I recall watching a news report as a teen about how things used to be pretty chill at Microsoft at its heyday. These days it doesn't seem to have a monopoly on much of anything, but it can still crank out interesting projects.

It doesn't have to be a black-and-white do-or-die.

Microsoft became almost irrelevant under Ballmer or was at least trending that way. Nadella’s turn around is almost miraculous and is itself probably an interesting story. I wouldn’t bet on that as the norm. I’d expect the norm to be more like IBM, RIM, or Nokia.

I agree with most of the article, but one line stuck out to me as particularly wrong:

>”After the acquisition, we have an extremely long project that consumed many of our best engineers to align our data retention policies and tools to Google. I am not saying this is not important BUT this had zero value to our users.”

Good retention policy does provide value to users.

--

> "When COVID hit and we moved to work from home - a huge amount of complaints began around why cant employees expense food since they are not in the office. While most "real" people were worried about keeping their jobs or finding one, many employees were complaining about expensing their food on top of their salaries/stocks/bonuses."

+1 on this - I find this behavior really irritating, it makes me roll my eyes to see some of the most coddled employees in human history whining about this kind of thing. The most charitable interpretation is its just a normal way for people to bond over some shared thing by complaining about it, but a lot of the complaining feels like more than that.

> "We had lunch in the cafeteria and a Googler online ahead of us was overheard saying “What? Sushi again???” which became our inside joke around entitlement."

> Microsoft became almost irrelevant under Ballmer or was at least trending that way

I'm not Ballmer's biggest fan, but I think he's often sold short (to Nadella's benefit), you'd almost believe Microsoft was tanking, but it grew a lot under Ballmer (mobile failures notwithstanding).

As far as I can tell, Nadella just reprioritized projects that Ballmer launched or shepherded in his boring-but-efficient way: what new tech or project did Satya launch that you can attribute MS's "turnaround" to? IMHO, it's mostly PR/hearts-and-minds stuff, but I quit MS tech a long time ago and haven't been following closely.

In retrospect, I think the Win mobile failures were overblown, the zeitgeist then was mobile would replace desktop/laptop computers, therefore failing on mobile could be fatal to Microsoft, and remained as a stain on Ballmers name. The "post-pc" world suggested by Apple/Jobs never materialized.

In a company the size of Microsoft, reprioritizing projects correctly is how you create a turnaround. He made Azure and Office 365 the central focus of the company just as software revenue growth was shifting to cloud hosting and SaaS, he stopped lighting money on fire trying to resurrect Windows Phone, he pushed Linux and OSS compatibility/development, and he put Phil Spencer in charge of Xbox which has saved the gaming division. He's also made some really nice acquisitions, IMO.

Yep. You looked at the revenues and it was Windows and Office which were clearly not continuing growth areas. Azure was floundering and only targeting .Net. Xbox wasn't doing great. They were flaming out on mobile. They had most of the pieces. They just weren't arranged and prioritized properly.

Azure was originally Windows Azure, but that was changed a month after satyan became the CEO.

(MS employee; I work in Azure, but didn't become an MS employee until 2019.)

See: https://stratechery.com/2018/the-end-of-windows/

I think that article gets most of it. There's some MSFT narrative that comes up here a lot where people say Ballmer was doing great and Nadella just continued his plans, I don't buy it.

MSFT had a lot of strategic failures as well as product failures under Ballmer. Nadella shifted strategy and made them a serious competitor again.

> There's some MSFT narrative that comes up here a lot where people say Ballmer was doing great and Nadella just continued his plans, I don't buy it.

Then it should be easy to say which green-field projects Nadella launched then. I can't think of any, but I'm open to learning.

Sometimes shifting the priority is all it takes.

"made them a serious competitor again?"

They were making money hand over fist, massive growth in revenues almost ever year under Ballmer. [1]

Which part of that massive money train is 'not serious competitor'?

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267805/microsofts-global...

