If you ask me, one of Google's biggest strategic successes was their ability to convince an entire generation of engineers that they were something other than a company. The way many (otherwise intelligent) people talk about it, you'd think it was a religion.
What you're seeing here is not the shattering of a dream, but of an illusion -- Google hasn't been a scrappy, idealistic startup for many years. It's a fine company, but it's a big company -- a collection of tens of thousands of people, all motivated by different hopes and dreams. No institution of that size behaves consistently, let alone consistently benevolently.
In other words: stop setting up false idols, and your reality won't be shattered when they disappoint you.
While eating my second dinner plate of something delicious on the campus I looked around and saw how many children and families were around.
The company provides, so much, for you, for your family. You wouldn't to ever lose what you have now gotten used to, for yourself, for your family.
So now you become a company man. What's good for the company must be good for you.
What's good about knowing more people, how they think, how they behave, what they want, must be good for the company, which turn must be good for you, good for your family.
It's just a series of intricate goodness being passed around from group to group, people to people.
No one inherently is evil, but the system can end up be directed towards evil inevitably.
Either way, it just was damn good pork chops with quinoa.
We didn't get this kind of chow in the Marine Corps, and I would have killed for it.
I don't know if you served or if you were just alluding to it but your last point got me thinking:
In the Army, I lived the most barebones kind of lifestyle and did a job that often put my family through hell but was buoyed by the feeling that I was part of the most noble of professions. In this industry, I've provided incredible privilege, comfort, and stability for my family but have always felt that this industry principally serves those who are a part of it.
Is this sarcasm?
Do you really consider being in the Army a noble profession?
And do you think that the software industry serves humanity in general less than military industry?
It's sad that the Armed Forces are now looked upon with disdain by hackers mere decades after the West wrested the world from Germany's grasp.
Say what you want about the military industrial complex, but lets not forget that should any of our countries be invaded, we will be very grateful that those guns pointing at the invaders.
Disdain is inappropriate, but so is automatic praise. The media wants to paint this picture that members of the military choose to serve for altruistic reasons and that we need to celebrate them all. This may be true for some, but I think the majority are in the military more-so because they think it's their best option for starting a career.
Additionally, the justness of military conflicts these days is far more questionable than in the past. Doesn't this make it reasonable to be more critical of the military as a whole?
I agree. I served 4+ years in the Army and was deployed as part of OEF. I'm uncomfortable with the automatic praise; it's definitely not why I signed up.
However, given a choice I'd prefer that the scale remain tipped towards praise instead of neglect or ignorance.
It's true, not all Soldiers serve altruistically, but they serve nonetheless. It's fine to question the intent of our government, military, and its officers, but try to remember that for the most part, Soldiers are forced to follow orders or face jail time, and they are constantly reminded of this.
The recruitment pitch is vastly different from the reality. I remember many Tuesdays where we'd spend the day sweeping the motor pool, wondering if we really deserved the praise bestowed upon us. Rest assured, most Soldiers wrestle with this at some point during their career.
> On the other hand, there's good reason to believe that terrorism is directed against us because we're continually pointing guns in their direction.
There's a better reason to believe that terrorism is directed at us more because of our history and continuing practice of direct support for both repressive regimes that are unpopular with large segments of their own* population in the Middle East and Central Asia than because of our military specifically (though, particulary post-9/11, our use of the military has played directly into the same animosity.)
(* or, in the case of Israel specifically, a population that they simultaneously claim is not their own and disclaim interest in governing, but nevertheless seek to control every aspect of.)
> Can it be that the military is both the problem and its own solution?
Its a secondary aspect (as discussed above) of the problem, as well as a treatment for the symptoms that doesn't actually solve anything.
Sure, we need to have a military for defensive purposes. But the US doesn't maintain military spending at a level that rivals the rest of the world combined for anything resembling "defensive" purposes, it does so to maintain global hegemony and the ability to dictate policy in a wide range of domains to countries all over the world.
That's not to say it didn't come out of a legitimate, even defensive, place -- much of it was necessary, though one may certainly debate particular aspects, during the Cold War to counterbalance the attempts led by the Soviet Union to export Stalinism. But with that enemy defeated, the military-industrial complex is now more about serving domestic commercial interests -- both those that have are part of the military industrial complex and dependent on military spending directly, and those that through more traditional lobbying seek to have preferred policies imposed both domestically and globally.
