TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Google veterans: The company has become ‘unrecognizable’

382 pointsby waltercliffordover 5 years ago

29 comments

cletusover 5 years ago
Google could solve a lot of problems by essentially firing every VP they have.<p>It actually became an internal joke where you&#x27;d get these emails every 2-3 months saying your manager&#x27;s manager&#x27;s manager&#x27;s manager now reports to a different manager, neither of which you&#x27;d ever met or even necessarily heard of.<p>To be clear, the executive team are ultimately responsible but Google has fallen prey to a lack of leadership (Eric Schmidt, we miss you) and an entrenched swarm of middle management. I honestly believe a lot of the bad ideas Google got involved in (like the DoD ML thing) sprang from over-eager VPs.<p>There&#x27;s an old Dilbert strip basically saying that managers reach a point of constant reorgs and responsibilities churn to the point that no one is around long enough to be held accountable for their actions (&quot;oh that was the last guy&quot;) and definitely not around long enough for anything to work.<p>This to me is what Google had become. The reorgs were constant and the leadership was directionless.<p>The transparency thing here is a big one. There was a culture of blameless and open post-mortems. This probably started to change in the Vic Google Plus era. Dashboards were locked down. There were some pretty (internally) famous examples of post-mortems people found that were subsequently restricted, essentially because they (rightly) made some VP look bad.<p>One of the most shocking things to me was a story from last year about how accessing such documents could retroactively lead to you being fired. As in Google docs were typically sent around such that if you had the link you could open it and these links might be forwarded to open groups. That&#x27;s how a lot of things (internally) &quot;leaked&quot;.<p>Disclaimer: Xoogler (6 years)
评论 #21941314 未加载
评论 #21941172 未加载
评论 #21941813 未加载
评论 #21941193 未加载
评论 #21941017 未加载
评论 #21942747 未加载
评论 #21941598 未加载
评论 #21942678 未加载
评论 #21942062 未加载
评论 #21941050 未加载
评论 #21941636 未加载
评论 #21941716 未加载
评论 #21944226 未加载
评论 #21941590 未加载
mkolodnyover 5 years ago
For anyone who hasn&#x27;t seen it yet, there&#x27;s an article on the second page of HN right now (458 votes last I checked) by Google&#x27;s former Head of International Relations about why he left the company. I think it&#x27;s very worth reading. There&#x27;s some extremely interesting (and damning) stories about his experience at Google since 2008.<p>Here&#x27;s the article: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21935446" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21935446</a><p>While this might (and almost certainly should) hurt Google&#x27;s brand, I think this issue applies to any big for-profit company. I doubt that Amazon or Apple are much different.
评论 #21940529 未加载
评论 #21941074 未加载
评论 #21940592 未加载
habosaover 5 years ago
Googler here. Opinions are obviously my own and not that for my employer. Just sharing my thoughts, take it all with a grain of salt.<p>I&#x27;ve been at Google full time for 5+ years and was an intern before that. The company has more than doubled in size since I&#x27;ve been here, so I&#x27;m not exactly old-school but I have seen change.<p>When I started Google felt like one company. I was blown away that I could look at any piece of code (besides Google X and parts of Android) and file a bug against any team when something didn&#x27;t work. I felt proud of other team&#x27;s products and I also felt responsible for them, I filed a lot of bugs&#x2F;feedback trying to make random things better.<p>The culture was also just fun as hell. The mailing lists and Memegen (our internal meme site) were really fun to participate in for the most part.<p>A lot has changed now. Each product feels more isolated and does things their own way. The company is far too big for anyone to claim they really know what&#x27;s going on outside their local area. The culture is no longer fun at all. There is a lot more negativity, and a lot of it is justified (you&#x27;ve seen the news).<p>However I still love the people I work with directly and what we work on (Firebase, fwiw). And one strange positive about how large the company has gotten is that I can just focus on that. I no longer get too worked up about what&#x27;s going on over in far-flung teams and that&#x27;s fine with me. And I don&#x27;t naively participate in company-wide forums expecting a good mood. But I get to build cool things and we have more resources (money, people, knowledge, etc) than we know what to do with.<p>All of that is to say that yes, a lot has changed. Some for the worse, some for the better, some just different. I still think this is a great place to work and I don&#x27;t plan to leave any time soon.
