilled labor.
| gigatexal wrote:
| This is how I think as well.
| jmathai wrote:
| The suggestion here being that hiring is a strategic play
| by Google to prevent startups from forming?
|
| I think a much better play is to let the startups form at
| no cost to you and buy them if/when they show signs of
| success.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Sure that's viable but also hiring top talent means that
| talent can't join Meta (sic) or Microsoft or Apple etc.
| keep the brain trust full and add to your advantage.
| SilverBirch wrote:
| I think this is basically wrong. One thing lots of companies
| do during a recession is they try to get rid of the worst 10%
| of their employees. Instead they lose the top 8% and the
| bottom 1% and a random 1%- the top 8% see the bad news, have
| options and leave, the bottom 1% are obviously bad and get
| let go, and the other 1% are just unlucky becuase the company
| doesn't really have a clue who is good.
|
| This the same thing for trying to corner the smartest
| engineers in the market. You're not going to corner the
| smartest engineers, the smartest are going to go off and work
| on interesting meaningful projects. But what you will get is
| a lot of employees who are smart, not that effective but very
| happy for you to pay them not to work anywhere else.
|
| So even if the intention is to corner the top talent, they're
| not going to succeed because that's not what motivates most
| decent engineers. But also, the pool of talent is so vast
| that they'd bankrupt the company with that pay roll. Oh and
| the non-compete situation in California means even if you do
| manage to hire someone, if they do have a good idea they're
| just going to quit and build it - safe with a nest egg you
| helped them build.
| londons_explore wrote:
| A common route for people is to join a big tech company for a
| few years, then quit and do a startup using the skills + cash
| gained...
| jeffdn wrote:
| That's ~575 new employees per week (probably more, making up
| for turnover)! Absolutely wild.
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| > hundreds of new managers
|
| _Thousands_ of new managers. Think about that.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| what does a manager actually do in a software business these
| days?
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Depends how competent the people they manage are. Anywhere
| from invasive micromanager, to "do little" figurehead that
| conveys information.
|
| The best people don't need to be managed really, just
| alignment of direction, but there are far too few of them
| to depend on that at scale
| hiddencost wrote:
| At Google? Cross org coordination, identifying and
| prioritizing opportunities, work trading with other teams
| (you do this and I'll do that), communicating why the
| team's work matters to mid management that has no idea,
| helping engineers avoid pitfalls, helping engineers craft
| project portfolios and a narrative for promotion. Helping
| engineers develop the right skills to succeed at Google.
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| They create value [1].
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYvhC_RdIwQ
| summerlight wrote:
| Mostly glueing people around. Sounds like a mediocre job,
| it's as important as writing glue code. Not interesting,
| but most of the code written nowaway are glue code...
| Sir_Liigmaz wrote:
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| But don't worry. They've paused hiring for two full weeks!
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| Google funds a huge number of teams internally that (in my
| opinion) don't do anything that contributes to the top line or
| bottom line or the company's image.
|
| Not only that, but Google is known for being a "chill" place to
| work - good WLB, low pressure to deliver, very low chance of
| PIP. That attracts the wrong kind of employee. When you start
| seeing TikToks of people who work at Google documenting their
| life rather than delivering results, that's when you know the
| company's standards are too low.
| [deleted]
| ProAm wrote:
| Think about all the chat apps we'll have in a year...
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| Not really that crazy when you have 174,000 employees. A 20%
| increase in employees isn't really that high when you also have
| a 13% increase in revenue.
| compiler-guy wrote:
| Procuring 30,000 laptops is quite different than procuring
| 200 laptops. The logistics for 20% growth are materially
| different for a 100,000 person company vs a 1,000 person
| company.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-26 23:01 UTC)