291–300 of 543 posts
I mean are you surprised by this? Companies do not exist for the benefit of labor, they exist for the benefit of shareholders. Why is this even considered news?
How does paying a CEO so much money benefit the shareholders? Do you honestly feel there aren’t millions of people that could do his job (and likely better) for a fraction of what he was paid?
The upper management at Google are so lucky that the company is filled with timid people who are averse to change and didn't unionize. Now they can safely siphon the profits for another several years until they inevitably drive the company into the ground when the ad revenue dries up, and they move to similar positions at other places with healthy revenue streams. And the rank-and-file Googlers will defend this becau…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The definition of working class is making their income from selling their labor as opposed to from capital. Everything else is an implementation detail.
I think it’s pretty ignorant to think a staff software engineer at Google and the cleaning lady are in the same boat
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if you have a visa to worry about. Doesn’t matter how much money you have then. You need another job in 30 days or you and your entire family are at risk.
So, they can take their pile of cash and return to their native country and live like kings?
I simply don’t see what good this CEO has done. He’s destroyed googles reputation with developers. Destroyed customer trust in Google products. Done nothing to fix googles reputation for terrible customer service. Led Google to third place in cloud computing. AND been thrashed by Microsoft / ChatGPT, putting Googles core business at risk. Why is this guy CEO?
Perhaps having a good reputation with developers won't be as important in the upcoming years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He has been CEO since 2015. Would it be a stretch to blame him for the current company culture of nurturing new products left and right just to kill them off after 3-5 years?
>>> current company culture of nurturing new products left and right just to kill them off after 3-5 years? This predates Sundar's stint. Reader was only the first one, but this culture of killing products is in Google's DNA itself.
I simply don’t see what good this CEO has done. He’s destroyed googles reputation with developers. Destroyed customer trust in Google products. Done nothing to fix googles reputation for terrible customer service. Led Google to third place in cloud computing. AND been thrashed by Microsoft / ChatGPT, putting Googles core business at risk. Why is this guy CEO?
Sundar became CEO at a time when Google needed a leader who could build consensus across different product areas. Sundar was the right person for this role. Unfortunately Sundar is also relatively weak at setting a bold vision to ensure the company continues to grow and innovate, as Larry had done. So under Sundar the company has slowly shifted from being innovative to being very risk averse, incentivising not making…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He’s destroyed googles reputation with developers. He has? How did he do that? Literally, curious, first I've heard of it. > Led Google to third place in cloud computing. You don't need to be number 1 to make a profit. > AND been thrashed by Microsoft / ChatGPT, putting Googles core business at risk. I suspect you think google search is their core business. When it's ads. Also, just because Microsoft is ahead just…
> You don't need to be number 1 to make a profit. GCP is not profitable, though. Or at least, was reported as not being during this calendar year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he cares deeply about the company and its mission, he just lacks the ability to be a bold and decisive leader. This can be a good thing in some cases (he is good at building consensus for example), but can also be harmful.
A quick Google (natch!) suggests that the company mission is: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Does he "care deeply" about this? If we look at the direction they've taken in recent years, and the products they've launched (and/or killed) - how many of them demonstrate a "deep care" about this mission? How many of them are even tangentially related to this mission? (…
Google’s mission is to display ads on everything. Organizing information is just an optional side quest when it enables the former.
If anything the issue is that Google remains vastly overbloated. The large tech companies have been hoarding very skilled people and letting their abilities atrophy, trapped by high pay. It’s bad for Silicon Valley, bad for the individuals, and bad for progress.
Bad for individuals? A decent number of them are able to retire at 35-40. That's awesome for individuals.