评论 #21942015 未加载
extraz6b3cover 5 years ago
And some have quit for as-yet-undisclosed colossal fuckups. Google&#x27;s inherent belief that it is the &quot;good guy&quot; in all things internet has fed a massive hubris. That hubris has led to inherent blindness to its detrimental effects on the wider internet and a hero complex. When in reality, they are just like all other mega corporations: interested in only one thing: maximum dollars, and they do this by tilting the tables to make all the quarters slide into their pocket. When you&#x27;re huge, the urge to take up your power to do this becomes overwhelming. It comes in fits and starts at first, until the culture rots, and soon you&#x27;re rolling downhill into full-blown corrupt self-dealing and monopoly tactics.<p>Google&#x27;s on its way. And it&#x27;s too big to fail, except it will, and we&#x27;ll be shocked at the reach of its surveillance capabilities at the fire sale.
评论 #21941230 未加载
c3534lover 5 years ago
Nothing is permanent. No company will stay the same 22 years later. I wouldn&#x27;t be surprised if there are people working at Google who were born after Google was founded. At some point, the feisty startup that wants to change the world will become the status quo. It&#x27;s delusional to think otherwise.
评论 #21940781 未加载
评论 #21946971 未加载
borramakotover 5 years ago
Is there data on what tech companies programmers (either generally or new grads) most want to work for? It feels like it used to be Google by a lot, but even outside the HN bubble, I get the sense Google has taken some reputation hit.
评论 #21940561 未加载
评论 #21940486 未加载
评论 #21940343 未加载
评论 #21940455 未加载
standardUserover 5 years ago
Sometimes I genuinely wonder what people expect from one of the world&#x27;s largest corporations. They aren&#x27;t the first. There are hundreds of other giant multinationals that have been around for generations. Why exactly does anyone expect Google to be different?
评论 #21940844 未加载
评论 #21942267 未加载
评论 #21940711 未加载
评论 #21941168 未加载
评论 #21941505 未加载
ahelwerover 5 years ago
Well, that&#x27;s what you get when you appoint a CEO from McKinsey.
评论 #21941083 未加载
longtimegooglerover 5 years ago
I actually think the greatest period was under Schmidt. Back then there was a lot of freedom to choose what to work on. Google Labs and 20% projects were healty.<p>It felt like a place where people worked on ideas they thought were cool. Things seemed to just happen organically without a lot of bureaucracy and management structure.<p>I think Larry changed that with a more top down approach with what to work being decided higher up, see social. This led to less project flexibility and more hierarchy, with managers and pms becoming more important in the org.<p>Coupled with the growth in the number of employees, I think where the company today is just a gradual evolution of what Larry started along with the problems of growth.<p>That said it is still a pretty good place to work at for a number of reasons.
jelliclesfarmover 5 years ago
The last bit resonates with me. Work has to be something we need to do for about 1&#x2F;3 of our lives. Work is service. Even if we get paid for it, work is what we do for the betterment of collective. 1&#x2F;3 of our lifetime ought to be for family and kin and our own. The remaining 1&#x2F;3 for self development. To become better than who we were yesterday, last month..the year before. It’s a continuous improvement.<p>But I see people do nothing but work. They start at 7.00. Work all day. Outsource family time. Scrounge for a little bit of self care time. Sleep little, enjoy in chunks of time once a year. All for a price.<p>Most of what we work for goes to the government. Yes, taxes go for betterment of society but because no one has a say in it, it can also go towards things some of us don’t believe in. War, for example. I can’t divert my tax dollars towards space exploration rather than bloody wars.<p>We need a formula for life and living. A formula that gives us true and lasting freedom.<p>[..] When Page became CEO in 2011, he became “obsessed” with reading about why companies fail from being too big and sluggish, Stapleton said. “It’s sort of sad that a lot of the things he was afraid would happen, actually happened.”<p>Stapleton, who held a number of roles close to the founders, recalled Page walking around offices with a chunk of metal that he said was from his grandfather’s auto plant in Michigan. It supposedly symbolized a point in time when auto workers felt like they needed to protect themselves against management. Page showed it as an example of something he hoped would never happen to Google.<p>“He always said how much Google needs to be upfront and progressive in how it handles people and processes and HR,” Stapelton recalled. “He had such an optimistic view of technology and how Google could really transform how people live and free up humanity to pursue the arts.”[..]
评论 #21940817 未加载
评论 #21941073 未加载
评论 #21940923 未加载
评论 #21941106 未加载
ProAmover 5 years ago
I think this is the case to most companies when you move onto the 3rd generation of leadership&#x2F;CEO, or if you are 3 degrees separated from the original vision. You see this with most projects&#x2F;companies etc.<p>Too much dilution in vision, other priorities take center stage of a public company.
