241–250 of 543 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Remind me again how big-co CEOs assume "all the risk"? I have never once heard anyone make this claim.
It's a claim repeated very frequently around here when people criticize exorbitant compensation packages for execs. For instance, see [0] below by fallingknife. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35665329
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you define "several years"? Google's revenues are at all-time highs, and still growing (albeit slowly). Seems pretty far from anything drying up...
Nokia sold about $50Bn worth of phones in 2007, another $50Bn in 2008. They made an enormous amount of money long after it was obvious to everyone their business was in massive decline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thing he has done is not destroy the Google cash firehose. The advertising cash firehose is perhaps the only thing that matters at Google. But, having been severely caned by ChatGPT and left flat footed on AI i think it’s reasonable to say even that firehose is now at risk.
It’s really funny to read this over and over from so many people. You are saying google can’t match and surpass chatGPT? You know, google the people who invented the model architecture used by ChatGPT… the people who wrote the first ML training frameworks and the subsequent most popular one… the ones who designed hardware accelerators to minimize training and inference… the people with enough excess compute to probab…
etc.
history is littered with the dominant player getting shellacked by an upstart
And it usually is for political reasons not technical reasons.
Bard is a piece of shit. It's probably being held back so that it doesn't compete internally with google search
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so to paraphrase, he is a bean counter.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe you shouldn’t comment on something you know barely anything about? Very weak counterpoint, essentially ad personam, trying to insinuate my ignorance, telling me to shut up. Not impressive.
Yes, having a counterpoint with a relevant data point that you missed is “weak” you are ignorant, making your argument weak and just plain wrong. Should people no longer point out when comments are really wrong? You’re also over generalizing while being completely incorrect ie making shit up
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? (…
Gmail works much better. It does, indeed, organize the world’s information, the world’s private and corporate information.
But the only who can really search through it is the CIA. Maybe we’re not the real customers ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Over the past 4 years, GOOG's net income and earnings per share have fallen quite a bit. Revenue has been pretty flat. I don't get why Pichai is so well paid. Ballmer actually did preside over some impressive growth when he was CEO of MSFT. Pichai has not. Edit: I was looking at the wrong numbers. Google's profit has roughly quadrupled in the 8 years Pichai has been CEO. His compensation makes a lot more sense in tha…
Ballmer made bets on the windows phone, Zune, Bing (ads) etc in a bid to strengthen the moat around windows/Office. Most of these bets didn't pay, the strategy to build stuff to protect your core business does stymie company growth. I think Google has gotten itself into a similar position that Microsoft was in circa 2012.
Google hasn't done antything like that. Their product discontinuations have mostly been for niche applications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if hiring them in the first place was the mistake? What are your options in that case?
CEO fucked up, get rid of him/her. Why'd you hire so many people if you don't need it? Sounds like C-suite made the wrong call, in that case.
No one is perfect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One benefit is stronger labor protection from layoffs like these. Having labor be more powerful can also help when execs push for morally questionable projects. Lastly, FAANG employees are working class.
if you’re earning sky high base comp + stock + benefits at these places you’re not working class. You are incredibly out of touch.