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

Culture Change at Google

social.clawhammer.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 520 posts

Re: Culture Change at Google

#201

Post by wslh »

Ironic tl;dr, the author separates Google culture from business but Google is not just another public company in the NASDAQ. It is a company that impacted and impacts [political] viewpoints of people around the world. In the past "common" people could create content and be visible, now SEO is an impossible game that requires big budgets. Google forgets things (sites) and it is not "Organizing the world's information" [1]. It is just stockpiling it. The company is not a McDonald's. If the soul of the company culture changed it means the seeds for [1] are dead.

[1] https://blog.google/products/search/information-sources-goog...

Re: Culture Change at Google

#202

Post by jasode »

tonfa wrote: post #105
voiceblue wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The success of 20% projects is a quasi-myth. Gmail is often touted, but you would do well to look up the employee # at Google of the inventor. Point being, you need (very) early hire clout or your 20% project isn’t going anywhere either.

Gmail wasn't a 20%, I don't know why anyone thinks it is. Buchheit was asked to work on it.

>Gmail wasn't a 20%, I don't know why anyone thinks it is.

It's because some media stories used GMail as an example of a 20% project -- and -- those stories also end up being cited in places like Wikipedia:

- >Google is credited for popularizing the practice that 20 percent of an employee's time may be used for side projects. At Google, this led to the development of products such as Gmail and AdSense. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_project_time#cite_note-:1....

The Time Magazine article is one of the places where they say GMail was not a 20% project:

- >Gmail is often given as a shining example of the fruits of Google’s 20 percent time, its legendary policy of allowing engineers to divvy off part of their work hours for personal projects. Paul Buchheit, Gmail’s creator, disabused me of this notion. From the very beginning, “it was an official charge,” he says. “I was supposed to build an email thing.” : https://time.com/43263/gmail-10th-anniversary/#:~:text=Gmail...

Re: Culture Change at Google

#203

Post by dash2 »

pgeorgi wrote: post #190
dash2 wrote: post #166

So I looked at the original 2005 email and saw this: "Google is the opposite: it's like a giant grad-school. Half the programmers have PhD's, and everyone treats the place like a giant research playground." Ah, that's why you have the problem now. You let the madmen take over the asylum! Sorry, guys, I know engineers love to believe that everything would be fine if engineers ran everything. It just ain't so.

Google was most successful when it was "like a giant grad-school". Its downward trajectory coincides with it being run by McKinsey alums.

Maybe, but here's an alternative interpretation. Google discovered a money spigot. At first the money spigot funded lots of smart people having fun. (But not making any more money.) Then, as tends to happen, the money spigot attracted parasites. Now the spigot is, if not running dry, at least not growing. Times get tough. Management wants to focus. And so everything is less fun than it was. And the playground culture, which was irrelevant when the spigot was gushing, is an impediment to change.

I think it's fair to say that Google's leadership is also not up to the job. But even if Satya Nadella were in charge, he'd still have to deal with the "grad school playground" aspect, which has as many negatives as positives from the vulgar point of view of making money.

More generally, I want to argue that the common HN meme, "management and politics ruins everything from the point of view of us heroic engineers", is self-serving and naive. Management and politics are how companies run. If you don't want to do that job, fine; if you want to grumble about its pathologies, fine and you'll often be right; but don't kid yourself that it can be avoided.

Re: Culture Change at Google

#204

Post by makerofthings »

renewiltord wrote: post #65

It's interesting. When I moved to California in 2012, Google was exciting. They had hot stuff, new platforms, very exciting. Six years later, you were hesitant to hire Google people. Today, it's the Bay Area retirement home. No one takes a Google resume seriously and everyone who works there talks about little they work. In a sense a massive transfer of wealth from capital to labor: the finest example of redistributi…

I work at Google. Having Google on my CV has been a huge bonus, I get so much more interest from companies trying to hire me and many of them directly reference having Google on there as a positive. I know zero people who are just coasting along, everyone is working super hard. I have seen a few people leave in the last year because they were under too much pressure, despite the pay.

