> When you realize all of the toys are part of an extremely successful strategy to keep you at the office as long as possible

Ugh, I can't believe how often I see this repeated with zero evidence to support it.

I work at Google. The office is a ghost town by 6:30. The work life balance on every team I'm aware of is great.

Saying the perks are some underhanded strategy to keep people around hugely insults the intelligence of the people working here or at any other office for that matter. Do you honestly think there are people that are like, "God, I'm miserable! I've been here 16 hours and I hate my life but I just... can't... stop... playing foosball!" Damn you, Google, and your nefarious perks!

No, that doesn't happen.

The reality is that skilled software engineers are in very high demand and companies compete very hard for them. Salary is part of it but perks are a huge component. No matter how much cash you make, for eight hours of the day, you are not spending it on fun leisure, you are at work. So companies understand now that they have to make the workplace appealing too to keep talent.

They also find, no surprise, that happy, stimulated people are productive, creative people too.

> Please don't ever get the impression that Googlers are somehow above you, because they're not.

I totally agree.

I agree as well.

I was at Google for a little over 2 years, and it was like a vacation after the small company I was at previously. I went from feeling like the future of the company depended on how fast I could fix a customer's bug or add a new feature to being a cog in a machine. Eg, 80hrs/week to about 45, and the ability to not obsess about my work email while on vacation (thereby actually making it a vacation).

I was contributor to the "ghost town" effect. I would come in around 6am and leave around 3pm to be able to pick my son up from school and spend more time with him.

I agree. I know a couple of outliers at Google who work long hours, but even the business folks aren't working much more than 45-50 hours per week. None of the engineers I know work more than 40 hours per week.

I've heard that some engineering teams at Amazon and Apple work long hours, but never heard it about Airbnb, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft (last 5 years), or Uber.

>Uber

Some teams do

Yikes.

Maybe I'm little dense, I'm unsure why this is at -2 right now. Useless/unhelpful remark (sorry) or did I misinterpret the thread?

I got a job at a perk-loaded web shop along that same vein, and the thing about "toys" and various other benefits is that they help my time at the office be more efficient. In particular the cynical view that they keep you at the office longer has some truth to it, but the mechanism at play is relatively honest. For example take free food; I love not having to go outside to get lunch. I'm often in the middle of a good flow and it's so nice to be able to bring some food to my desk in 5 minutes instead of having to spend an hour finding a seat, waiting for the check etc. This means I can get more done while at the office, and still go home early to be with the kid.

Similar for the other things like the pub or foosball; I can have a quick evening of hanging out with friends right there on the premises instead of driving an hour to meet up somewhere. So again the time saved ends up helping the company, and benefits me as well because who likes to sit in traffic.

I'm not saying it's better to do those things 100% of the time, but some healthy fraction. Of course it's a nice break to walk down the street for lunch on a nice day, etc.

> No, that doesn't happen.

hmm, not really, there was one time, my nap took so long that I had to pay almost $100 late fee to my daughter's preschool...

And also in the USA the IRS is very lenient when it comes to taxing benefits in kind.

Back when I worked for British telecom in new buildings they wanted to offer free tea and coffee - HMRC said no you have to pay tax and that was the end of that.

Of course then one senior manger worked out that there was tax allowance that allowed a tax free profit related bonus and the company gave every one a $300 tax free bonus as a F&^k you to the tax man

In Australia, the Fringe Benefits Tax is similarly capable of sucking the frills and perks out of any situation.

I've worked in offices where we paid for coffee by an honour system.

A local council, which makes some revenue through parking metres, was required to put parking metres on its own carpark and charge its own employees, because it was Council land and this would make it a fringe benefit. There wasn't much sympathy, but still.

> skilled software engineers are in very high demand and companies compete very hard for them

I keep hearing this but when I ask how to identify skilled engineers things get confused. ;)

It's mostly about keeping the ones you already have.

To sound as snarky as you do, if you can't identify skilled engineers, you aren't one.

> The reality is that skilled software engineers are in very high demand and companies compete very hard for them.

Nobody has ever competed hard for me. "Skilled software engineers" is a very broad category, and only a subset are actually competed for. Choose the wrong specialization, live in the wrong area, or work for the wrong companies and you'll be lucky to even get acknowledgement of your applications.

"Saying the perks are some underhanded strategy to keep people around hugely insults the intelligence of the people working here or at any other office for that matter."

I believe that the original motivation for offering free lunch was a calculation WRT how much time people 'wasted' driving to and fro a restaurant, and how much Google could/save profit by having the perks.

I do not believe Google is entirely nefarious with this culture and perks etc. - but please do not be so naive - it's a corporation, just like any other. Nearly everything they do - even internal practice - is oriented towards profit.

I left the office at 5:40pm tonite, about majority of my team had already left.

Most Googlers I encounter are extremely humble. I'd say one of the most valuable things about Googley culture is the lack of prima donna alpha-male macho-engineer behavior. Because Google has so many highly skilled engineers, and because it frowns in general on being an egotistical jerk, it's hard for even huge egos not to adopt some humility.