I'm open to being wrong here and I'd agree that my initial comment was stated in a provocative way, but let me clarify a bit.

Revenue growth isn't the whole story. If you're extracting rents from legacy locked-in products or enterprise deals that doesn't necessarily mean you're a competitor on the new paradigms (phone, cloud, web).

At the time Windows phone was a failure and they missed that entire platform because of Ballmer (there's hints of your argument in this video, "we're making money with windows mobile"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U

MSFT cloud wasn't doing well and was overly focused on .NET

They were too focused on Windows rather than recognizing the strategic value they could provide outside of it: https://stratechery.com/2018/the-end-of-windows/

Today I'd make a similar argument for Intel. Intel doubled down on old style fabs and is not competitive with TSMC. They failed to compete on mobile. They're ignoring the end of x86 and mocking Apple: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/21/02/08/2221233/intel-b...

Increasing revenue is a good sign, but it matters how. If you're making short-term decisions to extract money from legacy stuff at the expense of new products - that's bad for your long-term future. It can take a while to catch up to you, but it eventually will. Then you'll just limp a long as a dinosaur that makes enough money to survive but nobody really wants to work there and you're done doing interesting projects. That's basically what I mean by irrelevant.

I see where you want to go with that, but I'm not sure you made the argument you're trying to make.

Ballmer didn't 'make money from extracting rents and screw everything else up'.

Ballmer entrenched and expanded MS core products i.e. Office to the Cloud and along with that massively expanded revenues, which continue to this day, long after his departure, with no signs of slowing down.

He completely screwed up Search and Mobile, but those were risky new things, that's to be expected. Frankly he should have had 1 of 2 ...

But he also established XBox and Cloud; the former is a very successful play into a very difficult space (though maybe not as nice in terms of profits) - remember, Google just completely failed at this. The later, is now a hugely successful and growing business, and frankly, over the long haul has a shot at actually going toe-to-toe with Amazon.

Microsoft has 10's of thousands of sales people and direct access to every single CTO in the world if companies with > 1000 emoloyees. Much the same way they are going to stomp Slack, they have that kind of advantage (though not the same leverage) against AWS. Point being - he started a massive business.

Azure now has revenues of more than Windows did when Ballmer started, and it's growing by 40% YoY.

So yes 'revenue' is not the 'whole story' if someone is bilking a cache cow and running everything else into the ground ... but that's now what happened.

Ballmer 'grew and entrenched the cash cows' and made some other huge bets, some of them working out to the point where they are now also, big growing foundational aspects of the business.

'The Market' took a long time to recognize this, but all the historical sales numbers are there for everyone to see.

I believe that once Analysts realized that 1) Windows and Office is 'here to stay' and 2) due to AWS, Azure is going to be huge ... that they revised their view on MSFT from a 'old company' to a 'well run growth company'.

Satya seems great and has made some good moves, but nothing of the magnitude that Ballmer did. At least not yet.

Some of the best quarters for Nokia & co were just before they went under so that's not a solid reference point, unfortunately.

It's a solid reference point because we now have a lot of history to look back upon, and those revenues were from foundational businesses.

Satya's changes have been positive but most of the money he is making is due to Gates + Ballmer.

I think he's good but we'll have to wait to see the full picture.

Nadella I think brought focus on ideas and prioritization that complimented Ballmer's ideas. He doesn't need to launch new projects, but ensure they are managed into a place of relevance. In that regard, it really showcases the excellent people MSFT has in the chain and how they can help each other get to where they collectively want to go.

>The "post-pc" world suggested by Apple/Jobs never materialized.

Clearly, it was in Apple's interest to emphasize the ascendance of mobile where they were strong vs. the PC where Microsoft was. I doubt Jobs thought desktops/laptops were going away, just that they'd become a less important part of the landscape--and that's almost certainly true among consumers as a whole.

"The "post-pc" world suggested by Apple/Jobs never materialized."