评论 #21940700 未加载
brodouevencodeover 5 years ago
&gt; scaled to more than 100,000 workers<p>&gt; Googlers who interviewed for roles at Oso said the company had become “too big” and bureaucratic to make a difference for workers<p>Well, yes of course. Your voice becomes diluted to a large degree when companies become that large. It&#x27;s sad that Google has shifted away from it&#x27;s previous culture, but the outcomes shouldn&#x27;t be too terribly surprising.
e5indiaover 5 years ago
This is what happens to every tech company once they enter growth mode and bring in a ton of mercenary sales people from Oracle and the like.<p>The irony here is people point to social justice activity as the reason for decline but really all that social justice activity is a smokescreen for betraying other values. We&#x27;ll do what we&#x27;re bid by totalitarian regimes and then make ourselves feel better by putting rainbow colors on our logo during Pride Week.
tempsyover 5 years ago
Hard to be surprised. Seems only natural for a company that large.<p>Though I agree as far as tech brand goes Google seems to have gone down much faster than other big tech cos go.
评论 #21940145 未加载
评论 #21940062 未加载
bitLover 5 years ago
One of my MBA classes on designing an organization mentioned a significant change when moving from collectivity stage (&quot;charismatic&quot;, &quot;empowering&quot;) to formalization stage (bureaucratic, most desired by individual managers, principal-agent at play). It looks like Google was able to delay this jump longer than most companies but in the end couldn&#x27;t avoid it. From what I&#x27;ve heard recently from former employees, JetBrains is another company that is undergoing a similar shift; in the past half of their &quot;escapees&quot; returned back from Google&#x2F;Facebook within a year, expressing displeasure with those companies, now they are jumping ship as well...
评论 #21941552 未加载
thu2111over 5 years ago
I vaguely remember Claire Stapleton from when I was there, as some sort of quirky marketing person. I think her comments are mostly pretty accurate. This one though jumped out as weird:<p><i>“He always said how much Google needs to be upfront and progressive in how it handles people and processes and HR,” Stapelton recalled. “He had such an optimistic view of technology and how Google could really transform how people live and free up humanity to pursue the arts.”</i><p>Was that really her interpretation of Larry Page? No wonder she&#x27;s now publicly crying her disappointment. It seems like the total opposite of the Page I saw, a man who never cared about the arts at all and in fact had to be browbeaten into caring about visual design by Steve Jobs himself.<p>Page back then was a man who cared deeply about science and anything sci-fi. The more sci-fi the better. His vision for Google was a machine that converted ad clicks into flying cars, the computer from Star Trek and so on. Amazing tech wasn&#x27;t a means to an end but rather, the end itself. I never heard or saw anything in Google&#x27;s mission about &quot;freeing up humanity to pursue the arts&quot;. I can imagine why a humanities person like Stapleton might have wanted to believe that as it would have given her own interests and background an anchor in what was back then a supremely engineering oriented culture. But it wasn&#x27;t true. Nobody gave a stuff about the arts, as evidenced by hiring priorities.
