

Ask HN: Why the Google Hate? - anonny

So I recently graduated from college and joined Google in NYC. I considered going the startup route, but instead chose to apply to big companies based on my short-term financial goals and the rationale that once I paid off my (small) student loan debt, I can go on and join or start a startup without sacrificing financial stability in the short term. Besides, the work lines up wonderfully with my studies and skillset.<p>Since I've joined, I've noticed people seem to have a particular... attitude towards Google employees. Many of my friends went to work at startups, and they've become somewhat chilly. I've learned to avoid bringing up my employer's name at certain meetups because I've noticed people being visibly turned off by me when I mention it.<p>What I'd like to know is: why? As someone with little experience in this market, I'm a little uncertain as to what might cause such a reaction.
======
lubujackson
A bunch of reasons, some valid and some not.

In the 90s, people felt exactly this way about Microsoft. Part of it is simply
market strength and longevity. Like the Yankees, people just get tired of
always seeing and hearing about Google.

A lot of people have issues with Google's business policies. Very little human
support, even for paying customers. Websites that rely on Google's traffic
both fear and are frustrated by Google's (unintentional) power over their
business, and this includes many startups.

Some people are unhappy with Google's recent moves, including a lot of former
employees. The new focus on Google+ and sunsetting of several products has
alienated some people who are concerned about Google's identity and goals.

Lastly, some people feel that Google's employees tend to be either arrogant or
naive. It's important to realize that people have developed these strong
feelings over many years by interacting with Google's products, so when
employees assume that Google is great and "would never do anything to hurt
small companies" or something like that, it angers people who feel like they
have personally experienced just that.

I certainly don't believe most of these concerns are valid or judged by the
same standards any other company would have, but that is the nature of being a
for-profit company so central to the workings of the Internet.

------
ancarda
I used to love Google - I used pretty much every service they had to offer.
But in the last few years I've found myself distancing from them - I've
replaced all but a small few (Reader, Email and Docs) of their services and I
intend to get the last few over with.

Why? I'm not sure. I guess Google, to me, used to be about pushing what's
possible. With each service, Google created something that surprised and
impressed me.

Lately, everything they do seems to be rooted in aggressive data mining and
advertising. Google is almost psychotic in controlling users for data. They
feel threatened by Facebook, enough to force and wedge everything into
Google+. What does Google even know about social? Why would they feel the need
to move into that area?

Google can't seem to make up their mind on what services they feel like
running. It's not just Reader, although that was the final straw for many.
Over 40 services[1] have been axed by Google so far. How many more? Can anyone
rely on Google for anything, and when they neglect services millions rely on
AND host them for free, how can one realistically compete?

Is Google+ just yet another 'this is how to do something' - like Wave was?
Just a demo. Just a way to 'kickstart' innovation in something? Now look
Google Glass - is it really an innovation to help us or is it just yet another
front for data mining? Makes you wonder doesn't it, if Google cares so much
about data why they cancel so many services.

Google have an overall terrible attitude which I only feel is getting worse. I
no longer trust them with my privacy, which is why I'm migrating almost all my
online services to ones hosted on my own server - At-least then I can stay
away from the ever prying eyes of Google.

