[HN Gopher] Google combines Maps and Waze teams in restructuring...
___________________________________________________________________
Google combines Maps and Waze teams in restructuring move
Author : stingrae
Score : 94 points
Date : 2022-12-08 01:42 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| tech234a wrote:
| Related post on the Waze forum:
| https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=367207
| smm11 wrote:
| Computer Science graduations up 600 percent since 2011.
| Xcelerate wrote:
| The only thing that keeps me from completely using Google Maps
| over Waze is the speed trap reporting (Google Maps has a similar
| feature, but it's not nearly as effective as Waze's).
| jeffbee wrote:
| Have you considered simply obeying the law?
| surfpel wrote:
| Only if you want to die!
|
| The standard highway speed is 15mph over the speed limit here
| in CA.
|
| If you follow the speed limit, you'll be going too slow to
| effectively maneuver or see incoming cars and increase
| chances of a crash.
|
| Ergo: break the law or die.
| akiselev wrote:
| _> The standard highway speed is 15mph over the speed limit
| here in CA._
|
| Depends entirely where in California. LA is a good 15-20
| mph over, San Diego is more like 10-15 mph over, and the
| South Bay Area is more like 0-5 mph over (which drove me
| crazy coming from LA)
| surfpel wrote:
| Agreed more or less (lived in all 3), although South Bay
| can be a tossup. I've felt slow doing 80 and fast doing
| 70.
| jeffbee wrote:
| You sound like every other idiot driver in America.
| dang wrote:
| We need you to stop posting abusively to HN. If you'd
| please review
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and
| stick to the rules from now on, we'd appreciate it.
|
| I don't want to ban you--obviously, given the number of
| times we've already had to ask you this--but if you keep
| ignoring our requests, we're going to have to.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33311881 (Oct 2022)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30890360 (April
| 2022)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26628758 (March
| 2021)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26307811 (March
| 2021)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25561372 (Dec 2020)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24724281 (Oct 2020)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24458954 (Sept 2020)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24380545 (Sept 2020)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23170477 (May 2020)
| Minor49er wrote:
| These days, there are more drivers and fewer cops to make the
| boogeyman of a random speed trap seem like a possibility.
| Showing that there is a cop ahead would work better, I
| imagine. One of the reasons why people drive recklessly is
| because they don't think any cops are around to bust them
| [deleted]
| Xcelerate wrote:
| Yes, I considered it
| egberts1 wrote:
| Ah, FFS!!!
|
| Just when I thought I fled Google.
|
| @&$/"!#%Y=
| mattnewton wrote:
| Not sure I understand, Google has owned Waze for some time.
| tpmx wrote:
| Uh-oh. I can easily imagine how Waze gets Google-transmogrified
| into something that's only 80% useful to the average person,
| instead of 95% useful.
|
| Google, I'm sorry I never clicked on any of those Waze ads for
| petrol stations or fast food.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Surprised they didn't merge Waze features into G Maps and
| discontinue Waze as a separate app long ago (could still have
| Waze app that's a wrapper around Google Maps)
| michaelt wrote:
| Eh, I can see why features like 'speed trap reporting' and
| 'encourage drivers to file congestion reports while driving'
| might be released under a different brand.
| gorbypark wrote:
| At least here in Spain Google Maps warns of speed cameras and
| has options for reporting police/congestion, etc. It's just
| little icons on the map, though, and it doesn't actually
| audible warn you of upcoming cameras.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Even Apple Maps reports speed cameras. Google Maps doesn't?
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.ph/EIQ3A
| skunkworker wrote:
| I still use waze almost exclusively and it's consistently the
| best way to "plan" a future drive and have a reasonable
| expectation of traffic and when to leave.
| otikik wrote:
| First time I hear about Waze. I've been using maps since it's
| initial release
| mcenedella wrote:
| The Founder/CEO of Waze wrote a terrific, in-depth post on his
| decision to leave Google two years ago:
| https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-did-i-leave-google-stay-s...
|
| Very insightful post. And as much as a reader might think it
| highlights dysfunction at Google, the continued growth and
| success of Waze within Google argues otherwise.
| whateveracct wrote:
| Success of a product is only tangentially related to how much
| of a pain in the ass a place is to work for. Even less so when
| you are talking about a multi-billion dollar market leader like
| Google.
| zerr wrote:
| That post makes me think Google might be actually a nice place
| to work.
