[HN Gopher] Reflecting on 18 Years at Google ___________________________________________________________________ Reflecting on 18 Years at Google Author : whiplashoo Score : 1113 points Date : 2023-11-22 16:44 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (ln.hixie.ch) (TXT) w3m dump (ln.hixie.ch) | blakesterz wrote: | I think this link should point to the post at | https://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1700627373&count=1 | dang wrote: | Yup. Changed from https://ln.hixie.ch/. Thanks! | markdog12 wrote: | > Take Jeanine Banks, for example, who manages the department | that somewhat arbitrarily contains (among other things) Flutter, | Dart, Go, and Firebase. Her department nominally has a strategy, | but I couldn't leak it if I wanted to; I literally could never | figure out what any part of it meant, even after years of hearing | her describe it. Her understanding of what her teams are doing is | minimal at best; she frequently makes requests that are | completely incoherent and inapplicable. She treats engineers as | commodities in a way that is dehumanising, reassigning people | against their will in ways that have no relationship to their | skill set. She is completely unable to receive constructive | feedback (as in, she literally doesn't even acknowledge it). | | As someone who's very invested in Dart, this really pisses me off | to hear. | | I guess that's what this tweet is alluding to: | https://twitter.com/timsneath/status/1727192477264974273 | tyingq wrote: | If true, it does sound terrible. Though, I would focus not so | much on one named person. The culture is allowing it, leaders | above and around her, whatever feedback systems Google has, and | so on. | hnthrowaway0328 wrote: | Yep. It usually is a ship leaking from the top. I have seen | it (not from Google). | hot_gril wrote: | I don't agree with the author's complaint about the culture | changing, it's just that the leadership is weak and | directionless, which was also mentioned. | ryandrake wrote: | OP stopped quoting before getting to this other important | bit: | | > I hear other teams (who have leaders more politically savvy | than I) have learned how to "handle" her to keep her off | their backs, feeding her just the right information at the | right time. | | I don't know this person, but have worked with many like this | in my career. When you have a leader like this, it's | exhausting. You spend half your time "managing upward". | Instead of doing your real job, you have to take on a second | job just keeping this person at bay. Carefully crafting | status reports so as to not provoke some inane decision, | making sure you or your team are _invisible_ rather than | visible (which is what you normally want), generally trying | to keep the Eye Of Sauron off you, because where his or her | gaze lands, fires start. Woe be to the manager who gets | dragged into a meeting with someone like this--you 're going | to exit the meeting with (at best) pointless work and at | worst work that takes you more in the wrong direction. | FirmwareBurner wrote: | _> but have worked with many like her in my career_ | | Haven't we all? Unfortunately, in most corporate jobs, your | main job is looking good in front of your boss, and making | your boss look good in front of his boss, who further | perpetuates this theatrical shit-show. Your actual work | comes a distant second. | | I burned myself once or twice by keeping my head down just | focused on doing quality work and helping others, but | without taking care that it also had the right upward | visibility to my boss and the right people above him, and | ended up getting laid off, while people who were experts at | pretending to work and glorifying every little achievement | kept getting the laurels and promotions. | | Such is the case in very large orgs with rotten culture and | lack of transparency, and you need to withstand the heat if | you're gonna be working in the kitchen. | ryandrake wrote: | Absolutely, it's hard to overstate the importance of the | theatrics and performance art. In many places, it's far | more important that you "socialize" and "self-promote" | than that you actually do your work. If I could go back | 25 years and deliver one message to my old working self | starting fresh out of college, it would be: "Buy lots of | bitcoin and sell it in October 2021." But if I had a | second message, it would be: "Concentrate on self- | promotion and managing upward. You'll never get promoted | just doing your job really well." | gowld wrote: | Tacky to sling accusations without evidence or examples. | potatopatch wrote: | Pretty silly thing to do whether or not you have perfect | examples, and strange to follow that up with the fact that | you've been offering career advice.. | | There's not a lot of benefit to making a public discussion | out of something like that compared to the pretty personal | ramifications to the person brought up, which makes even the | most constructive attempts look vindictive. | ghaff wrote: | There's very little to be gained by making a post like that | focus on an individual. I do think there are often changes | in companies over time as they age and grow--but it really | isn't so much about some specific individual much of the | time. To some degree, it's inevitable. | chatmasta wrote: | I also noticed the bit about offering career advice to | people in Google, but I found it odd for a different | reason. How can someone who's spent 18 years of their | career (and I'm guessing, almost all of it) at Google | possibly be qualified to give career advice? They can give | excellent advice for working _at Google._ But if they haven | 't left the company in 18 years, then surely they don't | have the experience to give useful career advice that isn't | at least heavily biased toward the idiosyncrasies of their | one job. Even if they had a decade of experience prior to | Google, how useful is pre-2005 career advice now? | | That's not to say the author couldn't give valuable advice, | especially in more generalized areas like the craft of | programming, or even navigating office politics. It's just | that any advice will inevitably be specific to Google. It | seems strange to offer career advice when you've not had a | "career" per se - more like you've had one really long job. | | And who's asking him for this advice? Did people get wind | that he might be looking for other jobs, and so he became | the "career guy?" If so, that's a revealing insight into | the culture at Google, evocative of flock animals asking | their least risk averse member what he saw on his adventure | beyond the paddock... | munificent wrote: | _> They can give excellent advice for working at Google._ | | My understanding is that that's the kind of mentoring he | offerred, yes. | phillipcarter wrote: | IMO the leader in question doesn't have a coherent strategy | because she's likely trying to justify her org (and keep jobs!) | in the face of a lot of developers who just don't care a whole | lot about her portfolio. Her org could probably function with | less people and achieve the same outcomes, but instead of | getting rid of them, she's probably trying to make something | happen by moving people around. | | In an environment like that, your correct insights about "where | we're headed" don't matter. The only thing that matters is that | the leader can keep their org and not face layoffs. If that | means shoving people around and not listening to what folks are | saying, then that's what happens. | jillesvangurp wrote: | Slightly above that comment is this line: | | > Much of these problems with Google today stem from a lack of | visionary leadership from Sundar Pichai, and his clear lack of | interest in maintaining the cultural norms of early Google. | | I've been calling that out for years as it is obvious from the | outside: Pichai is not a leader but a care taker. He has no | vision that anyone can seem to articulate. And apparently he's | restructured the company to not have any people reporting to | him that have one either. Shocking to get some inside | confirmation of what is clear to see from the outside. | | I was reading Hixie's blog when he was working on WhatWG. He | was one of the main authors of the HTML 5 spec. Always had | great respect for how he communicated. Him being this explicit | is a message in itself. He was juggling highly opinionated | people arguing all sorts of things when he was writing that | spec. Part of the reason why that worked was his pragmatism and | ability to stay calm. This is a really strongly worded message | and people at Google and in their board would do well to take | note of it and take action. | | My recommendation: time for some leadership changes. Doing more | of the same isn't going to work. Do it more smartly than | OpenAI. But don't wait. | hnthrowaway0328 wrote: | Thanks for the post. I for one would love to experience the early | Google culture. I'm not competent enough but as a middle-aged man | I believe I have more fire than many of my peers. | kens wrote: | That post is a very good description of Google and matches my | experience at Google (2004-2016), both the good and bad. There is | a lot of cynicism and misunderstanding of Google on HN, so | hopefully this post will help. (Note: you need to scroll down a | bit on the page to get the post.) | AlbertCory wrote: | hi Ken. I don't think I mentioned you in the Enterprise | article! | kelnos wrote: | > _There is a lot of cynicism and misunderstanding of Google on | HN_ | | Is there, though? I mean, yes, I am very cynical about Google | (and never worked there, so I have no insider information), but | this article lines up very well with my assumptions about the | company and what happened there over time. | | (Of course I can't speak for all HNers...) | politelemon wrote: | Having spent a vast amount of time reading comments, there | certainly is. HN can frequently become an echo chamber, | though pretends not to be; and has very clear favorite tech | darlings and near-immovable, predefined villains (Google | being one of them). | lesuorac wrote: | > one of the most annoying is the prevalence of pointless cookie | warnings we have to wade through today. | | Hey if you're cool with me using your hardrive to store data I | have a bunch of chia coins that need mining. Its weird how | getting somebody's permission before using their stuff is | considered unnecessary. | Chabsff wrote: | I think you might be confusing cookies and local storage. | lesuorac wrote: | Where do you think cookies get stored? | nostrademons wrote: | Not localStorage. | lesuorac wrote: | Non-sequitor. | | If you look back the at the original post I say "Hard | drive" not the "localStorage object". | | And they are indeed stored are your system and not the | servers. | | https://allaboutcookies.org/what-is-a-cookie- | file#:~:text=In.... | LargeTomato wrote: | You do say hard drive but you also imply that permission | to store cookies is as good as permission to mine | cryptocurrency simply because the user allowed access to | storage. | | The argument these other commenters are trying to make | hinges on the idea that the type of storage for cookies | wouldn't work that well for crypto mining. | | You're calling that argument nonsequitor and I don't | think it is. It's immediately applicable to explaining | the gap in your reasoning. That gap, for the record, | being Cookies Storage == Crypto Mining. | | Finally, let me give an example. "I own my house and my | land so therefore I'm a sovereign citizen." That's a bad | argument for largely the same reasons. | Chabsff wrote: | The distinction, and this is an important one, is that | cookies have a hard cap of 4Kb of data per domain, making | them nigh-useless for that purpose. All they are good for | is recognizing a given user server-side across multiple | page loads and storage of a few handful of user | preferences. Cookies also get sent with every request, so | using them as storage is just asking to balloon your | bandwidth costs. | | On top of that, using localStorage for storing large | amounts of data rarely involves anything like a cookie | warning because it's 100% client side unless manually | sent back to the server. And even then, if you anonymize | the data (i.e. you don't care who's storage you are | using), you still don't technically need any warning. | | All this to say: There is basically no relationship | whatsoever between pervasive cookie warnings and the | usage concerns you are voicing. Both are valid concerns, | both are important stakes, but they have nothing to do | with one-another. | tapoxi wrote: | Well they're two different APIs. Most people aren't | concerned about a few KB to store things like sessions. | Most people don't even know what cookies are. | | So the cookie warnings have basically become the Prop-8 | warnings of the internet, where they're so prevalent people | just ignore them, but the cookie warnings are more annoying | since they require active dismissal. | Legend2440 wrote: | Your understanding of web technology is incredible. You should | run for congress. | icedchai wrote: | It is weird to focus on storage, considering the cache for the | HTML/CSS/JS generating the warnings likely takes up _much_ more | storage space than the cookies themselves. | bandofthehawk wrote: | I noticed that comment also. It seems like the point of view of | an engineer that doesn't really think about security. | | Reminded me of when I first discovered that major browsers | allow third party cookies by default. And thinking I can't | believe they allow this massive privacy leak. | JW_00000 wrote: | You don't need to show a "cookie warning" to store a cookie. | You only need to show a warning if you're tracking a user, | regardless of the technology used (cookie, local storage...) | But if you want to store someone's language choice, username, | or credentials in a cookie, no banner is needed. In fact, this | website is the perfect example. | nine_zeros wrote: | A lot of glorified companies are completely filled with corrupt, | inept management. I hope this recession destroys this management | culture and brings back the ethos of innovation in engineering | and product. | financltravsty wrote: | Be the change you want to see. | | I'm not holding out. Public companies all turn into this. | | One solution is to make greed and going public a shameful | thing; but who's going to do that? | nine_zeros wrote: | > Be the change you want to see. | | I have done it at my job - by being the leader myself who | will always prioritize a mix of business needs and | engineering needs - with transparency and blamelessness. And | then, to shame/call out other "leaders" throwing their people | under the bus. | | I encourage everyone else to do the same. This is the only | way to maintain company culture in the direction of | innovation. | pkasting wrote: | As a current Googler of approximately the same tenure, I can't | speak to the comments on Jeanine Banks (never met her), but I | agree with every other word of this. | | It's frustrating to continue to see both the level of genuinely | well-intentioned work that the public is unfairly (and often | viciously) critical of the motives of, and also the (at this | point) complete absence of concern for the user, the long term, | and the company culture at the highest levels of Google. | | I care about my team and believe in their skills and intents. But | the Google I joined in early 2006, as a whole, is fractured, | reeling, and has been pushed to the brink of extinction by the | importing of "business focus" and the "bottom line" (read: short | term share price) to Google's management structure wholesale. | liveoneggs wrote: | Not intending harm does not excuse causing it over and over. | pkasting wrote: | Quite so. And my point is not that people should somehow give | Google a pass; it is that in their focus on maligning our | motives, people not only fail to level serious criticisms of | the consequences of our actions, but make it less likely | anyone will be willing to listen to those criticisms. | | Privacy advocates say Manifest v3 is an attempt to wipe out | ad blockers. Google claims it's about security. But which | side is right is not only unprovable, it's irrelevant; what | matters is what the actual consequences will be. | | If you don't like what Google is doing, by all means speak | up. But please, stop claiming you know why some team is | advocating for some position, and focus on the effects that | position would have in practice. | | Google's size and power mean that causing harm is | exceptionally easy. We need to listen to cautionary voices. | Having a mob of posters yelling about how evil we are even at | the times we were trying our best makes that more | challenging. | liveoneggs wrote: | the issue is that Google uses its engineering staff as | foils to spread their lies instead of putting forward the | product managers, who would explain why breaking the web is | good for profits. I don't blame the engineers. | pkasting wrote: | Having been in the room on a number of these occasions, a | don't think this description is remotely accurate. | liveoneggs wrote: | What's the mood in the room when- | | "I have a change to propose to the http standard that | doesn't consider the 20 year history of UDP amplification | attacks and breaks all existing servers and browsers!" | | or | | "I think some websites like Pinterest should dominate all | of the google image search results instead of any other | website in the world!" | | or | | "Autoplaying audio is hostile to users except for the few | sites we (Google) run and the list of people we think are | okay?" | | Honestly. Have you been involved in these types of short- | sighted and blatently evil decisions? That's why I said I | don't blame the engineers. The banality of the day-to-day | with a room-full-of-juniors likely doesn't even consider | any consequences beyond "xyz is yelling at me". | stephenr wrote: | > genuinely well-intentioned work that the public is unfairly | (and often viciously) critical of the motives of | | If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and shits all over | your lawn like a duck, hearing "well he meant well" doesn't | make it any less of a duck. | | Saying "the public are unfairly critical of the motives [of | Google]" is like saying cows are unfairly critical of the | motives of abattoir workers [1]. | | 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37035733 | jorvi wrote: | > It's frustrating to continue to see both the level of | genuinely well-intentioned work that the public is unfairly | (and often viciously) critical of the motives of, and also the | (at this point) complete absence of concern for the user, the | long term, and the company culture at the highest levels of | Google. | | This sentence is an oxymoron. | | How can the work both be "genuinely well-intentioned" and at | the same time have "complete absence of concern for the user"? | akprasad wrote: | > How can the work both be "genuinely well-intentioned" and | at the same time have "complete absence of concern for the | user"? | | I think the author is distinguishing between (1) well- | intentioned work from workers in the trenches and (2) | indifference to the user from upper management. It's | institutional misalignment. | dragonwriter wrote: | > How can the work both be "genuinely well-intentioned" and | at the same time have "complete absence of concern for the | user"? | | Only the first was a description of _the work_ , the other | was a description of the culture to which those doing the | work are subjected to _from above_. | LargeTomato wrote: | It is only an oxymoron in the worst possible interpretation | to the point of maliciousness. | spdif899 wrote: | I can empathize with you and the linked writer feeling | frustrated that public perception isn't able to match your | privileged perspective as an insider... but in both cases I | feel my eyes roll involuntarily here. | | From the outside looking in, Google has acted as a giant self- | serving monopolistic hoarder of wealth and power, and has spent | decades systematically absorbing and puppeteering creativity | and optimism to squeeze as much long term profit as possible. | | The only difference we can see recently is they are more | interested in short term profit than long term, which makes | their insidious power grabs more obvious and less convoluted. | | Actions speak louder than words and I don't see how someone | could look at Google's actions over the past 20 years and | objectively claim the company hasn't always been the poster | child of capitalism | debatem1 wrote: | The point being made is exactly that your inference about | Google's motives early on was wrong. Common. But wrong. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | "Our motto is "Don't be evil"" is not an inference. It's a | quote. | debatem1 wrote: | The inference you made is that Google actually was evil | all along. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | I haven't made any inference at all. | | You seem to be telling the GP that they made a (common) | mistake in thinking that early Google had non-evil | motives. | debatem1 wrote: | Well, given that you aren't who I thought I was talking | with at least one of us is confused, but I suspect both | of us are now. | | The post I replied to was stating, essentially, that in | their opinion Google had always been evil and only the | timescales had changed. | | My point is that multiple insiders (including myself) can | confirm that Google took "Don't Be Evil" really seriously | for a long time and that the cynics were wrong then to | believe otherwise. | spdif899 wrote: | I'm the one you originally replied to, and yes that's | roughly what I'm saying - maybe the individual engineers | and designers that built features were trying their best | not to be evil, but the company as a whole always had | dark motives. | | They always funneled user data into ad revenue, always | drove people to use their versions of things with overly | pushy dark patterns, always collected way more telemetry | than necessary. | | They bought Android and turned it into a profit center, | bought YouTube and have spent basically the whole time | making user hostile actions with ad UX and weird | algorithms. | | Despite individuals' best efforts, I posit that Google | the corporation's modus operandi has always been to co- | opt good ideas and good people and twist them towards the | grey, rarely crossing any defined line but always | stretching every one of them to suck more private data, | more telemetry, and more ad value. | | Just because they invest in an open source programming | thing (that gets people to use their platforms and | ecosystem for more ad dollars) doesn't make them good. | JohnFen wrote: | > the public is unfairly (and often viciously) critical of the | motives of | | Is it unfair, though? I went from being a huge fan of Google to | being a huge Google critic because of real changes in what | Google did. I think it's reasonable to question their motives. | | This isn't the same as questioning the motives of the | engineers, though. I have no doubt that there are a lot of good | people who work there. However, their presence doesn't change | the reality of the company's behavior as a whole. | kibwen wrote: | Right. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And | regardless of the intentions of the engineers, Google is run | by its executives, not by its engineers. We don't have the | luxury to extend the benefit of the doubt to | ultramegacorporations. | piva00 wrote: | > It's frustrating to continue to see both the level of | genuinely well-intentioned work that the public is unfairly | (and often viciously) critical of the motives of, and also the | (at this point) complete absence of concern for the user, the | long term, and the company culture at the highest levels of | Google. | | Criticism of Google stems exactly from the culture shift, us | customers (even more the tech savvy ones) noticed pretty | clearly when that shift started to happen, when we felt | betrayed by believing in old-Google. The erosion of this trust | fostered the cynicism, the vicious criticism veil was cast over | any action that looked, at a glance, somewhat malicious. | | How could we tell if it wasn't malicious? I definitely can't | anymore. | | Google 2005 had almost my complete trust, Google 2015 much | less, Google 2023 is the one I've been actively moving away | from, closing accounts, including letting go my GMail account | from 2004 with a handle that's basically my name. | trout11 wrote: | Her linkedin profile is 'winner' if it helps provide any | backstory: https://www.linkedin.com/in/winner/ | chubot wrote: | What projects you would you say the public has been | unfairly/viciously critical of the motives of? | | I'm a former Google engineer of 11 years, and while I certainly | remember pile-ons, I don't recall many "unfair" ones. It's more | of a difference of opinion. | | For example, I mentioned the other day that it's sad that the | lawsuits around Google Books left the Web deprived of important | content, but I don't view that as unfair. I think the | publishing industry/authors had a reason to want to maintain | control. Reasonable people can disagree on that one. | | --- | | I also think there are many issues that Google hasn't gotten | ENOUGH flack for. | | The privacy stance of the company has been terrible from the | beginning. I remember TGIF questions going back to 2005 about | privacy, and they were more or less brushed off by Larry Page. | | Google has REPEATEDLY paid out huge settlements in violation of | the law. There was the one about circumventing a Safari change | to deliver ads, the early one about the "war driving" and the | SSISD database. | | A hilarious thing is I just searched for "list of settlements | paid out by Google", and there was a pretty big one in 2022, | which I had no idea about. Apparently Android would still track | your location irrespective of user settings? Didn't know that, | but it's unsurprising. | | https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-location-tracking-data-w... | | Would people argue that there was some misunderstanding there, | or the company was unfairly prosecuted? | | I don't know the details of that case, but I've seen a VERY | consistent pattern from Google. The line in terms of "dark | patterns" has been pushed for 15+ years, to the point where | current employees don't even understand what a dark pattern is. | It's just cultural now. | | There are so many of these lawsuits and settlements that people | don't even pay attention anymore. They just assume Google has | bad intentions, and I think that's approximately correct. | | If you were there in the early days, you remember when Google | Toolbar collected an unprecedented amount of data (IIRC, | Windows hooks for what you typed, plus what you clicked on), | but it was NEITHER opt-in or opt-out. The user had to choose | explicitly. | | That culture is completely gone. It's not even close to that. | IMO the company deserves its erosion of trust, and the public | hasn't been unfair. | | (There was also the product manager who coined "default opt-in" | -- I repeatedly encountered such fuzzy and "interested" | thinking in my time at Google. Some people weren't even aware | they were doing it. They were just doing what was in the | culture -- what's rewarded.) | | Another early one was when Google had a "Windows deskbar", and | it would ignore your setting to turn it off. It will | continually appear on reboot, even when you asked it not to. | There was an additional "dark pattern" checkbox -- you had to | find 2 