How can I think I'm the bees knees, when I work at a company that employs Rob Pike and Jeff Dean?

I've worked at IBM, Oracle, and several mid-sized companies over my 20 years as an engineer, and while many of those companies had high quality engineers, I'd say the biggest benefit of Google is the Company culture it created, not the skill levels of the people.

> I'd say one of the most valuable things about Googley culture is the lack of prima donna alpha-male macho-engineer behavior.

I'd love to work in a place like that. I'm sick and tired of people riding rough-shod over others in the workplace just because they think they are better than them.

Most places now value the voice of the loudest shouter, over the voice of the experienced knowledgeable specialist, so much in fact that everything becomes a dick measuring contest. As someone who doesn't identify as a typical male, this makes for a very uncomfortable working environment.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

> I left the office at 5:40pm tonite

I can't tell if this is supposed to be evidence that you don't work long hours or an admission that you do.

I usually don't get into the office until after 10.

BTW, keep in mind, many people stay late or come in late to avoid traffic on the 101.

It all depends on the starting time.

That company culture must look really different from in there than it does from out here.

Given how about 90% of your posts on HN are attacking Google, that Googlers have continued to try to engage you in rational discussion nicely speaks volumes.

Engaging me in what you believe to be "rational" discussion isn't going to change my posts. Because despite your attempt to ignore addressing the issues I highlight by grouping them together and characterize me as a 'hater', I'm a pretty straight shooter.

If you want to change my commentary, you have to change your employer. Why not ask Larry Page at those company AMAs why Google keeps their contracts with manufacturers (now seen as illegal in most countries) so secret? Why not tell Larry Page you don't want to work at a company that uses political corruption to avoid being subject to the same laws as everyone else? Ask Larry Page to stop getting Google involved in overthrowing world leaders, and otherwise going well outside the reasonable bounds of a tech company. Tell Larry Page you want to work at a company that puts people, not algorithms, in charge of customer service. I mean, you literally now work at a company that's operating in complete defiance of federal law in Russia, as Google is refusing to comply with court orders there. As a long time employee, Ray, you are complicit in all of Google's incredibly terrible behavior, even if you aren't directly responsible for it.

If Google starts behaving itself, those of us following the news will listen and respond accordingly. Just as many have softened their take on Microsoft, as they've started making more consumer-friendly decisions. (Though there's some areas they still have a long way to go as well.)

Buying into the weakest conspiracies of Julian Assange is not being a "straight shooter". You took Google to task over their patent pledge and demanded they release all of their patents unconditionally, but give Microsoft a pass on highly trollish and litigious behavior.

You also don't mention that some of the things Google (and Facebook and Twitter) are not complying with concern Russian government attempts to persecute bloggers. Google was also not "compliant" with Beijing's demands for censorship and in 2010, pulled out of the country entirely, giving up billions of dollars in revenue and letting Baidu completely take over.

You say you're not a "hater", but you post almost exclusively on this subject, not just on HN, but on your other social network accounts. My facebook feed is pretty much 100% on bad stuff about Trump these days, and it would be completely accurate to characterize me as a Trump hater.

And for the record, people are pretty vocal internally about fixing product excellence and customer support issues. One of the chief reasons why complaining on HN works, is that so many Googlers care about this issue and are dismayed to see what should be customer support issues on HN. Righting a ship with several billion users is going to take time. Microsoft and Apple has 3+ decades of experience organically growing their consumer support culture.

It has nothing to do with Julian Assange. He's revealed... pretty much nothing of substance about Google that wasn't already out there (Heck, Google publicizes a lot of it). But Jared Cohen IS incredibly scary as an individual, not just for his attempts to work with our State department, but his desire to censor speech on the Internet that Google and our government disagree with. The fact that Joshua Wright jumps from Google paycheck to Google paycheck in government while "technically" not being a Google employee, and has managed to successful jump from the Obama administration to the Trump administration, is genuinely amazing.

If your company is going to take a stand against censorship, and is willing to leave a country to do it: Great. But let's not get off topic, and talk about how Google has been found guilty of antitrust, and fined for it. A trivial fine, mind you, Google makes that much in literally seconds, yet Google has refused to pay it, and has since already gotten fined again for noncompliance. And no move on Google releasing manufacturers from the illegal terms they're being held to with respect to the Russian market.

The issue with Google's patents is their hypocrisy. They claim they're against patent litigation, but only actually pledge not to abuse a tiny percentage of their own stockpile. We cannot and should not trust a corporation to not act in it's best interest. While it may not be in Google's interest to patent troll today, neither you nor anyone at Google can rationally say they won't tomorrow. Leadership changes, market positions change, and Google, first and foremost, has to serve it's stockholders. Microsoft doesn't so much get a "pass" on the matter as a stay of execution, because they're chipping away at a criminal operation.

