Live data from Hacker News

Why I Left Google

blogs.msdn.com

161–170 of 322 posts

Re: Why I Left Google

#161
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree the responses seem a bit harsh. Also as someone who never worked at Google but has been a pretty big Google "fanboy" (of the search, Google Apps, Android, etc) his waning enthusiasm for the brand as an employee seems to have taken a very similar dip to my waning enthusiasm for them as a user, though due to personal investment his dip was probably faster and deeper than my own. I've loved Google in the past pr…

"I've loved Google in the past precisely because they weren't Apple and they weren't Facebook." I absolutely do not understand this frame of mind. Why not just like a company for its products, rather than liking them because they're "not" some other company? Life is too short to get caught up in the identity politics of corporations. Google is a business, not your buddy.

Because the side effects of my decisions matter? If the 'identity' of a company is providing good products and doing something negative, then by buying their products I'm helping them do the negative thing.

By buying Apple products I'm, for example, supporting needless patent aggression. I may still choose to buy from them anyway because I find their products so good it's worth the hit, but I don't see any sense in ignoring a company's wider effect upon society - by doing so you're removing any incentive for them to behave positively.

Re: Why I Left Google

#162
post #126

I do miss the old Google. They had some good products. Search was search, and it was clearly designed to provide the very best search possible. Unadulterated and honest. Same story with Gmail, despite the ads. No lock in, no rent-seeking. Too bad, really. The new Google is obnoxious in a "why-are-you-doing-this?", Facebook kind of way.

I would put the difference this way. I used to feel like Google was providing me cool, useful services. Now I feel like Google is trying to figure out ways to collect my data. I think they will learn to their cost that trust doesn't grow back.

This pretty much sums up my feeling about Google, too. It's the same feeling that made me stop using Facebook.

Re: Why I Left Google

#163
post #124

Ouch. Not enough people think about year 10. You know, that's when you're 10 years old as a company and you've got a lot of huge successes behind you. Kind of like teenagers when they realize that finding a job is suddenly not an 'optional' thing in their lives. James' rant here reminded me of a similar rant I read (internally) at Sun on its 10 year anniversary. They had published a book all about Sun's first decade,…

Clayton Christensen's "The Innovator's Dilemma" was motivated by DEC getting killed. He claims that DEC was a victim of a disruption: a new technology that offered something that didn't seem to be a threat, become successful in other markets and eventually improved enough that it was threat - then it was too late. There, the old technology was minicomputers; the new technology was workstations. The new technology isn…

[deleted]

Re: Why I Left Google

#164
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust. If you invest time/money in something, you want to have a good feeling about it. I want to know I'm not going to get screwed down the road. I think of if like a relationship with person. Do you want to be friends/lovers with a thief/liar/cheater? Reputation matters.

"I think of if like a relationship with person. Do you want to be friends/lovers with a thief/liar/cheater? Reputation matters." It's entirely possible to have good feelings about products, value the reputations of brands, and trust companies (or not) without getting caught up in politics. I like Whole Foods because they have really good produce, not because they're "not Safeway". You don't have to choose sides in a…

It's not necessarily always about 'choosing sides'. We are at the point where buying a product from one of these large companies no longer simply means "buying a product" (like you would produce at a Whole Foods). Popular tech products are so intertwined with their parent companies, that it basically implies more of a wager. As a user, when you make a purchase, you place a bet that in your commitment to use this product, the company behind it won't do something that will decrease the enjoyment/utility you get out of the product during its lifecycle. Now this doesn't have to be some new policy/action that literally occurred after your purchase, but rather something that was not obvious upon purchase, and might not even have to do directly with the product itself. Either way, this type of assessment still fits into what you're saying about evaluating a product on it's own merits, but at a certain point, the politics behind a product actually DO affect the product's merit, because they are so intertwined.

In my case for example, I just recently got bit by the fact that iPads are restricted to syncing with only one computer while I was developing an app for it. The iPad on its own is a fine piece of hardware, and is a generally nice product, but this one detail devalued it for me significantly. Can you honestly say this detail is completely detached from the fact that it is an apple product? I wouldn't think so, that move is completely expected from apple; it's part of the locked-down ecosystem you buy into with apple products. I actually like apple's products 'on their own', because they are well made and have attention to detail; however, I will [most likely] never again buy one due to apple's aforementioned politics, which directly affect my experience with their products as a user. Similar thing happened with Samsung/T-mobile and my Vibrant which they never even updated Gingerbread; awesome product on its own, but the service I got with it (part of my 'experience') was poor, and totally determined by the politics behind it.

So while it might be easy to detangle product from company for something as simple as produce, it gets a bit trickier when looking to purchase a longer-term tech product. If you're ok with lock-down, and/or lack of updates, that's great, Apple and Samsung products are totally awesome, they're just not for me.

Re: Why I Left Google

#165
To understand why Google isn't what it used to be, one has to understand what happened in 2009-2011. This is the era when Google decided to get "real managers" and they hired a bunch of executives from places like Oracle, IBM, and Intel. If Google had told them to wipe their fucking feet off before tracking shitty culture into the place, it might have survived. It didn't.

Google has an immense amount of talent "under its roof". Unfortunately, there's a necrotic layer of useless and counterproductive middle management coming up with a series of "innovations" that each have made the company worse. For a few examples:

* 20% time is dead. It requires managerial approval. More on that later.