places to turn it off, not 1. I filed an internal bug on | that one, and got a response from the product manager. They | didn't change anything. | | --- | | When I compare early Google to say OpenAI, I think Google was | at least 10x better. The products were better, it made way more | money, and the working environment was better. (And I made that | comparison 3 months ago, before last weekend's OpenAI drama - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37399239 ) | | But I don't think the public has been unfair to Google overall. | | Google created amazing things, and got credit for them plus | even more. But it also had both bad outcomes and bad intentions | on many products. You can say that's one Vic Gundotra in the | company, but there were multiple Vic Gundotras. And Vic had a | mandate from the top. | | Products that were poorly executed, violated the law, | dishonestly marketed, predictably shut down despite early | promises, etc. | | There's a very clear pattern, going back more than 10 years at | this point, but you can see it from 15 years ago too. The | company simply isn't user-centric, full stop. I can't see | anyone argue otherwise. | | What's the most user-centric improvement from Google in the | last 5 years? (honest question) As a user, I honestly stopped | paying attention to any new product launches over 10 years ago. | My favorite product is probably YouTube, with a lot of great | content, and I pay for it. Other than that, I just kinda get by | with GMail, Maps, and search. The latter has deteriorated | rapidly. | | In general, I do not look forward to new Google products. | vasilipupkin wrote: | is this criticism reasonable though? Look at Waymo, for | example. Investing in that is very visionary. I mean, someone | has to work on the stuff that pays the current bills, right? | Or, what about Bard? Sure, Bard kinda sucks compared to chat | gpt 4, but it's really at worst number 2 in the most exciting | current field? | Simon_ORourke wrote: | I think what's been said, and the description of the general | ineptness of that particular manager, has been 100% spot on. | Middle management as a whole has basically gotten worse, meaner | and generally less technically capable since 2018. | ThrowawayB7 wrote: | > " _It 's frustrating to continue to see both the level of | genuinely well-intentioned work that the public is unfairly | (and often viciously) critical of the motives of..._" | | It's inevitable that the top business in any sector gets loads | of uninformed and/or just plain dumb haters. Ask Amazon, | Microsoft, etc. employees about it. One gets used to it. | | That being said, Google probably deserves it more than most | (yes, even more than MS) among top tech companies since its | revenue is primarily from advertising, the air pollution of the | online world. | eh_why_not wrote: | _> ...the level of genuinely well-intentioned work that the | public is unfairly (and often viciously) critical of the | motives of, and also the (at this point) complete absence of | concern for the user, the long term..._ | | If there is lack of concern for the user and the long term, how | can work be "well-intentioned"? | | Intentioned for whom? And why should the public perceive it as | good? | t8sr wrote: | Around 2016 at Google, my entire reporting chain, from manager to | CEO, changed. Literally not a single person was left. Laszlo, | both Erics, Patrick and the rest of the L team all left in quick | succession. I think the old Google of < 2015 and the current | Google are two companies that have almost nothing in common. | hnthrowaway0328 wrote: | I guess it was the Alphabet saga? It's all like this. I have | decided that if given the chance, I'd never work in companies | with more than 1,000 persons. | TheRealPomax wrote: | Not even if they pay well enough that you can quit and still | afford having a family in only 5 years, instead of 20? | JohnFen wrote: | Can't speak for OP, of course, but for me -- no, not even | then. There really are things money can't buy. | t8sr wrote: | Google in 2015 had probably 30,000 employees, maybe more. And | it was still completely open internally and had a real | community feel to it. | | One time, I was stuck in Montreal for 7 days for personal | reasons (a vacation plan that exploded). I walked into the | Google office there, made some friends, worked on a random | project they were doing and ended up collaborating on an OKR | a year later. It is entirely possible to keep this kind of | culture going for much longer than people think. | | Conversely, I've worked at companies with 500 employees that | were the blandest kind of "enterprise business company firm" | you can imagine. :) | cbozeman wrote: | > I walked into the Google office there, made some friends, | worked on a random project they were doing and ended up | collaborating on an OKR a year later. | | This is the coolest shit I have ever read. | | Now that's a company culture of which people would want to | be a part. | skisatwork wrote: | I work at a fairly large non-tech company in the IT | department and we have this culture. The IT department | alone probably has about 500 people in it, but this past | weekend I found myself in a different region needing a | desk for a meeting. I reached out to the IT guys at the | nearest location and within 20 minutes they had a desk | cleared for me, and I was able to bounce questions and | ideas of them for process improvements. This communal | culture is hard to find and I have no intention of | leaving until the culture dies. | antupis wrote: | Is there currently companies where you can do this? | t8sr wrote: | The industry has changed in a few important ways that I | think make this kind of culture difficult to maintain. | | First, in the boom prior to around 2015, most software | problems were accessible to a smart generalist, but | nowadays I don't think that's true. Teams are more | specialized. | | Second, the industry is a lot more regulated and risk- | averse, and fewer people maintain the kind of wide-eyed | optimism about tech that fed into the old Google. Things | are more locked down and organizations less trusting. | | Third, the reasons why people go into tech have changed. | It's nowadays a "good job" and there are entire cottage | industries dedicated to getting you a job at a tech | company. The people making their start in the 90s | generally went into computing because they loved it, not | because it was a good job. | | I've gone to one of the companies that people from Google | have been going to, and I know people at some others. | They're nice places to work, but the vibes are very | different. And there are reasons to think that the | current cycle (AI...) will favor the incumbents, not | newcomers, being already extremely heavy on GPUs and | regulation. | | This is a long-winded way of saying I don't think it's | possible in this industry at this moment. | stefan_ wrote: | Ok, but you also just non ironically said "collaborating on | an OKR". | wbsun wrote: | I like the old times when you could assume everyone around | you is smarter than you, so collaboration and communication | were never an issue. They never rely on "experts" in other | teams to collaborate, they quickly and easily pick up how | other systems work in depth themselves. Smart people just | shine and work together to create amazing stuff. | | Nowadays, you need to explain to people why unit test is | needed, why you can't use production as the first place to | try a risky experiment, and rely on 20 experts, one in each | tiny service, to figure out and to deliver a tiny feature | with bloated timeline and messy quality. | hnthrowaway0328 wrote: | This sounds interesting. Maybe it's just me, but all 5000+ | people companies (I actually only worked with 200+ or | 5000+, never the middle so could be BS) I worked for are a | lot of BS and politics. Again this is probably because me | not good enough so that I don't get to do deep technical | things that I want to do. | mepiethree wrote: | conversely, I'm a boomerang Googler who worked there in | 2015 and again now. In 2015, I felt like no one cared, that | Googler engineering skills were overrated, and 17/23 people | on my team quit in a year. In this stint, however, I'm | amazed by how smart and passionate people are about a | variety of different technologies, and enjoy collaborating | across many teams on different things. | | I think the takeaway for me is that, in a company of | hundreds of thousands of people, these experiences are more | situational/random/based on what energy you bring to a | space/team-based/seniority-based than they are a symptom of | universal company culture. | alberth wrote: | > _"Much of these problems with Google today stem from a lack of | visionary leadership from Sundar Pichai, and his clear lack of | interest in maintaining the cultural norms of early Google."_ | | Ouch. | | I know a lot of outsiders believe that, but to have someone who | spent 2-decades at Google saying it publicly is rough. | Dudester230602 wrote: | I think Pichai tries his best within his abilities, maybe it's | time to pay attention to the ones who had chosen him? | paxys wrote: | The thing is it's not Sundar's job to be a visionary leader. | That's not why the shareholders put him where he is. He is a | bean counter and is doing a fantastic job bean counting and | increasing Google's share price. | hot_gril wrote: | Google has passed up too many great opportunities that don't | even take a visionary to see. Biggest examples, we let Zoom, | OpenAI, and even Microsoft (Teams) steal our thunder. | Microsoft, that company we make fun of as a dinosaur, moves | faster than we do! | | I remember the discussions around the office right when | ChatGPT came out. "Bard performs better," "we're more | ethical," etc. Nope, they ate our lunch. | bcrosby95 wrote: | Yes, Microsoft really re-invented itself. Maybe Google can | turn itself around too after a decade or two of malaise. | antipaul wrote: | But Microsoft reinvented itself with precisely leadership | change in Satya, right? | kelnos wrote: | Sure, but consider that MS came from Ballmer, whom many | of us blame for Microsoft's badness of the 00s (granted, | Ballmer of course came from Gates, who probably set back | general-purpose computing by decades due to his greed). I | do believe Nadella has made MS a much better, likeable | company, but I don't think I'll ever trust them to do | right by humanity. | | Google has gone the other way: Page and Brin seemed to be | well-liked outside of Google, as they were the | visionaries who started it all. They made the choice to | go with Pichai, who cares more about ad revenue than | doing anything great. And Page and Brin, sadly, seem to | be happy with their choice so far. | duped wrote: | ime Googlers/Xooglers have this egotism that needs a sharp | kick in the butt to remedy. | hot_gril wrote: | Well they're getting that kick now. | aquova wrote: | And, as the article postulates, that sort of bean counting | goes directly against what used to excite Google's employees, | and is leading to their continued disillusionment. | hshsbs84848 wrote: | Yeah that's what I don't understand, what is the incentive to | preserve the culture? | | Outcomes follow incentives | jrmg wrote: | 'Shareholders' can't do anything. Different classes of shares | confer different voting rights, and Larry Page and Sergey | Brin still own shares controlling over 50% of shareholder | votes. | Elof wrote: | IDK, if you look at what Microsoft has accomplished under the | leadership of Satya over the last 9 years it's obviously | possible to innovate and bean count at the same time | izacus wrote: | Yes, but that happened after they had Ballmer which was | their own bean counting CEO. | | And they noticed that that's a problem - something VERY FEW | corporations figure out. | sokoloff wrote: | Having spent two decades at a far, far less known company, I | think it's common for long-timers to look back with fondness | and a feeling that their early days were Camelot, that the | current days are worse, and that the fault lies with a specific | leadership change. | | It's way more interesting, dynamic, and fun to work at a place | growing 25-50% per year (or more) than it is when it's growing | 10-15%, even if the absolute growth dollars are way bigger now. | | I don't have any strong opinion of Sundar, but I'm not at all | surprised that 2003 Google was a way more fun, exciting, and | engaging place to be than 2023 Google. | away271828 wrote: | I've had that experience at a different company. Was really | exciting when I joined and I had a very long leash to do | pretty much whatever I thought was the right thing. Long-time | manager left and did some new interesting stuff for a while. | But then I bumped around a bit and I really just counted a | couple years until my last major vests and retired. | kelnos wrote: | I sorta agree with you, but sorta don't. While I don't think | you can squarely lay the blame on any one person, culture | comes from the top. The board/CEO (but mostly the CEO) sets | the culture, and hires (or molds) other executives and | leadership positions into their vision of that culture. | | Page and Brin chose Pichai to succeed them. They, and the | rest of their board, share blame as well. | hemloc_io wrote: | It feels like tech generally has a CEO vision problem. | | Andy Jassy + Sudar for example. | | off the top of my head I can only think of Zuckerburg, and | maybe Satya. (Although Satya is more an exceptional operator | than visionary.) | paxys wrote: | Tech started to have a vision problem the moment big money | (and people with big money) entered the picture and started | calling the shots. Sundar, Jassy, Satya, Tim Cook are all cut | from the same cloth. Their job is to appease the shareholders | and not much else. | | Zuckerberg is probably the only founder/majority shareholder | still involved in the weeds of running his ~trillion dollar | company day to day and executing his vision, and you have to | give him kudos for that. He could easily go buy multiple | countries instead and live out his life with a lot less | stress. | hshsbs84848 wrote: | It's a tale as old as time | | The kid inherits the company built by the parent | sokoloff wrote: | Jassy was at AWS and in a senior role essentially since its | inception. Retail predates Jassy, but I give Jassy a lot | more credit than presiding over a company that someone else | built. | geodel wrote: | > I know a lot of outsiders believe that, but to have someone | who spent 2-decades at Google saying it publicly is rough. | | Not really. Leave the job and berate the leadership next day is | a thing nowadays. These template of criticism just assumes | Google or any other company changed had simple choice to stay | same whereas people and world at large has changed drastically | over same period. | | And I am not even saying that Google has not gone worse which | most likely it is. But to assume to some kind of _visionary | leadership_ would have been be great for employees and users is | like saying _we can all live happily and peacefully on earth_. | Sounds excellent but not really happening. | omoikane wrote: | I personally felt the best icon of original Google culture was | Craig Silverstein, whose departure greatly affected the various | intergrouplets that were holding the company culture together. | In that sense, I wouldn't place all the blame on Sundar, | although he didn't necessarily help. | | But all hope is not lost yet -- even though the work | environment might change from big family to big company to big | factory as the company size grows, it has gotten to the size | where there are now pockets of families that are cohesive among | themselves. I believe these fractals of families will be what | carries the culture forward. | aappleby wrote: | I'm the "12 years at Google" commenter from below. | | Got a personal email from Craig Silverstein my first day at | Google welcoming me to the company and thanking me for my | work on hash functions. Chatted with him occasionally after | that. Good guy. | dvirsky wrote: | Reminds me of a funny story - the first day at Google | (2018) I got a chat from an SVP, I forgot who, saying | "Hi!". At first I was blown, wow, what a company! SVPs | greeting new engineers! A minute later they were like | "oops, my bad, wrong person". | | They intended to message someone else with my first name, | so my guess is they used to type that name and hit tab to | start the chat, and that person was no longer the first | option in the auto-complete since I joined. | | (side note - the most bad-ass response to this would have | been to just send back "go/no-hello" ;) ) | glimshe wrote: | Sundar is one of the worst CEOs in modern American corporate | history. Anyone can keep Google profitable, but only the most | inept could mismanage, to such a magnitude, the "Dream Team" of | Engineers that Google used to be and, to some extent, still is. | | Google hasn't created a new major product in years, despite | having some of the best paid professionals in the market. I | know many Googlers; people at the top of their game, from the | best universities, going to waste as Sundar directs the company | to one uninspired direction after another. | | Sometimes I feel that wasting the intellectual resources of our | species is borderline a crime against humanity. This man has to | go. | nrb wrote: | I would rather the people go, and use their considerable | intellect on things that have interests more aligned with | societal benefit. Do we really want a re-ignited Google? | glimshe wrote: | If creates new things with the impact of Chrome, Maps and | Gmail, but with less spyware? Hell, yeah! | lannisterstark wrote: | If it means it fuels more competition than the late | stagnation in tech that was pre-LLM stuff? (and arguably in | a wide variety of fields than just ML) | | Absolutely. | chatmasta wrote: | > Google hasn't created a new major product in years | | Indeed, and this goes back even further in time than you | might think. All their best products came from acquisitions: | Maps (KeyHole), Android, YouTube, Google Docs. The only truly | original Google products that I can think of, other than | Search, are GMail and Chrome (which was largely powered by | WebKit anyway). | | But they do deserve credit for nurturing those products. | Maybe that's where their strength lies: in throwing a massive | amount of elbow grease and server power at problems that | can't be solved any other way. Nobody is innovating their way | to a new Web browser or maps platform. Those products _need_ | a massive organization behind them. Google seems to have a | good formula for keeping these large projects on track. What | they 've been missing since 2005 is the ability to start a | new project from zero. | | And you know what? Maybe that kind of innovation is actually | almost impossible, like winning the lottery, and it's | unrealistic to expect one organization to strike gold more | than once, or a handful of times if they're really lucky. | | The same pattern is observable at Facebook - they've got one | flagship product, an undiversified revenue stream from ads, | and a bunch of successful products they acquired. But has | Facebook really innovated since their original product? | rrdharan wrote: | ~Chrome was an acquisition.~ | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome (Edit: I | misremembered / misstated, this is incorrect.) | | Kubernetes, TensorFlow, and Spanner were not. | Rebelgecko wrote: | I would bet that the average tech-savvy outsider has a higher | opinion of Sundar than the average Googler does. | AlbertCory wrote: | Yet another "famous" Googler whom I didn't know. He joined one | month before I did. I did know Chris DiBona, at least. Didn't | know this Jeanine person. | | I wrote a number of articles about working there in the early (or | earlier) days. Chronologically: | | https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/working-at-google-enterp... | | https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/working-at-google-ads | | https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/working-at-google-ads-co... | | https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/working-at-google-maps | | https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/working-at-google-maps-c... | | As well as three others about the best part: the non-work | activities. | g-b-r wrote: | He was famous (or infamous) way before joining Google | AlbertCory wrote: | Now that I think of it, the name IS vaguely familiar. | kbrosnan wrote: | If you were involved with W3C around the time of XHTML 2.0 | through to HTML 5.0 via WHATWG Ian is a well known person. | gregw134 wrote: | "At any rate, after exploring this, I naturally wondered if | there wasn't some easier way to do it; not as statistically | valid, maybe, but adequate for the advertiser who just wants to | improve his performance. I won't go into the details here, but | let's just say that everyone wanted a Super Deluxe version even | if it did require changing every part of the Ads system. No one | wanted something quick-and-dirty that just did the job. This | was Google, after all; "quick and dirty" would not get you | promoted or get your talk accepted at a conference. It did not | make me popular to suggest this." | | I had a similar experience at Google--simple improvements such | as parameter tuning are looked down on and rejected for being | mere tinkering, even if the metrics are good. Meanwhile super | complicated deep learning projects keep being added, even if | they barely improve metrics. In the short term the complexity | looks like hard work and leads to promotions, but long term it | makes the system hard to maintain and understand. | fidotron wrote: | This is interesting, surprisingly blunt, and quite on point about | the current malaise, but . . . I think this is the perspective of | someone that was happily drinking the kool aid for longer than | they should have been. | | For example, my impression was that had Android assimilated into | the wider Google they would have failed. The wider Google views | the fact Android isn't Chrome OS as a strategic failure, but the | truth is wider Google doesn't understand how to work with other | companies. The Android unit did have certain ludicrous habits (I | recall huge laundry bins in the reception of their building at | one point) but the reason for this was they understood what was | at stake. (People forget just how much needed to be done between | Android 1.6 and 4.1 to stop the iPhone completely running away | with it, although that effort has now been effectively | squandered). There have been other units that also fail to | assimilate and then just peter out, but Google under Mr Pichai | never learns from acquired companies, it just imposes their way | on to them. If you came from the Chrome side of the fence you | wouldn't notice this because it was your way being imposed | elsewhere. | | Mr Pichai has always had a singular vision, to be CEO of Google, | and then stay there. What to do with that never seemed to cross | his mind. | jimbokun wrote: | This podcast reinforces what you're saying about Android, from | the perspective of an early Android engineer when it was | acquired by Google: | | https://corecursive.com/android-with-chet-haase/ | FirmwareBurner wrote: | Yeah, I definetly wouldn't want to have been on the early | Android team. | | Imagine you work your ass of to build the Android 1.0 device | to compete with the Blackberry and then when you're close to | launching the iPhone drops and your leadership says we gotta | throw everything in the trash and start over from the | touchscreen perspective. | | Mind you, the iPhone employees didn't have it much better | either, with most of them working 16h days and sleeping in | hotels next to the office to save time, while having their | marriages ruined according to some of them. | | The early Android vs iPhone development war was basically a | Hail Mary gold rush from both companies trying to capture as | much marketshare as quickly as possible. | swetland wrote: | The whole "throw everything in the trash and start over" | thing is massively overstated. The iPhone announcement | absolutely impacted things, not entirely all bad -- there | was interest from OEMs before that, but it went through the | roof after -- and it did mean we moved from the plan to | ship a blackberry-style device first followed by a | touchscreen device to skipping right to touch for initial | launch, recognizing that the landscape had absolutely | changed. | | Initial work on the touchscreen based hardware started back | in June 2006 (I remember meeting with HTC during a monsoon | to kick off the project that became Dream/G1) and OS work | to support larger displays, touch input, etc was underway | before iPhone was announced. | | Blackberry was not really the concern early on... Windows | Mobile was. Folks (correctly as it turned out) believed | mobile was going to be the next big platform area and there | was concern (from Google, but also from OEMs, cellular | carriers, etc) that Microsoft might end up entrenching | themselves the way they did in PCs through the 90s, | possibly including a more successful attempt to control the | browser/web experience. | FirmwareBurner wrote: | _> Microsoft might end up entrenching themselves the way | they did in PCs through the 90s, possibly including a | more successful attempt to control the browser/web | experience_ | | That fear was kind of overblown. In those days of Steve | Balmer, Microsoft was far less focused and organized, too | high on its success with Windows and Office, for such a | slow, large and bloated ship to react quickly and | precisely enough on this. | | Just look at what they did with Zune before that. It was | not a bad product at all, but it was too little too late | for consumers to give up on Apple and jump ship to | Microsoft. | | They did react here as well, but just like before, by the | time they had a desirable and competitive mobile OS, | Apple and Google had already reached critical mass | adoption that no matter how good Microsoft's offering | was, they wouldn't have been able to recoup the lead lost | to Apple and Google both with consumer and developer | adoption. | swetland wrote: | Yeah, I take exception to the painting of Android as inherently | "unhealthy" and not "solving real problems for users." Also | with lumping it in with the unmitigated disaster that was the | Social/G+ effort. I attribute much of Android's success to | Larry & Eric being very supportive, shielding the team from | constant interference from the rest of the company, and letting | us get shit done and ship. | | I came aboard during the Android acquisition, some months | before he started at Google, so of course I may be a bit biased | here. I was pretty skeptical about landing at Google and didn't | think I'd be there for more than a couple years, but spent 14 | years there in the end. | | Android had plenty of issues, but shipping consumer electronics | successfully really does not happen without dealing with | external partners and schedules that you can't fully control. | | No idea what the laundry bins thing is about -- never saw that. | refulgentis wrote: | I'll vouch for it, I think you may have escaped what it | became: I'm a couple generations after you, joined | Google/Wear in 2016 and accepted defrag onto Android SysUI in | 2018. Much lower level, topped out at L5, but saw a ton | because I was the key contributor on two large x-fnl x-org | projects in those 5 years, one with Assistant[1], one with | Material/Hardware.