Arguing against using protobuffers

Re:Arguing against using protobuffers by why_only_15 on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @06:16PM (#18189426)

Google's annual revenue was $110 billion in 2017 [1]. Even if headcount doubled and salary has increased, that's $7 billion a year. That's not peanuts, but at a company level it's not a massive expense.

[1]: https://www.androidauthority.com/alphabet-q4-2017-earnings-8...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Arguing against using protobuffers by _dmurph on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @07:18PM (#18189797)

True. I'm also guessing this number changes a lot with stock grants (that number was just base pay), and that yearly number seems pretty low (NYT has the entry level engineer at 124,000 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/technology/google-salarie...) so glassdoor might not have good data.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was much more than 6%.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Arguing against using protobuffers by why_only_15 on Thursday October 11, 2018 @12:29AM (#18190987)

I also wouldn't be surprised if it was more than 6% - but I very much doubt it could be over 12-15%. That's still not a very high percentage of revenue. It's most definitely a significant cost, but unlikely to be their biggest cost.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Arguing against using protobuffers by justicezyx on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @07:13PM (#18189770)

Anytime Pull out the revenue gun. It sounds like the revenue is actually produced by the machines though. I wonder why there isn't another search company competing with Google...

Btw, if you use glass door to deduce Google's cost on employee, you probably have no idea how company works...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Arguing against using protobuffers by _dmurph on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @07:19PM (#18189801)

lol yeah I know, but it's at least the low bar. I would guess employees are one of the largest expenses for Google.

[ Parent | on HN ]