Re: Culture Change at Google

#205

Post by tigroferoce »

Ntrails wrote: post #131
poisonborz wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that they made a really good early bet with Steam which rakes in enough profit that they can keep this (or whatever) mindset. They never really had competition in the PC space. If they would need to come up with new and better products each fiscal year they would look very different.

I feel like you could have said the same about google or facebook. They made a dominant early platform and could have comfortably lived off that success? There are a bunch of companies trying to compete with valve. They are not behind any more of a moat than anyone else.

I'd dare to say that Google is very bad at doing products. They tried so many times and almost always failed, the list of products killed by Google is huge, They really succeeded in search, maps and gmail; all of these products are engineering-first products, created in the early days.

One might argue that YouTube and Android should go in that list, but I disagree. YouTube was acquired and it never managed to become something really big (it failed to compete with Netflix for video streaming, with Spotify for music and with TikTok for social network). Android also, was acquired and without a pletora of hardware vendor supporting it, it would have failed too (I'd say that Android without Samsung is nothing -- of course, it's big on embedded things, like cars or TVs, but it's not a world-wide product like gmail).

And likewise it is failing in AI, against OpenAI, which looks like another engineering-first product.

Re: Culture Change at Google

#206

Post by taurath »

jjav wrote: post #113
romanovcode wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked in one big company when something like this actually happened. First week one developer blatantly said to management in-front of the scammer that the scammer (CTO) doesn't know anything about technology and is a complete fraud. The developer got fired 10 minutes later. Others took note to not challenge him if they want to keep their job. That happened ~10 years ago and I am actually grateful for that expe…

> that office politics are 10x more important than merit in big companies My experience (5 startups) is that office politics are 100x more important in small startups. Everything is more concentrated, including the politics. That's why there is so much cofounder drama to go around. At least in a big company there's a lot of inertia and process to tone down the politics a little bit.

Goodness yes. Your relationships literally are your career at small startups. Your reputation means everything. Not to mention the nepotism and the privilege - the people with truckloads of money meeting for dinners afterwards while those who’ve had to budget a house payment in 10 years go for a beer.

Re: Culture Change at Google

#207

Post by red_admiral »

There's a lot to like here, but I do want to grumble about one blind spot:

> ... no more onsite dry cleaning or daycare. But again, these things weren't the reasons Googlers came to work. No big deal.

Those are not the same. Onsite dry cleaning is probably not a big deal. If you are the primary carer for a young child and want to work, daycare is an absolutely massive deal. Whether you can combine 'carer' and 'career' depends on a lot of things, one of them is the support you get.

I know enough stories from child-raisers I've worked with myself - including some men - to know that the cost and difficulty of arranging childcare is one of the things that drives people to exit the workplace and become stay-at-home parents, or perhaps part-timers in a less 'all-in' place than google.

Calling onsite daycare 'no big deal' doesn't seem to me like the thing that would be said by anyone using the service.

Re: Culture Change at Google

#210

Post by kmlx »

0xpgm wrote: post #48
zamfi wrote: post #24

Is any company still like this? I was at Google in ‘06-07, and again ‘09-11, and already there were obvious differences. You just can’t scale “total internal transparency” when the company doubles in size every year. And at some point you need just plain-old-“good” engineers to make the A/B tests happen and all the other stuff that doesn’t excite the PhDs. And at some point you need product people too, because you st…

I wonder if there's a way to prevent the growth at all costs that is demanded by the financial markets. Maybe become profitable and pay off the VCs then don't go public? Then you can resist the pressure for growth quarter by quarter, and remain the 'right size' that your internal culture demands. Did Valve corporation do something like that?

> I wonder if there's a way to prevent the growth at all costs that is demanded by the financial markets.

the way i understand it the problem is the product and the market that you’re selling into.

for example: Renaissance Technologies LLC has $130Bn AUM with 310 employees.

Post reply on HN