I honestly don't see anything wrong with it. Facebook is the favorite to be here for many years to come. You would have to believe that on top of stock options these individuals are getting paid quite a bit more money to switch. Maybe it's the though of getting to work for Facebook during the time when it was fun to work for Google years ago.
1 in 5 Facebook Employees Worked at Google
11–20 of 37 posts
Re: 1 in 5 Facebook Employees Worked at Google
#12here's a shocking revelation: facebook is pre-IPO and employees who get stock options stand to make a decent amount of money.
i know it's almost taboo around here to suggest that someone could even consider switching jobs for better pay/more potential stock upside vs. considering only some sort of imaginary "passion" for their job, but that's how it works.
Re: 1 in 5 Facebook Employees Worked at Google
#13The bottom line is this - if you were to place a bet (as in betting your career) on which company will be dominant 20 years from now and which will become yet another dying Internet fad, I'd bet in favor of Facebook. Absolutely everyone overestimates Google's chances of continuing to dominate forever.
Do you really think so? Google handily passes the "actually does something useful" test. Facebook, not so much.
Re: 1 in 5 Facebook Employees Worked at Google
#14The bottom line is this - if you were to place a bet (as in betting your career) on which company will be dominant 20 years from now and which will become yet another dying Internet fad, I'd bet in favor of Facebook. Absolutely everyone overestimates Google's chances of continuing to dominate forever.
Do you really think so? Google handily passes the "actually does something useful" test. Facebook, not so much.
Facebook has about a million times stronger lock-in though.
Changing my primary search engine requires no effort at all on my point, and I lose practically nothing by doing so.
Gmail is probably Google's most-likely-to-last product.
Re: 1 in 5 Facebook Employees Worked at Google
#15The bottom line is this - if you were to place a bet (as in betting your career) on which company will be dominant 20 years from now and which will become yet another dying Internet fad, I'd bet in favor of Facebook. Absolutely everyone overestimates Google's chances of continuing to dominate forever.
Do you really think so? Google handily passes the "actually does something useful" test. Facebook, not so much.
One way of looking at it: Facebook has changed the way people communicate and socialize with each other. I think in some ways that is more fundamental than what Google has done - change the way people search. Furthermore, Google has seemed to have trouble innovating in the past couple years, but Facebook has been accelerating the pace of its innovations.
Re: 1 in 5 Facebook Employees Worked at Google
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really think so? Google handily passes the "actually does something useful" test. Facebook, not so much.
Facebook has about a million times stronger lock-in though. Changing my primary search engine requires no effort at all on my point, and I lose practically nothing by doing so. Gmail is probably Google's most-likely-to-last product.
Social Network sites have come and gone, e.g. MySpace, Bebo, etc. Lock-in to social network sites isn't so big a deal.
Also, people might want to change from Facebook, now that their employers and parents are on it.
Re: 1 in 5 Facebook Employees Worked at Google
#17The bottom line is this - if you were to place a bet (as in betting your career) on which company will be dominant 20 years from now and which will become yet another dying Internet fad, I'd bet in favor of Facebook. Absolutely everyone overestimates Google's chances of continuing to dominate forever.
Let's see, looking back at 1990... I'd bet on neither , but I sure wouldn't bet on the one far more easily replaced by a distributed secure system. Diaspora may seem like a joke now, but 20 years of development on Diaspora('s great grandchild)? Getting a standardized distributed social networking account will be like getting an email address is today.
If we compare whether Facebook or Google can be more easily replaced I could argue that Google has a higher chance of being replaced because some startup can come along and build a better search engine for less than 1% of what it cost Google. Whereas I don't see Diaspora really being much different than a Jabber protocol with social networking features. Jabber didn't kill any instant messager protocol, it just further fragmented the instant messager market, which is now dominated by Facebook because of it's critical mass.
You're forgetting that open standards can also threaten Google's entire business model. Semantic Web standards (and related technologies being worked on) will eventually make conventional search engines like Google completely obsolete.
Re: 1 in 5 Facebook Employees Worked at Google
#18The bottom line is this - if you were to place a bet (as in betting your career) on which company will be dominant 20 years from now and which will become yet another dying Internet fad, I'd bet in favor of Facebook. Absolutely everyone overestimates Google's chances of continuing to dominate forever.
> The bottom line is this - if you were to place a bet (as in betting your career) on which company will be dominant 20 years from now and which will become yet another dying Internet fad, I'd bet in favor of Facebook. You statement is ambiguous; it doesn't say whether facebook will be the former or the latter. (my take is it could easily go either way).
Ugh, I hate arguing grammar.
Technically what I said was not ambiguous.
If you quote the first sentence alone, it could only be considered ambiguous if you consider "dying internet fad" as a favorable bet. My 2nd sentence confirms my intent.
Re: 1 in 5 Facebook Employees Worked at Google
#19The bottom line is this - if you were to place a bet (as in betting your career) on which company will be dominant 20 years from now and which will become yet another dying Internet fad, I'd bet in favor of Facebook. Absolutely everyone overestimates Google's chances of continuing to dominate forever.
Companies that will dominate 20 years from now won't exist for another 19 years, so..
So it takes a year to go from zero to a position of global dominance?