The Armed Forces (and similar government organizations) spent their good will raping people in Abu Ghraib, mutilating people in Afghanistan, blowing people apart in cafes across the Middle East, illegally spying on Americans for who knows what reason, and generally acting like a bunch of psychopaths with little to no respect for the rule of law.
Why would we trust any institution acting so obviously violent and so completely unaccountable?
My mother's high school class of men were almost entirely killed in Vietnam.
She told me this and i'll never forget it: "hate the war, hate the government, but never, ever hate the soldier." Just don't do it. It's disrespectful to the sacrifice so many make, every day.
Not to mention in the world we live in the USA, most of the people in the military are from poor families, simply because they have no other choice and the army gets them an education.
We will always have an army, would you rather it be through conscription or volunteer?
We will always have an army, would you rather it be through conscription or volunteer?
As an 18 year old man I would have said "volunteer" no question. As someone who had a nephew volunteer, my mind is now completely changed and am 100% for conscription.
Egalitarian conscription means mothers across the country have a major stake in any decision to go to war -- even if their kid has not (yet) been drafted. You can bet your ass they will make it known they don't want their sons and daughters to be killed in some far off land fighting some rich man's war. It also means that congress itself will have children in the line of fire (unlike today where it is on the order of about 10 out of 535) giving them a lot more personal accountability for choosing to send other people's kids to face death.
No, (US) congress will simply have children signing paperwork in Pentagon, or inspect bolts in a Boeing factory.
I'm from a country with conscription. The major difference it makes is that the military treats soldiers like shit, because a new fresh batch of soldiers will always arrive, no matter what. In the extreme cases, your son will be found dead with three gunshot wounds and the military decides he committed suicide. In the more benign cases, you end up digging ditches with a shovel in winter, because soldiers are cheaper than machines.
The conscription program there definitely has problems both with the treatment of the average Joe (Kim?) and the ways for the privileged to avoid risk. There will never be a perfect system (c.f. Bush essentially going AWOL when he was in the service here). But I think the circumstances are different enough - you guys already have 100% conscription, that's a big cultural difference from spinning up a draft.
May I suggest you review Vietnam history? In fact, if you want to skip facts and just listen to some music consider the classic Creedence Clearwater Revival Song, "Fortunate Son."
Some folks are born to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,
Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,
Given the steady decline in the number of congressional kids in the military since the draft was suspended it seems pretty clear that the situation has only gotten worse since vietnam. Don't confuse imperfection with failure.
Sure. But yeah, I'll take money and a healthier work/life balance than free laundry so I could stay 12h a day making something that people will hate but will drive their agenda.
I know it looks like that, but that reaction happens often right after it.
Of course I didn't like not being accepted (that was in 2007 btw).
But based on what now is showing and the opinion of people that have worked there (and the jobs I had afterwards) I see that it didn't matter much in the end, and I believe that even though having Google in your CV is something that's good, not entering allowed me to pursue a lot of other things.
And the opinion that the Google selection process (not only theirs) is dysfunctional is widely shared.
I'm with you. I was recruited by them just after the IPO. During the interview process I was also close to an offer from another company, and I mentioned this. I was told the process would take up to six weeks and it wouldn't change.
I was then told by the recruiter that "it would be unfortunate" if I had to abandon the recruiting process because I'd gotten another job offer. I said, "unfortunate for whom? Certainly not for me."
The last straw was when I found out that you don't get to meet your manager before you accept the job, or do know exactly what you'd be doing; and that was a deal killer. Your manager IS your job or certainly your happiness in it. I walked away, and have never been happier about that decision.
I wonder if Google has trouble with college hires for this reason- people near the end of college are often interviewing with multiple companies at once and timing is critical. Many people I graduated with would have taken a job offer from Google over the one they accepted, but were unwilling to turn down offers from Apple, Microsoft, ect in order to wait for Google to make a decision. Only a couple of people continued the job-hunt process long enough to get a hire/no hire decision from Google.
Google selection process (not only theirs) is dysfunctional
You say that, yet they consistently field top talent in the industry. The fact is that all hiring is dysfunctional and imperfect in some way. Google's is less so than most everyone else's.
I think that at the end of the day, people don't like being rejected. That's understandable, but it's going to add some biased memes into the public consciousness that you have to mentally discount to a degree. I focus on the results they have.
