Google to reduce workforce by 12k

Post by htag » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 5:47 PM UTC

ok123456 wrote: post #771

sangnoir wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does he really believe this? I believe it: the Google of 2008 would have been completely buried by the flood of ChatGPT-generated bullshit SEO spam. What they have today is the best version of Google to date, so it's still floating, not just as high as it once was in less adversarial times.

Really? Often, the top links are AI generated spam that, while somewhat relevant to whatever you searched for, sounds like it was written by a high school student trying to pad the word count for a few pages.

Post by citrin_ru » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 5:47 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #527

citrin_ru wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising revenue is sensitive but number of engineer Google needs is not proportional to amount of ads they show. It's not like Amazon where if people order less they need less workers at fulfillment centers and less track drivers. And Google still profitable and can afford to keep headcount as an investment into future. Or they have no plans which spans more than a quarter?

Google can afford to spend many billions on any unprofitable cause they wish, instead of maximising profit. I don't think they should. But if they did, I'd hope they'd focus on more worthy causes than paying US engineers $300k/year.

Post by lazide » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 5:49 PM UTC

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #681

nvarsj wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny to me because this has been happening in tech a long time and is happening to the current giants. The old giants like IBM, GE, Motorola, etc. all suffered similar fates. And it's been discussed ad nauseum by disgruntled engineers who then go and make new companies/start ups to get away from the "suits". It's called "Takeover by MBA". You know it's happened when you start hearing phrases like "Cut costs", "…

Jack Welch was a PhD chemical engineer, not an MBA.

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 5:51 PM UTC

whymauri wrote: post #619

xiphias2 wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google of 2008 didn't do this, I was there. The difference is that current Google is full of non-tech non-sales people who fight with eachother to reorganize tech people who are trying to build things. Other tech people change the API for no reason and give work to 1000 more people to ,,upgrade to the newer system'' and stop maintaining the old system. Also the new CEO is not a software engineer, so he doesn't unders…

The MBAification of Google.

Post by ROTMetro » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 5:54 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #691

insane_dreamer wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another comment on this: don't forget that no matter what these CEOs say about their workforce, we're family blah blah blah, they are first and foremost beholden to their shareholders. The very purpose of a capitalist corporation is to serve the interests of its shareholders, aka make more money; everything else is secondary.

This is called "shareholder primacy" and it's more of an ideology than an actual legal requirement. It's going to be true to the extent that the company leadership believes it's true, and a lot of different strategies could be justified as serving the shareholders in the long run. Matt Levine has written a few columns about how this works out in practice, or doesn't.