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

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#831

Post by lacerrr »

kevmo314 wrote: post #455
jokethrowaway wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... 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.

Starting a business is a lot of work and risk. Having those removed makes the path so much easier to experiment and removes all the friction.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#832

Post by surajrmal »

politelemon wrote: post #426
kelnos wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a lot of cynicism and misunderstanding of Google on HN Is there, though? I mean, yes, I am very cynical about Google (and never worked there, so I have no insider information), but this article lines up very well with my assumptions about the company and what happened there over time. (Of course I can't speak for all HNers...)

Having spent a vast amount of time reading comments, there certainly is. HN can frequently become an echo chamber, though pretends not to be; and has very clear favorite tech darlings and near-immovable, predefined villains (Google being one of them).

It's not surprising given how most of HN seems to only see a glimpse of things work internally based on blog posts unhappy xooglers write. It's very biased and folks extrapolate too far. The real picture is far more complex. Unfortunately no one seems to want to read a balanced perspective these days.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#833

Post by ryloric »

ot1138 wrote: post #734

> Much of the criticism Google received around Chrome and Search, especially around supposed conflicts of interest with Ads, was way off base (it's surprising how often coincidences and mistakes can appear malicious). The author is refreshingly candid but hopelessly myopic. Speaking as an outsider and a rather large advertiser, Google was great to work with in the early years (2004-2008). I founded the first search i…

Did you really have to say "some engineer in India"? What exactly are you trying to imply there?

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#834

Post by [deleted] »

kevinventullo wrote: post #143
hot_gril wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes Google is still less diversified than its peers. Cloud and YouTube (edit: and Pixel phones?) are profitable afaik. The overall tech market has matured is what I meant; it's no longer time to loss-lead everything.

Not sure I’d characterize YouTube as a diversification from ads.

[deleted]

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#835

Post by JSavageOne »

immibis wrote: post #822
JSavageOne wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've just described why once prominent companies fade into shadows of their former glory (eg. Kodak, Blackberry, IBM, Oracle, Microsoft). Definitely not inevitable and could be avoided with better leadership.

But not a problem, either. Turnover is natural. Nobody but the investors care very much whether Kodak pivots to digital cameras, or whether Kodak remains the leading film camera company as the industry shrinks, and a different company makes digital cameras. In fact the latter is often better for the economy and consumers, due to the better specialization.

Yes it is a problem if a company is failing not just for the investors but the workers. Nobody wants to work for a sinking ship. Can't believe this even needs to be said.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#836

Post by surajrmal »

stephenr wrote: post #49
pkasting wrote: post #10

As a current Googler of approximately the same tenure, I can't speak to the comments on Jeanine Banks (never met her), but I agree with every other word of this. It's frustrating to continue to see both the level of genuinely well-intentioned work that the public is unfairly (and often viciously) critical of the motives of, and also the (at this point) complete absence of concern for the user, the long term, and the…

> genuinely well-intentioned work that the public is unfairly (and often viciously) critical of the motives of If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and shits all over your lawn like a duck, hearing "well he meant well" doesn't make it any less of a duck. Saying "the public are unfairly critical of the motives [of Google]" is like saying cows are unfairly critical of the motives of abattoir workers [1]. 1: htt…

Sometimes it feels like Google could cure cancer and HN would still react negatively. Companies are not monolithic and it's silly to paint it that way. It's not simple about intent, but premature judgment.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#837

Post by stephenr »

surajrmal wrote: post #836
stephenr wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> genuinely well-intentioned work that the public is unfairly (and often viciously) critical of the motives of If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and shits all over your lawn like a duck, hearing "well he meant well" doesn't make it any less of a duck. Saying "the public are unfairly critical of the motives [of Google]" is like saying cows are unfairly critical of the motives of abattoir workers [1]. 1: htt…

Sometimes it feels like Google could cure cancer and HN would still react negatively. Companies are not monolithic and it's silly to paint it that way. It's not simple about intent, but premature judgment.

Conversely it feels like Google could say "hey we've found a cure for cancer, we just transplant the brain into a healthy 'donor' body" and Google apologists would insist that there's no possible way that could ever be misused.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#838

Post by ryloric »

scaramanga wrote: post #798

There's a great documentary about waco on Netflix and at the end, the guy who is was in command of the troops who massacred 80 women and children concluded (after 30 years of reflection), "you know the real victim was? Me, because the whole fiasco made me look bad." It's interesting to see how those who appear outwardly evil manage to cling to a self-serving and distorted view of the world in which, if anything, they…

Felt the same reading this post. These people are unable to see the bigger picture of what their work has been used to do to the world.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#839

Post by dkarbayev »

Vicinity9635 wrote: post #608
gerdesj wrote: post #603

"Much of these problems with Google today stem from a lack of visionary leadership from Sundar Pichai, and his clear lack of interest in maintaining the cultural norms of early Google." "The oft-mocked "don't be evil" truly was the guiding principle of the company at the time" A company with public shareholding loses the ability to be anything other than a generator of increasing shareholder value. That is its overt…

> A company with public shareholding loses the ability to be anything other than a generator of increasing shareholder value. People always say this but I've never seen a law or regulation enforcing it. Care to enlighten me?

Perhaps Dodge vs. Ford Motor Company [1] is relevant here?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#840

Post by piyush_soni »

kelnos wrote: post #238
Osmose wrote: post #69

This is a good reflection, but I do disagree with the view of honest efforts from Google to improve the world being met with unnecessary external criticism. People outside Google don't have the benefit of thinking of any particular project as being run only by the individuals currently working on it—those particular people may leave the company or change teams or move on to other projects. It's Google that's making i…

Yup, agreed. My view is that the people on the inside often can't see the forest for the trees. They look at their immediate team/group, love the autonomy/transparency/"don't be evil"-mandate/etc. that they have and follow, and look around and see some of that in other groups, and think, "wow, this company is great, doesn't care about all that big-bad-company stuff". But people outside can look at a company that gets…

But then again, everyone says Google is evil to have made their own browser, but most of the world is using it - one would guess they must have done some good things with it (so taking humanity forward in some capacity etc.). Some are even criticizing Google from its own browser - I hate the fact that it made Firefox lose their market share, but I also understand it can't all be because the big corp brainwashed everyone (sure it would be a significant part though).
Post reply on HN