I think if you could measure the man hours spent using iDevices and Android devices, as a percentage of general computing hours, you'd find that it would dwarf anything. Everyone has a smartphone now. And tablet sales alone outnumber PCs.

You may be right, but the implied threat to Microsoft was that most/all Windows user's interactions would be mediated by iOS/Android apps, which would displace Windows apps and the browser. Fortunately for Microsoft, the latter didn't happen, and what at first appeared to be exponential app downloads turned out to be an S-Curve. It turns out people have a maximum number of apps they are willing to install and put up with, but this was not yet known at the height of the mobile wars when Microsoft was fighting to be #3.

I am sure someone inside Microsoft saw this early, and figured that Azure could be a platform-agnostic backend to mobile apps and browser-based apps, without having to completing with Apple since they lack core-competences there. Pivotally, tablets failed to replace desktops in the enterprise market, as was initially predicted (and feared by Microsoft).

From my point of view, the things I've most "noticed" coming from MS that are great seem to all have been launched/started during Ballmer's days (2000-2014). For me those are:

Office/Word Online (2010)

Azure (2008/2010)

WSL (Can't find info. Looks like it started before 2014 under Project Astoria)

.Net Core (Happened in 2014 - not sure who "started it")

>The "post-pc" world suggested by Apple/Jobs never materialized.

This is a very US/EU centric evaluation of computing. It might not even be accurate for Gen Z, overall.

Stratchery did a nice piece on this: https://stratechery.com/2018/the-end-of-windows/

That stratechery piece confirms that a number of Satya's "quick wins" were projects mostly developed under Ballmer but credited to Nadella... Which is exactly my point - that Ballmer doesn't always get the credit he deserves, for the sake of magnifying the contrasts between the 2 leaders.

I don't know about this. I think great engineers delete more code than they write. Perhaps something similar is relevant here.

> I think great engineers delete more code than they write.

...but someone has to write the code first, before some of it can be deleted by a great engineer ;)

If it wasn't there before, the great engineer could do something more useful than deleting code!

MSFT "irrelevant" ... ah, ok, so you're just measuring capturing zeitgeist vs. sustainability of the business model ... ok

MSFT revenue has NEVER stopped growing: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MSFT/microsoft/rev...

I somewhat sympathize with those living in a small apartment who used to walk, take a shuttle bus, take the subway, etc. to work where they were fed 5 days a week or more--and now they're stuck in their small apartments with most restaurants closed and facing the prospect of maybe having to move to a bigger place. So one can choose to interpret complaints about meal expensing in that vein.

That said, in general, at least for the well-paid workers at these companies, complaints about insufficient expense reimbursement like that come across as pretty whiny.

My apartment in SF does not have a kitchen. Food provided by the company helped me get by! With no car, and only a handful of restaurant options within 1 mile, it's not the easiest to get by without a company cafeteria. I can sympathize with why many people would like to be able to expense food.

What does expensing have to do with your situation though? You seem to have an issue with access to food rather than how much it costs. How does the company giving you some more money help with that?

In my mind the company provides food as a perk in part so people hang around and chat without leaving the office, it also makes it more pleasant to work there.

It’s not to feed you in your own home.

Sure. That's why they do it. (Along with the fact that it's an expected perk in some circles.) Which is also why paying a meal per diem doesn't make a lot of sense. But it's also somewhat understandable why there would be a bit of grumbling about a benefit being taken away, however unavoidably.

Of course, for many employees, the elimination of commuting makes remote work a significant win financially. But others never intended to do much more than sleep in their apartments and the current situation is therefore a net negative, even just financially.

That's still a ton of entitlement...

"Oh no! I make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and I have to live in my tiny apartment, buy food, and I might have to get a bigger apartment."

vs

"Oh no! I don't have a job, and I'm about to lose my apartment because I can't pay rent."

I get pretty tired of this back and forth arguing in circles over who is more entitled than whom, who has more of a right to complain, who is the most aggrieved, who has the biggest disadvantage to brag about.