[1]
[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/map_of_the_week/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/map_of_the_week/2013/03/google_reader_joins_graveyard_of_dead_google_products.html)

~~~
Terretta
> _Lately, everything they do seems to be rooted in aggressive data mining and
> advertising._

Yes.

My personal pet peeve is when Google breaks search results links for the sake
of data mining. Search results links _often_ now no longer give the
destination site, but some awful URL like:

[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&#...</a><p>This neither
improves the web nor helps me organize information. Of course the SER offers a
partial link shown in green, but I can't single click copy it, and if I swipe
and copy, it doesn't have the protocol.<p>Worse is that the titleless garbage
URL goes into Safari's web browsing History, and when after reading several
results I want to go back to one, I cannot figure out which is the article I
liked, because there's no title in my history:<p><a
href="http://i.imgur.com/ogJnx6B.png"
rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/ogJnx6B.png</a><p>This is breaking my web.
Aside from being broken in my history so I can't tell which of 15 visited
results is which, I also cannot even see, months from now when I run the same
search, which I've visited before.<p>This redirect counter URL is incredibly
useful for "aggressive data mining and marketing", but is so anti-user that it
has managed to change my behavior from accepting my default browser search
configuration to manually spending the time to change it to something not
broken -- and tell other people how to change theirs as well.<p>Now, when I'm
researching something I know I've researched before, when I want to see
visited sites as visited and want to end up with site titles in my history, I
use Duck Duck Go (or even Bing!), so at least I can see what I've
visited:<p>DDG: <a href="http://i.imgur.com/mj5c5Gt.png"
rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/mj5c5Gt.png</a> / Bing: <a
href="http://i.imgur.com/xzBCK4Z.png"
rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/xzBCK4Z.png</a><p>To anyone who uses Safari
and wants to expand their "Omni" bar beyond the Googleplex, check out <a
href="http://safarikeywordsearch.aurlien.net"
rel="nofollow">http://safarikeywordsearch.aurlien.net</a>. After installing,
right click the page, choose Keyword Search Settings, select a different
search engine (d for Duck Duck Go), and set it as default.<p>This is how
Google being "evil" influences an influencer to influence others.<p><i>// The
SER are not always broken. Sometimes links are left alone. The behavior
changed on me during this post, and at the moment, all links</i> after the
first <i>are normal. Unpredictability is itself disconcerting, making users
lose trust.</i>

~~~
ancarda
I always hated google's /url? business. It's been used by more than a few
pieces of malware (back when I was on Windows).

I wish Google would use the ping attribute on <a> but that's too easy to
disable.

------
joe_youngblood
First congrats on getting a job at Google. That's one hell of an
accomplishment. Tell Matt Cutts I said hi

I agree largely with lubujackson and cupcake_death. It really stems from
Google's scrappy startup persona at the beginning and their new corporate
goals. Anyone can tell that Google is taking more and more space on the search
result pages for themselves using design tricks to add spacing, barely
highlight the ads at the top, and even going so far as to build their own
vertical search engines in the shopping and travel spaces and then inserting
them at the top (to be fair Bing does this to an extent as well) pushing other
websites down the page where users barely look.

Google claims these moves are in a users best interest, however, when they
came online in 2000 the drumbeat was far different and the best interest was
to serve up applicable websites. It seems they are slowly pushing towards a
'google knows best' world where "I'm feeling lucky" is eventually replaced
with "this is 100% exactly your answer" and there is little need to go
anywhere else.

The pushing of Google+ has not helped their persona any. From seemingly
pointless integration with Android and YouTube to forced (and very broken)
usage of Google+ Local by small businesses and let's not forget that
AuthorRank could EASILY have been a partnership with other social media
websites but Google decided to force it on Google+ only and then made it a
ranking factor (so use it or lose traffic) which is resulting in some spammy
queries as shown here:
[https://twitter.com/YoungbloodJoe/status/318834815837290497/...](https://twitter.com/YoungbloodJoe/status/318834815837290497/photo/1)

Combine all of that with Google's killing off of beloved products, and making
some free products paid only (Google apps) and you get many who are fast to
wake up and smell the new order of things like smelling salts shoved under our
noses. It should be clear that Google is now a pure wall street business and
their core focus is no longer serving up the best search results in the form
of webpages, but continuing to find ways to increase revenue from their single
largest source of income, Google web search.