[2] | | Both were significantly more dysfunctional than any | environment I've seen in my life, and fundamentally, it was | due to those issues. | | Pople at the bottom would be starved for work, while people | in the middle were _way_ overworked because they were chasing | L+1 and holding on to too much while not understanding any of | it. This drove a lot of nasty unprofessional behavior and | attitudes towards any partnerships with orgs outside of | Android. | | As far as lacking focus on solving user problems...man I | can't figure out how to say it and still feel good about | myself, i.e. illustrate this without sounding hyperbolic | _and_ without having to share direct quotes tied to specific | products. TL;DR the roadmap was "let's burn ourselves out | doing an 60% copy of what Apple did last year and call that | focus." This was fairly explicitly shared in public once at | an informal IO talk, and it's somewhat surprising to me how | little blowback there was externally. The justification is, | as always, it's OEMs fault. OEMs just asked about what | Cupertino just released, just in time for the yearly planning | cycle. | | [1] https://blog.google/products/assistant/next-generation- | googl... | | [2] https://www.androidpolice.com/google-material-you- | interview-... | cmrdporcupine wrote: | _" Pople at the bottom would be starved for work, while | people in the middle were _way_ overworked because they | were chasing L+1 and holding on to too much while not | understanding any of it_" | | Sounds like every org I worked in at Google, though it got | worse as time went on. I started there end of 2011, and | left end of 2021. This kind of bullshit is endemic to the | tech culture at Google, but was the worst inside smaller | sites or in teams with "sexy" products. | | And might have been arguably worse when they had explicit | "up or out" policies around L4s. | strikelaserclaw wrote: | Seems like most of the people who want to join google these | days, "why do you want to join google", "for the tc and | prestige" | ghaff wrote: | Doesn't seem like the worst plan in the world. | mepiethree wrote: | Yeah I recently left a startup that I worked at for 6 years | to join Google. At the startup I was overworked+underpaid, | generally found it impossible to eat more than 2 meals a | day (and difficult to eat more than one), usually worked on | Saturdays (and always on Black Friday), rarely made time to | visit family, and always lived on tenterhooks thinking | about the next RFP we had to win. I did care about the | mission of the startup but I am significantly happier now | that I'm eating 3 healthy+free meals per day, working out, | walking my dog during long breaks, using great build tools | and learning new things while still generally having enough | focus time to meet the expectations of my role. Google | doesn't seem that bad to me as I sit here on Thanksgiving | weekend, between hangouts with my extended family, with | enough compensation to treat them all to great food. | voiceblue wrote: | I just joined because I've always wanted to, and when I had | the opportunity to check that box I did. I had no delusions | about what being a cog in the machine entails or where the | fealty of a public corporation lies. | | Now that I've checked that box, I have one foot out the door | at all times. Fortunately or unfortunately, no one has given | me a reason to leave yet. | | The "powers that be" seem to be sending plenty of signals | about what kind of a workplace this is, though. I might leave | sooner than I intended as a result. | acheron wrote: | Surely they could do something better for humanity, such as | selling heroin to middle schoolers. | chatmasta wrote: | Flutter is a really amazing project, independently of its roots | within Google. If the author has spent nine years working on | it, then it's understandable why he'd stay at Google even if he | didn't like the taste of the Kool-Aid. And it seems he's still | working on Flutter now, so clearly it's a passion project for | him. Do you blame him for chugging that Kool-Aid as long as he | could? | downWidOutaFite wrote: | He spent the last 9 years in competition with Android so it's | not surprising that he has some biases about it | B1FF_PSUVM wrote: | > to stop the iPhone completely running away with it, although | that effort has now been effectively squandered | | Nowadays a Samsung is a pretty good iPhone, and 70+% of the | world runs on Android, e.g. https://gs.statcounter.com/os- | market-share/mobile/worldwide - only North America has iOS on | top. | | I think it's not good we're down to a duopoly, unfortunately | Windows Phone didn't survive. It did some things better than | iOS and Android. | bane wrote: | Android also runs all kinds of devices way outside of the | mobile space. It turns out a relatively open touch screen OS | can drive toasters, washing machines and handheld TVs pretty | well. | atleastoptimal wrote: | Is Google the new Microsoft? | chpatrick wrote: | Yep. I quit after a year in 2015 because it already felt like | that. | VirusNewbie wrote: | Eh, I interviewed for both a GCP and multiple Azure teams | simultaneously and the difference in talent level was | astounding. | | The latter team leads were anywhere from disinterested, asking | basic level leetcode questions I could breeze through, to | fucking incompetent who didn't even understand the coding | questions they were asking. I was shocked at how different they | were in terms of thoughtfulness and intelligence. | cbozeman wrote: | It's a little scary that Azure team leads are that clueless. | | I would really, really love to hear more about this if you | would indulge us. If not us, then certainly send me an email, | please. | Dudester230602 wrote: | Did you pass the Azure ones then? | VirusNewbie wrote: | lol no, I got into a big argument having to explain | recursion, tail call recursion, etc. | | The dude asked me a leetcode hard (that I hadn't seen | before!) that I was actually able to code up, and he didn't | understand that memoization and bottom up dp are equivalent | with the exception of stack space. | | But at that point I was so annoyed in general at the | experience. | | My recruiter quit the day I had an interview, my first | interview rescheduled the time and no one told me, etc. | | It was a fucking joke. | | Also, I interviewed at Netflix as well, and I didn't get | the job (passed technical interview but didn't get selected | after Director level interview. Just wasn't a good fit in | terms of interests) and I can't say enough good things | about netflix, everyone I met there, and the overall | interview process. | | So I'm not just annoyed at Azure folks because I didn't get | the job. I'm annoyed cause they're mostly morons. | itsyaboi wrote: | Sounds like you were rejected due to your snippy | attitude. | LargeTomato wrote: | This was my experience too as well as some of my college | friends who work at MSFT and GOOG. Microsoft engineers aren't | stupid (of course they weren't) but there tends to be more | dumb people and fewer very very smart people. | | This could also be incentives at the companies. I have a | buddy who went to Microsoft, worked 30hr weeks, and was | bored. Dude is brilliant and level headed. The team was lazy | AF. Worked there for 5 years and went to Facebook and is | thriving, going from Senior to Staff rather quickly. | jes5199 wrote: | and Microsoft the new Google? | satvikpendem wrote: | Looking at the innovation of the former and the lack thereof | of the latter, it sure seems that way. Even after almost half | a century, Microsoft still endures. | gumballindie wrote: | Yup, sounds like a classic company that became manager'd to | death. Explains silly features or changes we see all the time. | Move on, Google's dead. | js2 wrote: | The submitted link is missing the query params (or HN stripped | them) that lead directly to the post: | | https://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1700627373&count=1 | dang wrote: | Fixed now. Thanks! | | Btw HN didn't strip them -the submitted URL was | https://ln.hixie.ch/. No doubt this was the top post at the | time. | | We do strip some query strings, but only for larger/known | sites. | bufferoverflow wrote: | Flutter is a leading framework? Maybe in some niche. It's not | even in the top 10 for me. | tyingq wrote: | I believe it's quoting a survey where you had to pick from | "frameworks". Meaning "use the native tools" wasn't a choice on | the list. Choices were things like Flutter, React Native, | Cordova, Ionic, Xamarin, etc. | meowtimemania wrote: | I'm also curious what he meant by that statement. By leading | does he mean most used? | liveoneggs wrote: | "Flutter is amazingly successful. It's already the leading mobile | app development framework" ??? | wg0 wrote: | Where is that happening? I want to move there. | munificent wrote: | There are a lot of reasonable metrics one might use to define | "leading mobile app development framework": | | * Number of developers using it on some daily/weekly/monthly, | etc. cadence. | | * Number of apps published (to iOS, Android, both). | | * Number of jobs available using the framework. | | * Various subjective desirability metrics from developers | survey like the StackOverflow ones. | | It's anyone's guess as to which is the best metric or how they | should be combined. Also, it's very hard to actually get | accurate data on it. | | But, according to Statistica at least, yes Flutter really is | the most popular mobile app framework as of 2022: | | https://www.statista.com/statistics/869224/worldwide-softwar... | | It looks like that's based on a developer survey. I don't know | more about its methodology. | kllrnohj wrote: | When filtered to "cross platform mobile app frameworks" | anyway, which is a huge reduction in scope - 1/3rd of | respondents in that study in fact. | | So 46% of 33% of mobile app developers that aren't building | mobile websites use Flutter. That's not bad at all, but | hardly supports a claim of being the "leading mobile app | development framework" as you're down to ~15% of mobile app | developers using it. And only then since mobile web is being | excluded, who knows what it'd be if that was included. | benrapscallion wrote: | Another article that highlights Vic Gundotra's arrival and rise | at Google as the beginning of their decline. | bipson wrote: | I almost forgot about Vic! He hasn't been relevant for quite | some time though, right? | | Are you suggesting his influence still lingers? | simoncion wrote: | > ...Vic Gundotra... | | Please, let's honor the man's fiercely-defended policies. | | He is Vivek "Vic" Gundotra. His Real Name is Vivek, and we | should refer to him by it. | guiomie wrote: | > Much of these problems with Google today stem from a lack of | visionary leadership from Sundar Pichai, and his clear lack of | interest in maintaining the cultural norms of early Google. | | That's an interesting observation considering Sundar is where he | is because of early-Google cultural norms. | wg0 wrote: | Seems like Google is being managed by consuming lots of | managerial literature. | | Also, coming from Flutter camp, blog is barely readable on mobile | without zooming. | Dudester230602 wrote: | _> We also didn 't follow engineering best practices for the | first few years. For example we wrote no tests..._ | | Tests are not a best practice but more of a necessary evil for | production systems and/or businesses incapable of retaining their | best for many years. | g-b-r wrote: | Ehm no tests _are_ a best practice | dbg31415 wrote: | These paragraphs really pack a punch, and having worked in tech | for 20+ years now (but not at Google) I feel this. Every shitty | company eventually has layoffs that ruin the culture, and end up | with a "Jeanine Banks" manager type. This article was really well | written. | | > Then Google had layoffs. The layoffs were an unforced error | driven by a short-sighted drive to ensure the stock price would | keep growing quarter-to-quarter, instead of following Google's | erstwhile strategy of prioritising long-term success even if that | led to short-term losses (the very essence of "don't be evil"). | The effects of layoffs are insidious. Whereas before people might | focus on the user, or at least their company, trusting that doing | the right thing will eventually be rewarded even if it's not | strictly part of their assigned duties, after a layoff people can | no longer trust that their company has their back, and they | dramatically dial back any risk-taking. Responsibilities are | guarded jealously. Knowledge is hoarded, because making oneself | irreplaceable is the only lever one has to protect oneself from | future layoffs. I see all of this at Google now. The lack of | trust in management is reflected by management no longer showing | trust in the employees either, in the form of inane corporate | policies. In 2004, Google's founders famously told Wall Street | "Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become | one." but that Google is no more. | | > Much of these problems with Google today stem from a lack of | visionary leadership from Sundar Pichai, and his clear lack of | interest in maintaining the cultural norms of early Google. A | symptom of this is the spreading contingent of inept middle | management. Take Jeanine Banks, for example, who manages the | department that somewhat arbitrarily contains (among other | things) Flutter, Dart, Go, and Firebase. Her department nominally | has a strategy, but I couldn't leak it if I wanted to; I | literally could never figure out what any part of it meant, even | after years of hearing her describe it. Her understanding of what | her teams are doing is minimal at best; she frequently makes | requests that are completely incoherent and inapplicable. She | treats engineers as commodities in a way that is dehumanising, | reassigning people against their will in ways that have no | relationship to their skill set. She is completely unable to | receive constructive feedback (as in, she literally doesn't even | acknowledge it). I hear other teams (who have leaders more | politically savvy than I) have learned how to "handle" her to | keep her off their backs, feeding her just the right information | at the right time. Having seen Google at its best, I find this | new reality depressing. | aappleby wrote: | 12 years at Google for me, 2011-2023. Left after they froze | internal transfers the same day I was going to transfer, which | put me in limbo for 6 months despite management saying they'd | find a way to get it done. | | Absolutely agree with this article. The disaster of Google+ and | "Real Names Considered Harmful" was the first major crack in the | culture. The layoffs destroyed what was left. | | The change in frankness and honesty during TGIF once Larry and | Sergei were no longer hosting it was sad to see. I hadn't watched | one in years by the time I left. | LargeTomato wrote: | I left in 2021, only 3 years tenure. The company was extremely | chaotic. We had multiple calls to walkout, unionization, Sundar | locking down communication in the wake of people fighting on | memegen. We had company wide drama all the time. I had a list | of every major dramatic happening and it grew to like 5-6 | things in a year. I showed my manager and we laughed about how | crazy it was. | | I left and from what I hear it just got worse. Thomas Kurian | gave ex-AWS people control of GCP. GCP is learning to execute | like AWS but now it is becoming like AWS. | throitallaway wrote: | GCP has also been bringing in Oracle execs to run things. The | results are very much so affecting our relationship with | Google to the negative. | tazjin wrote: | > affecting our relationship with Google to the negative | | If you're paying them more money now then your relationship | is affected to the positive (from Google Cloud's | perspective). | marssaxman wrote: | > Google+ and "Real Names Considered Harmful" | | That happened right after I'd accepted an offer from Google but | before I'd started work there; it was an uncomfortable shock | and a bad way to begin. I only lasted a year, also largely | because I was unable to transfer. It's funny what happens to | one's motivation when unable to do meaningful work... | | This author's remark about Vic Gundotra struck me as... a very | tactful way of describing him. To my ears, that guy was a | straight-up bullshit artist, and his prominence in Google | management significantly damaged my faith in the organization. | tdeck wrote: | And of course there was never a postmortem for Google+ and | nobody was held accountable for that failure. | shaftway wrote: | There was an extensive postmortem for Google+ on Memegen, | search for the phrase "vicg" among others. | tdeck wrote: | (un?)fortunately I haven't had access to Memegen since | 2020. | sawyna wrote: | Why don't you have access? I'm curious | VirusNewbie wrote: | Great post, epic that he calls out his idiotic upper management. | I've only been at Google a little over a year and while I'm | mostly happy with my management chain, I have run into directors | who clearly should have been fired for overselling and | underdelivering huge projects that impact my team. | | I am surprised just how 'bottom up' so much is done at Google, | and I wonder if that is why Sundar ended up where he is. Unlike | so many other large companies, engineers who build consensus have | way more influence on upper management's priorities than other | places. | | So being someone who is good at building consensus is a good way | to built clout at google, more so than any other place. But this | isn't alawys good. Sometimes I miss old boring "F500" companies | where I can go to the _one_ principal engineer (or director or | whatever) and show them my idea, and how it doesn 't get in | anyone else's way, and boom they either approve or deny it. | | No spending months convincing everyone and their mother to make a | small (but significant) change. | bandofthehawk wrote: | I find it refreshing that this post actually calls out specific | problems and people. IMO, too many of these company culture posts | keep the complaints somewhat vague which makes them harder to | evaluate. | suddenexample wrote: | What an amazingly well-written article. It's incredible how well | it describes the feelings that I've struggled to vocalize on my | own. | jimbokun wrote: | > I still believe there's lots of mileage to be had from Google's | mission statement (to organize the world's information and make | it universally accessible and useful). | | I'm not sure if I agree. That mission seems to be largely | achieved. And maybe has something to do with the decay in | Google's overall culture. | iainmerrick wrote: | Was that mission achieved by Google, or by Wikipedia? | jimbokun wrote: | Mostly Google. | g-b-r wrote: | Of course Hickson was behind Flutter | Osmose wrote: | This is a good reflection, but I do disagree with the view of | honest efforts from Google to improve the world being met with | unnecessary external criticism. | | People outside Google don't have the benefit of thinking of any | particular project as being run only by the individuals currently | working on it--those particular people may leave the company or | change teams or move on to other projects. It's Google that's | making it, and Google who will run it in the future, and we have | to account for what Google might do with it 5, 10, 20 years from | now. | | No amount of the original Chrome team being excellent, well- | intentioned, skilled, thoughtful makers can stop today's Chrome | from cornering the market into an effective monopoly and | leveraging that to try and benefit Google's ad products. That's | one of the things you have to pay for when working for a large | company--the support and knowledge and compensation are great | boons but you don't get to just be yourself anymore, you're | _Google_, your own work is always at risk of getting co-opted by | others, and external people will view and criticize your work | accordingly. | dazzlefruit wrote: | The Chrome versions of the first few years were so nice to use. | It was the _lightest_ major browser for a time. It's insane how | it has drifted since then. | crazygringo wrote: | Has it drifted? | | I don't see it. I think all the other browsers just had to | become light and fast too. Even Microsoft was forced to say | goodbye to IE, and instead based Edge on Chromium. And tech | people were eventually able to switch back to Firefox because | it got much faster too. | | Google wanted a world where all browsers were light and fast | in order to efficiently run complex webapps -- and they | achieved that. Kudos. | dazzlefruit wrote: | Chrome is often criticized for overusing RAM. Personally I | stopped using it a couple years ago, but when I stopped, it | was very far from light; I remember it freezing for a few | seconds for lack of RAM in a way other browsers (Firefox | with multiprocessing, Edge before it got rebuilt over | Chromium) didn't. | | The original Chrome just felt like a barebones window to | the Internet. Though I agree that Firefox et al. became | much less sluggish over time. (Is that only their | performance improvements or did hardware get better faster | than they grew?) | | Also maybe "light" and "fast" shouldn't be lumped together. | Chrome can definitely be fast when it has enough resources. | That and sandboxing seem to make it much _heavier_ in RAM. | raincole wrote: | That's the beauty of mega coporations. 99% of employees can be | genuinely trying to improve the lives of others and it still | does evil as a whole. | kelnos wrote: | Yup, agreed. My view is that the people on the inside often | can't see the forest for the trees. They look at their | immediate team/group, love the autonomy/transparency/"don't be | evil"-mandate/etc. that they have and follow, and look around | and see some of that in other groups, and think, "wow, this | company is great, doesn't care about all that big-bad-company | stuff". | | But people outside can look at a company that gets most of its | revenue from advertising on the web, see that they're also | building a web browser, and be rightly concerned about what is | inevitably going to happen there. Even if the browser team | initially has a mandate to do what's best for the user, and to | not care about what's best for that company, there's no way | that will be a sustainable long-term strategy. | | (And a cynical person might believe that the browser team was | told this specifically so they'd be excited about the project, | and of course management knows that when you're bootstrapping a | new project/product, you need to get users fast, and the best | way to get users is to do what's best for the user... at least | for now.) | | It is absolutely unsurprising to me that this browser team | couldn't see any of this at the time. And now we have people on | the Chrome team earnestly pushing things like Web Environment | Integrity, and somehow telling people that this is what users | want and need, and that this is good for the web. I don't know | if they are brainwashed, or are just very good liars. Again: | completely unsurprising result. | mepiethree wrote: | > and of course management knows that when you're | bootstrapping a new project/product, you need to get users | fast, and the best way to get users is to do what's best for | the user... at least for now | | This is pretty explicitly said at a lot of companies, and I | think that it's funny that many engineers care so little | about business that they stop listening after the "do what's | best for user" part and then get surprised when the "at least | for now" part kicks in. | kccqzy wrote: | In the end it's still a management problem. I do not think it | is rank-and-file employees' duty to think about long term | strategies or outside perspectives on the company or anything | like that. It should be the management's responsibility to | clarify this to the outside world. Again Google's management | completely fails at that. | poszlem wrote: | It's the old: "It is difficult to get a man to understand | something, when his salary depends on his not understanding | it." | foobar_______ wrote: | Yeah seems pretty straight forward to me. Guy has been | getting GOOG RSUs for 15 years straight and is now a multi- | millionaire. Why would he rock his own boat? It is much | easier to ignore any wrongdoing of the hand that feeds. | zelphirkalt wrote: | Unless of course you manage to get your work inside that | company released under an appropriate license, meaning | free/libre copyleft ... which they did not do. | titzer wrote: | When there is such a huge scale difference between the entity | that causes harm and the person/group harmed, it just doesn't | register. E.g. if you wanted down the sidewalk and | inadvertently stepped on a cockroach because you were thinking | about something else, you'd probably not even notice. If the | cockroach's relatives confronted you as a horrible, evil entity | hell-bent on derstruction, you'd probably not have even | conceived of any damage you were doing; you feel innocent. And | you were busy with something huger and way more important! You | were on your phone negotiating a really important business | deal, what the heck is a cockroach to you? | | Big companies steamroll people all the time. Least of all their | worries is the privacy and security of people they don't make | money from. | OnACoffeeBreak wrote: | "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." - | Stanislaw J. Lec | aeturnum wrote: | Parts of this reminded me of Daniel Ellsberg's admonition to | Henry Kissinger about security clearances[1]: | | "[...]You will feel like a fool, and that will last for about | two weeks. Then, after you've started reading all this daily | intelligence input and become used to using what amounts to | whole libraries of hidden information, which is much more | closely held than mere top secret data, you will forget there | ever was a time when you didn't have it, and you'll be aware | only of the fact that you have it now and most others | don't....and that all those other people are fools." | | [1] https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel- | ellsbe... | fragmede wrote: | 5, 10, 20 years from now, an unproven startup that doesn't | manage to find product-market will equally be gone and | unavailable to customers. Why does, eg Monday.com not get the | same "oh no, what if they shut down" scaries that stops people | from using their product the way, say, Google keep does? Fair | or not, it's some quirk of human psychology that unfortunately | Google has tapped into. | sib wrote: | Hypothesis: With Monday.com or other startups, while there is | risk that the company will shut down and the tool that you | are depending upon will go away, the typical assumption is | that they are doing their best to stay in business and | deliver and improve that tool. It's all they have. So your | incentives are credibly aligned. | | Whereas with Google, unless the product you're talking about | is "Ads" (or Search or Android or YouTube), it's very easy to | imagine them waking up one day and saying, "oops, our bad, | what were we thinking, let's kill this thing" and going on | their merry way without noticing an impact to their bottom | line. | kccqzy wrote: | I do think a lot of companies have some second thoughts | before completely relying on the services of startups. | Personally I've seen companies (or teams) explicitly | rejecting the use of Airtable and Notion (in separate | instances) because they aren't mature enough and people are | worried about shutting down even if the product itself is | compelling. | | But the main difference with Google is that Google shuts so | many things down that talking about Google shutting something | else down is just a meme, even if a tired and deeply unfunny | meme. | | I seriously think anything Google launches in the future | should not carry the name Google, should not be hosted on | google.com, and should be owned by a subsidiary of Google LLC | with ownership obscured. | jmkd wrote: | It's not often discussed but there is a cultural gulf between | pre-IPO and post-IPO Googlers that still impacts almost 20 years | later. | | To put it crudely, one dwindling set of idealistic millionaires | vs a growing set of capitalist thousandaires, each set with very | different motivations to login to their computer each morning. | scamworld wrote: | Most large tech companies grew by >30% during the covid | lockdowns, so I don't think company culture is much of a priority | for them. | pardoned_turkey wrote: | Ian's post is pretty incisive, although I've read so many of | these over the past 15 years or so. And the prescription is | always to go back in time. | | I don't really think that's possible. When you're a newcomer, a | disruptor, the whole point is to be different. You're bold, you | have a clarity of purpose, you say things like "we're building a | new kind of a company" or "the user comes first." | | But once you achieve market dominance, your priorities _have to_ | shift. It 's no longer "why wouldn't you try this" or "let's do | the right thing." It's "why would you rock the boat and risk the | nice thing we have?" It's not just about profit. Careers and | incomes are at stake. People will get hurt. | | Risk tolerance aside, your organizational structure ossifies too. | When you have people who have been running processes or | departments in a particular way for fifteen or twenty years, they | have little desire to start over from scratch. And that's not | necessarily a bad thing, because what's the alternative? A | cutthroat corporate environment where you're never sure about the | future of your job? | | I think the only comedy here is that Google looked at these old- | school companies like Microsoft or IBM and figured they can be | different just because they "get it." And then, over time, they | rediscovered the reasons why old companies always end up | operating in a particular way. | vkou wrote: | Most of the issues brought up by the author are not ones of | priorities, but ones of a select group of mid-level directors | (whom you've never heard of, but each of whom wield significant | influence over the work output and roadmap for hundreds of | engineers) doing a poor job, with nobody above them interested | in doing anything about it. | | > She treats engineers as commodities in a way that is | dehumanising, reassigning people against their will in ways | that have no relationship to their skill set | | This is an example of that. Highly political, and also highly | banal re-orgs, that leave the grunts scratching their heads, | and picking up the pieces. | | The risk-taking thing (for ICs) only became relevant post- | layoffs. | southwesterly wrote: | A good manager does not always a good SWE make. | pardoned_turkey wrote: | I think it goes back to org structure ossification, but also | keep in mind that in a sufficiently large company, every | department is a thorn in someone else's backside. A world | where the people you dislike regularly get the boot is also a | world where you have to constantly justify your own | existence, where you have aggressive stack ranks, and so | forth. | | It's a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of | a deal. | vkou wrote: | Sure. It's an incentives problem. It's very difficult to | align the incentives in any organizations with six levels | of reporting chain so that people with the most day-to-day | power over the direction of the firm (mid-level directors) | are marching in the right direction. | | I don't have a silver bullet for this, but I would say | that, broadly speaking, managers that don't take feedback | from below, as well as above, are probably doing a poor | job. | ghaff wrote: | And the degree to having some level of org structure | ossification is to have lots of people sort of going off | and doing their own thing. Which probably worked at Google | for a longer time than is often the case just because they | were printing money. So what if they were doing projects | and then just killing them, living with duplication, or | having a bunch of random activities that led to nowhere. | | Even if it's a bit frustrating it can also be more fun to | be in an environment where it's more of a make your own | adventure sort of thing. Mature companies though mostly | have to be very structured about how they operate. | hot_gril wrote: | Totally agree. The people complaining about culture shifts | there seem to want the company to pretend it's ~2006. I was | never impressed with old Google. All their revenue came from | ads, and they loss-led other projects. Fun, but the market has | matured from that. | | Since I joined several years ago, perks have really degraded | but overall I've become more satisfied with my actual work. | Over-engineered pet projects in and around our team gave way to | business focus, meaning we work on truly important stuff. I | have little faith in Sundar's leadership and think his speeches | might as well be AI-generated, but that was always the case. | satvikpendem wrote: | > _All their revenue came from ads, and they loss-led other | projects. Great, market has matured from that._ | | Has it? Seems like Google still makes most of their money via | ads and everything else is a loss leader. | hot_gril wrote: | Yes Google is still less diversified than its peers. Cloud | and YouTube (edit: and Pixel phones?) are profitable afaik. | The overall tech market has matured is what I meant; it's | no longer time to loss-lead everything. | kevinventullo wrote: | Not sure I'd characterize YouTube as a diversification | from ads. | emodendroket wrote: | It is though. Being an ad supplier is different from | being an ad exchange. Or would you describe the New York | Times or HBO as "ads businesses"? | hot_gril wrote: | Also, they sell Premium | js4ever wrote: | That's probably less than 1% of YouTube revenue (number | came out of my hat) | JohnFen wrote: | In 2022, premium subscribers accounted for a bit less | than 9% of YouTube's audience (and 67% of premium | subscribers were in the US), according to this: | | https://www.mediagistic.com/blog/how-many-youtube-users- | will... | jonathankoren wrote: | To use a googlism: I'm surprised Google can count that | low. | kmlevitt wrote: | 8-9% is actually a pretty impressive conversion rate | considering close to 100% of people use YouTube. They | have like 97.6% market share. | tannhaeuser wrote: | I'm not into watching streaming services or TV for that | matter, but that would be news to me. Does YT now produce | own exclusive content? I think they don't 1. to keep | content producers running their stuff on YT rather than | acting as competitor 2. to avoid _yet another reason_ for | antitrust action (ie. the bad looks of extending their | monopoly) | emodendroket wrote: | There was something called "YouTube Originals" that's | been discontinued but I didn't consider that central to | the point I was making. | bossyTeacher wrote: | It is not. Think about it. Diversification ensures that | if one of your assets degrades in value, you have an | unrelated asset that can still do well. Back to Alphabet, | if ads revenues disappears overnight, Youtube becomes a | dead project. Simples | kmlevitt wrote: | At least they have alternate ways of selling ads, though. | For example there has been a lot of talk about how their | search business ads are threatened by LLMs that answer | questions directly instead of giving search results that | include paid placements, etc. But even if that happened, | it likely wouldn't affect YouTube ad revenues much. | hotnfresh wrote: | By that standard, Search is also a diversification from | ads. | chatmasta wrote: | I was about to correct you about GCP profitability, but I | just looked it up, and TIL that GCP became profitable for | the first time in 2023 Q2. Interesting. | hot_gril wrote: | And before, it might've been in that "profitable if we | want it to be" situation where they're just reinvesting | the revenue. | wavemode wrote: | Which is precisely why profit is a red herring. What | matters is market share (which for GCP is still 10%, not | amazing but gradually increasing) and, ultimately, | revenue growth. | detourdog wrote: | I loved old google they refused to share a business model. | Google ~2006 I think is just past peaked google. I think | they developed ads because it was the only model that fit | their valuation. | khazhoux wrote: | You have the history backwards. | | Ads in early 2000s > Mega-valuation | JW_00000 wrote: | Are the Android app store and GCP loss leaders? I assumed | those two would be profitable at least. | Andrex wrote: | Google has been trying very hard to diversify, mostly | through Cloud. | | How well they are succeeding at that is up to | interpretation but they are chipping away at Ads' | percentage of revenue. It used to be higher than 85% but as | of 2022 it's down to only being 58% of operating | revenue[0]. | | 0. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/05/18/how-does-google- | make-mon... | rileyphone wrote: | That's an article from 2021 that says ads were 80% of | revenue | esafak wrote: | Google has the margins to take risks. If you don't disrupt | yourself somebody else will. | chatmasta wrote: | So when Bezos says "your margin is my opportunity," he's | talking to Google? | | It's not just that Google _can_ take risks because they have | margins. It 's more that they _need_ to take risks to | diversify their source of margins before they disappear to | someone like Bezos. | deckard1 wrote: | Amazon is already there. | | https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-is-quietly-building- | th... | | Interestingly, Amazon's move to ad placement seems to | coincide with how terrible Amazon's search is. It's a pay- | to-play free-for-all wasteland. Not too dissimilar to the | SEO wasteland of Google search. | eslaught wrote: | When I was an intern at Google circa 2010, there was a guest | lecture from a business professor who described exactly this | process. At the end of it, he made a comment like, "Of course | none of this will happen to Google. You're too innovative." But | literally every single prediction of his came true, and I | witnessed some of them happening in front of my own eyes even | in just the months that I was there (and certainly in the years | that followed, though I was no longer with the company). | cbsmith wrote: | "Of course none of this will happen to Google. You're too | innovative." | | I would have had a hard time hearing that as anything other | than sarcasm. | capableweb wrote: | Absolutely. And I'm sure the talker had a "<wait for | laugh>" in their transcript, which they had to quickly skip | since people were taking it seriously. | tobinfricke wrote: | "Present company excluded" | | It's a polite fiction. | cbsmith wrote: | Exactly. | hinkley wrote: | I once noted that several of my coworkers and I had created a | silent conspiracy to get a certain manager to clearly and | concisely state her very bad ideas in front of the entire | staff. | | This was not news to one of the other two people. He | confessed he was doing it "for sport" and thought we were in | on it. Only sort of. | | I think this statement might have been his little way to | entertain himself. | pas wrote: | can you give a few examples of what kind of bad ideas? like | everyone should do all nighters or let's use email as the | only login, no need for password for the first iteration, | we will fix it later, or ... ? | NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: | > At the end of it, he made a comment like, "Of course none | of this will happen to Google. You're too innovative." | | Yes, but how did everyone listening fail to notice that he | winked 3 times in a row, paused silently for 30 seconds and | looked disappointed when no one seemed to catch on? | praptak wrote: | The drummer in the background forgot to do the "ba-dum | tsss" | benvolio wrote: | Seems like this is referring to Clayton Christensen's Where | Does Growth Come From? talk: | | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rHdS_4GsKmg | w4yai wrote: | Thanks for sharing ! Spent the last hour watching it, it | was illuminating. | miohtama wrote: | This is called Scumpeter's creative destruction (to be | distinguished from other creative destruction) and why large | companies may lose the ability to be innovative and compete | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction | | However. it's hard to see Google's core business dominance, | search and ad, to be destroyed very easily. It's also super | confusing that no other entity has been able to create a | matching service and we do not have search duopoly similar to | Visa Mastercard. | antupis wrote: | 5 years ago it was hard to see , now I ampersonally using | more chatgpt than Google. | danielmarkbruce wrote: | Hard agree. Sold Google stock after realizing I'd more or | less replaced Google Search with chatgpt... | ianmcgowan wrote: | Yeah, it's hard to go back to wading through SEO- | optimized BS after just getting a decent answer (which, | to be fair to the AI-sceptics, you do have to think about | before using blindly). | | It's an interesting mental shift - I wasn't googling | because I wanted to find a web page, I was googling | because I wanted an answer to a question. An AR or mixed- | mode personal assistant is going to be a game changer. | lifeisstillgood wrote: | Is that because ChatGPT returns better results, or | because when it returns results, it wraps them in words | that make you feel more comfortable accepting them as | better | janalsncm wrote: | Personally it's because there's no ads. Google's UX is to | choke the user half to death with cookies, popups, | reminders to use their app, login screens, and banner | ads. And that's before we even get to the content, which | is padded with SEO and filler, dancing around the point | before finally giving an answer written by who-knows- | whom. | | (And yes I feel justified in calling these SEO sites part | of Google's UX because this is exactly the behavior their | algorithm and business model are encouraging.) | whstl wrote: | For me it's because ChatGPT ignores _less_ of what I type | than Google currently does, plus it doesn 't return | spammy SEO results. | | Google has become a search engine for advertisements, | "People also ask" snippets, shopping listings and SEO | spam, in that order. The rest of results is just a bonus. | | Even stupid things like searching for the Wikipedia entry | of a movie or TV show has become super difficult with | Google lately, because Wikipedia is often buried. Apple's | Spotlight is better for that. | fragmede wrote: | instead of Googleing and getting a forum post from 2009 | where you have to read the whole thread and then | interpret the results, ChatGPT just gives you the answer | directly. ChatGPT could be shitty and rude about it and | it would still be better because it's a direct smart to | your direct question. | | what's hilarious is the conversation that must have | happened inside google about linking to pages vs giving | the answer on the search result page, and now where we | are with ChatGPT. | miguno wrote: | That's what the AI robots will use as an explanation when | they have f*cked us up. :-) | makeitdouble wrote: | I'm not sure what you mean by Visa/Mastercard duopoly, | there's a lot of regionality so the picture could be fsirly | different depending on what you have in mind. | | To me Bing as a minority competitior in search, and | facebook on ads for instance would be candidates to the | same kind of duopoly. | Mistletoe wrote: | There's a great book by the guy that wrote The Psychology of | Money, Morgan Housel that is out right now and I'm really | enjoying it. It's called Same as Ever. | | Because what never changes is humans and our source code, our | DNA. Expecting Google to not turn into IBM is like expecting | wings to sprout from our back. The great delusion we tell | ourselves is that each business is different, but each | business is powered by the same human engine. That engine | evolves at a glacial pace on an evolutionary time scale. When | I read about the Dutch East Indian company or a guy in | Mesopotamia that can't get good quality copper from his | suppliers and his servant was treated rudely, it's all the | same. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nasir | anonacct37 wrote: | I don't think it's literally impossible to avoid the same | mistakes as our predecessors. But I do think that the | default position that "oh we modern innovative companies | won't end up like those stodgy old companies" is a recipe | for repeating history. As they say in AA: the first step to | solving a problem is admitting you have it. | | Because yes by default you will absolutely repeat history | unless you acknowledge that those old timey crazy people | were fundamentally no different than you. | concordDance wrote: | But we _have_ created new types of social institutions | despite having the same DNA as our ancestors! Most notably | the corporation and the nation-state. | e_y_ wrote: | On paper, Google's throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what- | sticks strategy (that has lead to a substantial Google | Graveyard) seems like it was intended to allow for some parts | of the company to innovate while keeping the core products | stable and boring. In practice, many of those innovations | (Google Inbox, anyone?) were not deemed profitable enough to | keep around. Others were never given the resources to grow | beyond an experiment. And even with a long leash, a big | company project is never going to innovate as quickly as a | startup. | | This year, however, with the extremely deep cuts to Google's | internal incubator (Area 120), it seems pretty clear that | they've given up on this strategy, at least for anything that | isn't somehow AI-related. | teen wrote: | I mean that incubator was a total waste of money. No one | did anything, everyone was a bser from the top, and 95% of | the projects were total failures. I think there were maybe | 3 "successful" projects. | compiler-guy wrote: | Pretty standard rate of failure for early stage startups. | 121789 wrote: | I think this is why these teams are really hard to have | in a mature org. In reality maybe 5% of projects in one | of these innovation orgs is actually great! But it's | impossible to evaluate and everyone else is thinking some | variant of "this team is able to bs and show no value, | while I have to hit real goals or risk being fired?" | | I think the incentives would have to be much different | for it to work (e.g. much lower base pay + higher rewards | for success).....but at that point just join a startup | seraphsf wrote: | Which 5% of projects are really great? In my experience, | presuming you have tight filters such that all of your | projects are plausibly potentially great, you really | don't know until you try. That's the point of an | incubator. | | It's not that hard to evaluate when something is working | (ie the hard part in evaluation is false negatives, not | false positives). | | In Area 120's case there was no coasting - if anything | there was a hair-trigger standard to shut down | underperforming projects. | mk89 wrote: | 3 successful projects can totally justify what you call | waste of money. | | I sometimes wonder what people expect innovation is. You | try and try and try. One thing is good and you must know | how to use it - it can make history. | | If I understood right, chatgpt comes from one of such | ideas.... so the question is also: who evaluates the | ideas? How come that Google was not able to capitalize on | that idea? | | So yeah, instead of treating the cause they treat the | symptoms, like usual. | skygazer wrote: | I agree. Where does this come from? I guess maybe it's an | attempt at economy but with only a superficial grasp of | the constraints imposed by reality? It's like people that | only want to fund the breakthroughs and not fundamental | science -- when all the "hey, that's odd" breakthroughs | come through "does what we think hold true" fundamental | research. Maybe ungrounded narratives are just more | seductive. | gedy wrote: | I think these type of teams are a good way to give | talented devs a break from the grind at bigger companies, | even if the chances of a new product is low. | | Not every company can afford these "paid vacations", but | they do have some use at times. | seraphsf wrote: | I ran one of the successful projects in Area 120. | | I joined Area 120 with huge skepticism. It was hamstrung | and inefficient in its own ways. And I agree it didn't | reach its potential - largely because it was encased in | Google 2020 instead of Google 2007. | | But to my surprise almost all of the projects were | impressive, well-conceived, promising bets. And the | people in Area 120 were among the top 10% of Googlers I | worked with in my decade at the company. | | Google killed Area 120 because of bureaucracy and | politics, full stop. Google is worse off because of it. | jjulius wrote: | >Google Inbox | | Still so damn bitter about that death. | htrp wrote: | > at least for anything that isn't somehow AI-related. | | If you can't innovate at the base level of app design .... | how do you have any hope of innovating for AI apps that | require research/engineering/product/marketing | collaboration? | al_be_back wrote: | >> at Google circa 2010 ... a business professor... | | sounds like Clayton Christensen | esafak wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma | chatmasta wrote: | > what's the alternative? A cutthroat corporate environment | | Sure. Isn't that how the financial industry operates? (Or maybe | that's more of an illusion, and people in finance just _tell | themselves_ they 're in a cut-throat environment, even though | in reality they'll never leave it. Whereas if it were really a | cut-throat environment you'd expect to see more churn as the | weak employees fail out of the industry.) | | > And then, over time, they rediscovered the reasons why old | companies always end up operating in a particular way. | | This may be true in tech companies, but I'm not sure it | generalizes to other industries. | | I wonder to what degree these organizational behaviors are | emergent from the personality types within the industry. If you | put a bunch of conflict-averse personalities in an | organization, and then hire more aggressive personalities to | manage them, perhaps that organization will inevitably develop | into something resembling IBM. | ghaff wrote: | >perhaps that organization will inevitably develop into | something resembling IBM. | | So an over 100 year old company that makes 10s of billions of | dollars? | chatmasta wrote: | Sure. But people in this thread aren't complaining that | Google's profitable. They're complaining about the culture. | Long term, such a poisonous culture is not a sustainable | path to growth or retained profitability. And it's even | less sustainable when the company is dependent on an | undiversified revenue stream, since they need to be | innovating to mitigate that risk, and a poisonous culture | is toxic to innovation. | | But yes, Google is a money printer, and it's printing at a | higher speed than it was ten years ago. But in that same | ten years, Microsoft has grown at a faster rate and even | displaced Google in some areas, like developer tooling and | AI. In fact, Google has lost its ability to innovate to | such an extent that a startup was able to beat them to | market by productizing research that originated _from | Google_! And now Microsoft basically owns that startup. | That 's an embarrassing failure of leadership. | ghaff wrote: | Microsoft has certainly had a pretty amazing | transformation. After they lost mobile and the client OS | market was clearly stagnant to declining, it seemed they | were toast if you looked at where their revenue came | from. (And their early hybrid cloud strategy was sort of | a mess too.) | | Whereas, as you suggest, Google's cloud strategy has been | marginal except for Google Docs and they're still mostly | an ad company. | emodendroket wrote: | > Long term, such a poisonous culture is not a | sustainable path to growth or retained profitability. | | Are you sure? This feels a little bit like when I read | the American capitalism is going to collapse because | there are a lot of homeless people. Just because | something has the effect of making some people miserable | doesn't mean that it's unstable or doomed to fail. IBM, | GE, Boeing, or any number of other "dinosaur" companies | haven't gone anywhere. And Microsoft itself shows that | even a conservative culture can manage to adapt to | changing circumstances when it's necessary. | chatmasta wrote: | But Google doesn't intentionally have a conservative | culture. They're _trying_ to innovate, since they need to | mitigate the existential risk of their undiversified | revenue stream. But they 're failing to innovate. | | So perhaps such a conservative culture does have its | merits, but claiming that Google sought those merits is | post-facto rationalization of their failure to innovate. | Google never _intended_ to turn into IBM (which, btw, | they havent - at least IBM has more diversified sources | of revenue!). | | That said, you make a good point that Microsoft itself is | a counterexample. So maybe there is still hope for | Google. But IMO, that hope is not aligned with the path | they're currently traveling. They need to fire Sundar and | make some drastic cultural changes if they want to | outcompete Microsoft between now and 2035. | emodendroket wrote: | Sure, they're not achieving everything they want, but I | think most people would be pretty happy if they just | achieved a huge money-printing machine through an app | store and ad exchange. | chatmasta wrote: | Yeah, hence why Larry and Sergei don't care that the | company they founded is currently on a downward | trajectory... | emodendroket wrote: | A cutthroat environment is going to encourage plenty of | people to behave conservatively so that their rivals do not | seize on their failures, real or perceived. | ivancho wrote: | Finance is cut-throat in the upper echelons, and also around | culling people producing less value than their salary. But | once they find someone willing to produce $400K of value in | exchange for $200K salary, who is not otherwise interested in | career growth, they usually just leave them be, that's how | you see people staying in the same job with roughly the same | responsibilities and skills for 10-15 years. Which creates | other pathologies, but in some sense is less harsh than tech. | zem wrote: | > someone willing to produce $400K of value in exchange for | $200K salary, who is not otherwise interested in career | growth | | that probably describes a lot of people in tech megacorps | too | 3seashells wrote: | It's people having families that is the ultimate corrupt or. If | worst comes to worst thy values come first on the chopping | block.. | | One of the reasons old people can't look each other in the eye, | is that they all have seen what they are willing to do to each | other to get junior a good start in life. | emodendroket wrote: | Having children can awake antisocial impulses in people but | it can awake prosocial impulses just as easily and just as | strongly. | NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: | Sure, if I look at their kids and think to myself "hey, | those might make good husbands/wives for my own kids when | they grow up". | emodendroket wrote: | Should I take it to be some kind of Freudian slip that | you've written "myself" rather than "themselves" here? | NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: | I'm half senile, and so when you replied I wondered if I | did that. | | But re-reading it several times now, I don't see it. When | I look at their kids and think to myself "hey, they might | make good husbands/wives for my own kids" where is the | Freudian? | | I am on the lookout for my kids. I can't tell them who to | marry, but I can put them in circumstances where there | are people their age that I approve of, such that | familiarity might blossom into something more. I've seen | how it turns out with other people's kids when they act | like that's none of their business and actively avoid the | thinking, and I don't much like the outcomes. | starcraft2wol wrote: | This is a very strange comment. Yes people often get | territorial about their kids. This is long shot to evil, | corruption, or not looking each other in the eye. | 3seashells wrote: | Really? What about people not in the in-group, not in your | tribe? | sage76 wrote: | Idk why you are downvoted. It's become a cultural trope to | use "I did it for my family" as an excuse to justify | absolutely heinous stuff. | 3seashells wrote: | To close to home for many? Then again this is what life is | about from moralphilosophical view. A body horror show with | a "what have I become" at the end? Spoilers not welcome? | surgical_fire wrote: | This presumes that people with no children are somehow | less horrible. | | In truth, all humans are equally worthless. | hinkley wrote: | I have a long list of ways to improve processes and when I was | young, energetic, and didn't know any better, I got very, very | lucky getting many or most of them through. As I've gotten | older I've found more things that I "need" to improve and | there's been more time for me to forget how I need to justify | things I consider "the right way" and so I don't always win | those arguments. | | But the bigger thing I'm coming to grips with is that I have to | stop entertaining offers from companies that give me an "I can | fix them" vibe because I will only be able to fix half the | things I know to fix before everyone else decides they've | changed "enough" and would I kindly shut up now. Hello | ossification. | | Eventually having half good, half bad is going to drive me nuts | and take other people with me. I need a higher bar where they | are already doing at least half and I can settle for reaching | 2/3 or 3/4 instead of fighting uphill to get to 50%, only to | give up and start the cycle earlier. If this were dating I was | talking about, someone would have sat me down by now for an | intervention. | busterarm wrote: | I feel so much exactly what you're describing here... | tazjin wrote: | This reminds me of the "Explore/Exploit" chapter from | "Algorithms to live by" :) | henham wrote: | How do you distinguish "I can fix them" companies that will | not improve because they are where they are because of | organisational and human issues and the ones you can actual | improve and are ready for you? | metanonsense wrote: | Well said. I think this happens very naturally with every | growing / successful company. Comparing my company of 30 or so | with Google is like comparing a bacterium with a race horse, | but even at our size being disruptive / staying innovative gets | harder every month. Do you assign your best resources to the | product that gets the money in? Or can you afford having | capable people taking bets on new products, even when you know | that such a product (if successful) is possibly years from | making a dent in your revenue stream. | | That decision is never easy and finding a product that creates | a "dent in the revenue stream" at a company like Google with a | once-in-a-lifetime product like Ads is probably not realistic | even with their resources. | emodendroket wrote: | It was easier to thread this needle in an easy-money | environment than now, when everyone has suddenly grown much | more conservative. | steveBK123 wrote: | Personally all large company processes start to rhyme and | things feel like ground hog day. | | After spending the first 10 years of my career at 100K+ | employee firms, I've only worked at 500 - 2500 person companies | since. | | There's benefits from a process perspective of working at a big | place and understanding what guardrails may be useful, and I | suppose later in career boomerang back and sort of slowly coast | into retirement.. | | But mid career if you know what you are doing and want to | deliver, huge firms can be very very stifling places. | yojo wrote: | I think "rediscovering" the old ways of operating is a | charitable interpretation that makes it sound like these | patterns are somehow better. Silos and fiefdoms don't benefit | the company, they benefit the professional managers that are | using them to grow their careers. | | I subscribe to the interpretation that sufficiently successful | companies inevitably attract ladder climbers whose goals are | personal advancement at all costs, which may or may not align | with the company goals/mission. | | Once enough of these people capture positions of power in the | organization, the whole thing tips into a political morass. | Unless you've got diligent leadership at the top rooting these | people out (and how do you think most folks ended up at the | top?) you get this cultural death spiral. | | This is also why "founder led" companies are more dynamic. | Founders by definition aren't ladder climbers, otherwise they | would have joined BigCo instead of founding a business. | closeparen wrote: | Silos and fiefdoms allow small gelled teams who know and | trust each other, have similar levels of competence, and sit | physically near each other to put their heads down and | execute with extraordinary speed and quality. Once silos are | broken down and cross-team/cross-org collaboration becomes | valorized, everything is strangers and Zoom meetings and time | zones and Process and _maybe_ if you're lucky one person in | your partner org or site who can be trusted to give a | straight answer or get something done that wasn't formally | planned a year in advance. The best way to derail a project | is to get the greatest number of engineers involved in it, | especially engineers who don't share priorities, timelines, | conventions, geography, or language. This is coincidentally | also the best way to get promoted at a large company that | believes in breaking down silos. | ghaff wrote: | Silos and fiefdoms are normally seen as negative things. | And that's not entirely wrong. | | But they can also describe skunkworks/internal startup/etc. | teams doing their own thing without a lot of interference | or having to constantly coordinate with every other | organization in the company. | | It can go both ways. | esafak wrote: | Silos are also good for sheltering and nurturing high | performing teams, especially when the broader | organization is bad. | marklar423 wrote: | I feel like you're working with a different definition of | "silo" than the parent. My understanding of a "silo" is | "closed off teams that aren't allowed to work with | outsiders" who have their own culture that may be at odds | with the company. | | It seems like you're talking about team nimbleness and | cohesiveness, which I want to say is orthogonal. | closeparen wrote: | Building in silos is when you get something done by | yourself or with your direct teammates. Cross team | collaboration involves e.g. a weekly sync, coauthored | design documents, code changes made in modules you've | never seen before reviewed by people you don't know, | tasks that are critical blocking dependencies for you but | totally irrelevant to the decision-makers of the teams | that need to allocate time for them. The extent to which | a company is siloed is the extent to which its engineers | are talking to their desk neighbors and getting things | done vs. navigating communication overhead and being | blocked on people quite remote from them and their goals. | | It's hard to believe you could have a nimble and cohesive | team at the scale of a large corporation, because the | number of communication edges gets silly. Dunbar's number | and all that. You can have team nimble and cohesive teams | _within_ large corporations. But having several distinct | networks is otherwise known as being siloed. | yojo wrote: | High process and high collaboration/coordination is not the | only alternative to silos. | | Google in the mid aughts still had tightly aligned teams | with clear priorities. But they were also transparent in | what they were doing, and open to collaboration where it | made sense. Teams felt empowered to reject requests that | would trip them up, but _also_ empowered to do small things | to help another team (and got rewarded for doing so). | | The reality at a large org is you're going to have | dependencies. In my experience, highly-siloed orgs have | tremendous coordination barriers to even the smallest | request across teams. Your one-line API change didn't make | it onto your dependency's roadmap this quarter? Too bad, | try again in three months. | | And I'm not sure we have the same understanding of | "fiefdom." I'm talking about the pattern where middle | managers try to grow their headcount as large as possible | without a clear purpose other than building status within | the org. This often manifests as disparate and disjoint | teams aggregated under a leader who has little | understanding or care as to what exactly it is they're | doing. It is hard to find value in this arrangement. | dasil003 wrote: | > _Silos and fiefdoms allow small gelled teams who know and | trust each other, have similar levels of competence, and | sit physically near each other to put their heads down and | execute with extraordinary speed and quality._ | | ...for things that align with that silo structure. If you | try to build new things that necessitate conceptual | integrity across org boundaries, then teams that think this | way will first debate ownership and responsibility | breakdown before it 's even clear how the thing should work | at a high level. I've seen too many examples of horrible | engineering done by silo'ed teams, where they build down | blind alleys that turn out to be unmaintainable and net- | negative producing over time because they approached it | based on what services they could touch rather than what | made sense from an overall system and UX perspective. | | Obviously "breaking down silos" involves greater | coordination and communication overhead, and thus is harder | to pull of successfully, so it's a tradeoff that should be | weighed carefully in the context of business needs. | vineyardmike wrote: | And this is another reason why managers growing their | fiefdom to make big teams is bad for the organization. | | Most of the most successful projects and incredible feats | of engineering happen by tiny teams full of very talented | people NOT a 4-layer management pyramid of people who are | here for a nice stable 9-5. Not to say you can't be | successful with WLB but you need a certain fire in your | gut and a hunger to execute as a small and efficient | team. | closeparen wrote: | I don't disagree. But I have also seen situations where | middle managers are highly attuned to and proud of cross- | team projects, and basically don't pay any attention or | give any weight to value delivered for end-users within | teams, so everyone is encouraged to structure their | projects to maximize communication overhead (even line | managers, since doing so gives them the opportunity to | grow their directs). | dasil003 wrote: | Absolutely. There are a lot of failure modes. This is why | true IC leadership with teeth is needed. The whole point | of staff+ engineer roles (outside of specialist research) | is to navigate the right technical decisions that span | across teams. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | It's Coase's theory of the firm [1] in synecdoche. Silos | escape the political transaction costs around them at the | expense of access to external resources. | | They can famously work, _e.g._ Skunkworks. But they also | decay into fiefdoms. | | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm | pardoned_turkey wrote: | As the other commenter mentioned, silos are not inherently | bad. Indeed, in a large company, they're necessary to avoid | dysfunction. You _want_ stable groups of competent people who | share priorities and lore, who own well-defined parts of the | business, and who have the autonomy to set the strategy for | their thing. | | "Founder-led" companies are more dynamic mostly because | they're smaller. Once they get to 100,000 employees, they | will not be distinguishable from Google, Apple, or Microsoft. | yojo wrote: | Maybe? I'm having a hard time finding a contemporary | example. Bezos bowed out (though Amazon culture was | famously bad for years), and even Facebook doesn't have | 100k employees. | | My point though is there is a difference between having a | leader who got there by politicking versus a leader who got | there by building a great company. They're both going to | have different strengths and weaknesses, but there's at | least a chance the founder isn't going to tolerate the | sycophants. | | An example: I was at Google 2005-2008. My manager's | manager's manager was one of the early empire builders. He | hired like crazy with no plan at all for the people he was | hiring, and kept getting promoted for managing such a | rapidly growing org. Eventually he rose high enough up that | someone near the top realized what was going on, and | promptly fired the guy, leaving behind a fair-sized mess as | folks tried to figure out what to do with all his hires. | | From what I've read lately, if this guy had just shown up | to Google a few years later, he'd still be getting | promoted. | esafak wrote: | Executives need to observe the whole organization, not | just their direct reports. How far from the top was he | when he started empire building? You make it sound like | it has already very hierarchical, when Google always | advertised itself as a relatively flat company. | JohnFen wrote: | Well-said. I think this is all pretty well encapsulated in the | truth that "we tend to become what we hate", or "if you gaze | into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." | jokethrowaway wrote: | > ... what's the alternative? A cutthroat corporate environment | where you're never sure about the future of your job? | | No, I think the ideal structure for a company which accumulated | a great amount of resources is to become a sort of Venture | Capitalist with the teams of people they control. | | So, ZERO "corporativism", ZERO bureaucracy, ZERO control, just | give access to the company resources and let the teams come up | with a business model. | | So, yes to more risk for employees (don't perform -> get your | team reorganised -> get fired), but also gives way more upside | in the form of significant bonus when a team deliver amazing | financial results. | | You'll get the majority of teams performing badly and getting | axed and a few delivering unicorn-like results to the company | at large, with the stars doing that being rewarded greatly. | emodendroket wrote: | Some companies do something like this with some success, but | this was also the theory of the guy who drove Sears into the | ground. | throwboatyface wrote: | The guy who drove Sears into the ground also did the | classic private-equity self-dealing to carve off all the | valuable bits and saddle the company with debt. Berkshire | Hathaway is an example of a company that owns lots of | businesses which are mostly independent | emodendroket wrote: | I'd theorize it has something to do with whether the | separation actually makes sense. Berkshire Hathaway owns | separate businesses that have zero to do with each other | and may spin off or bring in new ones anytime. Sears had | different departments of the same store trying to beggar | each other which is counterproductive. | compiler-guy wrote: | Gonna be awfully hard to comply with all the consent decrees | and regulatory scrutiny with zero bureaucracy. | ericjmorey wrote: | This is a good way to be biased towards the most lucky and | the most cutthroat. Also, why would the best talent look to | work for you if they have to take so much personal risk | without the possibility of the upside of stock options of a | startup? | kevmo314 wrote: | Then what's your incentive to work at the company instead of | starting the project externally? If the product is a | sustainable business model in isolation, surely it's | sustainable without the external resources. | Laremere wrote: | > But once you achieve market dominance, your priorities have | to shift. | | This is true, but I think you're mischaracterizing the required | shift, and assuming this requirement is what's causing Google's | problems today. | | A company does eventually need to make a shift from "fast and | experimental" to "responsible and steady". However this shift | is entirely orthogonal from "focus on the users" becoming | "focus on the bottom line and year over year growth". | | Just because they're following the same path as other large | tech companies have, doesn't mean this is inevitable. Instead | it means they failed to learn the proper lessons. As a sibling | comment points out, there was the attitude "but Google is | special so that won't happen", when instead it should have been | "to keep Google special, we need to work really hard on | preventing that from happening". | pardoned_turkey wrote: | Focusing on the user is easy when you have little to lose. | When you have a trillion-dollar business and 200,000 | employees you're responsible for, a large part of your focus | is not destroying that. And quite often, it's not easy to | reconcile that with what your users might want. | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: | > Careers and incomes are at stake. People will get hurt. | | Google continues to print much more money than it burns. People | get hurt by callous corporate decisions like layoffs. People | don't get hurt by a company that has insane amounts of money | taking risky projects, and if they fail, assigning those people | to some other project. Given the size of Google and the fact | that they hire generalists, being at risk of losing your | project is very different than not being sure about the future | of your job. | pardoned_turkey wrote: | Layoffs at Google didn't happen because they had to happen. | They happened because the leadership was concerned that in | the good years, the company accumulated way too much dead | weight - pointless projects, underperforming employees that | the managers never had to deal with because they could always | hire more people, etc. It's an awful fix and only a temporary | one, but unnecessary risk-taking can jeopardize a lot more | than that. | | For example, let's say you have an idea for replacing online | ads with a better monetization system for the benefit of the | user. How do you pitch that at Google? A misstep here could | literally destroy the company. It's insanity, akin to Exxon | selling off their fossil fuel operation to try their hand at | making solar panels. | | Regulatory and PR risks are similarly grave. For example, | Google couldn't have pulled off something like TikTok without | all kinds of regulators jumping at their throats right away. | They had to wait for ByteDance to clear the way and then | launched their own "also-ran" clone. It's the same story with | ChatGPT: Google had the tech but not the freedom to let it | loose. | | All of this is rational. You can get away with a lot more | when you're a scrappy startup and don't have much to lose. | When you're a multi-trillion-dollar company, the math ain't | the same. | Eridrus wrote: | > Regulatory and PR risks are similarly grave. For example, | Google couldn't have pulled off something like TikTok | without all kinds of regulators jumping at their throats | right away. They had to wait for ByteDance to clear the way | and then launched their own "also-ran" clone. It's the same | story with ChatGPT: Google had the tech but not the freedom | to let it loose. | | I think this is directionally true: Google would have taken | a lot longer to release something like Bard/ChatGPT if | their hand had not been forced, but I don't think | pr/regulatory pressure was the reason YouTube Shorts was | not done before TikTok. | | I think short form video is just hard to monetize in | comparison to long form. Why would you make a product that | has uncertain appeal and is likely to be a money loser if | it does succeed? | jonathankoren wrote: | You're giving Google too much credit. They couldn't even | _conceive_ of short videos. Why? See earlier in the | thread. | kccqzy wrote: | Indeed, the company behind TikTok (called ByteDance) | didn't even have an IPO yet. It is unclear how much money | they are earning from TikTok. It's conceivable that | TikTok itself makes no money and is subsidized by the | company's other products like Toutiao. | | If Google were to try this early, it is uncertain that | Google will discover a monetization strategy before the | product joins the Google graveyard. | | Let's not even talk about short form video, just YouTube. | How many years did Google subsidize YouTube with Search | money before it really turned up advertising on YouTube? | Do we know how much effort Google expended in | experimenting with monetization strategies for YouTube? | mschuster91 wrote: | > Indeed, the company behind TikTok (called ByteDance) | didn't even have an IPO yet. It is unclear how much money | they are earning from TikTok. It's conceivable that | TikTok itself makes no money and is subsidized by the | company's other products like Toutiao. | | Or, which is more likely, by the CCP. TikTok is the | perfect piece of propaganda warfare - it gives | destabilizing forces, anything from weird left-wing Hamas | supporters to the hardcore far-right / incel crowd, a | direct link to the brains of our children. It's unreal | just how toxic the trending content on TikTok is, and how | little effort is done to moderate it. Way worse than the | YouTube radicalization spiral [1], but for whatever | reason there's almost _zero_ attention to TikTok. | | [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/29/276000/a- | study-o... | summerlight wrote: | Yes, Google couldn't find a good way to scale out its early | model. Talents are not something easy to scale out. | Transparency is inherently in tension against confidentiality, | and when you have lots of eyes then the latter tends to win | unless you're comfortable of spending your daily life with all | those media outlets. If you want to do the right thing, then | you'll figure out that there's too many "right things" at its | scale because there are too many people with different, | conflicting goals. The list goes on. | | Still, the market expects it to keep its crazy growth rate and | Google actually has done a good job there. Unless Google decide | to shrink its business significantly, I'm not sure if going | back in time is a viable option. The problem could be remedied | by aggressive reduction of business/operational complexity but | it won't solve the root issue. I don't know the solution as | well. | | But I still agree with the point that Google generally lacks of | clear organizational goal/visions. This sort of inter-personal | alignment is critical for scaling out any organizations, but | Google lost it during its aggressive expansion period in | Sundar's tenure. Many teams usually fail to find clear causal, | logical connections between their daily works and company-wide | OKR. Then mid-level managements tend to develop bad | organization signal such as entirely metric driven projects | since they don't know what to rely on. I guess this is | something more actionable, but might not be easy to solve. | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | > the reasons why old companies always end up operating in a | particular way | | In a word: momentum | ra7 wrote: | > I think the only comedy here is that Google looked at these | old-school companies like Microsoft or IBM and figured they can | be different just because they "get it." And then, over time, | they rediscovered the reasons why old companies always end up | operating in a particular way. | | This is funny because Alphabet's homepage still quotes Larry | Page bragging they won't become a conventional company: | | _As Sergey and I wrote in the original founders letter 11 | years ago, "Google is not a conventional company. We do not | intend to become one"_ | ren_engineer wrote: | logical move is to get better at splitting off their research | and innovation into startups by licensing or funding employees | who leave. Spinoff anything risky into an independent company | so it can move faster and isn't slowed down by Google's risk | aversion and bureaucracy. Basically what Microsoft did with | OpenAI, give them cash and compute resources but have plausible | deniability if things go wrong | WalterBright wrote: | You've described why older companies do not inevitably grow | into monopolies and take over the world. They get so set in | their ways and bureaucratic that they get destroyed by the next | wave of upstart companies. | stillwithit wrote: | > People will get hurt. | | Tech workers have externalized a lot of this kind of hurt. | | I have little sympathy for STEM heads who projected "screw you | got mine" who then find themselves in a similar position. | | It's just meat based cassette tapes on Earth, engaged in | vacuous min/max metric hacks given the physical constraints of | reality. | | Industry leaders fed on elders memories of war time production | norms and educated us such was "normal", so we normalized it in | code for money, regardless of the externalities. | | Elder generations need to have their authority over the next | generation nerfed hard. Exploitation of youth to prop up some | aging out figurehead smacks of old divine mandate memes. | rkagerer wrote: | You're never too big put the user first. | | When you stop doing that, someone else will and in time your | customers will go there instead. | surgical_fire wrote: | This is provably false. Customers are anything but rational, | and pick things out that play against their best interests | all the time. | | Be it due to fashion, social pressure, brand recognition, | cultural norms, et cetera and so forth. | robertlagrant wrote: | > they rediscovered the reasons why old companies always end up | operating in a particular way | | The main reason is: it's hard to hire to stop the culture | regressing to the mean. Every time you get it wrong at a senior | level, it has a big negative effect. | andromeduck wrote: | But that's what equity driven comp is supposed to resolve - | give them small refreshers until they leave. | sonicanatidae wrote: | >But once you achieve market dominance, your priorities have to | shift. | | And shift they did. | | https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do... | mathgradthrow wrote: | If google's mantra had been "Don't rock the boat" since they | achieved market dominance, we would still have xmpp. | 01100011 wrote: | > what's the alternative? A cutthroat corporate environment | | No. Sure, that's the easy route. You can reposition and retrain | folks. You don't need to fire people to