From one of those googlers with children: I have to say I read a bit of the classic "people with children aren't like us" here - likely not intentional, but you may want to reread what you write more carefully for subtext.
Not sure what you mean but to your point, you are not like us. In a fire I grab my laptop and get out. You have your family. We're very much different. And likewise are taxed differently.
Calling it Hell detracts from the pragmatism of bread and circuses -- we are quite happy to compromise logic, ethics, and even our own personal feelings.
Or, more interestingly, artificially creating public approval through diversion, distraction, and the satisfaction of immediate and shallow desires.
Google fascinates me. I think it is possibly the first organization in history that embodies concepts from dystopic fiction. Putting a real face to those dystopic ideas can give us a sense of what a true dystopia looks like (short answer: it looks deceptively nice; the horror reveals itself only on close inspection).
You mention work. As you say, Google does not just want their employees' time. They want their complete identification with the company. In a way, they want their souls.
As for business, Google is a company whose business model is tricking people into sharing as much private information with the company, and then using this information for profit.
One of the most interesting things about Google is their "don't be evil" motto. I want to write a complete literary interpretation of it some other time, but here are the highlights. Obviously, it's a short and catchy motto that is not intended to be taken too seriously, but that does not preclude literary interpretation.
First, let's consider the motto as a whole. It could be a motto for anyone, but how come it's Google's and not mine (or yours)? The reason is that they accept the premise that corporations do often turn out to be "evil" (whatever that means). This is analogous to the reason physicians swear to "do no harm"; they swear it because doctors can easily do harm.
Now let's take the motto apart and analyze it word by word. First, the word "evil". The word assumes such a thing exists and can be recognizable. Second, the word "be". It implies that evil is something you are, not something you do. Lastly, the word "don't". It assumes that you can choose not to "be" "evil", and implies that those who "are" "evil" are so because they chose to be that way.
If a motto can guide a corporation, and if this motto guides Google, we can see why they've become so monstrously terrifying. Evil is not always easily recognizable. Often, it's in the eyes of the beholder. Second, evil is rarely something you are, and almost always something you do. Third, "evil" creeps up on you, and is often the result of the best intentions. People other than James Bond villains don't choose to be evil. Similarly you can't simply choose not to be. To abstain from "evil" you must be vigilant. You must constantly analyze your actions and their consequences separately from your intentions, and listen to other viewpoints.
Going back to dystopias, well known ones, like Orwell's 1984, insist that the masses love their oppressors rather than fear them. This is a crucial point that is largely overlooked when people discuss the NSA surveillance scandal. It is crucial because true power, absolute oppression, cannot exist if its wielder is generally considered suspect.
When I read 1984 many years ago I couldn't understand that. Do people not notice that they're being manipulated and exploited? Can they actually enjoy being exploited? Now we have the answer.
I've wondered for awhile about this. Having lived through the first wave of tech companies, where the idea of perks was bagel wednesday and free coffee, I find myself a bit amused at the naked desire to own employees' entire lives.
As I worked with more milennials I think I've stumbled across something, and Google (consciously?) tapped into it, brilliantly. The children of the baby boomers, so eager to use social networking, or live in communes in the city (see yesterday's SF Gate) are so willing to believe in this shell of an idea passed down from their parents. They are much more social and communal than us in generation X. They're often morally adrift (religious worship is declining), financially adrift (the economy), and grew up with tales of free love. They're delicately raised to have great self esteem, but often crumble in the face of adversity or criticism. They're a brittle group, it seems. So the social nature (if my friends do it, it's ok) makes them so eager to buy into this.
I can't say it's a new concept. I remember showing up to work at big mega tech corp at 8 am (after a 1 hour commute) and being told "nice of you to show up today." I routinely worked 12 hours a day and we were never allowed to work from home. There it was forced on us, but how ever so much nicer to just gently slide into being a company man with free food, etc. Sort of like the Matrix.
That said, daycare is an important perk, I cannot deny Google the kudos it deserves for caring for parents who work for them. More companies should do this.
You mention religion, and I think not by accident. I find Google's founders' involvement with the Burning Man festival to be a guiding principle of how they perceive work and society. Burning Man adopts many religious ideas and practices, most of all the power of religious ecstatic experiences. Max Weber tried to tie the rise of protestant christianity to the rise of capitalism. He postulated that the ascetic ideals of protestant christianity urged people to adopt hard work as a central tenant of life. I think that Burning Man helps take this idea further. It turns work from an ascetic endeavor to an ecstatic one. Burning Man is the religion that underlies Google's view of work.
this is what keeps me coming back to HN. thanks for the insights. very interesting....people always want something to believe in, whether it's god, country, exercise, companies, etc. Religion (of any kind) is one of the best sources of dopamine.