For some there is a bit of dissonance. For example, loving Android but getting
fed up with how Google might treat a small business through their broken local
system, or wanting to see the future of the Google self-driving car, but
suddenly being aware of Google's growing governmental ties and seemingly lack
of caring about privacy protection for some. In a recent interview with
Reuters Vince Cerf, a Google Executive, was quote as saying "Google should not
force internet users to use their real names" but then went on to say that
Google is not forcing anyone to use a real name to use Google services and
that users have a "choice" however, he clarifies that users under oppressive
regimes seem to get a pass more than those in say the USA,Canada, or the UK.
All of this while Google gets nice and cozy with the USA's "National
Strategies for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" a program that seeks to
identify everyone online. [http://uk.news.yahoo.com/google-services-not-
require-real-na...](http://uk.news.yahoo.com/google-services-not-require-real-
names-vint-cerf-120656617--sector.html)

side note: Google is not the only one chasing after a day when Anonymity is
dead: [http://wrightimc.com/blog/2013/03/04/the-death-of-the-
anonym...](http://wrightimc.com/blog/2013/03/04/the-death-of-the-anonymous-
internet-a-eulogy/)

Finally there's the matter that Google has been much more of a copycat in
recent years than an innovator. Google's business model works like this: If
it's really popular and a solid brand name, make a ridiculous offer to acquire
the company. If not, build your own free version and use the power of the
Google homepage / search results / Android / YouTube to push your new version.
If successful in either capacity wait until competitors die off, then add lots
of advertising/monetize in other ways. If not wildly successful, kill the
product. Groupon is making money? Let's off to buy them, Rejected? ok, we'll
start "Google deals". Paypal makes money? Let's do "Google Wallet", etc... In
2010 I met a Googler at an investor meetup at SXSW while pushing an idea for
an online video startup. Like all the other attendee's he asked what our
concept was. My partner and I discussed that we were being tight-lipped but
that we'd like to arrange a meeting later. Gave him our card and our elevator
pitch, which was highly watered down. 2 months later, yes 2 months, the very
basic part of our concept was debuted at Google I/O as "YouTube Lean Back".
Now I'm not accusing Google of any misconduct, but either my idea was hijacked
and discussed or I think like a Googler, either way it was still far off from
the concept we had that we (thankfully) did not disclose completely. If this
has occurred even just a handful of times at large tech conferences it could
be a reason for small startups to not want to interact with Googlers a whole
lot.

Frankly it shows a lack of imagination and integrity at Mountainview, which if
I were a long term investor would scare me.. except for the fact that they
have those cool little 'moonshots' that could pay of huge later on.

tl;dr - there are a lot of reasons, but it really comes down to the abrupt way
in which Google is changing stance to be a corporation protective of their
profits and intruding on the spaces that others want to go into business in
(that's likely the best explanation for your startup friends). Here's an audio
interview that covers more of this in depth.
[http://www.capturecommerce.com/blog/organic-seo/is-google-
ev...](http://www.capturecommerce.com/blog/organic-seo/is-google-evil/)

Google is not "evil" but is a company and is doing what any other company with
shareholders and stock would/should do. That doesn't always make it right and
there are bound to be unhappy users and missteps along the way.

------
benologist
A few things come to mind, but mostly related to Google 'today' not being the
little underdog it was 15 years ago when it started, it's a giant corporation.

You are probably employee #sixdigits counting everyone who's no longer
employed and #50000-and-something for current employees and that just isn't as
prestigious even if their standards haven't changed.

They make a lot of unpopular decisions - most things with google plus, no more
free google apps with your own domain, significantly changing app engine
pricing, reader and the long list of other dead services that collectively
spell "be careful" even to their most vocal fans - the tech industry who made
god knows how many millions pandering to Google and Google fans openly mocked
Keep's launch!

To counter that they offer perks and they work on some really cool stuff and
they still have a reputation for hiring smart people ... but all of that is
normal for any startup today.

I would guess (but don't know) that a similar transition happened for HP, IBM,
Oracle, Sun, Microsoft, PayPal, eBay etc as well when they finished puberty. I
would be somewhere between indifferent and disappointed if one of my friends
settled for a job at any of those companies.