jrockwayover 5 years ago
Many years ago, maybe before I even worked at Google, I read a very wise post here. I think it was from nostrademons. The gist was that one cannot be given a good place to work, one has to make an active effort to make it a good place to work. When a lot of people come together with the same ideas, they can make a place that wins awards for being a good place to work, but there always has to be active effort from everyone to keep that alive. You can&#x27;t just show up and hope that the &quot;make this place good to work at&quot; team makes this place good to work at. You are that team!<p>That attitude, to me, kind of explains the downfall of Google. People started to realize they could stop doing the things that made it a good place to work, and just focus on their project work. No need to do a tech talk to share with the company what you&#x27;re up to. No need to clean up tech debt. No need to work with the teams whose products you consume to make them better. Just take every shortcut to launch, get promoted, and get more power. People saw that that worked better than being transparent, fixing tech debt, etc., and now THAT&#x27;S the culture. People see that working, repeat it as fact (&quot;how to get promoted: don&#x27;t fix bugs!&quot;), and then that becomes the culture and that&#x27;s where Google seems to be now. Now people think that there is nothing they can do to change the culture, and maybe that&#x27;s true. There is just too much inertia and so YOU being transparent, YOU being a good steward of the codebase and shared resources, etc. just won&#x27;t matter. They just get in the way of getting promoted. So people fall back to the natural human fallback of &quot;appeal to authority&quot;. They write open letters, they have protests... but it doesn&#x27;t matter. That never worked. The early engineers didn&#x27;t write open letters to management about having a shared codebase, or requiring code reviews... they just did it. It is hard work, often with no reward, but over time the benefits accumulate. But when you stop putting in the work, it stops working. Now the company is too large to ever change, probably. But it got there because people were lazy about protecting the culture, and now all that cultural tech debt piles up and results in the things that we read about on HN.<p>Next time, when you&#x27;re at a new company... realize that YOU have to set the objectives. If you want transparency, be transparent about your work. Do internal talks or write internal blog posts about what you&#x27;re up to. Give curious people permission to look around and play with your service. Give people peer bonuses and write them good reviews when they do menial tasks that help code health long term. You have to make a conscious effort every single day, and remind others to do the same... or you&#x27;ll just end up with another heartless megacorp that is coasting on momentum from all this work that people put in in the early days. And, you have to deal with the consequences of your positive culture. Some jerk is going to break your service that has no rate limits. Someone is going to walk off with your customer list. You&#x27;re going to miss a deadline because someone was doing a big refactor instead of that last little cleanup before launch. If you really value transparency, code health, whatever, you have to accept that they are going to conflict with other things you care about! If you can&#x27;t accept that, you aren&#x27;t going to really have that culture that you want.<p>(Also, to be clear, I am not criticizing anyone mentioned in the article here. I did not work with them at Google, but they were very transparent about what they were working on, so I know exactly what they were up to at any given time. And I was also pretty transparent, so I bet they knew me despite having never worked with me. A lot of people were doing a lot of good things, and that community certainly knew each other well, even if only in passing. But there were tens of thousands of people that just existed without contributing positively to the culture, and the &quot;carrying capacity&quot; was reached and here we are. It is sad to see.)<p>Anyway, I write this because it is something that everyone will need to think about in their next (or current) adventure. You have to decide what you value, and if it&#x27;s a &quot;good culture&quot;, you will have to scrimp somewhere else to make that a reality. Nobody is going to do it for you. You have to be the &quot;management&quot; or &quot;promotion committee&quot; that enforces your values. And it will come at a cost!
cbanekover 5 years ago
&gt; Stapleton said when she made a request to HR earlier this year, she was routed to a call center in Chicago, where she spoke to a young gentleman who had recently graduated college. Responding to a concern she had with a manager, he gave her bad advice to take her manager out to drinks, she said.<p>Wow. And this is why those call in EAP &#x2F; anonymous reporting programs offered as a &#x27;benefit&#x27; always seem to be garbage. Never had a good experience with any of them.
a3nover 5 years ago
Google is entirely recognizable, as a modern, amoral hyper-corporation whose entire purpose is to service its giant self-aware pile of cash. They used to make money by making information available. Now they just make money, and how they do it is incidental.<p>&gt; “Google is built on trust,”<p>They were. They don&#x27;t need that anymore.
ChrisCinelliover 5 years ago
This article was posted 3 times in 3 days and only today is taking off! What is going on?<p>As I tried to posted it 2 days ago and I was redirected to <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21923103" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21923103</a> posted by mattydread and at that time it was [DEAD]. I started wondering why. I vouched to resurrect it and somebody else must have done it too but eventually it only got to 5 points.<p>I even thought for a moment that Google have bots to kill undesired articles on Hacker News but I thought I was reading too much into it.<p>When I noticed that this was a different post, I run a search on Algolia ( check <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hn.algolia.com&#x2F;?dateRange=all&amp;page=0&amp;prefix=false&amp;query=google%20veterans&amp;sort=byDate&amp;type=story" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hn.algolia.com&#x2F;?dateRange=all&amp;page=0&amp;prefix=false&amp;qu...</a> ) and apparently yesterday it was posted <i>again</i> by raiyu ( <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21932616" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21932616</a> ) and it only collected 2 points.<p>Today it was posted for the 3rd time and it is finally taking off...<p>How did it ended up [DEAD] 2 days ago ?<p>Is it common that an article is posted for 3 days in a row and it is [DEAD]?