| returningfory2 wrote:
| Yes - my reading of that post is that Waze was a toxic place
| to work, and the author is annoyed because Google is not.
|
| > Having trouble scheduling meetings because [...] "I'm
| taking a personal day" drove me crazy.
|
| Yikes.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Other things (from that article) he was apparently
| irritated about:
|
| - Not being able to just fire people he didn't want anymore
|
| - Having to spend engineering time on things like Privacy
| protection and Legal compliance
|
| - Work life balance
|
| - Employee entitlement
|
| - Equity compensation being relatively stable, not a win-
| or-lose lottery ticket
|
| ... and then a bunch of rants about political correctness,
| not being allowed to say offensive things, pronouns...
|
| Yikes is right! Holy cow!
| yrgulation wrote:
| That seems to be annoyed they cant just fire people they
| dont like. Double yikes.
| poszlem wrote:
| Different people have different priorities when it comes to
| choosing a place to work. For some, a stable and secure
| company like Google might be the best option, while others
| might prefer a more dynamic and fast-growing company like
| Waze. It really depends on what you're looking for in a job.
| I know that I had periods in my life when I would prioritise
| one over the other and vice-versa.
|
| The biggest problem arises when a workplace has a mix of
| employees who have different motivations and goals. Some may
| be content with just doing their job and going home, while
| others may be ambitious and want to do great things. This can
| lead to resentment and hostility when these different
| perspectives clash. It's the role of the HR department and
| recruitment to make sure you don't get too many outliers in
| any direction, but alas those are often doing really poor job
| with this. Not to mention that the quality of "being a good
| fit" has been branded "problematic" so it's often not even
| taken into account.
|
| As the economy moves from a period of growth to a recession,
| the balance of motivations and goals among employees is
| likely to shift. And the amount of entitlement will reduce.
| compsciphd wrote:
| yes, a wazer friend of mine was like "we were all like, that
| was the best PR for getting people to work here"
| ajkjk wrote:
| Sounds terrible to me. I'd rather work at pre-acquisition
| waze, sounds like your work mattered and people weren't just
| droning along for money.
| mtgx wrote:
| MBCook wrote:
| Makes sense. I'm surprised they weren't already by this point.
|
| What's the benefit of Waze being a separate app at this point
| besides the brand name? Why not just fold it into the main Maps
| app?
| GuB-42 wrote:
| In France, Waze is essentially a speed trap detector, I am sure
| it is the biggest use case, more than navigation. Maps don't do
| that.
|
| The thing is: what Waze does is borderline illegal, and it is
| regularly updated to still do its thing without getting struck
| down. Google Maps is "cleaner", and therefore much worse at
| detecting speed traps. I guess the questionable legality is a
| good reason for keeping these apps separate.
| avip wrote:
| 1. Waze has some 150M active users which you're risking
|
| 2. Waze has features that google maps does not (?) s.a the "ETA
| histogram"
| ghaff wrote:
| Then Google should add those features to its main product. It
| seems idiotic for Google to maintain two maps products like
| this--and has been for years.
| emodendroket wrote:
| I'm not sure it is a compelling justification to have two whole
| separate apps but Waze's pitch seems to be "we'll send you down
| all the little residential streets to save a minute or two" and
| Google Maps is more conventional.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Besides the brand? I don't drive but I know plenty of people
| who use Waze as the "car gps" but gMaps as the "search engine
| for places".
|
| Even if it's just a GUI, different apps get you different
| experiences, and if you succeed it's a bigger % of phone usage.
| People who mentally treat location searching and navigation as
| separate tasks (worthy of separate apps) are at risk of leaving
| for a competitor. So build two tools specific to each use case.
| It's the Unix way.
|
| I don't know if this is the case, but it's likely there is some
| left over legal issues to wrt user data.
| jagaerglad wrote:
| Yeah Waze is just such a different experience for me. I
| haven't noticed the "riskier driving" mentioned by others in
| this thread but in Waze I find the voices friendlier in the
| languages I speak, giving instructions more often timing them
| better. Also you have the aspect of seeing other Waze users
| on the road, giving the app a cozier familiar feeling in a
| way. The ads suck though but oh well
| lukas099 wrote:
| On my old phone, Google Maps would chew up my battery but Waze
| had no problems. I used Maps just for finding new restaurants
| and other places.