Really nobody has a right to ask for anything, ever, because there's always someone who has it worse, right? The only legitimate rung of the ladder is the bottom one, and we just keep finding lower rungs to use to shame anyone higher?

Sure, there are people who live charmed lives and just don't understand what the big deal is because nothing has ever gone wrong for them. They sure as heck aren't me. But let's all just stop with the tone policing. It's 100% unproductive, and won't change anything about anybody's situation, good or bad.

"I have an apartment and a bank account right now."

vs

"I live in a tent encampment."

vs

"I live in a shantytown in a third-world country."

vs

"I am on death row."

vs

"I am on death row for a crime I didn't commit."

vs...

It's important to try to maintain perspective about our own good fortunes. But it's also human nature to feel our own pain as relative to our previous experience. Someone's always got it worse than you but that doesn't mean it's fair to expect everyone else to wander around farting rainbows with grins plastered to their faces.

All of the Googlers I know are well aware of the many ways in which we're fortunate and privileged. But we're also, you know, human, and occasionally whining about stuff is just part of the human experience.

Lots of people at Google, including many developers, don't make "hundreds of thousands of dollars." It's also just a unilateral change in the terms of their employment (unavoidable as it is during the current times) that might increase their costs by $25K? after taxes. That other people have it much worse doesn't change the fact that a fair number of people are seeing a change from what they agreed to.

Out of ~600 or some comments, this wins the award!

Thank you for really getting to the point of this article.

But I would add...

I left my job etc, but now I going to stand on soap box and write an article about and make myself sound so self righteous.

I like how living in the close proximity to the city center might seem somehow special from the perspective of suburban oriented culture even though it is usually a norm in Europe.

I don't know about that. Was MS ever not filthy profitable? They are very successful with azure, was that started by balmer or nadella?

People here give MS too little credit. Their reach is MASSIVE. No american company has the world wide reach that MS has. Practically every enterprise in the world is their customer.

Profit is a lagging indicator that often leads companies astray with short-term decision making at the expense of long-term relevance.

Look at Apple before the return of Jobs (though at that point, they were having profit issues too - but what lead to that was arguably short-term thinking).

Today, I'd argue Intel has made similar decisions that put them on a bad long term path.

MS would have stayed alive for a while, but been a shadow of their former self.

Obviously, it's hard to prove a counterfactual like this - but this is how I model it.

Enterprises are the slowest to change of all and this is MS bread and butter. I completely disagree MS was ever close to becoming irrelevant. Silicon valley is in it's own little world. The rest of the planet is firmly a MS customer.

MS can take all the good ideas, implement them and sell them worldwide before a startup can get out of silicon valley. Case in point: slack vs. teams.

Arguably that focus on O365 and Azure - the strategy that enabled Teams success was due to Nadella.

You're right though - 'irrelevant' is too provocative and strongly worded.

I'm more focused on future bets and trends. I think that trend shifted at Microsoft from trending towards future irrelevance back in the other direction, to being a competitive threat again.

Agreed.

I find it interesting that Apple has money, hardware, OS, many apps, web presence. And now ARM CPU knowhow.

Why aren't they forcibly pushing into Corporate?

Sure, they'd have to develop corporate fleet management stuff but at this stage they could buy a few companies and be 80% of the way there. Or build it right from the start for only a handful of their hundreds of billions.

How many iphone toting CTOs in your average non-silicon valley companies would jump for Apple "Just Works" in their business?

Either they see something they don't like or a Gates/Jobs handshake said no.

Because Apple is fundamentally a consumer company. The marketing and branding that are huge drivers of their success just won’t work as well in the enterprise.

Enterprise means people in suits doing sales calls. It’s a patient, one-on-one, handholding process, and it’s just not in Apple’s DNA.

Far better for them to come up with some new consumer widget that also leverages their strength in supply chain. That’s what they’re good at, and it’s extraordinarily profitable.

While I largely agree with you, Apple can manage more than two things at once and money talks.

