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

Sunsetting Hire

support.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 301 posts

Re: Sunsetting Hire

#291

Post by jmtame »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #290
jmtame wrote: post #117

Founder and CEO of Agave.com here. We're a new player in the space and we've focused on making it easy for startups to get going quickly with an ATS that doesn't suck. If you're interested in a demo or getting an invite to join (we haven't launched publicly yet), shoot me an email at jared@agave.com.

Do you have an XML job feed? We are aggregating jobs from ATS-es. https://www.postjobfree.com/include-job-feed

Hi Dennis, we do support XML job feeds for all of our customer accounts, including those on the free plan.

Re: Sunsetting Hire

#292

Post by ChrisLomont »

leereeves wrote: post #263
ChrisLomont wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standard Oil had ~90% of refined oil in the United States. Google generates ~63% of all searches [1], with Bing ~25%. I'd hardly call that unchallenged or Standard Oil sized. And as eyes move from search ads to places like Facebook or other platforms, they stand to lose more and more as they don't control where people are. Being so dependent on one source of revenue is very dangerous for them. Interesting fact: Rocke…

> Rockefeller's worth was 1-2% of US GDP, which in that metric would be $500 billion - $1 trillion now. US GDP is around $20 trillion so 2% would be $400 billion. Google is worth twice that with an $800 billion market cap, or 4% of US GDP.

>US GDP is around $20 trillion so 2% would be $400 billion.

Oops - correct :)

I mentioned Rockefeller's worth, not Standard Oil. Comparing Google to Rockefeller is apples to oranges. Standard Oil was worth far more than Rockefeller.

Google founders are each worth ~$50B, 0.25% of GDP.

Re: Sunsetting Hire

#293

Post by DesiLurker »

eindiran wrote: post #86
DesiLurker wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://killedbygoogle.com/

I remember clicking on that a while back on thinking there weren't that many products listed there. They must have filled in a lot of killed-off-projects because now I'm struck by what a large number of projects are in the graveyard.

Dont think of them as products, think of them as a promotion for a googler to principal engineers.

Re: Sunsetting Hire

#294

Post by bigiain »

dhimes wrote: post #260
C1sc0cat wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was watching a YouTube channel that that reviews mics and audio gear last night and they had had videos de monetised because of reviews of "shotgun mics"

Holy fuck! So their shutdown/demonetizing is being done by robots? They are automating the process of taking away peoples' way of earning a living? That is awful.

Isn't this how google does _everything_??? (Or at least aims to...)

Re: Sunsetting Hire

#295

Post by jldugger »

4ntonius8lock wrote: post #288
jldugger wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it stopped existing because she left Google. How could I possibly predict that? It's pretty easy really, and you don't have to predict Google executive tenures: if the founder of a service you are considering using sells the company to Google and runs a completely different product division afterwards, even if that service doesn't immediately sunset and lives on as a vanity project, it will die of neglect. The…

Ah, so the solution is to understand the internal culture of every company you do business with? Our definition of 'easy really' might be very different. In fact, whenever someone talks about complex topics and starts off with 'easy really' I cringe. There's a certain perspective people have to have to use such language, and that perspective is very far from my general understanding that 'reality is complex'.

> Ah, so the solution is to understand the internal culture of every company you do business with?

I'm comfortable treating this as a universal constant. Any company that buys a startup and immediately promotes their CEO to a different department never cared about the startup they just bought.

Re: Sunsetting Hire

#296

Post by jacob_rezi »

shusson wrote: post #265
jacob_rezi wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow cool to find you like this. We built a resume software which focuses exactly on working with ats ( https://rezi.io/ ) We plan to make resume formats specific to certain types of ATS, Lever being amongst the first we hope to work with. Any way this message can spark that conversation? Our users & hiring partners love the idea.

https://rezi.io is returning a 500 page :(

thanks for the notice - all sorted now

Re: Sunsetting Hire

#297

Post by croon »

lonelappde wrote: post #274
croon wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While Hire has been successful, we’re focusing our resources on other products in the Google Cloud portfolio This is not a decision any startup would make. So there's at least some difference, in Googles disfavor.

It literally was a decision a startup made. Bebop was a startup that sold itself.

Selling a startup is not even close to the same as shutting down while admitting your product is successful.

Re: Sunsetting Hire

#298

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

benblu wrote: post #213
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gasp! Thoughtcrime alert! Call the police!

Would you prefer if he just called him a jerk? Telling someone that they're being mean or inconsiderate is not the same thing as censoring them.

> Would you prefer if he just called him a jerk?

Indeed I would.

> Telling someone that they're being mean or inconsiderate is not the same thing as censoring them.

Unless this 'telling' is a dogwhistle for the thought police to take action.

My parent comment was already flagged. One more dogwhistle and I'll be banned.

Re: Sunsetting Hire

#299

Post by markmark »

rurban wrote: post #200
markmark wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are going to? They already are. I will no longer consider a Google product for work purposes. Even for big stuff they are committed to like their cloud offering there is no confidence that individual features within it they you rely on won't get killed off.

What about to Go? Or Flutter? They are the best in their niche.

Go I'd consider, even if Google ditch it, the language still exists and is sufficiently entrenched to continue on. I wouldn't go near Flutter at all. Exactly the sort of thing that Google will lose interest in and stop backing leaving you with a product built on an un-supported platform.

Re: Sunsetting Hire

#300

Post by wpietri »

jldugger wrote: post #215
wpietri wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This all seems pretty fair to me. I know how to evaluate a startup's potential failure. Who's funding them? How much money do they have? How popular are they? How solid's the product? What are the founders like? Heck, for a lot of small startups, you can just ask to talk to the CEO if it's what it will take to close the deal. And I have a good idea of the conditions under which they'll throw in the towel. But Google…

> And it stopped existing because she left Google. How could I possibly predict that? It's pretty easy really, and you don't have to predict Google executive tenures: if the founder of a service you are considering using sells the company to Google and runs a completely different product division afterwards, even if that service doesn't immediately sunset and lives on as a vanity project, it will die of neglect. The…

I think that's a good heuristic if the product is a startup and if the executive moves on and if I can see that. But I'll note that even that's not perfect. YouTube was an acquisition where all of the founders moved on to other things, and 9 years later it's still doing fine.
Post reply on HN