| buildsjets wrote:
| Use case - Road warrior who spends around 3 months a year
| traveling in various areas of the US, 50/50 urban areas vs
| rural or very small towns.
|
| I find the Waze experience on Carplay to be far superior to
| Gmaps. I prefer how it provides access to the key features like
| reporting/voice prompt, the size/position/color how things are
| displayed, etc. The level of detail (surrounding streets and
| landmarks) is more useful on Waze.
|
| My experience has been that Waze seems to have better traffic
| prediction and avoidance in the areas I use it. Just last night
| I was following a cow orker from the plant we were working at
| to a restaurant about 30 mins away. We were right behind each
| other when my Waze suggested taking the exit and following a
| different route than my friend. I arrived at the restaurant a
| good 5 minutes before him, I asked, and he was using gmaps.
| el-salvador wrote:
| > What's the benefit of Waze being a separate app at this point
| besides the brand name? Why not just fold it into the main Maps
| app?
|
| There are differences in my region which make me think that the
| apps have different mapping and routing engines.
|
| Turn by turn dirrections and road condition information are
| much more accurate in Waze. There's a larger Waze local
| community that helps keep maps up to date.
|
| We do use Google Maps, but mostly as a Yellow Pages substitute
| or for checking business opening time.
| mcast wrote:
| Many people still use Waze for getting live traffic updates on
| a roadtrip (object on road, police speed trap ahead). I don't
| think those features were fully incorporated into Maps.
| josefresco wrote:
| > Many people still use Waze for getting live traffic updates
| on a roadtrip (object on road, police speed trap ahead).
|
| Once I showed my father-in-law the "police reported ahead"
| and "hazard reported ahead" features he was sold. He now
| demands Waze on every road trip and he's not especially tech-
| savvy. Google doesn't supply this same data.
| Bhilai wrote:
| Not true, I receive the very same updates (object on the
| road, speed trap, disable vehicle etc.) on Google Maps app
| on Android all the time.
| Grazester wrote:
| These alerts on Maps is sporadic for me for some reason.
| notatoad wrote:
| I definitely get those alerts on Google maps. AFAIK it
| literally is the same data, the reporting system is already
| shared between the two apps
| packetlost wrote:
| I can confirm that it is 100% not the case on iOS. There
| is not a way to report these things on the CarPlay app at
| all, and only very occasionally will there be a "speed
| trap" alert on Google Maps.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| That's exclusively a "not implemented in CarPlay" thing,
| the feature is very obviously supported in iOS; it even
| has its own "bubble" in the main UX while navigating.
|
| This seems to have been added in 2019:
| https://www.macobserver.com/tips/quick-tip/google-maps-
| repor...
|
| Does CarPlay even offer UX to allow that? It looks like
| Apple might support it, although the directions aren't
| very thorough:
| https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/report-traffic-
| incide...
| capableweb wrote:
| In Waze + CarPlay you can definitely report events/issues
| directly from the mainscreen, in the bottom right.
| josefresco wrote:
| Wait what?!? You get an audible "police ahead" alert?
| I'll have to review my settings if that's correct.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Why not though? Is there a point to having two maps apps run
| by two different teams?
| colordrops wrote:
| Waze used to route you on the fastest route regardless of how
| private or rich a neighborhood is. Don't know if that's the
| still the case, but Google maps definitely doesn't give you the
| absolute fastest route, but rather the fastest route that takes
| major roads.
| Crosseye_Jack wrote:
| Could this be simply a case of "the needs of the many
| outweigh the needs of a few"?.
|
| For example I live near a busy road during "rush hour" in the
| morning and evenings. A few mins up the road from me 2 major
| roads intersect which causes more hassle during these peak
| times. Now If you are travelling West to East to wish to turn
| right at the intersection to continue your journey south its
| quicker during those times to cut though my neighborhood (and
| same in the other direction) and cut out the queues leading
| up to the intersection. However my neighborhood's roads are
| not designed for that much traffic to flow though them (cars
| parked in the street narrowing the roads and reducing
| visablity of pedestrians esp kids playing outside).
|
| The handful of locals that travel though the neighborhood to
| get home (live one side but enter the other) are fine however
| if Google Maps routed everyone wishing to make that turn
| though the neighborhood it would make the neighborhoods roads
| much less friendly to the pedestrians of the neighborhood esp
| at times kids are going to school or are back home from
| school and playing outside.