评论 #21942960 未加载
luniasover 5 years ago
Not surprising, but the more interesting question is: What can be done to prevent new companies from reaching the final, greedy and uncaring, corporate form that we all loath?<p>This is not an isolated Google issue. It&#x27;s systemic in companies w&#x2F; a certain momentum.
buboardover 5 years ago
i wonder how advertisers feel about their products being advertised through google these days
onetimemanytimeover 5 years ago
Screw these &quot;veterans&quot; that ignored the warning signs as they became multimillionaires. Now it&#x27;s too late. I specifically remember Matt Cutts lying and spinning through his teeth as Google decimated legitimate websites through updates that surprisingly increased Google&#x27;s click on ads and prices.
评论 #21940199 未加载
评论 #21940667 未加载
Animatsover 5 years ago
You have to have a Google or Facebook account to read this. Ironic.
ljw1001over 5 years ago
Google was a great place - for most people - when it was riding the crazy growth rocket that was its Search&#x2F;Adwords&#x2F;Adsense&#x2F;Analytics engine. (former Googler here)<p>As those growth rates slowed it started flailing around trying to kickstart them in other ways. It had to do this to keep the stock in the stratosphere, which kept the mid-to-senior managers rich, and gave the ones who weren&#x27;t yet rich the possibility of becoming so. Some of these attempts were questionable ethically. Similarly, privacy invading changes were made in the core business. People all the way to Larry &amp; Sergey told themselves and everyone else the same lies that their ceaseless profiling and other invasions were for the customers own good. Think G+&#x27;s real names policy, Google Glass&#x27;s creepy stalker potential, etc.<p>The engagement in dubious if completely legal tax dodges was another sign. As was the army of lobbyists, as was the work on censored search.<p>In any case, it&#x27;s sort of inevitable in stock-market driven capitalism that unicorns can&#x27;t slow down gracefully, with everyone being satisfied that their millions or billions are &#x27;enough.&#x27; I wish they could. I suspect it&#x27;s doubly-hard for a company when their outlandish success attracts people primarily driven by money. All that growth meant a ton of hiring, and i suspect people who really just wanted to get rich self-selected into the applicant pool.<p>Beyond that, instances of sexual harassment and their cover-up suggests that maybe their was never a big commitment to not &#x27;be evil&#x27;. At least when it came down to powerful execs and less-powerful women. Maybe it was always just another company.<p>I used to be really proud of my time at Google, and I still think it was, and probably still is, a better than the rogues gallery of tech&#x27;s giant offenders (Uber, Facebook, Amazon<i>). But the pride I felt in working there is gone.<p></i>I believe Jeff Bezos is the greatest businessman we&#x27;ve seen since Ford or Rockefeller, but his insatiable need for not just more, but everything, has kept him from being a great human and Amazon from being a great company in anything other than the most narrow economic sense.
评论 #21940903 未加载
评论 #21941236 未加载
adventskalenderover 5 years ago
I consider this and the other article by the international relations guy to be very one-sided accounts.<p>A couple of people are unhappy, out of a workforce of 100000. So what?<p>It also mostly seems to be political reasons. I would imagine a lot of people working for Google just want to do a good job for a good salary, not make Google a vehicle for their political opinions.<p>I think people pushing their political agenda within a company tend to harm the company and it should therefore be ok to fire them.<p>That said, I haven&#x27;t wanted to work for Google for years. But I am from the opposite side from these veterans. I felt it was very unjust when James Damore was fired, and I really don&#x27;t want to work at a place that distrusts its workers so much that it forces them to go through diversity trainings and things like that. I would feel &quot;unsafe&quot; at Google.
评论 #21940942 未加载
评论 #21940916 未加载
评论 #21941058 未加载
评论 #21941102 未加载
评论 #21941245 未加载
评论 #21941303 未加载
duelingjelloover 5 years ago
Step 0. Lots of FAANG veterans discover each other and plot their exits.<p>Step 1. Start a FAANG-competitor worker-owned co-op that is profitable through donations, subscriptions and freemium products &#x2F; services. No evil allowed.<p>Step 2. Poach more workers from FAANG to a civilized, humane and decent organization that creates excellent products for normal humans.<p>Step 3. Dominate FAANG without selling-out to governments privacy invasions or reselling customer data.
评论 #21944087 未加载
corporateslave5over 5 years ago
That’s what happens when you hire strictly off of algorithms questions with zero behavioral questions. How they thought that wouldn’t destroy the company culture is beyond me.
评论 #21940499 未加载
评论 #21940683 未加载
评论 #21940816 未加载
评论 #21940307 未加载
评论 #21940315 未加载
评论 #21940384 未加载
aaomidiover 5 years ago
All beasts will fall someday. This is Google&#x27;s turn.
评论 #21940764 未加载