change, although that | is what's commonly done. | | C-Suite can drive a culture where folks feel safe through | reorganizations. Setting those expectations in a believable way | facilitates the large changes an org like Google needs to | periodically make to stay relevant. | | I work at another large tech company and, despite its problems, | I'll say that they have done a great job of showing they don't | easily toss people aside and that results in a better culture | overall. | Animats wrote: | > C-Suite can drive a culture where folks feel safe through | reorganizations. | | The larger version of that is mergers and acquisitions. The | Wall Street Journal has pointed out a few times that M&A | activity is usually a lose for stockholders. Reorganizing the | corporate structure is one of the few things C-suite | executives can do themselves. For most other things, they | have to work through others, managing rather than doing. | ajross wrote: | > I think the only comedy here is that Google looked at these | old-school companies like Microsoft or IBM and figured they can | be different just because they "get it." | | How is that different from all the nattering of posters here on | HN who clearly know better and "get it"? Or for that matter | from Gates & Allen in the late 70's "getting it" where IBM and | DEC didn't? | | Hubris is universal. The difference isn't who "gets it", it's | who actually does stuff. The overwhelming majority of people in | this fight are just picking a side in a dumb turf war, mostly | over what fruit is printed on the phone in their pockets. | zepearl wrote: | > _But once you achieve market dominance, your priorities have | to shift. It 's no longer "why wouldn't you try this" or "let's | do the right thing." It's "why would you rock the boat and risk | the nice thing we have?" It's not just about profit. Careers | and incomes are at stake. People will get hurt._ | | I don't get this. | | Why did they kill so many products which were running on | standalone tracks? (at least in my opinion) | | If I look at https://killedbygoogle.com I see for example | "Stadia", "Podcasts", "Domains", etc... - in my opinion those | projects would not conflict with their current main activities | being Internet search & email service, respectively whoever is | involved in it (ok, maybe excluding allocations of budget - but | it's not that Google has currently liquidity problems so it's | not that budget for existing depts would have to be | reduced...). | deckard1 wrote: | I'm sure internal politics plays a large role. Managers knee- | capping each other and so forth. | | But there is another way to look at it. A company of Google's | size will not be satisfied by a "small" $10M ARR business or | perhaps even a $100M ARR business. It's not going to move the | needle. The needle being, effectively, Google's stock price. | | There are two ways to move the stock price: increased profit | or decreased spend. Increase the pie or stop the number of | people eating the existing pie. | | All of those projects had more value in being ritualistic | offerings to the stock gods. Much like the unreleased Batgirl | film had more value being a tax write-off than selling for | market value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batgirl_(film) | yashap wrote: | I honestly think it's possible to have large/mature companies | that are still innovative, fast moving, transparent/candid | internally, user focused, and low on internal bureaucracy. It's | just really, really, really hard. | | You need to constantly be eliminating red tape and causes of | slowdowns, because they'll keep appearing. For tech companies | this means spending a lot of time eliminating tech debt, | slow/unreliable workflows, toil work, etc. It also means | reducing cross-team dependencies, keeping decision making units | small and independent. | | You need a very performance oriented culture, where you only | keep strong performers and fire miss-hires (or ppl who start | strong but later start coasting). This is maybe the hardest | part, as firing people is very tough and can have real negative | consequences on the person being let go, but an accumulation of | ppl who are just sort of coasting is one of the biggest reasons | companies slide into mediocrity over time. | | I think very, very few companies pull this off in practice, but | I don't think it's impossible to pull off, just EXTREMELY hard. | esafak wrote: | Which companies did you have in mind? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _the prescription is always to go back in time_ | | I read it more as an indictment of layoffs being treated as | business as usual. A company that grows a bit more modestly | during boom times, fires fast continuously and maintains | adequate buffers shouldn't have to lay people off. Ever. The | advantages of that haven't been well explored. Ian makes a | compelling argument that it should be. | johngossman wrote: | This is spot on. I'll only add that the necessity of showing | perpetual growth in the quarterly income report strongly | incentivizes big companies to act this way, especially where-- | as in most tech companies--the employees have equity. | stillwithit wrote: | Has nothing to do with Google "being bad" and everything to do | with emerging social trends questioning the corporatization of | everything. | | Such memes have gone viral across our society. From big beer | boycotts, to turning on Google and SV. Filter bubbles across | contexts are turning on the source of their fascination; we're | out for video games, Hollywood, beer, celebrities, experts, | politicians. Knives aren't out yet but the sharpening stones | are. | | The real value of decades old value stores foisted upon us in | deference to the investor class, for if we do not validate | their decades old choices and memes, they will have no choice | but to engage in punitive acts, drive fiat economy off the | fiscal cliff! | | People are getting fucking tired of it. Sooner than later | they'll resort to whatever behavior is necessary to meet their | needs and shoot anyone who takes issue with it. | alliao wrote: | kind of interesting how bell was able to spun off so much while | modern companies aren't able to do so | ljm wrote: | Google fought against Microsoft's EEE strategy until they could | do it themselves. Enter Chrome. | cyanydeez wrote: | Google has entirely become a corporate capitalist driven by | short term profit. | | If we could trasport the owners from the past to today, they'd | be really confused as to how poor the search results are. | simonebrunozzi wrote: | Your username is genius, BTW. Assume you are a regular on HN | but decided to post with a new account? | eikenberry wrote: | > But once you achieve market dominance [..] | | Here lies the problem. Market dominance should mean anti-trust | kicks in to prevent businesses from shifting to this more | conservative, rent seeking behavior. You want businesses kept | in that sweet spot where company vision is more than a PR | checkbox. | sidcool wrote: | The following is a pretty damning statement. | | > Much of these problems with Google today stem from a lack of | visionary leadership from Sundar Pichai, and his clear lack of | interest in maintaining the cultural norms of early Google. A | symptom of this is the spreading contingent of inept middle | management. | debatem1 wrote: | Completely accurate IMO. | | He wasn't the snake in the garden of Eden-- google completed | rather than began its transition with his ascension-- but he | would definitely have been Team Snake once he saw the fig leaf | sales figures. | occz wrote: | Sad times. If not Google, what's the place to be nowadays? Has | high interest rates killed tech as a great place to work in | entirely, or is there any oasis left? | riku_iki wrote: | it is also industry maturing, there are tons of people came to | the industry in the latest years because of money and not | because of passion about tech. | jhaenchen wrote: | I'd say startups. At the very least, it seems like companies | where the founder stays on after getting rich tend to do | better. Avoid Day 2 companies. | occz wrote: | Startups are shit on pay and as an early tech employee you | are basically the one that gets screwed the hardest of all. A | huge gamble with very little upside even in the best of | cases. I'm gonna have to pass. | paxys wrote: | Agree with everything he said, but then again nothing written | here is unique to Google. Every company starts off with a | coherent vision, competent leadership and bought-in employees, | and then as the valuation goes up into the tens/hundreds of | billions/trillions and employee count balloons to hundreds of | thousands, it all inevitably goes to shit. It is impossible to | have any semblance of "culture" at that scale. Google isn't the | first to run into this and will not be the last. | satvikpendem wrote: | Glad to see Hixie still working on Flutter though, as I'm a big | user of it. For the Google specific parts, I can't comment much | on the internal development structure of the company, having not | worked there, but as a user of their products over the past 20 | years or so, there really has been a slowdown of innovation from | them. I mean, what did they really create in the last decade that | endures? | silenced_trope wrote: | I literally came in here to say I'll probably stop using it | given all the people at Google who Flutter depends on. | | I suspect a few high level departures more and it'd be dead. | | Do you mean he's going to continue working on it or just that | he had been for the past 8 or 9 years? | satvikpendem wrote: | Read his latest posts, he's still working on Flutter, but now | he doesn't have to answer to its boss, which seems like why | he left based on a paragraph in this blog post. | lapcat wrote: | Don't Larry and Sergey still have 51% of the voting shares? | (There are different classes of shares.) If so, then everything | that happens at Google now is with the consent of the company | founders. | okdood64 wrote: | I had the same thought. | Modified3019 wrote: | > The effects of layoffs are insidious. Whereas before people | might focus on the user, or at least their company, trusting that | doing the right thing will eventually be rewarded even if it's | not strictly part of their assigned duties, after a layoff people | can no longer trust that their company has their back, and they | dramatically dial back any risk-taking. Responsibilities are | guarded jealously. Knowledge is hoarded, because making oneself | irreplaceable is the only lever one has to protect oneself from | future layoffs. | | Well said. Just watched exactly this happen after some surprise | layoffs in an entirely different industry. | drevil-v2 wrote: | This is not going to be popular but I have noticed the same | phenomenon at other companies where hiring decisions (especially | for management hires) is a diversity quota exercise. | | The decline is slow at first but compounds rapidly. Smart and | lazy people leave first. Average but ambitious employees leave. | Smart and hard working folks are the last to leave. Leaving the | grifters and dumb & lazy to pick through the remains. | lins1909 wrote: | What the hell | johnnyworker wrote: | > I often saw privacy advocates argue against Google proposals in | ways that were net harmful to users. Some of these fights have | had lasting effects on the world at large; one of the most | annoying is the prevalence of pointless cookie warnings we have | to wade through today. | | If you don't track users and store personal info about them, | there is no need for a banner. You could have an opt-in link for | being tracked to hell and back in the footer. It is _amazing_ to | me how many "engineers" and "webmasters" cannot understand | something so simple. | | Might as well say all those boneheaded laws made by people who | aren't even professional rapists require you to ask random | strangers if it's okay if you spike their drink; yes, you might | say they do, but if you're the kind of person who doesn't spike | drinks, you will never even know, the issue will not come up | once, it will not take one second out of your life. Even just | scrolling by the FUD _still_ spread by people against the GDPR | takes more away from me than the GDPR does. | drubio wrote: | > _Take Jeanine Banks, for example, who manages the department | that somewhat arbitrarily contains (among other things) Flutter, | Dart, Go, and Firebase. Her department nominally has a strategy, | but I couldn 't leak it if I wanted to; I literally could never | figure out what any part of it meant, even after years of hearing | her describe it. Her understanding of what her teams are doing is | minimal at best; she frequently makes requests that are | completely incoherent and inapplicable. She treats engineers as | commodities in a way that is dehumanising, reassigning people | against their will in ways that have no relationship to their | skill set. She is completely unable to receive constructive | feedback (as in, she literally doesn't even acknowledge it). I | hear other teams (who have leaders more politically savvy than I) | have learned how to "handle" her to keep her off their backs, | feeding her just the right information at the right time._ | | What a shellacking. I never heard of her, so did a quick search, | she's on X/Twitter https://twitter.com/femtechie ; and yes, her | Linkedin vanity url is, get this: https://linkedin.com/in/winner | emodendroket wrote: | It sounds like the generic complaints of everyone who doesn't | like their manager ever and frankly I would have thought twice | before attaching my name to a broadside that attacks a former | manager by name. But hey, what do I know, I never worked at | Google. | teaearlgraycold wrote: | Even in my "I quit Google" post I was careful to make it | impossible for an outsider to determine who I was complaining | about, even scrubbing my team info from LinkedIn. | | But I think 18 years at Google means the author has plenty of | "fuck you" money. | emodendroket wrote: | You are probably right; I just don't really see what's to | be gained by going public with it considering the | complaints are pretty inside-baseball and not that | interesting to outsiders (I mean, hard to imagine someone | thinking "I'm not going to deal with Google because so-and- | so's subordinates say they don't understand her strategy"). | Capricorn2481 wrote: | I will certainly not use Dart if a person in charge of | its direction doesn't know what they're doing even at a | basic level. I can't just blindly hope her team does | what's best and doesn't listen to her. | emodendroket wrote: | It'd be hard to find an org where you couldn't find | someone to make similar complaints. | Capricorn2481 wrote: | I'm in one. This is a pretty specific dressing down from | a senior engineer. It's disturbing, and consistent with | Google's output | teaearlgraycold wrote: | It's just venting. A person in the author's position must | feel that the mediocre management robbed them of a core | part of their identity. | sage76 wrote: | You are implying that every manager is competent and | every criticism from a subordinate is baseless. | teaearlgraycold wrote: | Not at all. This is a false dichotomy | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | > I mean, hard to imagine someone thinking "I'm not going | to deal with Google because so-and-so's subordinates say | they don't understand her strategy" | | I'm not quite there, but as a heavy Firebase user who | generally loves the product but who has been _incredibly_ | frustrated with a lot of the (lack of) direction of new | features over the past 4 years or so, reading this post | made me think "Ohhh, now it makes sense." | | That is, there are basic, presumably easy-to-implement, | features that have languished for _years_ in Firebase. | Part of me has wanted to go interview with Firebase just | so I can get hired to fix some obvious missing feature. | Now, granted, it 's obviously impossible to pin this | directly on this manager, and this is also a Google-wide | problem, but I think the author's point is that a lot of | this "directionless-ness" is a result of poor middle | management. | teaearlgraycold wrote: | Once I got inside Google it wasn't long until I had the | "Aha moment" and understood why Google's new products are | in turmoil. | mmkos wrote: | Oh well. Maybe it's about time incompetent people were | named and shamed, maybe that would put a stop to failing | upwards for people who really shouldn't be there. | emodendroket wrote: | It's doubtful. | caskstrength wrote: | > But I think 18 years at Google means the author has | plenty of "fuck you" money. | | And the balls! Dunno whether I read your generic "why I | quit Google" essay, but author's post was the first that I | liked due to his willingness to throw punches. | downWidOutaFite wrote: | Keeping quiet about perceived problems is exactly the kind of | toxic political lack of transparency that Ian is calling out | here. | emodendroket wrote: | How much is it really doing if you're making the criticism | after you left? | whoknowsidont wrote: | Infinitely more than never talking about it, at the very | least. It definitely will empower others to talk about it | by validating their perceptions and concerns. | 93po wrote: | I would guess he's been advocating for this for years | before he left. | chatmasta wrote: | While I'd never do that either, I did find it refreshing to | read from someone else. It certainly makes this post unique | amongst the many "I left Google" diary entries. | | Frankly the fact he was willing to include that paragraph | probably indicates that there's a few thousand more | paragraphs he resisted including... | pyb wrote: | A 18-year veteran like OP shouldn't be complaining about | their manager's lack of vision ; they should have realised by | now that it's also their job to enact the vision. He was | probably paid too much to behave as a passenger. | LudwigNagasena wrote: | What is a problem with being an IC? | ska wrote: | Nothing wrong with being an IC. A senior IC role includes | some responsibility for this sort of thing, that's most | of what makes it senior... | scamworld2 wrote: | Who exactly at Google isn't a passenger? Jeff Dean? There | aren't many pilots there. | mathattack wrote: | I would never name names but I don't have 18 years of Google | equity. I suspect he didn't have any non-disparagement | clauses to sign. | jimbob21 wrote: | And her summary is literally a list of corporate buzzwords | willsmith72 wrote: | Nothing kills motivation more than bad management, I can | totally feel his pain. | | In saying that, I don't think public, targeted statements like | this are ever the right thing to do. She's just a person, doing | a job. | NanoYohaneTSU wrote: | You know people can be evil or at the least they can be bad | people. Do you think this person is bad or good? My point is | that when you say something like "She's just a person, doing | a job." you're defending the bad rather than calling it out. | KerryJones wrote: | I don't know her (nor do I presume to know her), but if I | take your definition of "bad" as in "morally bad" (you used | it in the context of evil), that feels pretty presumptuous, | and then fairly attacking to assume the commenter is | "defending the bad". There are so many people who end up | half-assing their jobs in various ways, I think it's a | pretty slippery slope to start calling those people "bad". | They may be bad at their job, but I wouldn't call them bad | people. | | I also don't have enough information to say she's "not" a | bad person, but with the information given, I don't see | anything that would indicate she is one. | willsmith72 wrote: | This is exactly my point. There is no way the public has | information about whether the person is bad or good, just 1 | disgruntled employee's impression of their job performance. | | There's more to life and a person than a job. That's all. | Even the worst managers I've had have been good people. | They're good dads and mums, enjoy hiking and camping. | | Public statements like this one are easy to make, | impossible to verify or challenge, and only cause hurt | bruce343434 wrote: | What good does that do when they ruin a workplace? If I | were bad at my job, it's not like I wouldn't get fired | because I'm just such a great person outside of the | workplace... | sage76 wrote: | Since private complaints routed through internal channels | don't generally work either, this is a good thing he has | done. | | And no, public statements can make you a public target. | These are not easy to make. | layer8 wrote: | > just 1 disgruntled employee's impression of their job | performance. | | And what's wrong with that, if that's their honest and | informed impression? | wavemode wrote: | I guess it depends on how you view work. I can dislike | someone's work as a colleague, but like them as a person. | And vice versa. Work is just work - it's not our entire | life. And someone being bad at a job (even if we accept | that this person is truly intrinsically incompetent, and | not just a byproduct of a dysfunctional org, as is often | the case) doesn't automatically mean, to me, that they have | some personal moral failing or personality flaw. | | So, in that vein, I think I'd hesitate to publicly | embarrass someone merely for being bad at a job, since that | crosses over to affecting their personal life. If someone | asked me about that person in a professional context (to | make a hiring decision, for example), I'd be frank about | their weaknesses. But I don't think the whole world has to | know about it. | screye wrote: | > I don't think public, targeted statements like this are | ever the right thing to do. | | As a previous believer in this, I now strongly disagree. | (even if I am too chicken to do it myself) | | Tech nerds are usually nice and non-confrontational people. | They get exploited to high heaven by those who are effective | at navigating low-visibility & grey-area political spaces. | When an org, leader, employee or associate taints every | single private avenue for criticism, you are left without | much recourse. | | People quit bad managers. But bad managers are often amazing | as appearing amazing. As long as management has zero | accountability within the org structure, sub-optimal signals | like these must do. | | > Those who make private criticism impossible will make | public tirades inevitable | | - John F. Kennedy reincarnated in 2023 | cmrdporcupine wrote: | The consequences of naming someone in such a manner, in an | article that makes its rounds on the Internet, can be | actually quite dire. Public harassment, etc. There are some | pretty unhinged people out there, and in particular some | rather ugly people who in particular get especially | unhinged on the topic of women in tech at Google, etc. | | I think it's in very bad taste in this case. | justin66 wrote: | And weirdly superfluous to the point he was trying to | make. Did anyone _really_ need the name of someone with | whom he has an axe to grind in order to believe the | larger point about Google 's organizational ossification? | tcbawo wrote: | I have come to the opinion that being an executive at any | sufficiently large company revolves around building a cult of | personality. Any contribution they make would be nearly | impossible to compare against what a possible replacement | candidate would make. This might be a fair or unfair | characterization -- it might even be both! Building a personal | brand by being a cheerleader for your company/organization, | maintaining the image that you have everything figured out and | everything is under control, while taking credit for building | the world class team underneath you is essential. | gorbachev wrote: | I don't think that's quite accurate. | | There are genuinely amazing, highly respected executives in | some (most?) tech companies. | | I do agree though that the public facing image of a lot of | them is a lot of hype. A lot of the big companies want to | build an aura of infallible leader extraordinaire's for their | management team. | tcbawo wrote: | I didn't say that they weren't talented or deserving | people. But at some point, managing perception is essential | to surviving and excelling. There are plenty of geniuses | that fail to get their due. The hagiography (especially on | this site) is particularly strong and often paints these | people as larger than life. Based on the downvotes of my | opinion, I seem to have struck a nerve. | znpy wrote: | I noticed that and it's a very strong point. | | Taking such a strong stance is not something would so light- | heartedly, i really wonder what went on to drive this person to | write such harsh words about her. | | Considering the amount of people the author has likely seen | over 18 years and how many of them he could have complained | about... It must not be a chance it's her _specifically_. | kradroy wrote: | There's no greater source of professional resentment than | suffering under a manager who's incompetent and a narcissist | (my summary of his blurb). After 18 years at Google he | probably feels safe burning that bridge. | ghaff wrote: | But why? I could legitimately IMO rag on a handful of | former managers who I think mostly meant well but I'm not | going to do it in a blog post. | caskstrength wrote: | > But why? I could legitimately IMO rag on a handful of | former managers who I think mostly meant well but I'm not | going to do it in a blog post. | | Maybe he doesn't think that she mostly meant well? | lannisterstark wrote: | But you could. | pseg134 wrote: | Well that is because you live your life from a place of | fear. Not everyone is like that. | dilyevsky wrote: | Good for you. It might save someone from taking a job | under what appears to be an awful manager though | Fordec wrote: | After 18 years at Google he's likely at a stage in his | life where he's at f-you money in his bank account. | | If he cares more about the company culture than being | rehired by the people that disagree with his outlook, why | not let it fly? If it instigates a culture change, he | wins at the cost of a professional bridge he doesn't | value anyway. