I do believe leadership is failing Google, and their lack of vision is starting to affect the company. There was quite a bit of inertia, but I fear search might drop in the next 5 years and there will be nothing ready to replace ads.
I feel like this was super true in the pre Facebook days but they were humbled A LOT by the massive flop of Google plus.
I honestly don't feel like I get the my s * doesn't stink vibe from them anymore.
Especially because everyone knows their Achilles heel now.
But for their ad revenue what would they be?
Everything else material from came from an acquisition or is infra stuff.
It's cool but they also had to learn the hard lesson of Hadoop too.
Yeah they built big table... But the rest of the industry standardized on Hadoop (at the time) because they never released an implementation and so they started losing out on good hires because they didn't want to get locked into proprietary Google infra.
I think you see them recognizing this with intiatives like all of the stuff around kubernetes.
But hey I wouldn't build anything on their (non open) stuff and get more scared by the day over my dependence on El Goog because they've shown time an again how little they care for us common plebs.
But I feel like they get better when they lose but they've only started losing more recently
(Rant over)
Hadoop and Bigtable are not the same thing. Bigtable is a noSQL database. Hadoop is a big data processing framework. Hadoop is actually an open source implementation of MapReduce, which was developed at Google and which has since been replaced by Flume
Hbase was open-source implementation of Bigtable while HDFS was a copy of Google File System. The divergence appeared with other processing frameworks like Spark but now there's Apache Beam to unify it all.
This was prompted by me noticing that most of the people who still had their badges visible after work appeared to have Google badges.
- sales
- finance (explains itself really)
- SRE (mostly because of favourable time zones)
Most of the core engineering is in London/Zurich. Dunno what's gonna happen post Brexit, but anecdotally, the FAANG which I am most familiar with has had real problems hiring in London post-2016.
Not living in that area anymore, I can't say. I haven't lived there for 10 years.
By comparison, I have nothing. zilch, for my hard work. Neither do most people working on core tech at AWS. That's why they empathize with their customers (I'm guessing).
It's not unique to Google. Lots of organizations intentionally build a culture of elitism. However, it means I would never, ever rely on Google for anything. Free products like search are a-okay. My email is on gmail because legacy.
Build a business on Google platforms? Nope.
Fun fact for you - if I get promoted this year at Amazon to L5, I'll _still_ make less than a new grad at Google. It's extremely depressing to the extent that I can't get out of bed in the morning, but I'd wager that inferiority complex probably helps on the product side to empathize with customers.
You make six figures at a top tech company and you’re bitterly complaining because you think you’re entitled to more, and in the same breath you’re chastising Google’s pretentious culture? There’s a lot of irony there.
Focus on improving yourself and don’t get caught up in comparing yourself to others.
I see too many people talking about their Tahoe Google offsites (jbd@ on twitter claims a bunch of her coworkers just work from Tahoe during ski season) or their Colorado skiing weekends.
Anyways, hypocrisy doesn't mean I'm wrong, and I think its valid to be mad that I'm seen as inferior daily.
Yet you still make more than what the vast majority of engineers in western Europe will ever make in their whole career. And that's still only looking at the most developed countries.
The job market isn't fair. No use getting burnt over that.
I'm also quite surprised by your wage comment: a common aphorism is that Amazon cheaps out on everything except real estate and compensation.
Which ones do and don't? Because all of the ones I've heard of have pretty loose ones compared to my organization.
And yes, Amazon doesn't cheap out on real estate because we own so much of it. It's honestly remarkable how it's done. But I was under the impression everyone knows they pay less.
I only have about ~40 stocks up from about 35 before the refresh cycle (unvested) and that's unlikely to go up if I get promoted (if you have too many they don't give you more). Googler and FB refresher values are significantly higher.
This doesn't appear to be close to true based on levels.fyi, unless you're severely underpaid for an Amazon L5.
*The net effect is "pay for performance" isn't really a thing.
The only way for me to do a significant compensation bump is to do what's called a "dive and save", but this is very rarely done for L5's and is significantly more common for L6's. I got an offer for about $200k a year ago at a hedge fund, but that wasn't eligible for dive and save because of my level and I'm (clearly) too mentally defective to pass a Facebook or Google loop.
The other more popular approach is to "play the game" as I think of it, I.e. every 18-24 months you switch to a new job with a substantial increase in pay as result.
I wish this wasn't the case, but I guess it is what it is.
"Just move" is something someone without any empathy for other people's circumstances would say - most people aren't capable of "just moving" as if the only concern is choosing an employer.
No disagreement on the good recommendation as a signal, but I doubt that'll matter to the HC if I can't pass 3/5 rounds at the minimum.
That long enough part is the kicker and that terrifies me in every job search (to the extent I have sometimes jumped at the first half decent opportunity, and agreed to salaries below my potential). I find it does help to apply often and everywhere and not be invested in any particular opportunity.
With dating they say every failed relationship is a step toward finding the right one, and I think that same principle applies to job interviews.
