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

Why I left Google (2012)

blogs.msdn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 122 posts

Re: Why I left Google (2012)

#111

Post by anotherbadlogin »

numbsafari wrote: post #17
niggler wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I look at it as a more public exit interview. I don't doubt that his expressed concerns were part of why he did leave (I also don't doubt that there are other factors)), and by making those concerns public there's a chance that more people may see it and try to rectify the problems.

Yeah, but in the entire history of people quitting and writing "letters to the editor", has any manager ever actually read it and thought anything other than "whatever, dude wasn't on board, glad he left"? Do you really think Sergey Brin or Larry Page or Eric Schmidt are going to read this and think "oh man, we better change what we're doing". Nope. People who are fans of MS are going to read it and say "yeah, see, I…

"Do you really think Sergey Brin or Larry Page or Eric Schmidt are going to read this and think "oh man, we better change what we're doing". Nope."

So, what's YOUR plan?

Re: Why I left Google (2012)

#112

Post by photorized »

dgreensp wrote: post #99
jonnathanson wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than 97% of Google's revenues have always come from advertising (give or take a few percentage points). This goes back to the pre-IPO days. It's all well and good to say that Google is about "pushing the limits of human knowledge," but when you're a public company with a responsibility to generate return on capital, you need to protect and grow the golden goose. Now, it's perfectly valid -- maybe even necessary…

I disagree. I worked at Google for a year in 2010, around the time of the first reorgs around social. They were decimating teams like Calendar, Sites, and other products with millions of users that were stagnating, as far as they were concerned, and building a team 200-strong to take on "social" -- whatever that means. We joked that no one at Google knew what it meant. We felt Google was deeply clueless about the nat…

The only way Google can get a bigger slice of "social" is if they invent and build something so subtle, so out-of-the-way, so unobtrusive... that people don't realize they are using it.

Instead, they've been very forceful with their attempts to bring people in (Google+ is a great example), and that's clearly not working. It's bad enough that people scrutinize their every move (evil, too much data, etc), but to make matters worse, Google then starts acting like a used car salesman.

It really is a shame.

Re: Why I left Google (2012)

#113

Post by photorized »

meerita wrote: post #53
wslh wrote: post #2

Are Google's driverless car just a way to show more ads? Instead of driving a car you could be watching an ad.

And Google Glasses? Chromebook? Nexus? Jesus this guy is plainly wrong.

Glass doesn't have a compelling use case yet. At least they have not unveiled it.

With iPad, for example, it was very clearly positioned as a media consumption device from the very beginning.

With Google Glass, potential customers are being asked to brainstorm what they would do if they had Glass.

Does not seem particularly innovative to me.

Re: Why I left Google (2012)

#114

Post by dgreensp »

jonnathanson wrote: post #102
dgreensp wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I worked at Google for a year in 2010, around the time of the first reorgs around social. They were decimating teams like Calendar, Sites, and other products with millions of users that were stagnating, as far as they were concerned, and building a team 200-strong to take on "social" -- whatever that means. We joked that no one at Google knew what it meant. We felt Google was deeply clueless about the nat…

"In fact, if you're looking for hindsight vs reality, I don't think Google and Facebook really were competitors -- until Google decided to build a copy of Facebook's product." Respectfully, I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Google saw Facebook as a potential identity platform and de facto backend for the entire web. It might have been paranoid in its assumptions of just how much of Google's lunch Face…

Google saw Facebook as a potential identity platform and de facto backend for the entire web. It might have been paranoid in its assumptions of just how much of Google's lunch Facebook could have eaten -- but the move into social was very much a defensive move, not an offensive one.

I realize this is what Google felt, and what also seems to be accepted wisdom in the Valley, but I just don't get the logic that leads to cloning Facebook.

I do sometimes forget the whole thing about how the "advertisers (not the users) are the customer," so maybe I was wrong that they weren't competitive from that point of view.

Are we approaching a world where Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft each have their own phone, tablet, set-top box, search engine, email service, maps service, login, and "universal identity" for the web? Why does every tech company past a certain size need one of all of these things to be "competitive"?

"...pressure from Wall Street..."

Google execs were always in search of the "next billion-dollar product," so their stock would keep going up, so their employees' options would go up. It's a direct consequence of the mindset that company health equals X% growth that if you are taking over the planet in one category, you have to take over the planet in another category before long or be declared a failing company. Companies like Google try to shape the numbers as best they can to tell the story Wall Street wants to hear, but it's difficult and in the long run leads to extreme contortions.

Re: Why I left Google (2012)

#115

Post by kenko »

jonnathanson wrote: post #88
chime wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends solely on the focus. If the focus is 'push limits of human knowledge', then Google is going to be fine. If the focus is 'Increase marketshare in industries [X] by [Y%]', then it is too short-sighted and sooner or later, will catch up.

More than 97% of Google's revenues have always come from advertising (give or take a few percentage points). This goes back to the pre-IPO days. It's all well and good to say that Google is about "pushing the limits of human knowledge," but when you're a public company with a responsibility to generate return on capital, you need to protect and grow the golden goose. Now, it's perfectly valid -- maybe even necessary…

As a tangent, it's not really true that "a public company [has] a responsibility to generate return on capital". See, e.g., Stout's _The Shareholder Value Myth_, or this shorter thing: http://crookedtimber.org/2008/07/25/what-obligation-maximise... esp. the remark about the Dodge v. Ford case.

Re: Why I left Google (2012)

#116

Post by elaineo »

nivla wrote: post #107
elaineo wrote: post #106

I recently switched from using the Google Translate API to the Bing/Microsoft Translator API for my Android app, because Google charges usage fees while MS is free at the lowest tier. This was the first time I saw Google charge money for a service that Microsoft offers for free.

Can you be kind enough to comment on the quality of translations? I am in need of a translation API for one of my projects and it is down to Google or Bing.

I have only used English-Spanish, but as far as I can tell, the results are approximately the same (translating individual words with appropriate verb conjugation but no regard for context).

You can test them out in their browser apps: http://www.bing.com/translator/ http://translate.google.com/

Re: Why I left Google (2012)

#117

Post by nivla »

elaineo wrote: post #116
nivla wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you be kind enough to comment on the quality of translations? I am in need of a translation API for one of my projects and it is down to Google or Bing.

I have only used English-Spanish, but as far as I can tell, the results are approximately the same (translating individual words with appropriate verb conjugation but no regard for context). You can test them out in their browser apps: http://www.bing.com/translator/ http://translate.google.com/

Cool.. thanx for your input! :)

Re: Why I left Google (2012)

#119

Post by ithkuil »

photorized wrote: post #112
dgreensp wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I worked at Google for a year in 2010, around the time of the first reorgs around social. They were decimating teams like Calendar, Sites, and other products with millions of users that were stagnating, as far as they were concerned, and building a team 200-strong to take on "social" -- whatever that means. We joked that no one at Google knew what it meant. We felt Google was deeply clueless about the nat…

The only way Google can get a bigger slice of "social" is if they invent and build something so subtle, so out-of-the-way, so unobtrusive... that people don't realize they are using it. Instead, they've been very forceful with their attempts to bring people in (Google+ is a great example), and that's clearly not working. It's bad enough that people scrutinize their every move (evil, too much data, etc), but to make m…

> The only way Google can get a bigger slice of "social" is if they invent and build something so subtle, so out-of-the-way, so unobtrusive... that people don't realize they are using it.

ironically, you just described their first and main product.

Perhaps it's not so easy to do the same with social. (Not saying that forcing people to convert is not a good move)

Post reply on HN