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | One great way to lose the f-you money in your bank | account is to get involved in a harassment or slander | lawsuit because of some offhand things you said that got | pasted all over the interwebs. | | I'm not saying that will happen here, but if I were | writing this blog post I would have deliberately avoided | specifics like this because of that, in part. | | It's one thing to legitimately trash Sundar Pichai; | another to name some middle-level manager like that. | utopcell wrote: | Since when is a VP middle-level management ? | justin66 wrote: | Pretty much half the people who work at any given bank | have some sort of "VP" title. "Middle-level" would be | overestimating the standing of many with that title. | kitsune_ wrote: | People who never had the misfortune to work with a truly | toxic manager or co-worker are often oblivious to the | damage they can cause. I'm speaking of psychological | damage, burn out, anxiety, stress, depression, health | problems. Naming their abuser can be helpful to people | who had to endure such a thing. | layer8 wrote: | He grew up in Europe, which may have given him different | sensibilities. | starkparker wrote: | The only thing I know her from is I/O, where she kicks off/MCs | the dev keynotes. Her I/O bio says "VP and GM of Developer X" | and "Head of Developer Relations", but I have no idea if | "Developer X" is developer experience, or a reference to the | old X skunkworks, or something else entirely. | | EDIT: Dug a little more and it's the group formerly known as | Developer Product. So Firebase, etc. makes sense. Successor to | Jason Titus. | throwaway678808 wrote: | I worked in the org that Jeanine now runs. It had a series of | bad-to-disastrous leaders at the Director, VP, and SVP level. | | To call out Jeanine and only Jeanine in language this harsh | feels wrong. From my recollection and from what I have heard | from people still working there, she is par for the course. | | Also I am almost never the person to bring this kind of thing | up but ... there aren't a lot of other black women in | leadership at Google. Makes this targeted attack feel worse. | sage76 wrote: | > there aren't a lot of other black women in leadership at | Google. Makes this targeted attack feel worse. | | Are people of specific races to be put beyond criticism? | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | Not beyond criticism, some criticism is fine. It's just not | a very good look to savagely take them down when you barely | have any representation of said group. | namtab00 wrote: | Post author never mentioned her race, HN commenters did. | llbeansandrice wrote: | If she is in fact "par for the course" and the failures of | that department were at multiple levels then that type of | criticism is certainly suspect. I give you a C- at | attempted strawman though. | alargemoose wrote: | This seems like a bizarre mid-representation of GPs point. | They sated she was "par for the course" for that | department. Meaning everyone was bad, not just her. And | found it concerning she was the only person they singled | out. | heyoni wrote: | The author worked under her at least during their time | working on flutter; which was their most recent | experience at google. | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | The department could be one of those "wilderness" assignments | where you send somebody you don't wanna fire but also don't | want to have a big impact. A useful place to help someone | develop their executive leadership skills, or keep those with | really bad skills from wreaking havoc. | sjkoelle wrote: | Thank you - also why target someone who has been there for | only 2 years. | ludwik wrote: | It seems she, being his direct manager, was a large part of | the reason he decided to leave after 18 years. There is | probably a lot of anger and frustration. I do agree this | part of the post could have been phrased better. | mpalmer wrote: | While I don't think mentioning her by name was necessary | (she's just an example of the culture of bad middle | management he's calling out), I do think highlighting her | race as a meta-criticism does neither the OP nor Banks | herself any favors. | | My rule of thumb: unless given an obvious reason not to, | assume good faith on the part of individuals. | jLaForest wrote: | Pretending racial disparities doesn't exist (particularly | in tech) doesn't do any favors either. | nitwit005 wrote: | Acting like race determines everything isn't exactly the | healthiest strategy either. | | Ultimately we're discussing assuming someone is a racist | because they said something negative about a person of a | different race. That assumption is also a racial | stereotype. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | No, there's two levels to this. | | The dickishness/meanness of singling someone out by name | in a public article on the Internet, which is what the | comment here was primarily about. | | And then the second level, which the commenter | deliberately downplayed as a minor second point (but | people here jumped on it...) that said person is a | minority, so it makes one extra-suspicious about motives. | | So I'm not sure where you got this "acting like race is | about everything" point, because that wasn't in the | comment. | mpalmer wrote: | I'm not pretending anything like that. I assume good | faith on the part of individuals (intentional word | choice), because individuals are not systems or | institutions and they really do tend to be decent and | well-intentioned. | screye wrote: | > series of bad-to-disastrous leaders at the Director, VP, | and SVP level | | Isn't that exactly the job of an org executive? To hire and | align competent senior leadership ? | | I don't think he is criticizing her in particular as much as | the archetype that she represents. She is a person who has | never had a coding job & spent her early career quite far | from the people who write code. I can't for the life of me | figure out why you would put someone like that in charge of | google-dev relations. That's a premier-IC-turned-leader | position if I've ever seen one. | | No wonder she doesn't have a strategy. That's a terrible | match for a hire. | chatmasta wrote: | > I can't for the life of me figure out why you would put | someone like that in charge of google-dev relations. | | One possibility is that the person who put her in that | position has an incentive for Flutter/Dart to fail. | ruszki wrote: | They just don't care. | | Btw, it's very funny to see projects, which were | predestined to fail, because they send their shittiest, | and somehow they became better, and slowly more important | than the executives star projects. There are meetings in | such cases (I was part of such projects and meetings, | several times), after almost everybody should be fired | immediately, if you want anything good for the company. | But of course, most of the employees of large, and old | companies don't care anymore about products, or their | respective companies. | 93po wrote: | > They just don't care. | | This seems likely. Google makes 90% or some very high | percent of their money from ads. I doubt there is any | focus on on comparatively small side projects | caskstrength wrote: | > Also I am almost never the person to bring this kind of | thing up but ... there aren't a lot of other black women in | leadership at Google. Makes this targeted attack feel worse. | | Unless I misunderstood the author she was his manager. It is | not like he chose some random "black woman in leadership at | Google" to attack. | eigenvalue wrote: | Seems more reasonable to me to focus on the head of the | division since she has ultimate authority over it. Any | incompetent people below her in the org structure are her | responsibility. If they're so bad, why didn't she realize | that and remove them? If you don't ever want to be criticized | then you shouldn't seek out top management positions. He was | also very critical of Sundar, is that also wrong because it | could hurt his feelings? As for why he felt the need to air | his dirty laundry like this, he must feel extremely | aggrieved. | booleandilemma wrote: | Which race would have made the "targeted attack" better? | cmrdporcupine wrote: | You're being disingenuous. The commenter clearly was saying | any "targeted attack" is wrong, and that "targeted attack | where the target is a minority" then brings up even more | suspicions about the underlying motives for the attack. | | At least it does for me. But you sound like you have other | axes to grind. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | I had the same reaction. I'm ex-Google, but never worked in | that org or heard of her ever but it seemed in profound bad | taste (or just mean?) to me to be pinpointing people by name | like that. I'm not sure what it accomplishes, unless there is | a vendetta at work here? | | Also seemed out of tone with the rest of the article, which I | agreed with the substance of and enjoyed reading. | averageRoyalty wrote: | Why is there a presumed intent to "accomplish" anything? | It's a blog post. | serial_dev wrote: | Calling her out by name felt a bit harsh within the context | of the post. Sure, call out Sundar as he's a public figure, | but this lady, never heard of her, never seen her. | | He could have made the point by writing "I had this terrible | boss who had no idea about anything and...", her name is | irrelevant to demonstrate the issue of decline at Google. | progbits wrote: | Maybe it was too much, but one counterpoint: if horrible | managers never get called out how are you supposed to know | to avoid them / how will they face consequences? | | I understand authors frustration, I've experienced the same | in the past but could not voice this beyond just some close | friends and coworkers (who knew it already anyway), for | fear of repercussions. I've since left but of course this | person remains, and from what I hear is still as bad. | | Outsiders might join that organization unaware of this. | Others working with those teams might not know this and can | get burned by it. | | Was this particular call out justified? I don't know. But I | don't think it is inherently bad. | jjiij wrote: | I don't really see how naming the specific individual improved | the argument, unless there is true malfeasance, like sexual | harassment, I don't think it's ethical to publicly name-and- | shame somebody for the crime of being bad at their job. | | LOTS of people are bad at their job. | leoh wrote: | She probably makes $10M a year, don't worry about it. | cobertos wrote: | Doing so head-on solves the problem faster. Talking directly | to someone or about the problem as it is has felt to me like | people can understand and act quicker. Less malcontent is | felt by those affected by such a person's incompetence. | | Capturing the subtleties in such a black/white call-out | usually is lost though to the reader/listener. It also | doesn't lend to this to do this so publically, for the entire | internet. | nemo44x wrote: | It doesn't really matter as the poster is in the "clueless" | cohort of the company and she's a sociopath. He thinks that | the company exists to do whatever he said it was earlier when | in fact the sociopaths running it at that time just said that | to attract people that can do work to make them rich. | | He thinks she is bad at her job and it's clear she's not. She | know precisely how to move people around to take blame for | failures while staying clean and clear to brag about the | wins. To the clueless she might look dumb but she's not at | all. She knows how to secure her millions in comp per year | and retire early. She's very smart. | | To be fair he seems to be waking up to the fact the | sociopaths are in it for themselves, 18 years later. | yonran wrote: | > I don't really see how naming the specific individual | improved the argument | | I disagree. Good articles should make specific propositions | about specific exemplars. The alternative is to make | generalities that are hard to falsify. | pseg134 wrote: | If she doesn't want to be publicly shamed for being bad at | her job she could always try to be good at it. | kenjackson wrote: | His critique of his manager doesn't paint him in the most | positive light either. The fact that she seems to articulate | the strategy but he doesn't understand it is something I've | seen on a few occasions where people effectively refuse to | acknowledge the strategy because they disagree with some aspect | of it. | | His lack of specificity on almost all counts but her name also | makes me question his judgment. | wg0 wrote: | Stadia. Bought studios, games, pumped up hiring, custom | controller - Promising 60fps 4k game streamed in real time. | | Wrapped it up all in just three years. Discontinued. | RomanPushkin wrote: | "I see you've been working for 18 years in a corporate | environment, do you have startup experience?" | dekhn wrote: | There must be a long german word describing the disillusionment | of seeing the chosen one, in a golden age, succumb to poor | leadership and become utterly banal. | | It was my dream to go work at Google; after fighting the hiring | system I was finally hired into Ads SRE and learned the | infrastructure, parlaid that into a very nice role doing | scientific computing using idle cycles, and even got to work with | 3d printing and making and stuff (like Hixie, all thanks to Chris | Dibona) as well as a number of state of the art machine learning | systems. There really was an amazing feeling being surrounded by | so many highly competent people (many of whom I see in this | post's comments) who had similar vision to mine. But ultimately, | so many things started to chip away at my enjoyment that I had to | leave. Middle management was a big part of that. | | Once you're on the outside, so many things that seem obvious | (borg, beyondcorp, flume, google3, etc) aren't. It's almost like | the future is here, it's not evenly distributed. | yifanl wrote: | The word would be "Kwisatz Haderach" ;) | gregw134 wrote: | Ex-googler here as well. What are you guys using instead of | flume for data pipelines? Beam on Spark? | hnthrowaway0315 wrote: | That experience sounds so great. How did you get hired? | paxys wrote: | Every bit of innovation in the AI space today originated at | Google. The company poured probably tens of billions into its | Brain division, sponsored and made public every bit of research, | and pretty much created the field of modern AI. So what was the | outcome? When the employees realized they had struck gold they | figured they'd rather go join startups or found their own | companies instead, because regardless of the amount of success | they achieved at Google they would never 1000x the share price or | be the ones calling the shots. | | This example is the perfect microcosm of the economics of | innovation at large companies. Google/Microsoft/Apple/Amazon and | the like have zero incentive to continue to be the companies they | were 20 years ago. They don't need to take risks. They don't need | to disrupt anything. They instead need leaders like Pichai who | will keep the ship steady and keep the shareholders happy, and | will keep investing in or purchasing smaller companies that are | either a threat or an opportunity for growth, all while keeping | their existing revenue streams flowing. | | If as an employee you are nostalgic about the "culture" in the | early days of such a company then you should realize that it is | not coming back, just like the carefree days of your own | childhood aren't coming back. Quit and join a smaller company | instead. | chubot wrote: | Not disagreeing with your larger point, but Google paid $40M+ | for the 3 people from U Toronto responsible for AlexNet | (according to Cade Metz's book). | | Google might deserve more credit than any other company, but | there were 20-30 years of innovation at universities | beforehand. | downWidOutaFite wrote: | Google is getting beat badly on multiple fronts, even Search, | and has pissed away a mountain of goodwill. It's living off of | declining 15 year old achievements. I wouldn't call Sundar a | steady hand, he has destroyed much more potential than he has | created, even if the stock has continued to go up it won't for | much longer. I sold a significant position in GOOG a few years | ago and I'm certain it was the right call. | paxys wrote: | They are getting "beat badly" only if you read tech blogs and | not their financial statements. | downWidOutaFite wrote: | Like I said, I put my money where my mouth is. GOOG's | monopoly-fueled glory days will soon be behind it. In tech, | if you stand still for too long you will eventually be left | behind. | bane wrote: | Microsoft under Balmer did great financially IIR. | paxys wrote: | Their stock price was flat for a decade, so no. The | company was a wreck financially under Ballmer. | izacus wrote: | Yeah, and they're still around, relevant and profitable. | What's your point? | kelnos wrote: | > _Every bit of innovation in the AI space today originated at | Google. The company poured probably tens of billions into its | Brain division, sponsored and made public every bit of | research, and pretty much created the field of modern AI. So | what was the outcome? When the employees realized they had | struck gold they figured they 'd rather go join startups or | found their own companies instead, because regardless of the | amount of success they achieved at Google they would never | 1000x the share price or be the ones calling the shots._ | | And that's a pretty strong indictment of Google! Googlers who | worked on this research and technology believed that they'd | have a better chance of doing something life-changing and | making some bank _outside_ of Google! While that isn 't all | that uncommon, it's also something Google could have taken | steps to prevent. Better culture, better compensation. It's a | huge risk to strike out on your own with something like this; | Google could have made it both safer and more lucrative (or at | least lucrative _enough_ ) to stay. But they didn't. | | > _If as an employee you are nostalgic about the "culture" in | the early days of such a company then you should realize that | it is not coming back, just like the carefree days of your own | childhood aren't coming back. Quit and join a smaller company | instead._ | | Couldn't agree more. Our brand of capitalism isn't set up to | allow for such corporate-culture time travel. | away271828 wrote: | Just the other week had a team meeting that was partly to | discuss a possible round 21 of team charter/organization | changes. Personally, I basically have bounced around multiple | rounds of managers/teams/responsibilities in just the past | few years. As the team lead philosophically said, many of you | (senior) folks have seen maybe 10x employee growth since you | joined and it's just a different company and the old one | isn't coming back. | paxys wrote: | It's not an indictment of Google but every large company in | existence. That's just how our current corporate structure | works, and is the reason entrepreneurship is a thing. | mepiethree wrote: | Yeah, and the other side of the coin is that there are tons | and tons of people who left Google to pursue their passions | and failed. And the third side of the coin is that there | are many people who invented things within Google, were | successful in doing so, and have stayed (e.g. Google Meet) | thethethethe wrote: | > many people who invented things within Google, were | successful in doing so, and have stayed | | Yeah there are tons of people like this that are L7-L8 | collecting around 1M TC. You'll always have a boss but | you can carve out a little kingdom for yourself, which is | much more appealing to more risk adverse people than | starting or joining a startup | nvrmnd wrote: | While it's easy to agree with you, I find that my opinion here | has shifted after leaving a large tech company for a seed stage | startup. Competing against these giant companies is really | challenging, you have to me more than 2x better to get a | customer to look at you a second time. | jra_samba wrote: | I used to "share" an office with Hixie at Google. Hixie used to | store his board game collection in the office we nominally | "shared", but he himself very rarely visited. I liked that just | fine (let's just say I'm not a fan of "open" shared office | spaces). My fondest Google office memories were sharing an office | with Hixie, and "Mr Big Printer" which the Google Open Source | Team used to print posters. We made an office CD label for "Mr | Big Printer". | codewiz wrote: | > Much of these problems with Google today stem from a lack of | visionary leadership from Sundar Pichai, and his clear lack of | interest in maintaining the cultural norms of early Google. | | I left 3 years ago for the same reason: I couldn't stand seeing | Google continue to decline under Sundar's leadership. | okdood64 wrote: | > it's surprising how often coincidences and mistakes can appear | malicious | | Seems just like the recent news where YouTube was intentionally | throttling Firefox, which turned out to be a not accurate | representation. | hcks wrote: | << Google workers are nice humans therefore the company is doing | good (tm) things >> | | Maybe it's time to stop drinking the koolaid. | thumbsup-_- wrote: | Wouldn't be surprised if he receives a subpoena to testify in | Google's anti-trust case | scamworld2 wrote: | Most large tech companies grew by >30% during the covid | lockdowns, so I don't think company culture is much of a priority | for them. | eigenvalue wrote: | None of this surprises me as an outsider. Google has been in | obvious, uncontrolled freefall for several years now. Search | barely works anymore, they squandered a massive lead in AI, they | are losing in cloud services, Android is so awful it kills me | when I have to use it for more than a few minutes. I can't think | of any good new projects or services that were created under | Sundar's tenure (maybe Colab was cool when it came out, but it | hasn't improved at all in years and is now badly lagging). And | their propensity to kill services without a thought has made it | so that any new service they introduce is met with eye rolls from | people who have been burned way too many times. | | The solution seems clear to me: they should acquire a really well | run, innovative smaller company and then replace all the top | executives with the new team. Sundar should be removed | immediately before he destroys even more value. And then they | need to do relentless cleaning up, quickly getting rid of | unproductive middle managers like the person described in this | post. That should give a burst of energy to demoralized devs. | | Then they need to desperately work to fix search so that it | doesn't suck so much that you need to add "reddit" to every query | to not get 100% blog spam. And they need to get their act | together and start very rapidly releasing impressive AI tools | that aren't worse than stuff from companies that are 1/100th of | the size. No matter what they do, I can't help but think their | sustainable earnings trajectory is headed downwards for the next | few years (they can continue to push short term earnings in | various ways but that will run out of steam soon enough); the | question is whether they can stop the decline. | Night_Thastus wrote: | >It's definitely not too late to heal Google. | | Yes, it is. This was inevitable. It's due to 3 factors: | | * Becoming publicly traded | | * Size | | * Scale of public and private use of products | | You cannot have a "don't be evil" company when these 3 are like | they are for Google and there is no going back. | jhaenchen wrote: | Says something rather concerning about our economy's ability to | innovate. Short term profits always end up eating at the core | like this. I see why Elon has kept several of his companies | private. The market lacks vision. | znpy wrote: | > The oft-mocked "don't be evil" truly was the guiding principle | of the company at the time | | It is oft-mocked precisely because it "was". | cat_plus_plus wrote: | I think the post is spot on, but I don't agree with naming names | especially when the other person doesn't get an opportunity to | tell their side of the story. What if Ian's manager posted her | own nasty missive criticizing him as an employee? Such things can | damage someone's future career without any fair process to sort | out the facts. I wouldn't at all be surprised that such manager | exists and is not being held accountable internally, but it would | be unfair to make conclusions based on unsubstantiated | accusations, | compiler-guy wrote: | In the past, such criticism of a leader would show up | internally via Googlegeist and the leader and their reports | would all know and possibly adjust. | | Cutting Googlegeist has knock on effects that create problems | like this. The rank and file no longer have a way to | communicate back up the chain honestly and things like this | come out. | antipaul wrote: | Snippets that stood out to me: | | Google's culture eroded. Decisions went from being made for the | benefit of users, to the benefit of Google, to the benefit of | whoever was making the decision | | The effects of layoffs are insidious... people can no longer | trust that their company has their back, and they dramatically | dial back any risk-taking. Responsibilities are guarded | jealously. Knowledge is hoarded, because making oneself | irreplaceable is the only lever one has to protect oneself from | future layoffs. I see all of this at Google now | rantee wrote: | Xoogler here - Totally agree that the bulging middle management | layers and lack of crisp CEO vision have dismantled the company's | ability to weather the changes of "growing up". Had a few | managers and multiple reorgs in my < two years there, during a | time of record profits. Peers said that wasn't an uncommon thing. | Who cares about vision or management so long as the ads money | printer goes brrr? | | Still, there are definitely people trying to do the right thing | for users despite frequent bu$iness side overrides, and IMO still | some best-of-breed products amongst the sprawling | graveyard/zombies. I could even get through to a real person at | Nest customer support a few weeks ago! | ainzzorl wrote: | When did it become acceptable to write things about other people | as he writes about Jeanine Banks? Even if everything he says | about her is true, it still feels incredibly rude to say it in | public. | artzmeister wrote: | You see a lot of people here in the comments, as well as the | author in the article, talking about how "there are good and | well-meaning people working at Google" and "it sucks that people | unfortunately hate us =(". A genuine question: if one is a good, | well intentioned human being, supposedly with principles, and | ends up actively contributing to a dystopia or at least a much | worse society, is that person excused because of "oh, the | leadership fell off!" or "because I had good intentions"? At all? | No, you'd be piled up with all the others that sold their morals | and their society for money. People think of a dystopia as if it | would come from an evil dictator, or a greedy corporate man, but | the reality is that the dystopia will come with a charismatic | smile and a promise of something better. You'd perhaps be right | to criticize my calling of it a "dystopia" (for now), but my | point stands. | munificent wrote: | _> A genuine question: if one is a good, well intentioned human | being, supposedly with principles, and ends up actively | contributing to a dystopia or at least a much worse society, is | that person excused because of "oh, the leadership fell off!" | or "because I had good intentions"? At all? No, you'd be piled | up with all the others that sold their morals and their society | for money._ | | The challenge is that we are all simultaneously part of many | groups whose behavior we don't always agree with. | | Should you be piled up with all the others because you're a | member of a species that is destroying the planet's natural | resources? Should you be piled up with all the others because | you pay taxes to a country that used that money to build | weapons that killed innocents? Should you be piled up because | you live in a city whose cops commit police brutality? Should | you be piled up because you bought a product and gave money to | a corporation that uses child labor? | | Life is not so black and white. We have some responsibility for | the behavior of the groups we are part of, but only fractional. | We should exert our agency towards good when we can, but | believing that we have _all_ of the stains on our hands of | every community or group we 've ever touched or participated in | is not a path to a better world, it's just a path to individual | shame and misery. | artzmeister wrote: | You're right, and it makes sense. Let me propose another | perspective then: would a well-meaning, good person not be | liable to culpability if he or she worked on a feature that | actively monitored its users for data