It's always weird to read accounts of experiences with my age group that diverge wildly from my own experience. Everyone I know is hard working and completely open to criticism. Maybe you just got a bad batch in your local experience. Religious observance is near absent, but no one I know is without morals.
The adjective immoral means contrary to established moral principles. Immoral actions are corrupt, unethical, sinful, or just wrong. Amoral means (1) neither moral nor immoral, or (2) lacking moral sensibility. So while immoral and amoral might share a little common ground, there is a clear distinction: immoral things are bad, and amoral things are either neutral from a moral perspective or simply removed from moral considerations.
I more think about it this way--and hey, if I chose the wrong word, do correct me.
When we are changing the world with our technology we don't really stop to think about all the people who will be put out of work by it. We don't as a community really care much about the impact of our companies on our communities (giving to local arts organizations and volunteer efforts in SF are not rising concurrently with population or wealth).
To be fair, this thinking isn't limited to milennials, it's just that as children they were more likely to have been raised without the early foundation of morals which are usually taught by religion.
I do not in any way mean to imply religion is necessary for morals, just statistically that's how most people get them. I also don't mean to imply milennials are criminals, just that well, it doesn't occur to them to think sometimes about the impact of their choices; or if they do, they don't care. Hell, maybe I was that way in my 20s and I've conveniently forgotten it...so maybe it's a function of youth.
The brittleness though? absolutely. Most of them are deeply insecure, fundamentally needing a lot of praise. I don't mind , because that's the kind of leader/manager I like to be; but adversity is hard for them to deal with.
I sometimes think one's attitude toward all this is dependent on when one arrives in the area; for myself having arrived during the bust of 2002 I feel perpetually like "winter is coming." for those for who it has always been prosperous springtime, it's hard to realize how important it is to squirrel away money, karma, connections, etc.
I don't think religious attendance necessarily means moral education. Some people do get that out of religion, many do not. Some in fact get ammunition for frameworks of immorality.
My feeling is that, today as a hundred years ago, the bulk of moral education comes from watching and interacting with other humans. Parents, teachers, friends, and neighbors hurting you, helping you, being hurt by you, being helped by you, and discussing all of the above.
This hyperbole is pretty extreme. Google embodies dystopian fiction because it
1) Didn't fall on its sword to spite the federal government.
2) Wanted to unify the identity systems across its products.
Are you serious?
The third party doctrine is something out of dystopian fiction. Congress and SCOTUS's behavior regarding national security is very 1984. But Google? Really?
David Krane, a senior spokesperson for Google, told SVW: "I never liked it. I always felt that it would come back to bite us in some way, that we would end up building concentration camps, or something even worse. The universe seems to love irony, why leave ourselves wide open?"
Well, the universe does love irony, but concentration camps are unnecessary in this day and age. Knowledge is power, and building a company whose purpose it is to collect and use as much personal information as possible is bad enough.
reminds me a bit of Animal Farm. Where the rules on the farm slowly change over time, allowing for more and more transgressions to occur. 2009 is also, I believe, around when Google started recording WiFi data with their street view cars.
While I can agree with some of what is said in that article, the writer exhibits not only massive ignorance, but a basic misunderstanding of the premise. Because I studied both mathematics and history at university, I am very familiar with the mutual contempt people of those "two worlds" have for one another, but I think the reason for it that they don't understand the premise of the other discipline: namely the axioms and the purpose. An HN comment is not the place to discuss this at length, but very briefly, the humanities and the exact sciences have different understandings of the concept of "truth". In the exact sciences, truth is a model of reality that agrees with observations. In the humanities, truth is anything that can give us pause, make us think about ourselves and look at the world in different ways. For example, in the exact sciences, the statement "the moon is made of cheese" is simply false. It is disproved by observation. In the humanities, it could be "true" if you can imbue it with meaning that enriches you. If it makes you ponder the significance of the moon, or of cheese, to your life, and if it makes you consider an idea like "the moon", which may be something beautiful but far away, is actually made of cheese, a mundane substance, then the statement can be true.