You convict Google on hypothetical future patent behavior, but give a pass to Microsoft who is currently engaging in actual bad behavior. And this is not bad behavior in the sense that government bureaucrats decided it, but bad in the sense that the tech community finds it abhorrent. It's a mafia-style shakedown, one in which Microsoft went after Barnes & Noble, a company who is not even a large player in any tech market, for e-reader Android licensing revenues. Chipping away at a criminal operation? Give me a break.

600 million Chinese Android non-OHA smartphones are shipping, millions more in India, lots of evidence you can ship AOSP forked devices, so I don't agree with Europe and Russia's argument. My guess is, if Google just focused on the Pixel as the premier container for their mobile apps, and the rest of the world was AOSP, you'd see Google's services installed by OEMs anyway, because of the sheer popularity of most of them, just as you see on the Web. And Russia could have their Putin-approved Yandex phone, which should make bloggers happy.

It's funny that Googlers like to cite China as proof AOSP is really a thing and that competition exists. But the only reason it works is that as you point out: Google exited China. It's impossible to compete with an illegal monopoly, but we can easily see how much better the market works when Google is gone. So Europe and Russia's argument is, AOSP will thrive when Google (or at least, their blatantly illegal contract terms with OEMs) is gone, of which I agree completely. I'm sure Russia would be more than happy if Google left on "moral grounds".

Android's lack of Google services in China isn't because Google "exited" (and by "exit", means moved servers to Hong Kong), it's because the great firewall blocks them. If you take a phone purchased in Europe or the US into China, Google Play Services won't work without a VPN.

Do you think the Great Firewall is an example of "how much better the market works"? You know, where BAT (Baidu/Alibaba/Tencent) are the oligarchy who controls everything? Have you tried Baidu's search? It's terrible, even for searching for information on the Chinese mainland web.

Your "see how much better things work?" is that 600 million phones are shipping with worse versions of Android, with worse security, lots of malware/spyware, and government censorship.

I suppose thats a victory for the investors with Baidu stock, and Beijing's thirst to control the flow of information, but it doesn't look like a victory for consumers to me, or an example of "markets working"

Having not used phones in China, I won't comment on quality, but at the very least, it does prove the point: The only place Androids not controlled by Google exist in substantial number is where Google is banned. Not exactly a shining argument for your claim Google isn't a huge antitrust problem.

Not sure why this is downvoted, it's mostly true. At this point, getting an offer from Google has nothing to do with engineer skill. Only one thing matters, spending time studying algorithms/data structures and being able to quickly pattern match it to random problems. It's just like cramming for a final exam in college. Massive amount of info pushed into short-term memory and then after finals week, flushed out. Has nothing to do with your skill or experience as an engineer.

If I saw a resume and it had Google on it, it doesn't really tell me much other than they played the tech interview game well. It would actually be a signal that I should not interview them like the way Google and others do because they know how to do optimized studying for it. Instead, some other interview method should be used to find out if they're actually a good engineer instead of just good at studying.

I'd say getting an offer from Google means nothing, but successfully working there for a few years at level 5 or above, does count for something. If you are recruiting for a startup, as my wife's recently did, the difference between the Xooglers she hired and non-Xooglers in terms of productivity and code quality was large.

This would likewise apply to seasoned ex-Facebook, Twitter, Square, Amazon, etc engineers. These are likely people who had to work with teams on reliable complex systems that serve a big audience. It won't matter for the prototype you use to get seed funding, but I'd argue it matters for the eventual rewrite.

Yes and no. Interviewing is definitely something you can become good at by practice (I can confirm). But I can tell you that studying algorithms and data structures for interviews (which I would not have done otherwise) has made me a much better engineer and I've taken a huge amount of knowledge from it that I use very often. So it's more like one of those exams that taught you a lot, even if you don't remember everything after a year :)

Well this particular intern who wrote the post was found due to things he had build/done. So I'd say in this case it does matter. I'd also say that a Google offer means more than being able to play the recruiting game because Google actively rethinks their recruiting process and tries to be data driven.

almost every other good tech company interviews using the same types of questions

Downvotes are Google employees defending their employer or self-esteem. I expected them when I posted my comment.

The pay, company reputation (as a good employer AND top place technically), appearance on a resume, possibility of working on something cool, and actually managing to get through their interview is always going to appeal to people.

I'd work at google if I got an offer, because why not. I know it's a big company and everything, oh well.

I'd settle for passing the interview though. Don't like failing. :P

I have 35 years of programming experience in many varied things (and currently iOS Swift). The changes of Google hiring me is 0. The chances of Google hiring a bright young guy willing to stay at work 14 hours a day I expect is pretty high.

Respectfully, I don't know anyone here who works 14 hours a day. Anyone. And two of my teammates are more than twice my age (and I'm 25).

Don't get so down on yourself. :) The chances of Google hiring you are zero if you don't apply, but if you do, they're definitely positive.

same here, 15 years of solid experience in a bunch of startups & many successful projects from scratch but all they seem to care about is warm bodies that can solve their weird interview puzzles. nothing from core expertise area at all.

Well said