It's great if it's your dream though.

~~~
anonny
> I would be somewhere between indifferent and disappointed if one of my
> friends settled for a job at any of those companies.

I think this is emblematic of what I'm encountering: Joining Google is
"settling." When I was in college, Google was at its peak, and I was very
attracted to Google both because of the amazing work it did and the deep
technical challenges it solved.

What I'm concerned with today is that, due to whatever cause, Google fatigue
is needlessly costing me friends and respect. I don't think of myself as a
Google employee, I see myself as an educated, capable engineer who happens to
work for Google at the moment. I have actually received disrespect in social
settings for this. Why do people take PR missteps and apply them to me as a
professional?

~~~
benologist
There's nothing "wrong" with working at Google and you can bet every friend of
yours joining or starting a startup secretly hopes your employer bails their
asses out when their seed money expires.

While google makes very public, very loud decisions that people dislike you're
going to be held accountable for it. Their decisions impact 100,000,000s of
people, the ones you know are going to bust your balls for it.

Anyone who literally doesn't want to be your friend because you work at Google
is a douche.

------
cupcake_death
Plenty of people burnt by G's often parasitic and monopolistic forms of
monetisation. E.g: placing "search this site" in SERPs for brand queries
(actually performing yet another Google search + Ad's) to get more adwords
ad's in front of users. Forcing brands to bid on their own names in search
results by not protecting trademark claims in any cohesive way.

Suffocating industries with verticals, with poor /no support and then moating,
(Think local search and Yelp/online Yellow Pages").

The Binghoo vs. Google pissing contest, (They both look like bullies).

Hijacking loans, mortgages, credit cards, new cars, (and other 'big ticket'
items) with aggregated results yet cracking down on aggregators
algorithmically in core organic claiming it's not good for the user, (Double
standards).

G +... fake numbers they are throwing around when they've clearly strong armed
users and 'advertisers' such as the Google Places migration.

Google reader...

Lots more, but generally it's the "Do no evil" BS. Where folks feel hoodwinked
into believing G was anything more than a money making machine, even at the
cost of their own integrity.

I blame Mayer for the mess in search and Schmidt for the borg like focus on
$$$ and social, at any cost.

------
planetjones
I'm not sure the attitude you've observed is that prevalent - Google is still
an extremely attractive employer. But like everything that's been around a
while and has become large - people no longer perceive it as being in vogue.

Personally I have lost some enthusiasm with Google because of some of the bugs
I see in their software. My Google Account was created in the UK, but I now
live in Switzerland - when I visit Google Maps I get a mixture of English and
a different language e.g. "Maletgs". No-one at Google seems contactable to
solve this - I have posted to the Google Group (another shambolic piece of
software - dejanews minus the spam was better IMO) and nothing happens. I have
one Google Apps account with my domain and one other Google account. Yesterday
I tried signing into gmail and it told me both accounts were active - there
was no sign out button. But when I logged in it just kept reloading the same
page without any error. So I was stuck. Eventually I loaded plus.google.com
where there was a sign out button.

Some of Google's software is becoming super frustrating IMO - but I guess this
happens in many places, when it stops being new software and is (effectively)
legacy software that's hard to maintain.

------
27182818284
I would contest the feelings about Google are shifting from "AWESEOME!" to
"Ugh, is there anything else around?" because Google has stopped innovating in
its day-to-day software production. There are driverless cars, but those are
just TV-News-OMG things—they aren't coming to me soon. At the same time in the
day-to-day you have everyone from Paul Graham to Alie Ward (a celebrity TV
chef) complaining about the new Gmail compose. That's a huge diversity! One
writes about lisp and created YC, the other cooks and uses Twitter and they
both agree on had bad it is. Not a good sign, right? You'd be right to argue
that's just one example, but scratch the surface with a search and you see
people most recently angry about Google Reader and before that a plethora of
other products.