Anyways, that’s my two cents
Mind you, he would probably have turned us down anyway to go do a PhD, so he probably dodged a bullet.
I don’t even work on the “core tech”, I am on the consulting side, probably make less than you do (albeit in a much lower cost of living area) and I am probably older. But, I am not throwing a pity party on HN
I’m not even here to shame $150K. That’s what I was making as CRUD developer pre-Covid at 45 years old (long story) and I also graduated from a no name state school - in the 90s. $150k still means you’re making more than roughly around 80-85% of American households.
I fully understand shaming $150k, new grads at Google make $180-$210k.
You graduated from college and are now making more than most developers in the US and you work at a big tech company. You have the opportunity to leverage that and either get promoted from within or change jobs.
Are you really struggling making $150K straight out of college? You graduated from a state school (as did I) you probably don’t have that much debt.
For context, I’ve been out of college almost a quarter century and I am just now making a little more than a college grad at Google. I’m not complaining and I only have a good 10-15 years to take advantage of the opportunity. You have your whole life ahead of you.
Stop complaining, get on the grind, and do what you need to do. No one owes you a quarter million just because you walked across the stage with a CS degree.
I think the real problem is I'm not capable of doing so, at least according to the fair labor market.
> Are you really struggling making $150K straight out of college? You graduated from a state school (as did I) you probably don’t have that much debt.
I don't have any debt, I just have a really pathetic savings rate and a really low net worth compared to nearly everyone I know, including folks that didn't do "the grind" that I did. I'll probably not be able to retire or own a car, much less own a house someday.
I don't like the IQ/talent fetish that seems to pervade Anglophone culture. Some people have a stronger natural predisposition to sit and stare at a screen and figure out puzzles, and that happens to be sought after on the labor market. Doesn't mean others have less inherent value as human beings.
Would be nice to have a small appartment one day. I just try to offer some perspective.
Dude, please seek mental help. You have so many working years ahead of you. Stop worrying about owning a house. Start budgeting using something like YNAB and get your savings rate under control. Also get all the basic investment vehicles going: 401k, after tax Roth, backdoor Roth etc. You’ll do just fine.
A lot of my friends are already putting money down on houses and are making hundreds of thousands in options trading on principal that I _don't have_. I'm falling behind permanently and even maxing out my 401k (which I didn't do last year because I don't anticipate living to 65 but decided to this year) won't get me closer with a low principal.
I hate that we as a society can say that if you have signs of cancer go see an oncologist and it’s not okay to say that if you show signs of mental health issues go see a professional.
But everything about your comments and your user name points to it.
I had a phone conversation with a hiring manager once, and obviously I was not the right type or class or caste or something, but it wasn't a technical screen at all, so it's a mystery to me forever what exactly determined the "in group" as you put it.
As such, I know I'm biased towards them, but I can't really assess the overall company.
However, as a University lecturer I know a lot of people Google have employed. In my opinion, they have rejected some of the greatest students I have ever taught, and accepted some idiots who know how to speak well.
While they have employed some good people, I believe they purposefully taret the type of people who think working at Google makes you a fundamentally better person than anyone else, rather than the best programmers/researchers/AI/whatever.
Also, even if I am right, real-world competence may involve more bluffing, less high quality knowledge of algorithms, than I would like.
I’ve met plenty of “smart people” who couldn’t get things done to save their lives partially because they couldn’t communicate well or play well with others.
This has been a source of angst for friends of mine at google for over 15 years, which is almost 3/4 of google’s existence. The hiring process is just random.
Part of it is due to measures put in to avoid certain unconscious biases (hire your friends, regardless of how good they are; hire only people like yourself, etc). So I have some sympathy.
But only some.
There's no question that Google is happy to have false-negatives in interviews.
> I believe they purposefully taret the type of people who think working at Google makes you a fundamentally better person than anyone else
why would they do this? And, if they do this, how are they generally speaking so successful? (this is also an amusing comment because the only group I find more critical of Google than HN is Googlers)
When a company has a lot of money coming in, they can be successful despite decision X, rather than because of decision X.
Microsoft can interview people asking about filling airliners with golf balls. Valve can just not bother with Half-Life 3. Google can have zero support and a self-driving car division that keeps avoiding chances to release anything.
That the companies are successful doesn't mean all their actions are smart - sometimes it's that their successes are big enough the occasional bad decision doesn't hurt them.
They have almost complete monopoly on online search, web ads, online video, on phone OS, on browsers. And they are not afraid to abuse those to get more, and are getting away with this.
You don't need to do anything right when you rent-seek most of the online world.
'Rent seeking' doesn't refer to the same kind of 'rent', of course, but I think the analogy holds up pretty well. All Google has to do is turn a few screws, and the rest of us will have no choice but to sing whatever tune they call.
The usual recipe for success in tech: competitors who are even less competent.
See also: how Microsoft dominated personal computing back in the day.