|
| Keeping the through traffic to the major roads keeps everyone
| safer, and actually faster overall because the major roads
| aren't littered with cards parked in the road creating
| bottlenecks.
|
| Much like how the london underground lies to travellers and
| routes them around long detours during busy periods to help
| prevent a crush if they all went the shortest & fastest route
| possible - https://youtu.be/IrHRQSm6LIs?t=57
| ghaff wrote:
| Not really my experience. Seems to depend what "mood" Google
| Maps is in. I've definitely had it take me on circuitous
| routes even with recent snow which almost always makes the
| circuitous routes worse. If you somewhat know the area you
| can of course usually override.
| thewataccount wrote:
| Could be related to Braess's paradox? In this case "adding
| lanes" would be "increased routing"
|
| > [The] idea was that if each driver is making the optimal
| self-interested decision as to which route is quickest, a
| shortcut could be chosen too often for drivers to have the
| shortest travel times possible.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox
|
| Personally I'd rather not go through neighborhoods for just a
| tiny micro-optimization because of how much more
| "work/attention" is required given the increased pedestrian
| traffic.
| emodendroket wrote:
| A recurrent complaint about Waxe is creating bumper-to-
| bumper, stop-and-go traffic on residential roads. So yeah
| probably.
| version_five wrote:
| Having separate apps is better for users. I personally find
| Waze way better than maps for driving (it's still crap mind) -
| whatever your opinion about their relationship merits,
| consolidation will remove choice.
|
| It doesn't surprise me that Google's doing it, what's the point
| in having a monopoly if you can't use it to your advantage.
| It's not good for users though.
| brookst wrote:
| Never understood this either. Even if they need to be separate
| apps on user devices for brand / user / other reasons, seems
| like they should be light skins on top of the same core app.
| Amazing it took 10 years to combine the teams.
| donatj wrote:
| I have been surprised Waze has stuck around as long as it has. I
| stopped using it a number of years ago, but my wife still uses
| it.
| Zigurd wrote:
| My main use case is to "warn me of problems ahead" when I don't
| need navigation help. For example, it saved my butt when the
| road ahead iced-over suddenly. I saw numerous accidents ahead
| and pulled off before I was in trouble or stuck on the road
| behind a wreck. I passed several scary big truck accident
| scenes a couple hours later once the road had been sanded.
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| I only go back to Waze when I need the "plan a drive" feature,
| where you tell it what time you want to arrive, and it tells
| you when to leave.
| mfcl wrote:
| Can't you do that in Google Maps?
| richiebful1 wrote:
| That feature exists in Google Maps, by clicking through the
| "depart at/arrive by" button
| capableweb wrote:
| Can you also just put a destination and it'll show some
| sort of histogram of when the traffic is the busiest?
| Basically that + community warnings is the reason I'm 100%
| using Waze for driving directions.
|
| Here is a screenshot of the feature I'm talking about:
| https://techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/waze-
| plann...
|
| Basically, I know I want to go to A, but I'm not sure when
| to leave, I just know I want to avoid as much traffic as
| possible, so when should I leave? The feature kind of
| answers that.
| r00fus wrote:
| Not on mobile (iOS) unless they hid it very effectively.
| Only on web.
| _rs wrote:
| It's on mobile and hidden very well behind the 3 dot menu
| to the top-right of the start/end location fields. Tap
| the 3 dots and then you can choose "set depart or arrive
| time" in the menu that opens
|
| With that said, I do prefer waze's graph showing traffic
| changing over time to help decide when to leave
| [deleted]
| samanator wrote:
| In Israel, Waze is the only real choice. Maps is not up to date
| on construction and changing roads, nor is its real-time
| traffic system accurate.
|
| In the US I solely use maps
| fancyfish wrote:
| I have used Waze regularly since 2014, and my perception is
| that it plans more aggressive routes (trickier turns, using
| side streets, etc) to shave off a few more minutes than Maps,
| whereas Maps will stick to the major, less complicated routes.
| But I haven't used Maps for routing lately, so I wouldn't be
| surprised if Waze/Maps are more similar than I realize.
| gav wrote:
| I stopped using Waze (I live in Los Angeles) because it would
| give a slightly faster route with unprotected left turns that
| was riskier, more stressful, and ultimately not much faster
| in reality.
| three_seagrass wrote:
| >riskier, more stressful, and ultimately not much faster in
| reality
|
| I used to think the same until we A/B tested it a few times
| (Maps/Waze) with different cars going to the same
| destination.
|
| Waze really was faster very time.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| I wonder why can't Google Maps use the same routing, even
| as an option?