In short, neither scientists/mathematicians/engineers nor historians/literary critics are stupid (well, most of them aren't). If this is your starting point, then if before dismissing the other discipline you realize that it's being studied by smart people who know what they're doing, and give yourself time to understand the premise, you might actually learn something. The writer of that article simply does not have the tools necessary to determine whether a "reading" is bogus or not, because he does not know what "non-bogus" or "true" is in the framework he has tried to explore.
Having said that, there was very little deconstruction in my interpretation of "don't be evil". In fact, I think it's a pretty straightforward interpretation once you've decided to interpret the motto seriously. It is a literary failure on my part to interpret it so unimaginatively, but it's only meant as a starting point.
It's not that people thought Google weren't a company, they thought Google was a company with a long term vision that valued reputation and quality. Google had/has a reputation for paying clever people to produce innovative products. We all want such products to exist, and a lot of us would like to work on making more of them (without necessarily having to join a start up). The fact that they managed to keep that reputation (what you call a religion) for so long means they genuinely valued it.
Now it seems like Google is shifting to a more short term vision. They have begun leveraging their market power rather than relying on product quality to gain market share. In doing so they are starting to sacrifice their reputation. For big company this is an attractive approach over the short term. A reputation for high quality can be expensive to maintain, and products can become very long term risky investments. It's more profitable in the short term to create the illusion of quality while using tactics that hamper the competition or restrict consumer choices. However, that leads to stagnation and eventually the company becomes obsolete.
You might see start ups as being idealistic, and Google's previous behaviour as being benevolent. However, start ups aren't charities and Google made a boat load of money. It's not really about morality. It's more that big companies have incentives to follow particular short term strategies that ultimately stifle innovation and prevent technological progress. A big company with long term vision forces its competitors to innovate to keep up and helps change the technological landscape in a way that start ups are not able to.
I think maximizing profit is what corporations do by definition. I agree with the poster something is changed at Gogle after Larry Page took over though.
Yet in the process of "making my opinion about a corp being evil or not" I enjoy measuring the amount and the quality of free software they release. For software corp, I think this is a good parameter.
By this metric it is easy to understand that putting too much hopes into Google is wrong. They release a lot of code, but that code is usually only "a path" for the user to their core products (which they do not release).
I encourage you rediscover those corps instead where people work hard to keep their "don't be evil" going, despite not marketing it that much.
Let me add something, maybe I'm not good enough for Google, but I'm employed by Red Hat and I enjoy what we do at Red Hat. And I could name a lot of others, in this context, doing great things.
Well for me personally, it's been a long series of small stuff that convinced me that they were an engineering organization first and a for-profit company next.
I remember when Android 2.3 was released and at one of the Google dev conferences, a Google engineer answering a question about why "X feature doesn't exist in stock Anroid" answered that Google thought that was too confusing for the lay user and that one could look to the custom ROM community for adding that feature later. It was something that no large company would ever do it seemed to me, That's the first thing that comes to mind whenever I read something of this nature about Google. I'm sure I could pull up others. But that's the one that comes to mind.
But yeah, that was a more open Google undeniably. Before Larry Page took over. Maybe there were a few oases of ideality hiding the vast curtain of reality. But it gave them a soul and connected people to the company. But that's maybe gone now.
He gave a speech recently where he actually pondered why people wouldn't want to have their health care data public, so it could be shared to advance medical research.
From that I could tell that he's completely out of touch with ordinary people. He simply has no idea that people might be scared of losing their job or being discriminated against because of an illness.
Reminds me of his former girlfriend/date Marissa Mayer, who built a nursery next to her office while telling Yahoo employees they should no longer work from home.
Making the healthcare data public in an anonymised format would not affect people's jobs, unless there is some property of that data that makes it easily identifiable.
Good luck with the anonymisation. It only has to fail once for catastrophic consequences.
Look back to how we handled HIV/AIDS in the 1980s. Enormous amounts of fear (understandable) and utter disgust-filled loathing (not so much). There were politicians calling for AIDS sufferers to be rounded up and put in quarantine camps but refusing to engage in public health initiatives because they thought that warning people to use condoms and engage in safe sex would "promote" homosexuality.
Up until 2010 in Britain, it was legal for a dentist to refuse to take an HIV+ patient even though the professional association for dentists had told dentists that it was safe to use the same procedures around sterilisation and safety. It also made no sense as it just led to people lying about their HIV status to dentists in order to get access to health services.