Again I think this whole line of thinking is nonsense, but even if you take it at face value, it still doesn't make sense.
By making illegal deals with PC sellers, and by vandalizing apps running on their OS.
You talk as if people from FANG (your invented acronym to exclude Amazon) look down on all others, but it seems that you are the one looking down on all others, everyone who wasn’t lucky enough to get into G/FB straight out of college while also building up not just 1, but 2 or 300k or net worth.
These companies you aspire to do behavioral interviews, and I’m guessing you’re failing them.
Take a step back. You won’t “fail” life because you “only” got a job at one FAANG and not another, or because your net worth is only 100k straight out of college....even the sentence I just wrote sounds completely ridiculous.
Your problems are stemming from how you view yourself and the world, which is full of false assumptions. A lot of smart people on HN have told you this —- you should listen to them.
Don't know why people say this. I'm usually pretty good at behavioral interviews. The problem is the algorithmic interviews (again, this is where my IQ fixation comes from).
IDK man, compared to most everyone else I seem to have failed life at this point given that I have zero accomplishments and little financial security.
Please realize how offensive and insulting this is.
You were hired by one of the most successful tech companies, which most people could never aspire to. You claim that Amazon pays you 80% of what (you assume) Facebook or Google would pay you, which puts you financially ahead of the vast majority of people. By calling yourself a failure, you’re calling nearly everyone on Earth an even bigger failure, which is offensive and makes you look extremely entitled and detached from reality.
> Don’t know why people say this.
It’s because you come off in your posts as entitled, obsessive, elitist, insensitive, and bitter. These are the only sideS of yourself that you convey here, so that’s why people assume you’re failing your behavioral interviews.
Sorry again if I’m being harsh, but you’ve been posting the same stuff here for months, and every discussion gets derailed by people consoling you or advising you, which you invariably reject. Let’s stop going in circles.
It sounds to me like you have anxiety. I'm saying this because I have anxiety, so I know what it's like. One hallmark of anxiety disorders is that you think things are true about the world, even though you don't actually have evidence this is the case. Or, you fixate on some pieces of information while ignoring evidence to the contrary, which again is irrational thinking. Or you hold assumptions about how the world works that aren't proven. You should look into cognitive behavioral therapy as a potential solution.
You say "compared to everyone else". But, you have to acknowledge that the net worth and income numbers you named put you into the 99th percentile, right? So, you actually mean "compared to a very small subset of people I have failed", right? And this is just a completely irrational argument. I mean according to this vein of thinking, then since I don't have as much money as Jeff Bezos, I've failed. And the implication then is the whole world has failed. Right?
> "compared to a very small subset of people I have failed"
Compared to nearly everyone at elite universities I have absolutely failed. I'm sure some of them will become the Jeff Bezos of 2050 as well - it's irrelevant that it's still a small number. I don't want to be compared against somebody that works at Cisco or IBM for instance for the work and mental anguish I've put in.
You also have an implicit assumption that people who work at Cisco or IBM haven’t put in work or mental anguish, and you’re wrong. I know many people who worked and studied hard to get jobs at these places.
You’re artificially restricting the set of successful outcomes so that you can say you’ve failed because you don’t fall into that arbitrary set. Not to mention that your entire definition of success as defined by things like money and perks is wrong.
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/09/14/sta...
Let me repeat: that is thousands of millions of people who can barely even conceptualize the life you're able to live.
On another note, I’m in my mid 40’s spent all of my time bouncing between yet another CRUD job most of my career (not complaining, it’s paid for a decent lifestyle in my relatively low cost of living area) and I’m always encouraging fresh CS grads to go for broke and take the r/cscareerquestions route of “grind leetCode and work for a FAANG”, knowing they will make more fresh out of college than I did until a few months ago.
Someone else’s success is not my failure.
I think the Pixel division is the only exception, though I don’t own one so I can’t comment personally.
As far as I'm informed every Pixel version so far had battery degradation issues. After year or so the battery seems to have only a fraction of the previous capacity.
I am reminded of this funny Feynman quote (paraphrasing): "The whole purpose of the existence of the Mensa club was to decide who else was eligible to join the club". Now, in all fairness, this is true of all the big tech companies to varying degrees, but boy does Google Cloud in particular take the cake on this one!
Of course, Big Tech does produce very good products, and at scale, but that is being built by about 10% of their engineers. The rest of them work there just to keep the interview loop as exclusive as possible. :-) After all, otherwise, one of them would have actually solved long runningcustomer problems.
Plus the rest of the world is now coming to an agreement that a lot of Big Tech's growth is coming from a lot of unfair advantages - such as massive data collection before it was understood as a bad thing, ability to lobby local politicians at a much bigger scale, ability to influence regulations that hurt them somewhat but entirely kill the competition (GDPR for example), complete lack of accountability for past malpractices (e.g. Facebook's friendly fraud case, for which no one went to jail) because they are now too powerful to actually be sent to jail.