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| Friend of mine lives in South Pasadena. He mentions that
| since Waze he has a lot more traffic on the road behind his
| house, just people cutting through to save 30 seconds!
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I've started using Waze again because its UI allows me to
| control music at the same time as navigation is on. But it
| does aggressively reroute me during heavy traffic. I've
| started to ignore those though; going off the highway through
| small side- and country roads might save a minute but it's a
| lot of extra effort.
| acheron wrote:
| I use Waze but that part of it actually bugs me, because it's
| hard to tell if it's telling me to go on some side route for
| a real reason (avoiding a big accident) or just because it's
| guessing it will be 90 seconds faster.
| whymauri wrote:
| Interesting. In Colombia Waze prefers safer roads and
| highways, whereas Google Maps has sent me down incredibly
| dangerous mountain paths.
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| I like it because I drive a lot on unsealed roads, and Google
| Maps doesn't want to help me find a fast route that involves
| gravel, whereas Waze has an option to allow that.
|
| Waze doesn't seem to be aware of fords, but then, I wouldn't
| expect it to be.
|
| I also like that I can tell Waze "I ain't afraid of tricky
| intersections", and that it's happy to take side-roads if it'll
| get you there slightly faster, which Google Maps prefers not to
| do.
| yrgulation wrote:
| Extremely popular in europe. Shows locations of speed cameras
| and police checks.
| vforvendettador wrote:
| I still use Waze. It has better incident reporting than Google.
| Also it reports where the cops are.
| karmasimida wrote:
| Google is so bloated
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| If anyone at Gooogle is wondering why they are going through this
| pain or might have been fired it is because TCI, which is an
| activist hedge fund, decided they want to make more money and
| they have a giant share of ownership of Alphabet stock.
|
| TCI sent Google a letter [1] telling them they need to cut people
| to get higher margins (>40%) as well as pay the investors more
| (stock buybacks).
|
| Google is choosing to do what this group of investors says
| instead of supporting it's employees.
|
| Just so you know.
|
| [1]
| https://www.tcifund.com/files/corporateengageement/alphabet/...
|
| Edit: This data came from me asking myself of the headline "ok
| who is it that is putting "Pressure to Cut Costs" on Google."
| Luckily TCI made it really clear
| dzikimarian wrote:
| That's pretty normal communication from investors. Everyone
| cuts costs, so some of yours will see a chance to make you do
| the same. I would be very surprised if Sundar loses sleep over
| this pdf.
|
| Source: been on receiving end of such messages (bit smaller
| endeavor than Google though :-)).
| Khaine wrote:
| Shock! Horror! People who own shares in the company, have a
| view on what management should be doing and expressed it to
| them!
|
| How dare they. :rollseyes:
| bla3 wrote:
| Another explanation might be that tech companies are doing
| poorly in general at the moment, and Google is one of the few
| companies that hasn't done mass layoffs yet.
| emodendroket wrote:
| Probably a bit of both but yes the rate hikes have been
| especially hard on tech. I think it is also a reasonable
| question why Google needs to have two competing products that
| do the exact same thing.
| ghaff wrote:
| They're two products that ostensibly do the same thing.
| And, if your answer is WELL, having a separate product like
| Waze lets us do slightly (arguably) sketchy things like
| route people through residential neighborhood streets with
| pedestrians to save 30 seconds or flag police speed traps,
| I'm not sympathetic. Do or not do but own it in either
| case. It's the same company.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Is it true that tech companies are doing poorly or is it
| something else, like the free money is nowhere around and
| tech companies are now expected to actually make money like a
| traditional company?
|
| The story seems about the same everywhere: When money was
| pouring and people were spending more time on their devices
| than usual, the projection was that people will just resign
| from the physical world and live in VR so hire as many people
| as possible but that projection looks silly now.
| strulovich wrote:
| Google's profitability came down as well. This affects the
| stock price, this in turn affects employees (not just hedge
| funds are invested in the stock, employees get a lot of
| their salary that way)
|
| This creates a pressure on Google to try and raise their
| profitability, and one way to do that is cut on areas where
| it seems wasteful.