I know people who have faced discrimination in work over chronic mental health conditions that they are being treated for. People who have held down other jobs perfectly well, who take less sick leave than people without any health conditions. There is still significant social stigma around mental health conditions: nobody considers you morally suspicious if you have, say, eczema or hay fever, but if you have depression or schizophrenia, some will consider you too "risky" to employ etc.
So, yes, "please make all your medical records public" sounds nice. I've spoken to friends who, thanks to people like Schmidt and others breathlessly promoting this kind of thing at TED talks, think that anyone who wishes to actually exercise their medical privacy to be "irrational". And that medical privacy is a silly idea that we wouldn't choose to have now and that we only have for historical reasons. That the bright sparks of Silicon Valley can't see the importance of medical privacy is really concerning—it shows they've failed to look at the history of discrimination and fear-mongering against people with particular health conditions. Or, worse, it shows they've thought about it and don't give a shit about protecting people from mistreatment by both the state and by other individuals based on their health conditions.
Some property of the data that makes it easily identifiable? Such as someone's entire medical history, including age, sex, number of children, and "race"? Just wiping someone's name is not going to "anonymize" that kind of data.
There's something deeper here - Larry Page is thinking in terms of "big data" - "wouldn't it be nice if we could run all kinds of multivariate analyses on everything about everyone?" - but it's fundamentally impossible to do that while preserving anonymity. The same information that might reveal interesting correlations is vulnerable to correlation attacks. Say you wanted to know how nutrition affected immune system response. You'd look at things like height, weight, diet, frequency of minor illness, and rough location (city level, to control illness rate against those around you). To be of any use, the "anonymized" database is going to have to have all those variables correlated per person, which means if I know you're 6'1", eat a lot of bananas, live in Silicon Valley and had a cold last year, I can potentially look you up and find out other things about you.
It's worth remembering that whenever a high-level Googler talks about the social/medical potential of large-scale data analysis like that, that it is inherently hostile to privacy.
I can't speak for the health care industry or medical research - but considering all the other places I've seen people "anonymise" data.. They probably store too much data, that can aid or completely de-anonymise the anonymised data.
Anonymization is really not enough. Some government force Google to anonymize the data after a certain period of time. But I am sure Google engineers are able to piece it all back together without much effort. I don't say they actually do this. They probably comply with the wishes of these governments. I'm just saying they are able to do it. I would be kind of disappointed if they couldn't. What would work better is if the data were aggregated instead of anonymized. But try explaining that to a politician though. Math is usually not something politicians are well versed in and you can pretty much forget about statistics.
> one of Google's biggest strategic successes was their ability to convince an entire generation of engineers that they were something other than a company
Interesting. Would you statement hold if I replace Google with Apple, and engineers with consumers?
Imo. The difference is the control Steve had over the company when he was alive. At Google, despite how well run the company is, you really do not know the direction or vision for the company although everything _seems_ really cool. Where as at Apple, the idea is you were sacrificing in order to help Steve achieve _his_ vision.
Googlers annoy me endlessly because everyone knows the mission and everyone thinks they're on the same mission. Even if their job is indirectly related or even if what they're doing is potentially evil.
They all believe they are changing the world. It's what they tell their aging hippie parents when they visit, it's what they brainwash the legions of school children that visit, it's what they insist to the political leaders when they visit.
Every Googler thinks they're there to serve humanity and it's pompous.
When I was at Apple the goal was helping the user. You made a better thing so someone can use it better. You made something that your mom could use. You tried harder so that a baby can pick it up and it just works.
Most people didn't care about Steve. Hell, he walked around the cafeteria, grabbed his cookie, but no one really cares. Just yet another eccentric old dude walking around in a place full of eccentric old dudes in skirts and high heels.
What I hated about Apple though was that we loved users so much it became a problem. We suffered from the battered-wives syndrome. Where we tolerated and accepted everything. It became to be a love-hate relationship where on one hand we appreciated users but on the other there was such a disdain for them as well.
Every Apple person thinks they're different because they make things work in a world where things don't work because people are too stupid to make it work. It's equally as pompous as Google.
Hell the whole of Silicon Valley is really pompous, geeks just do a really good job hiding it when the attention wasn't on this place.