The bottom line is, people have fallen out of love with Google because Google
is no longer different. They're on the path to becoming a new Microsoft.
(Heck, they basically had a freebie with something as neat as Google Glass and
they even fucked that up. Just wow. Let's award it to Newt Gingrich and the
guy who joked about cutting himself with it. Good job Google. Good job. )

~~~
anonny
> The bottom line is, people have fallen out of love with Google because
> Google is no longer different.

By "people" do you mean the absolute height of the technological elite? The
startup-founding, meetup-attending, venture capital funding-acquiring geniuses
that apparently make the tech world go round? In that case, yes, Google is no
longer the darling of the tech world, but rather just another large,
profitable business with a solid bottom line and a horde of (presumably
gullible) employees. To them, my working there is a sign that I'm too risk-
averse and boring to ever be successful in their little patch of the knowledge
economy.

But to the people who matter most, i.e. the people who interact with the mass
of products Google puts out, the company is still quite positive. I find it
difficult to believe that such intelligent people as the technorati are
willing to lose faith in any company that does meaningful work that positively
impacts massive amounts of people.

I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely trying to understand this. Is it
the search for novelty? Is it the loss of connection to some ideal? Is it just
part of a company growing up?

~~~
Terretta
You're starting to sound a little astroturfy here. But taking you at face
value:

In the context of this site, commenters tend to use the word "people" when
referencing a relatively narrow swath of early adopters and influencers. It
doesn't usually mean "normals" who really don't know the difference between a
browser, a search engine, and "the Internet". The problem is, normals look to
influencers to help them decipher the Interweb, and meanwhile Google's been
ramming itself down both groups' throats. Consider the Google+ (tech
influencers) and YouTube (millennial influencers) real names policies. Neither
group is a fan, and sees it as pandering to marketing interests.

And there's your answer. You joined up in the old Doubleclick building, so you
know ad revenue powers the ship. When Google seemed to use that revenue to not
be evil, to support 20% time and innovate recklessly, spawning tools that
subsets of influencers could love and rave about -- even with the beta label
and no support, it worked. When it started to come across more cynically,
killing "Labs", killing people's pet Google products, taking away "free" and
dumping the beta labels without adding a human face of support, it's bound to
cause some eye opening to what Google's real business is: not a toy factory,
but an ad revenue engine.

It's part of the company growing up, but doesn't have to be. I would argue the
company could still easily tweak its image back towards altruism even at the
expense of some revenue. Pursue a little more karma than klout to avoid
embarrassments like the Google Glass selection.

Sustain information organizing products genuinely, not cynically. Have a soul.

------
slater
First, congrats on getting the job :)

I'd think it's probably a mix of envy (we all know Google pays well, offers
great perks and benefits, looks good on a CV, etc.), and maybe fear - Google
controls/funnels so much of how people interact with the web today, as a
start-up you have to a) stay in their good graces and b) hope they don't come
in to your start-up's space and stomp on you.

Oh, and hope - to be bought by Google if your start-up's product is compelling
enough ;)

------
nyrulez
I am in the NY office but maybe I hang out in the wrong circles. I have heard
nothing but admiration so far. I read a lot of FUD online (like this thread)
but my real life experience has been very different. I do have some friends in
startups and haven't seen that kind of attitude either.

Whay exactly do they say ? just curious.

~~~
anonny
One thing I get a lot of is that working at Google is somehow a mark of
complacency, and that as a smart young person I ought to be out founding
companies. Chris Dixon has a post entitled "Every Time An Engineer Joins
Google, A Startup Dies" in which he argues that Google and the like stifle
innovation by ensnaring people in cushy, comfortable positions.

I definitely get that, and I do sometime think that the safety of working at a
place like Google is addictive, but on the other hand, I'm basically a child
in this market. I've almost never worked on anything for more than the two
weeks it takes to complete a school project. If I were to go out and work at a
startup and get saturated with the "disregard quality, acquire technical debt"
mentality, I'd never become a respectable engineer.

I don't want to be mocked because I value technical experience over adventure.