|
| The letter mentioned above is just a trailing sign of this
| in my opinion.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| That's not "another explanation" that's the exact dynamic:
|
| TCI, who do not actually run the business, are threatening
| the CEO (addressed to Sundar) that they will move their money
| if Google doesn't do what they say - namely cut costs etc...
|
| Is it more likely that TCI investors know how better to run
| Google than Google does or that they don't care and are
| blindly seeking alpha with no care for the people that run
| it?
| extesy wrote:
| > TCI, who do not actually run the business, are
| threatening the CEO (addressed to Sundar) that they will
| move their money if Google doesn't do what they say -
| namely cut costs etc...
|
| What does "move their money" technically mean in this
| situation? Google is not a bank, they don't keep TCI's
| money. Is this a threat of tanking the stock price by
| selling all $6B at once? TCI would hurt themselves too if
| they do that.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| >What does "move their money" technically mean in this
| situation?
|
| Sell GOOG and buy META (or whatever)
|
| >Is this a threat of tanking the stock price by selling
| all $6B at once? TCI would hurt themselves too if they do
| that.
|
| The act of liquidating their position is what reduces the
| price. So they drop their ask to the lowest bid price
| that liquidates their position net positive and in theory
| that action would cause a price cascade. It's a threat,
| not a guarantee.
| hexis wrote:
| TCI investors, among other people, are the literal owners
| of Alphabet. The CEO is an employee who takes direction
| from the owners.
| michaelt wrote:
| To be fair, every single person on HN _thinks_ they know
| how to run Google better than Google does.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Yes, well luckily nobody on HN can compel Google to do
| anything differently.
|
| This group of investors however can compel Google to do
| things differently and as George Carlin once said: "It's
| a big club, and you ain't in it"
| ryanwaggoner wrote:
| There's no evidence that this group of investors (who
| hold 0.5%) can compel Google's management to do anything.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Also most of the married people, I'd say!
| xen0 wrote:
| > they will move their money if Google doesn't do what they
| say - namely cut costs etc...
|
| Why would Google care? This fund owns Google stock; it
| isn't giving money to Google, it gave money to whoever it
| bought that stock from.
|
| Selling a fraction of a percent of the total in the market
| might move the stock price a little, but probably not much.
|
| 'Moving their money' just means transferring that stock to
| someone else who may have more faith in the company's
| strategy.
| mjfl wrote:
| Wow, I seriously never thought Google would be vulnerable to
| activist investor actions because it's market cap is too big
| and its shareholders too idealistic. I'm still not sure that's
| not the case? Activist investors are sending letters all the
| time, and it's not a given that they are taken seriously, only
| if a shareholder vote would approve of their company policy
| goals. How do you know that TCI has a serious chance of that
| happening? If not then it's likely that Google's leadership
| just ignores it.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| From the headline and article respectively:
|
| "Google Combines Maps and Waze Teams Amid Pressure to Cut
| Costs"
|
| "...as the search giant faces pressure to streamline
| operations and cut costs."
|
| "The activist hedge fund TCI Fund Management called on
| Alphabet to aggressively cut costs last month, writing in a
| letter to management that it thought the company's head count
| was too high."
|
| Are you suggesting that the WSJ is totally off base by
| drawing the conclusion that pressure from TCI, via this
| letter, is not the cause of the restructuring?
| joshuamorton wrote:
| > Are you suggesting that the WSJ is totally off base by
| drawing the conclusion that pressure from TCI, via this
| letter, is not the cause of the restructuring?
|
| Yes. In fact its off base enough that I don't think they
| actually make that claim in the article.
|
| TCI holds something like .5% of alphabet market cap, that's
| less than is held by _multiple_ individual human investors
| in Google, and likely less than rank-and-file employees
| hold collectively. It 'd be weird to pay any attention to
| such a group.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| So then who is the pressure coming from?
| nwiswell wrote:
| The parent is suggesting that this is simply a sensible
| business move and the pressure is irrelevant.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Google isn't responding to pressure.
|
| Like perhaps there is a pressure to fire people, but
| _Google isn 't firing anyone_, so they are pretty clearly
| ignoring said pressure.
| jjulius wrote:
| >Are you suggesting that the WSJ is totally off base by
| drawing the conclusion that pressure from TCI, via this
| letter, is not the cause of the restructuring?
