Who could've imagined that Google is becoming just as mediocre and boring as any other large corporation. What a surprise!
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
623 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
37 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's happening at my company right now. We just merged. I got a taste of power, performed well, then got written up for spending too much time on my power project. Now they have neutered any power I had, and I'm a glorified babysitter and messenger. The hunt now begins in earnest.
Good luck.
load more comments
(13 replies)
A few years ago the MBA suits took over from the nerds and it became inevitable.
load more comments
(9 replies)
I am old enough to remember that Apple was the pirate of Silicon Valley, and then it became the most “cooperation” company in the industry. Then it’s Google then there will be a next one. It’s probably inevitable for any company to go this route.
It's cute that you think any new corporation of that calibre will be born in near future. It will get bought out before that happens
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
They've long been quite mediocre judging by the incredible long hours of those working there and shit quality of basically any technical framework they put out.
They have shoved tons of resources into some things (such as Android) and thus at times succeeded (though usually they don't), but in terms of quality from a technical point of view (i.e. software design, technical architecture) their stuff looks like it was hammered together by a bunch of junior devs.
Lucky timing followed by some smart strategical decisions (and, seemingly, lots of money together with a throw everything at the wall and see what sticks management strategy) are what made Google, not excellence.
It's unfair to discount Google's early days. They DID have technical excellence. Search was leagues better than the competition. Gmail was an amazing leap from other providers. Android started as trash but improved rapidly. The Nexus line of phones was amazing. Google Maps was a huge improvement over what else existed. They did a lot right.
I can't pinpoint exactly when the fall started. Was it when Pichai became CEO? When they removed "don't be evil?" I remember a speech Pichai gave where he talked about "more wood behind fewer arrows" as why they were getting rid of employee child projects, so maybe it was that.
I can't pinpoint exactly when the fall started.
In my opinion, it was when anti-trust laws did not trigger upon Google acquiring YouTube because Google Video couldn't compete. That meant it was open season on start-ups that otherwise might have grown to kill Google or other big tech companies like Apple, Facebook and Microsoft.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Android started as trash
It started off by beating the pants off of iOS in terms of features, but was not nearly as polished.
Definitely not trash. But also not polished for the masses.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
It became this in approximately 2009 - 2010, around when the founders left and the business bros took over. We've been seeing the slow decline since then, though it may be accelerating now.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
The Verge reported that CEO Sundar Pichai defended the layoffs and claimed that workers sometimes reach out to express gratitude for the cuts. “And I just want to clarify that, through these changes, people feel it on the ground and sometimes people write back and say, ‘Thank you for simplifying.’ Sometimes we have a complicated, duplicative structure,” he said, per the Verge.
Chalmers: People send thank you's for lay offs?
Pichai: Yes.
Chalmers: May I see one?
Pichai: No.
- Who writes an email directly to the CEO of their company, and
- Who would that email have to be from for the CEO to actually bother reading it?
I'm guessing it's not your rank-and-file type "people".
Managers from unaffected departments who are glad they have less internal competition. And that's pretty much it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"This is a conversation I could imagine happening if I spoke to my employees directly, and that's as good as an actual conversation."
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah that whole line smells like pure bullshit. I've never seen anyone be grateful for having their coworkers laid off.
We had a coworker that got fired a while back, man that was a relief for the entire department. That person was absolutely toxic to work with, or even near.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
[...] Sundar Pichai defended the layoffs and claimed that workers sometimes reach out to express gratitude for the cuts.
"It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week."
Those workers are kissing ass to make their careers.
Sundar is a complete idiot if he believes what those guys say. And he probably doesn't, but it sounds good to the press I guess.
Even the press isn't fooled. Sundar isn't fooled. The other employees aren't fooled. We, the outside observers, aren't fooled. You have to wonder what the point of all this was.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I feel like the editor that wrote the headline missed the main point of the article. The headline makes the article sound like there are a bunch of dumb and boring middle managers at Google. The actual article has nothing to do with people's direct bosses or even their bosses' bosses. The article was about how Google execs are ruining the company to appease the shareholders. Best quote from the article is:
“We get that execs are excited about Google’s future,” another question reportedly said. “Why should we be excited, when we might get laid off and not be around to share in that future? If we lose our jobs and equity grants, it’s cold comfort that Google is succeeding off our hard work, and we don’t get rewarded for it, but you do.”
IMO one thing I think should be made into law is that if a company grants unvested equity, everything granted will automatically vest when you get laid off.
If you decide to quit before they vest, I understand that those grants should be forfeited. If you get fired for not doing your job, I also get forfeiting them.
But if the company lays you off, that's on their side, so I think the opposite (automatic vesting) should be guaranteed by law.
I had to verify the current situation in the United States is what you stated because it's intuitively so wrong. I can't believe an employer can set terms for compensation and, through no fault of the employee, legally prevent that employee from completing those terms.
Land of the free!
load more comments
(8 replies)
It's the same everywhere. Companies will kick people out when they want to. Any talk of family or loyalty is extreamly manipulative.
load more comments
(1 replies)
You're right. Google employs over 140k people.
If the average team is 8-10 people, this article is kinda complaining about 10000+ people being shitty at their jobs.
When really, middle managers are also part of the same worker class.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Layoffs will continue until morale improves.
This has been a huge problem for Google for several years now. Under Sundar, Google implemented several regressive "un-Google" policies like Unregretted Attrition (URA) to reduce worker numbers, shifting responsibility to managers and senior leadership to determine technical vision, and promoting people who are solely focused on "empire building" over delivering the best products. The result is a management-heavy structure where policies like "put AI in everything" and "display more ads" are likely to be a business driver over making the best products.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is why companies should be run by their workers. Even places that start out with a good culture get taken over by the business school blob whose only job is to get promoted and loot the company.
There are some folks that know both how to run a business well and are passionate about the technology, but they are rare unfortunately. More common in smaller organizations at least.
They’re common in small orgs. Once you go public and the only thing that matters is the quarterly bottom line, you almost have no choice but to replace them with people whose only though is “make number go up”
From the article:
“And I just want to clarify that, through these changes, people feel it on the ground and sometimes people write back and say, ‘Thank you for simplifying.’ Sometimes we have a complicated, duplicative structure”
Employees think leadership is out of touch. This statement from the CEO proves this problem exists and starts at the top.
Sounds like they're still wearing Google Glass.
This is what happens when entitled business bros take over. The sort of person who is uninterested in tech but is interested in quarterly bonuses will be inept and glassy eyed.
Only Google? Management is forged on that mostly
view more: next ›