* Until recently, people were hired "between levels" on the engineering ladder (which is generally a disaster at Google; see this: http://piaw.blogspot.com/2010/04/promotion-systems.html) and then about 2/3 of them were "downslotted" to a lower level. It didn't affect their pay, but it blocked future raises, was a career kiss-of-death, and generally shat all over morale. What's amazing to me is that no one ever said, before this bit of syphilitic idiocy could reach implementation, "This is a terrible idea and you need to stop abusing cough syrup on the job." Fucking California culture, man. In New York, terrible ideas cause buildings to fall down kill people and so we refuse to tolerate them. Unfortunately, Google's executives seemed to lack the insight to recognize an obviously horrible idea as horrible. (Downslotting was abolished last year, but I'm astonished that such idiocy got in the door in the first place.)

* Engineers (not just managers) literally drop everything for 1-2 weeks each year to write "Perf" (for themselves and peers). The high-stakes performance review process is just that important.

* Google is resistant to any change that might improve engineer productivity beyond the rather plodding rate it has now. C++ and Java are the real house languages; Scala's not even on the table. Python is listed as a house language so Google can still hire people but it's rarely used and nearly deprecated in production.

* Managers have free rein to fuck over an employee in Perf if they believe him to be "distracted" or at risk of future distraction by 20% time, even if that employee's performance is otherwise strong. This doesn't make Google any worse or any different from more traditionally managed companies. It does deprive them of the right to market 20% time as a perk without being called out as liars.

* Last summer, it was announced that every employee had to have a 3-word "mission statement" that managers could change, and a 63-word quarterly summaries of their work. This was the infamous "7/20" all-hands in which the deprecation of 20%-time was announced.

* HR ignores severe ethical lapses by influential managers, including a person who was outright proven to be using low performance scores and PIPs (Performance Improvement Plans, which stop transfers) to block transfers.

To make it clear, Google still has some really great people and could turn itself around if it just fired most of the middle layers. The company still has an incredible number of immensely talented engineers of whom I think quite highly, but the company is so horribly managed that I see nothing but a cold, miserable twilight in its future.

Re: Why I Left Google

#166
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Please enlighten me, what is Google+ (or Facebook for that matter) about if it isn't about advertising? Because as far as I know, every service that isn't about being so great people would pay for it is about advertising and nothing else.

Facebook is winning advertising because they have 750 Million users. Facebook wasn't created for advertising so much as advertising was the logical way to profit from having that many people use your product. Google certainly is motivated to compete with Facebook for that advertising revenue but their real motivation is just the user base which I'm sure they already have they just haven't been able to convert them to…

Facebook isn't winning advertising.

How many users do you think Google has? I'm not talking about Google+, I'm talking about Google products, in general, including search.

Re: Why I Left Google

#167

To understand why Google isn't what it used to be, one has to understand what happened in 2009-2011. This is the era when Google decided to get "real managers" and they hired a bunch of executives from places like Oracle, IBM, and Intel. If Google had told them to wipe their fucking feet off before tracking shitty culture into the place, it might have survived. It didn't. Google has an immense amount of talent "under…

> I see nothing but a cold, miserable twilight in its future

GOOG profits are still growing, and they still control online search which I think will remain a huge cash cow for a long time.

Re: Why I Left Google

#168
post #167

To understand why Google isn't what it used to be, one has to understand what happened in 2009-2011. This is the era when Google decided to get "real managers" and they hired a bunch of executives from places like Oracle, IBM, and Intel. If Google had told them to wipe their fucking feet off before tracking shitty culture into the place, it might have survived. It didn't. Google has an immense amount of talent "under…

> I see nothing but a cold, miserable twilight in its future GOOG profits are still growing, and they still control online search which I think will remain a huge cash cow for a long time.

Channeling Paul Graham: "Microsoft is dead" != "Microsoft is going to be out of business tomorrow". Same with Google. Yes, that company will be around for 50 years, but what Google used to be is gone.

Honestly, I've worked both on Wall Street and at Google. Individual people at Google are nicer, but the careerism and mentality (among people who want to move up) are nearly identical.

Re: Why I Left Google

#169
" As the trappings of entrepreneurship were dismantled, derisive talk of the “old Google” and its feeble attempts at competing with Facebook surfaced to justify a “new Google” that promised “more wood behind fewer arrows.”"

Simply put, Google stopped investing in it's future through building entrepreneurship in its engineering ranks. This is bad for Google's future growth prospects, full stop. They've drawn a line in the sand "we're about ads, not technology innovation!" and that is where the company will slowly age and die.

Google is no longer about where it's going, but about how it ages.

Re: Why I Left Google

#170
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, say what you will about Microsoft, but their business model is primarily to sell technology. Google's business model is to use technology to sell ads.

But remember, you are Microsoft's product, not their customer. When you demand to use Windows, it means that the OEMs have to negotiate Windows licenses for new computers, or you'll buy some other OEM's box. That means the OEM is the customer that Microsoft gets money from, meaning you are only tangentially important. (The Office market is the same way: Office is sold as being the "don't retrain your staff" solution.…

quite right, but "you are the product" is obviously even more true of Google, selling you to advertisers, right?

Microsoft just wants you to want their product. Google wants to know everything about you so they can sell you to advertisers.

More and more, to all companies, especially tech companies, we are commodities to be sold.

Post reply on HN