|
| That's a misrepresentation of what the WSJ piece says. All
| the article is doing there is highlighting that there has
| been external pressure on Google to cut costs.
|
| The excerpt you highlighted points out TCI's request for
| reduced headcount, while a few paragraphs earlier, the
| article says that there is no plan to reduce headcount.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| TCI's letter says they own $6 billion worth of shares.
| According to [1], Alphabet's market cap is $1.216 _trillion_ as
| of today.
|
| Now, if Blackrock, Vanguard, Fidelity, Schwab, and all the
| pension funds got together, that might add up to something.
|
| [1] https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/market_cap
| unicornmama wrote:
| What is wrong with that exactly? Investors risk their own money
| to expect a return. Large investors have a say in the
| management. Google's leadership has no obligation to support
| it's employees at the expense of its shareholders.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| >Google's leadership has no obligation to support it's
| employees at the expense of its shareholders.
|
| Because that is unethical
| bolt7469 wrote:
| Consider the following:
|
| Google has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders.
|
| Google has no duty to retain an employee hired at-will.
|
| Is it more ethical to reject a duty by favoring the
| employees? Deontological ethics suggests otherwise.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| >Google has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders.
|
| "Shareholder Primacy" is the biggest most unethical scam
| that continues to go unchecked as though it were law,
| which it is most certainly not. It is an unethical and
| outdated relic of rapacious greed
|
| "On August 19, 2019, 181 CEOs of America's largest
| corporations overturned a 22-year-old policy statement
| that defined a corporation's principal purpose as
| maximizing shareholder return" [1]
|
| [1] https://purpose.businessroundtable.org/
| finikytou wrote:
| ur thinking is exactly what caused economies to crumble
| several times over the last decades
| edwnj wrote:
| Just so you know, USSR collapsed. We live in a capitalist
| world.
|
| Everybody has a boss and in a capitalist world, Sundar's boss
| is the board and the boards boss is the shareholders.
|
| There are a pension funds and state investment funds investing
| in to Google. Lots of people put their savings into Google.
|
| The idea that its OK for companies to basically be glorified
| trust funds for woke activists is asinine.
|
| Waste is wrong. Efficiency Matters. Somebody is on the other
| side of every expenditure.
| noncoml wrote:
| Can you go back to Twitter? Musk didn't buy HN yet
| astrange wrote:
| Google and newer tech companies have dual-class share
| structures so the board's boss is Sergey Brin, not "the
| shareholders".
| mrep wrote:
| > giant share of ownership of Alphabet stock
|
| 6 billion dollars worth or 0.5% of the market cap. Not so big
| [deleted]
| makestuff wrote:
| Also the CEO of that fund is the highest paid employee in the
| UK. IMO he should cut his salary to improve returns for his
| investors.
| pifm_guy wrote:
| 'highest paid employee' usually means 'has arranged ones
| personal financial affairs badly'.
|
| In the UK, being a salaried employee means you pay a rather
| high rate of tax, compared to other schemes used by rich
| people - like for example having some of the work done as
| charitable work, having mostly stock, getting paid via a
| company, etc.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| As a former Google employee, I don't think TCI is wrong.
| lobochrome wrote:
| Google is doing what its owners want it to do and not what its
| highly-paid employees in cash-losing divisions would prefer.
|
| Are "Property rights just for losers"?!
| jjulius wrote:
| Normally, I'd read your comment, grab my pitchfork and join
| you. This time, I disagree. Here's what TCI wrote in their
| letter:
|
| >The company has too many employees and the cost per employee
| is too high.
|
| >Headcount is too high.
|
| >... the business could be operated more effectively with
| significantly fewer employees.
|
| Yeah, cash-hungry hedge fund calling for layoffs. Got it. Yet
| here's an excerpt from the WSJ article on this restructuring:
|
| >Google said it planned to maintain Waze as a stand-alone
| service and didn't plan to conduct any layoffs as part of the
| reorganization.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| I'm open to changing my mind here so which are you
| suggesting:
|
| 1. Google did the Waze Maps/Maps merger to appease TCI so
| they could prevent layoffs
|
| 2. The Waze Maps/Maps merger is unrelated to the TCI memo
| jjulius wrote:
| I am saying that this move is largely unrelated to the TCI
| memo. The WSJ article goes further:
|
| >In September, Mr. Pichai said he wanted Google to become
| 20% more productive and indicated the company could merge
| teams working on overlapping products.
