"At this stage, if Google hires you, you are almost certainly being used to aid in the retention of somebody else. You’re going straight for the bench."
I mean, just wow. Do you really believe this? This is fantasy to an incredible degree.
* Google's current hiring process lag from first contact to start date is 4-6 months. That's based on reports in Blind and a couple of recent hires I know. That lag is double that of large competitors. Google wants to make candidates wait in order to appear more exclusive. "Projects need staffing"-- clearly not as much as Google needs to maintain its brand.
* "You're going straight to the bench." This is based on a variety of comments, some posted here, some from former Google PMs and SWEs I know. It takes more than a year to get a project that most people consider meaningful. Some have different expectations upon joining, though.
* "you are almost certainly being used to aid in the retention of somebody else." I used to work with an ex-Googler who had a large role in Google's Ads team. He couldn't code very well, and routinely struggled to have accurate assessment of senior engineers. It's questionable how he passed the SWE interview bar at Google. But he was "good looking" and "affable" (he once appeared in a vanity magazine in a shirtless photo shoot). He routinely claimed that his female Google superiors hit on him. Other ex-Googlers told me there where many people in the office who seemed to be "fluff" for everybody else.
The bottom line: Google prides itself (excessively) on having a uniform brand, yet is large enough today that the long tail of "out-of-brand people" is quite large. When you submit your resume to Google, you're feeding their index and ranking of all-of-SWE humanity (literally-- they heavily apply ML to their resume pool). Don't get brainwashed with the brand, and think critically before letting a _company_ have this sort of power over people.
But after all, most of the newer Google products really seem to be there just to entertain their own people and give them something to do. No one can tell me, for example, that there was a serious business case behind Google Allo.
No matter how you see the ink blot, everybody should be exercising their critical thinking skills, especially when it comes to the hiring process. Don't take things at face value; and don't take things too seriously. Don't let the brand or hype of any company disarm you of your ability to question the process, nor of your ability to invest yourself in your own passions.
Disc: Googler.
Hahaha no. Please talk to a hiring manager at Google, especially if they're trying to fill an even slightly niche role, about how tough it is to get anybody through the hiring process.
Also, for "generic" roles like SWE, the hiring manager has literally no input into the process: the hiring takes place first, and team allocation only happens afterwards.
Since you are comparing to AWS, do you have any source for apparently lots of products that were killed in Google Cloud?
Also not totally fair because Google has provided a ton of free web apps and Amazon hasn't, but I think it feels more personal when Google removes something that provides a daily quality of life improvement for many people.
I could compare it to a company like Cloudflare, who do offer lots of different public, free services (even if their market is different) and don't seem to have shut anything down.
Maybe not the best analogy either, but the problem is no other company has the kind of breadth of free public consumer-facing services that Google has, so no analogy would work. On one hand that could be a defense, by saying what Google's doing is unique and risky so sudden cancellations are to be expected. But on the other hand who knows how another company might handle a similar situation; we have no way of knowing.
Source? I'm very skeptical this is true. I am not a huge fan of Google's promotion process but it isn't that bad.
Joe Beda, one of the creators of Kubernetes, had a giant competing offering from Facebook. Turned it down to stay at Google, got some more freedom, and now we have Kubernetes (!).
If you look on Blind, there is plenty of discussion of using counter offers to force the promo process to work.
Moreover, promo decisions are made by a committee of engineers who don't work with you -- they have no incentive to even care about your outside offer.
The promo process is fairly opaque, so there's no way someone would know if the committee or manager took a competing offer into account or if they "forced it".
It seems more likely they were qualified and the timing was coincidental with the competing offer.
Is this public knowledge? Otherwise, I think it is uncool to talk about other people's situations on a public forum without their approval.
Google doesn’t need you. They probably already have a clone of you. They have gobs of rank-and-file SWE effort on reserve should one of their key products fail.
The process is designed to entertain the hiring manager and certain key employees. They don’t want you for your productivity. They want you for the chance that you help surround one of their favorites with things they like so that this other guy doesn’t bounce elsewhere. This other Googler likely already has a competing offer— that’s how he got promoted last year.
At this stage, if Google hires you, you are almost certainly being used to aid in the retention of somebody else. You’re going straight for the bench.
Don’t prepare for months for just Google; prepare for your own future. Don’t let Google hijack your capacity for critical thinking.