Microsoft obviously has large corporate presence, but also Xbox for example.

I just see so many already operational/technical/financial/branding assets in Apples favour compared to incumbents that I'm not sure how they'd fail to make money. OTOH, someone smarter than me in the company clearly thinks otherwise. I just wish I knew what they knew.

Maybe it is as you say, "just not Apple's DNA."

I really hate this narrative that Nadella came in and turned things around. He's absolutely made great decisions since taking the reins but most of his early success was just riding out things that Ballmer set in motion.

Not to mention most of Ballmer's misses were more Bill said no.

> "+1 on this - I find this behavior really irritating, it makes me roll my eyes to see some of the most coddled employees in human history whining about this kind of thing. The most charitable interpretation is its just a normal way for people to bond over some shared thing by complaining about it, but a lot of the complaining feels like more than that."

The charitable interpretation is that total compensation has just dropped, while the work hasn't. It's Loss Aversion[1], losing something hurts more than gaining the equivalent thing. Google isn't suffering from people staying at home using the internet more, it's not like Google cut manager salaries by 50% to keep the factory lights on and the orphans fed. Google's share price is up at least 50% since Jan 2020, and they've taken away some thousands of dollars of remuneration from staff and saved money on not having to run kitchens, and are demanding that staff feel grateful about this by handwaving at suffering people elsewhere.

> ">”After the acquisition, we have an extremely long project that consumed many of our best engineers to align our data retention policies and tools to Google. I am not saying this is not important BUT this had zero value to our users.”"

Calling legal and privacy efforts "a waste of resources" and saying they provide "zero value" /is/ saying they are not important.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

>> “What? Sushi again???”

Could that be just someone not liking sushi? As someone who doesn't like sushi and rather eat hotdog form gas station, I could see myself saying that.

These are Google cafes we're talking about, there are literally ten different main courses on offer. The whining is about there being "sushi again" at the Asian station when they wanted ramen, and they don't want to switch to curry, pizza, pasta, bouillabaisse, tacos or the salad bar, or walk across the street to another cafe.

It’s always seemed like more of a hassle to expense lunch/dinner etc. given what we’re getting paid.

Who the hell wants to deal with concur for every lunch?!

Then again, if your only goal is to extract as much money as possible from the corporate machine, it might work.

at my old job (roughly 60 people) the company just got regular lunch ingredients (usually some meats, cheese and just normal bread) for the entire company. culturally it was expected everyone had lunch in the common area from this stockpile. costs for this where deducted from your pay, but because it was bought at suchs a large scale it was very cheap compared to buying your own lunch or making it at home. (roughly 20€ per month I believe).

this system worked pretty nice imo, lunch wasn't anything fancy but it was healthy, cheap and having lunch with coworkers from other departments helped massively in regards to culture.

> why cant employees expense food since they are not in the office

This is surprisingly not specific to Google. I've heard of other instances of this in other bay area companies, including mine. For us, it had to be put to rest at a company-wide all-hands meeting, along with other overly entitled complaints like "comp is not competitive", when in reality levels.fyi ranks it higher than even FAANG.

Greed sometimes defies logic.

"Microsoft became almost irrelevant under Ballmer or was at least trending that way. Nadella’s turn around is almost miraculous "

This is definitely not true.

Ballmer increased revenues massively, and launched a slew of new products (XBox, MS Live, cloud etc.) and realigned the company. Have a look [1]

Nadella has done nothing approaching that level of importance yet, so far, he is riding the wave that was handed to him.

Now the stock price - this is a different thing. It sagged under Ballmer even as MSFT was massively growing revenues, around Naella's time investors realized that MS 'was not fading' and all that extra EPS was like a share price slingshot.

Ballmer was as transformative and important as Gates.

Nadella's early transformations were around culture, but that's just PR.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267805/microsofts-global...

Arguably the stock price is a prediction of future success, not current revenue.