>Most people didn't care about Steve. Hell, he walked around the cafeteria, grabbed his cookie, but no one really cares. Just yet another eccentric old dude
Well, I find this hard to believe, given what I've read about their relationship/feelings towards Jobs from lots of other ex-Apple employees. Makes me hard to believe the claim that you even worked there in the first place.
I mean, "Just yet another eccentric old dude", really?
The difference was that, that PARTICULAR "eccentric old dude" had started the company you worked on in the first place, had ressurected it from bankraptcy just some years ago, has turned it into the most profitable company on earth, had outmost control over it's products and directions, was named "person of the year" several times, had a worldwide cult following, and micromanaged often the software and hardware Apple pushed out -- to the point that people talked about his "Reality Distortion Field".
walking around in a place full of eccentric old dudes in skirts and high heels.
It is to be expected, to some extent, for people in the tech industry to be pompous. After all many of us have been great universities and were taught (or perhaps suggested) that we are the smartest of all.
I see this general pomposity among my fellow techies all the time. Some think that business people are stupid, some think humanities are unnecessary, some argue that users are all noobs etc...
Perhaps it's pride in work/abilities gone too far. Perhaps we overvalue ourselves...
Perhaps it's pride in work/abilities gone too far. Perhaps we overvalue ourselves...
My experience has been that it is simply a lack of perspective due to ignorance. It is very tempting to be dismissive of what other people do when you only understand what they do at a very simple level.
We probably shouldn't confuse a handful of start ups and successful corporations with "the tech industry" as if it's a single entity.
To me there are at least two bits of the industry - the bit where that either because of the work or because of the culture those working in it might convince themselves that they're changing the world, and the bit where people largely write CRUD database apps that save a few people, usually working for corporations, a bit of time.
Far more people work in the second camp and in my experience most of them really aren't that pompous at all.
That is one side of the problem. The other side is, many many people (especially engineers) undervalue themselves, think that they aren't worth much etc. It is super hard to precisely know what our value is, and act/live in such a way that it is neither arrogant/proud/pompous nor doormat/depressed.
May be we should stop measuring value/worth through sheer abilities, achievements and things owned?
I don't think it was ever really that pronounced with Apple. People really did buy into the "don't be evil" thing, and they really did think Google could do no wrong.
I'm still convinced that the major disaffected group are people who used Reader :)
Turning into Microsoft means saddling your users with shitty experiences and shitty products because you're focusing more on monopolizing them than on building something great for your users. Google has done this, but Apple and Amazon never did, despite whatever other evils they might have committed.
I never said Apple never shipped a bad product. Apple still tries to ship good products and falls short. Microsoft and Google neglect that because all they try to do is monopolize. That's why Google pulled their maps from iOS.
This is a key point: they're not doing that so much for Google any more.
I have friends at Google, they love it and have suggested I put in my CV. (No chance. I don't have a degree and my algorithmic insight is terrible.) But, ehh. An advertising agency with lovely working conditions and smart people to be around, and it's not like I wanted to see my kid anyway. OH WAIT.
> I just never expected them to turn into Microsoft.
Why not? Google started around 20 years later, that's the main difference. In a different environment, google focused more on internet software and grew faster than MS did a few decades ago, but the path from scrappy startup grabbing an untapped niche, to corporate monopoly is a predictable one.
It's a very fine line between strong corporate cultures that encompass personal identities, and selfish cult-like behavior.
If you look at the leading companies across many industries, one thing that jumps out is that the corporate identity is primary in the employees lives. Generally these companies also prefer molding employees straight out of school. This is true for P&G, Accenture, McKinsey and Goldman Sachs. Look at the leadership - most have been there their entire careers.
I am not saying this is good or bad, but I am saying that it's an attribute of many leading companies.
Full disclosure: I am not a Google employee, nor have I ever been.
> A lot of fast growing start ups are terrible places to work, because of the very virtue of what they are.
The size of a company has a little to do with its culture. Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft all employ over 80,000 people, but have very different cultures.
I have seen some start-ups which have awful cultures, with terrible morale problems. It is really not the size of / number of employees at a company that defines its culture, but the mindset of the people in charge.
What you're seeing here is not the shattering of a dream, but of an illusion -- Google hasn't been a scrappy, idealistic startup for many years. It's a fine company, but it's a big company -- a collection of tens of thousands of people, all motivated by different hopes and dreams. No institution of that size behaves consistently, let alone consistently benevolently.
In other words: stop setting up false idols, and your reality won't be shattered when they disappoint you.