to sell to advertisors, | much more than if such a person was working with something | like Flutter or Go, since the latter workers are doing net | positive things? | | I suppose I got a bit carried away originally, but the point | is just that - can one truly be well-meaning if he works in | such a feature as that of the first example? | | Moreover, when it comes to the examples you cited, I agree | that we all share fractional culpability, some more than | others. But we do not have a choice in being humans, or in | paying taxes to our governments. We do, however, have a | choice when it comes to working for Google. | SilverBirch wrote: | I think the conclusion is really interesting. Maybe this was just | well written, but I was thinking "What _should_ the CEO of Google | be pursuing as a strategy ", and then he drops the mission | statement. I don't know if the mission statement is the best | articulation of the goal. But it's a clear goal. And it's a goal | that Google aren't pursuing. It's an interesting goal in the | context of large language models. Now, more than ever, having a | accessible and organised store of credible information would be | incredibly valuable to me. I was literally saying this to someone | earlier today - the web today sucks. I google something, I click | the first link it's popup hell. I click through all the links on | the first page, half of them are the same information re-garbled | for Google. Boy, what I wouldn't pay to Google the web from 2010. | Just let me tick a box that says "Classic web" that excludes | anything published in the last 15 years. Well this post turned | into a rant... | xigency wrote: | > Well this post turned into a rant... | | You aren't wrong. Frankly, it's embarrassing. I could throw in | a bunch more complaints and the kitchen sink but the point is | we should expect better things from these companies and they | should expect more from themselves as well. | hbn wrote: | > Boy, what I wouldn't pay to Google the web from 2010. Just | let me tick a box that says "Classic web" that excludes | anything published in the last 15 years. | | I mean, you can add before:2011-01-01 to your search. | | But I'm not sure how accurate the publishing dates on every | page are. | neilv wrote: | I didn't see them mention rank&file careerism culture. | | Are they attributing the root cause to leadership, and believe | the old culture is merely dormant, or could be inspired in people | who never saw it, and who weren't hired for it? | neilv wrote: | Which companies today are the Google of 20 years ago? | dilyevsky wrote: | The stuff people say plagued google i've seen in much smaller | companies in the last few years. It's not Google it's the whole | damn industry | neilv wrote: | The industry has a lot of problems, but I remember when | Google was just starting, and it was obviously a place to go, | and for years after that it was obviously the place to go. | Hopefully there are some other obviously the place to go | companies now? | jhaenchen wrote: | Start by filtering out every publicly traded company. Eliminate | every company not still run by the founder. Nothing that's | about to IPO. Nothing involving ads. That's a start. | asim wrote: | "...She treats engineers as commodities in a way that is | dehumanising, reassigning people against their will in ways that | have no relationship to their skill set..." | | You know, I remember a time I said, management just think of | engineers as a resource and refer to us as such. But when the | word "dehumanising" is used it strikes me a lot clearer. When | this disconnected occurs between different layers of the same | corporation people just become a resource, they are no longer | humans , they are a means to an end, and that end doesn't even | serve the purpose of the company but the merits of that | individual. I really wish developers had a way to empower | themselves out of this hellscape. | jhaenchen wrote: | It's called a union. This is what will always happen as long as | the employees do not collectively bargain. Their strength in | numbers is completely neutered by a lack of organization. | janmo wrote: | "Then Google had layoffs. The layoffs were an unforced error | driven by a short-sighted drive to ensure the stock price would | keep growing quarter-to-quarter" | | Seems like they fired the Google Adsense support team. I have | been using Google Adsense for many years, and since last year | there is no way of contacting any support, there IS NO WAY, I | have lost over 10k in revenue because of it, and was only able to | get my problem fixed after 2 months by joining a third party | publisher network. | | Keep in mind that Adsense is one of Google's main sources income, | and that they take a 32% cut as an intermediary (So they have | ample money to pay for a 5 star support)! | dilyevsky wrote: | I doubt that retail adsense is very large - it's probably | mostly large enterprise deals where you do get your personal | poc for support and whatnot | janmo wrote: | You are probably right, because once I got accepted in the | network, they were able to get to talk to the Google | MCM/Adsense support and within one week I got MCM approved | and my Adsense account was reinstated. Hadn't they be there I | would still be stuck. | worik wrote: | A very interesting article | | Very interesting they were working on Flutter | | I have just spent 18 months with Dart, supporting Flutter | development | | I formed the view that Fludder (as I called it) was built by | brilliant engineers who were directionless. As a replacement for | Javascript it is an utter failure, sadly | | Made this a very interesting read | cubefox wrote: | He doesn't mention it, but it is curious that Google has | apparently also lost the lead in the AI race to OpenAI, after | being unquestionably on top for many years. PaLM 2 was inferior | to GPT-4, despite being younger, and Gemini is set to release a | whole year later. What's going on? | afjeafaj848 wrote: | Does it really matter though? Whatever OpenAI does google will | just copy and incorporate into GCP, similar to how they lost | the race with AWS | lapcat wrote: | > I found it quite frustrating how teams would be legitimately | actively pursuing ideas that would be good for the world, without | prioritising short-term Google interests, only to be met with | cynicism in the court of public opinion. | | > For my first nine years at Google I worked on HTML and related | standards (https://whatwg.org/). My mandate was to do the best | thing for the web, as whatever was good for the web would be good | for Google (I was explicitly told to ignore Google's interests). | | I feel as though Hixie is lacking in self-awareness here. | Googlers tend to be biased toward themselves and their own power. | Have Googlers considered the possibility that the best thing for | the web, and the world, is for Google to keep its grubby hands | off the web? Is Google Search's dominant market share good for | the web? And the market shares of Android, Chrome, and Gmail? I | would answer no, no, no, no. | | It's funny that Hixie mentions WHATWG (Web Hypertext Application | Technology Working Group) as a "good" example. What actually | happened is that Hixie was a ringleader in a coup d'etat by the | browser vendors to overthrow the W3C and take over the HTML | standards. Is that good for the web, and the world? Here I would | also say no. | mkozlows wrote: | I think this criticism of WHATWG forgets how moribund and | ossified W3C was at the time, up its own ass with semantic web | nonsense and an imaginary suite of XHTML 2.0 technologies that | had no path to reality. | | Hixie's criticisms of it were correct, and WHATWG was the kick | in the pants that the W3C needed to focus on relevant things | again. | lapcat wrote: | I think the fact that I'm bringing up the history shows that | I haven't forgotten. | | There are legimate disagreements over whether switching to | XML was a good idea. Nonetheless, these disagreements were | not a good excuse to overthrow W3C entirely, merely a | convenient excuse for the browser vendors. Moreover, I don't | think the HTML standards _need_ to move as fast as Google | wants them to move. HTML is now a "living standard", in | other words, constantly changing, and I don't think that's | good for the web. These things should move slowly. The giant | browser vendors themselves are selfishly the main | beneficiaries of forcing everyone else on the web to move at | their pace. It consolidates their monopolization of the web. | | > WHATWG was the kick in the pants that the W3C needed to | focus on relevant things again. | | Relevant things like... _not_ controlling the HTML standard | anymore? WHATWG has stolen a lot of the relevance of W3C. | Karrot_Kream wrote: | The WHATWG W3C kerfuffle perfectly illustrates that when an | unaccountable body's decisions become unpopular, another | body can meet popular demands and sidestep the body's work. | W3C was not taking HTML, XML, and XHTML in the directions | that most users of the Web wanted. The fact that semantic | web fans and the web-should-be-for-documents crowd agreed | with the W3C doesn't matter, they were outnumbered by the | rest. WHATWG met the demands of other devs and pushed the | W3C into irrelevance. Sometimes it takes more than feeling | right to be right, you need to convince others also. | ttepasse wrote: | ... another _unaccountable_ body | | And of course WHATWG didn't out-convince devs on a | marketplace of ideas; as an oligopoly of browser | developers they just did. | zellyn wrote: | There's definitely a period of history where noticing WHATWG | on a URL made me breathe a sigh of relief that the content | might actually be useful and understandable. | | These days, W3C stuff seems perfectly fine (except for their | standard document template making it almost impossible to | tell "what is this thing actually about?" at a glance! ) | throwaway678808 wrote: | Overall reasonable post, but thanking Chris DiBona in this post | honestly makes me question the whole narrative. When I was at | Google he was on the short list of petty tyrants to avoid at all | costs. Just a mean person having way too much fun running a tiny | Kingdom Of No. | darajava wrote: | Flutter is such a brilliant tool. Not just the framework, but | everything surrounding it. Tooling, the standard of cross | compatibility, pub.dev, the Dart language itself, the friendly | community... it's the best developer experience I've found and | this article makes me really hope that Google pulls through. | hintymad wrote: | > Much of these problems with Google today stem from a lack of | visionary leadership from Sundar Pichai, and his clear lack of | interest in maintaining the cultural norms of early Google | | One thing I find bizarre in Google is lack of accountability. If | someone builds a lousy product, we are not supposed to criticize | it, not even objectively. That's because, well you guessed it, | "it hurts feelings". Or per Pichai's words, "let's be | thoughtful". So many teams have instead learned to launch failed | products to advance their levels in Google. | tdeck wrote: | I don't think this began under Sundar. I remember that lack of | accountability under Larry also. | Lammy wrote: | > it's surprising how often coincidences and mistakes can appear | malicious | | Intent doesn't matter if the outcome is the same as intentional | malice. """Hanlon's razor""" is total bullshit. | mitthrowaway2 wrote: | The article mentions a very keen observation. There are lasting | consequences to over-hiring and then subsequently laying people | off; it doesn't bring the company back to the starting point: | | > The effects of layoffs are insidious. Whereas before people | might focus on the user, or at least their company, trusting that | doing the right thing will eventually be rewarded even if it's | not strictly part of their assigned duties, after a layoff people | can no longer trust that their company has their back, and they | dramatically dial back any risk-taking. Responsibilities are | guarded jealously. Knowledge is hoarded, because making oneself | irreplaceable is the only lever one has to protect oneself from | future layoffs. | _the_inflator wrote: | I give Hixie exactly this: he is not brownnosing and he openly | speaks up. There is nothing insulting from his side, and I | personally like people with the standards Hixie has. It sounds | like he acted internally in the same way which is fine. | | Hixie has seen some things at Google. | | I will be forever thankful to him for realizing HTML5. I read | many document changes back then and when people left out of | protest or whatever reason, Hixie kept things going in the right | direction. | | The web would not be what it is like without him. | boyesm wrote: | In 18 years from now, which company will have employees writing | blog posts like this about it? | | I hear amazing stories about the early days of Google and I can't | help but think, which engineering company that is in its infancy | right now will have employees reminiscing so fondly of the early | days? An AI startup? | xorvoid wrote: | Around 2008 when I was starting college, I was really excited | about Google and wanted to work there. By 2013 I began to feel | like they weren't the same anymore and no longer interested me. | By 2023, I can say that Not pursuing a job at Google was my best | career decision. You can go watch old Google Tech Talks circa | 2010 and they're fabulous. I can't imagine them putting out that | kind of content these days. It's rather sad, I bet 2005 Google | was a remarkable place that's now lost to time | pneill wrote: | I see these posts and just shrug. Tech companies have lifecycles. | There is that early startup energy where "we're all in this | together." Then, if they're lucky, success and growth, but the | startup mentality remains. But as the company grows, it can't | maintain the startup culture. It's simply not possible. And then | companies mature and you have bureaucracy and leaks and empire | building and layoffs, etc. It's inevitable. | | What surprises me about Google is not that its changing, but that | it's taken so long to change. | Ericson2314 wrote: | The corporate form is disappointing. Everything described is | inevitable. | | Puts me in a UBI + cooperatives mood. | TheCaptain4815 wrote: | "Responsibilities are guarded jealously. Knowledge is hoarded, | because making oneself irreplaceable is the only lever one has to | protect oneself from future layoffs. I see all of this at Google | now." | | My father, a machine mechanic, gave me the same advice years ago. | In my mind stuff like this only applied to blue collars so I | didn't give it too much thought. Only later did I realize (after | the company I was at became so mismanaged) he was 100% right. | lowbloodsugar wrote: | >Many times I saw Google criticised for actions that were | sincerely intended to be good for society. | | > Take Jeanine Banks, for example, ... Her understanding of what | her teams are doing is minimal at best; she frequently makes | requests that are completely incoherent and inapplicable. | | So, when Ian does sincere things that were intended to be good, | they get criticized for them unfairly. But this Jeanine Banks is | [fucking incompetent] and Ian could not possibly be an outsider | making the same mistake he claims everyone else is. | | Also seems like a defamation suit waiting to happen. | ChuckMcM wrote: | Great insight, Ian joined a year before I did and left 13 years | after I left :-). This stuck out for me though ... | | _Then Google had layoffs. The layoffs were an unforced error | driven by a short-sighted drive to ensure the stock price would | keep growing quarter-to-quarter, instead of following Google 's | erstwhile strategy of prioritising long-term success even if that | led to short-term losses (the very essence of "don't be evil"). | The effects of layoffs are insidious._ | | I think calling it an unforced error is generous. When I left in | 2010 I pointed out to Google that their falling CPC rates meant | that the profit margin on search advertising was eroding faster | than they were developing new income and faster than they were | reducing costs[1] and as a result they were going to find | themselves compromising their principles to appease wall street. | Before they laid off people they compromised every other | principle they had, they added advertising to places they earlier | boasted about not advertising, they started selling more and more | demographic information about their users to sketchier people. | All so they could show that revenue number going up and to the | right. | | I predicted they would lay off people a lot sooner than they | eventually did but I blame my misprediction on my | misunderstanding of just how much money they could develop when | they stopped worrying about whether or not it was good for their | users. I completely concur though with how a layoff really | changes people. I was at Intel when they did their first layoff | in 1984 and suddenly everyone's attitude changed to "how do I | stay off the layoff list?" That doesn't foster a creative, risk | taking culture. | | Someday the story of Google will make a good read, kind of like | 'Bad Blood' but where the enemy isn't a sociopathic leader but a | bunch of regular people who got addicted to being massively | wealthy and threw out all of their principles when that wealth | was threatened. Altruism of the rich is a function of their | excess wealth. | | [1] The primary reason I left was because the project I delivered | which saved them $10M/yr year-after-year was considered "not | significant" (read unpromotable). | jakubmazanec wrote: | > Many times I saw Google criticised for actions that were | sincerely intended to be good for society. Google Books, for | example. | | Yes, Google books was great endeavor that could benefit all | humanity. What happened to all those scans? Are they still stored | somewhere? | lopiar wrote: | This is the result of having leadership with MBA or finance | background instead of engineering. All they see is short term | money, product is a 2nd class citizen. | | This is what happened to the automotive industry. In the past | companies tried to build the best car. Now? Profit is all that | matters. | idlewords wrote: | The whole post is a good illustration of what made early Google | so insufferable. | Krontab wrote: | > Her understanding of what her teams are doing is minimal at | best; she frequently makes requests that are completely | incoherent and inapplicable. She treats engineers as commodities | in a way that is dehumanising, reassigning people against their | will in ways that have no relationship to their skill set. | | I worked under a VP at a job once who was exactly like this when | I was a manager. Truly one of the most demoralizing experiences; | always trying to do the best for the people under you and sheild | them from this kind of nonsense, but in middle management you can | only do so much _sigh_. | AlbertCory wrote: | Slight change of company name for anyone interested: | | I'm currently finishing this book by an unabashed fan boy: | | https://www.amazon.com/Bill-Dave-Hewlett-Packard-Greatest/dp...? | | about how HP went from the coolest company in the world (50's and | 60's) to dorky old mediocre place that | Fiorina/Hurd/Apotheker/Whitman just finished the destruction that | was already underway. | | Like a lot of Valley folks, I blamed Carly, but some other long | time HP'ers said it was already in process of destroying itself. | And while people like to hold up IBM as the canonical bad example | for Microsoft and then Google, HP could equally well play that | role. | | I think. Still pondering this one. | zem wrote: | I was surprised to see him savage Jeanine Banks by name like | that, but if this bit is true I can at least understand the | impulse: "She treats engineers as commodities in a way that is | dehumanising, reassigning people against their will in ways that | have no relationship to their skill set." | | as another longish-term google employee, the one thing I | absolutely depend on among all the org and culture changes is the | ability to have a fair bit of choice and input when it comes to | the specific projects I am working on, where the company can | trust me to pick something that will work with my skills and | interests and also align with the team and department objectives. | losing that would likely impact me more than any of the other | changes over the last 12 or so years I've been here. | whoknowsidont wrote: | At some point we really need to admit our domain (and maybe | society at large) is in a "Managerial Crisis." | axiomdata316 wrote: | Interesting to read this as an outsider and to pretty much | confirm what you suspected. Very interesting is the take on Vic | Gundotra. I knew him briefly on a personal level and he came | across as a nice guy but you don't want to cross him. The comment | on how he doesn't do well when things go wrong lines up perfectly | with what my impressions were of him. | google234123 wrote: | Honestly, Flutter, Dart, Go, dont provide much for Google in my | opinion. Google shouldn't be wasting money on them | RivieraKid wrote: | I work at a company that is very similar to Google (similar | products, similar age, founder not there anymore - he's busy with | windy.com now) and it's funny how similar my feelings are. | | What I think is happening is that the best people tend to leave, | and those who prefer safety and are fine with the corporate | environment as long as they're getting paid tend to stay or join. | I doubt this downward spiral to mediocrity can be reversed. | | I actually can't decide what would be the best strategy from the | CEO's point of view. I.e. how best to govern an aging, | established tech company like Google? I really like what Aswath | Damodaran said about Google - there's a "sugar daddy effect" - | the various departments lack desperation to make it, unlike | startups. | refulgentis wrote: | This is really really incisive, I almost shivered: I went | through a "defrag" from Android Wear to Android (i.e. they shut | down Boston Android Wear and offered us jobs on Boston Android) | | I was over the moon because I was a more traditional tech nerd | and felt I had really lucked out, coming in as an iOS | programmer and ended up at the core of Android UI. | | We lost half the team in that transition to other things, the | vast majority of that 50% transferred to other things within | Google. | | That occurred exactly along the lines you mention, with some | side help of them accepting there was something genuinely wrong | with Android's culture that needed to be avoided, as Ian | mentions. | | That self-selection combined with the...qualities...of Android | completely changed the job. For the first time at Google I was | working with people who genuinely, firmly, at their core, had | no real interest in anything except the paycheck. I do believe | this is very well-adjusted and have a hard time explaining the | feeling and what it leads to without sounding derogetary. Your | post does such an excellent job of pointing at it. | RivieraKid wrote: | Thanks. What also surprises me is that coworkers have little | desire to start side-projects or startups. But that's | probably because those who do have left already. | | By the way, I was developing for Android since its early days | (before the first Android phone was released) and mostly | switched to iOS development few years ago. | | I have to say that the Android SDK (and the UI/UX too) was | underwhelming, although it started to get better at some | point. It felt like the developers were not top talent and / | or were under pressure to ship functionality quickly without | having the time to step back and think hard about design and | simplicity. The most notable example of this is the activity | / fragment lifecycle (also known as the "lolcycle"). | knorker wrote: | > Much of these problems with Google today stem from a lack of | visionary leadership from Sundar Pichai, and his clear lack of | interest in maintaining the cultural norms of early Google | | These are the Balmer years. Or as we'll start saying in a few | years: The Sundar years. | next_xibalba wrote: | > A symptom of this is the spreading contingent of inept middle | management. Take Jeanine Banks, for example | | Wow. Shots fired. | | More seriously, his description of this manager has been my | typical experience of managers in large companies. Very sad to | see what Google has become. | hubraumhugo wrote: | First thing I noticed were the Swiss trains :) I guess Google is | pretty big in Zurich by now? I remember the beginnings of Google | maps here | mrb wrote: | I too believe the company has entered a phase of stagnancy or | even decline. In fact, so much that two weeks ago I put my money | where my mouth is by selling $1M worth of GOOG I was given as | part of a stock grant when I was hired by Google in 2014. (I | promptly reinvested this capital in a generic S&P 500 index | fund.) | | From 2014 to mid 2015, when I quit, I found Google had a great | engineering culture and I loved my time at the company, but I was | having gut feelings of the start of a decline. I saw engineering | hires who weren't so skilled. I saw Larry and Sergei seemingly | lack the spark in their eyes when giving candid answers at our | TGIF meetings. I saw a buildup of red tape and overhead. Then, | long after quitting Google, more problems crop up. In the last | year or so I saw a noticeable decline in the quality of Google | search engine results. In the last 2 months I saw an even more | noticeable decrease of the quality of Gmail's spam filters (today | I get ~10 spams daily out of ~50 legitimate emails.) I keep | stumbling on more and more annoying bugs in Google's Android apps | that remain unfixed for years. | | No one knows how long this stagnancy or decline is going to last. | In the case of Microsoft they have stagnated (IMHO because of | Ballmer) roughly between 2005 and 2017 (6% annual revenue growth | on average). Since 2017, thanks to Satya Nadella's turnaround, | their annual revenue growth was 13% on average. I think Google | needs to see leadership change to whip the company back into | shape. But this probably won't happen for another few years. | There is so much inertia in market forces of a huge mastodon like | Google that it will take another couple years for such sub-par | products and services quality to start noticeably affecting | revenue growth. That inertia is the same reason it took 3 years | of Nadella as CEO before Microsoft saw revenue growth starting to | bounce back up. | greatgib wrote: | I think this guy has a Stockholm syndrom like I saw multiple | times with Google employees: ; one of the most | annoying is the prevalence of pointless cookie warnings we have | to wade through today. I found it quite frustrating how teams | would be legitimately actively pursuing ideas that would be good | for the world, without prioritising short-term Google interests, | only to be met with cynicism in the court of public opinion. | | That is very fun because he thinks that they were trying to do | good for the world but all was messed up because of cookie | banners. Where, in fact, doing good for the world would have been | to not abuse of cookies for tracking and evil use that would mean | that they would not need bad cookies and would not have been | needed to produce cookie banners... | mclanett wrote: | Interesting to hear the author complain about Android, which | today is held up as the one part of Google which knows how to | ship product. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-11-22 23:00 UTC)