Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

ln.hixie.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#451

Post by jhaenchen »

asim wrote: post #239

"...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 corpora…

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.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#452

Post by 121789 »

teen wrote: post #443
e_y_ wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beyon…

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.

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

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#453

Post by cmrdporcupine »

throwaway678808 wrote: post #265
drubio wrote: post #117

> 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 m…

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…

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.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#454

Post by mk89 »

teen wrote: post #443
e_y_ wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beyon…

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.

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.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#455

Post by kevmo314 »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #214
pardoned_turkey wrote: post #86

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 d…

> ... 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 wit…

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.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#456

Post by axiomdata316 »

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.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#457

Post by jhaenchen »

occz wrote: post #103

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?

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.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#458

Post by zepearl »

pardoned_turkey wrote: post #86

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 d…

> 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...).

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#459

Post by gedy »

teen wrote: post #443
e_y_ wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 beyon…

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.

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.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#460

Post by jhaenchen »

Night_Thastus wrote: post #199

>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.

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.
Post reply on HN