|
| TCI's memo highlights five areas they think need to be
| adjusted, none of which Alphabet acquiesced to with this
| restructuring.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Ok, so then who is pressuring google to take these
| actions?
| ryanwaggoner wrote:
| Who is pressuring you to leave these comments?
| jjulius wrote:
| To be frank: don't know, don't care, and I don't need to
| have an answer to that question in order to be able to
| disagree with your original point. You came to this
| thread telling Googlers that the blame for this lies with
| TCI. I was curious, so I read TCI's memo and the WSJ
| piece. Now that I've done so, I simply find your
| assertion far-fetched, for these differences:
| TCI - Sent letter to Alphabet in mid-November
| - Holds a mere .5% of Alphabet's market cap - Asked
| for headcount reduction - Asked Alphabet to pay
| employees less Alphabet - Publicly
| commented in September that they intended to combine
| overlapping groups - Combined overlapping groups
| - Didn't lay anyone off
|
| That's it. At this point, given your slightly elevated
| tone in your most recent responses, it's starting to feel
| as though you began commenting with an axe to grind, and
| are now left holding an axe but are unsure what you
| should do with it. Maybe just put it down?
| bradlys wrote:
| > Google said it planned to maintain Waze as a stand-alone
| service and didn't plan to conduct any layoffs as part of the
| reorganization.
|
| Counterpoint - why would Google announce layoffs to the WSJ
| before it even happened? It's possible that it's in the
| works...
| SpeedilyDamage wrote:
| You can't criticize a company for something they haven't
| done...
| karamanolev wrote:
| They don't need to do a layoff to do a layoff. If you just
| set the (new) HC to 0 or significantly below replacement
| rate, you get reduction in staff just due to churn. When
| teams are sizeable, even with very low churn they lose
| employees over time. And then if you are more insidious,
| you can start introducing unpopular measures "in the name
| of business" that increase churn.
| jjulius wrote:
| Totally down to eat my hat and join you if it happens. My
| pitchfork's looking quite lonely.
| stingrae wrote:
| If they intended to maintain it as a separate app, why did
| the leader of it leave? Knowing Google, I find it hard to
| believe that Waze under the Google maps lead will get
| resources and continue.
| jjulius wrote:
| >If they intended to maintain it as a separate app, why did
| the leader of it leave?
|
| ... I'm not arguing whether or not they intended to keep
| the apps separate? If you want to know why he left, he's
| already told you[1].
|
| >Knowing Google, I find it hard to believe that Waze under
| the Google maps lead will get resources and continue.
|
| Sure. Agreed. That's not what this comment chain was
| discussing, though. You sure you responded to the right
| post?
|
| [1]https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-did-i-leave-google-
| stay-s...
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| >If you want to know why he left, he's already told
| you[1].
|
| The article clearly states that SHE left with no
| explanation why:
|
| Waze CEO Neha Parikh will exit her role following a
| transition period
|
| You're referencing an article that is over a year old
| about a completely different person.
| jjulius wrote:
| I mistakenly thought that that individual was referring
| to the founder's departure, not the CEO's termination
| post-restructuring. That's my bad.
| astrange wrote:
| The Waze founder left a while ago.
|
| https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-did-i-leave-google-
| stay-s...
| nomel wrote:
| I know very little of this, but why would they want to
| continue with multiple map products?
| bitL wrote:
| The usual short-term thinking. Get more money quickly at the
| cost of the first major layoff that demoralizes the company
| leading to nasty internal politics, gradually destroying the
| company from within.
| [deleted]
| edwnj wrote:
| acheron wrote:
| Ugh.
|
| I probably need to start using Apple Maps more often, don't I?
| ct0 wrote:
| I was never too fond of the GUI of Waze. Luckly there is some
| neat development in "adjusting" that: https://highwayradar.com/
| viiralvx wrote:
| I'm sorry but this UI definitely gives me the vibes and
| engineer designed it and not somebody well versed in product
| design. There's so much going on here with clashing typography
| and elements that I don't even know where to look.
| progman32 wrote:
| Website is pretty broken on mobile ironically, but will give
| this a try. Neat how it aggregates ads-b aircraft transponder
| data. I do wonder what is business model is. Author claims
| donationware.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-08 23:00 UTC)