The fact that it sagged under Ballmer and is now up under Nadella aligns with how I'm framing things. I suppose you could argue that's entirely PR, but I don't think that's the case.

People thought MSFT under Ballmer was trending down, now they think it's trending up. I'd argue that's due to strategic shifts that happened once Ballmer left.

I've mentioned in other comments that revenue (while good) isn't the whole story.

>Arguably the stock price is a prediction of future success

Sure, the stock price is always a prediction of future success. But it can change overnight, and when it does, it's not because reality or the "facts on the ground" changed overnight (usually) it's because perception changed. Often if not always because a catalyst made people aware of something that was building for a fair amount of time.

>strategic shifts that happened once Ballmer left.

I'm not saying this is wrong, but I don't think it's appropriate to treat the stock price as evidence of it.

That's a good point but it wasn't really 'Ballmer' - it was the existential changes in the industry.

I believe if Ballmer had of hung on for a few more years, that change would have happened eventually.

Investors eventually would realize 'This is not just Windows and Office'.

I think this is our core disagreement distilled down.

I think Ballmer couldn’t have done it, he was too tied up personally in windows.

Some of the examples you mention under Ballmer are more examples of strategic failure under his watch. Xbox is the easiest example, the Xbox One’s launch was awful and focus on cable boxes was bad.

I don’t think it took a while for investors to realize, I think investors had an accurate model of what was going on. When Ballmer left things improved.

We have hindsight: the changes Ballmer made to increase revenue were not 'one offs' they were substantial.

1) He reconstituted Windows and Office distribution, sales, put office on the cloud.

2) He launched XBox and more notable Azure.

So if you think 'Desktop is dying' (desktop sales were plateauing) then 1 seems like it's going away and cloud isn't a huge business then 2 doesn't matter.

But the prediction was wrong:

A) Even with flatlining desktop sales, Win + Office continued to thrive. Even to this day. It's not a 'legacy business' it's a 'healthy ongoing business.

B) XBox, in particular Azure are huge. Azure makes more money today than Windows generated in revenue when Ballmer took over Microsoft.

Ballmer's failures were mostly Search and Mobile ... both of which were sad, but also they were up against Google Search and iPhone, the best products of our era. XBox and Azure are in very difficult areas, and are doing well.

In hindsight, Ballmer did quite well, there's not a lot to debate unless someone things that Search/Mobile success should have been imminent, but I don't think that's true.

He massively grew and adapted the baseline businesses, and started a few new, huge businesses. Glorious profits all around.

Satya hasn't yet quite made the kind of decisions that will have the lasting impact Ballmer has had, in his defence, he's in an era were the 'new fields of competition' are less obvious.

Azure is huge and a really big deal - I just don't attribute that success to Ballmer. It may have started under his watch, but it was floundering - I think that's one of the things Nadella deserves credit for making successful.

Windows + Office is a legacy product line. It makes money, but it's not the future. They need it obviously, but over-focusing on that at the expense of other things was a mistake.

The Xbox launched in 2001 - was the original one even Ballmer? I think Gates left in 2000? I'm not sure that counts. Xbox One launch/strategy was bad.

I'm not trying to say he did nothing right, but I think we just disagree on this.

Microsoft has, imo, a monopoly of sorts on two critical pieces. 1. Its ability to permeate Enterprise, 2. Its channel strategy/network.

What comes to mind most recently? See Slack.

MSFT is still known for good WLB. Just check places like Blind to get an idea of the corporate culture of a company. There are certainly hard teams/jobs at MSFT but it seems on average that the WLB at MSFT is super good.

Wasn't Microsoft widely regarded as a bit of a meat grinder in the Ballmer days due to stack ranking?

that happened after nadella changed course from the balmer years. It is not always the case that a new CEO can turn around the company (for example see GE).

See also SUNW. McNealy imported the 6Sigma thing from GE, at one time it infected even teams not involved in manufacturing. MSFT had the best outcome for giants of the aughts. It is too bad OpenSolaris was left for dead, otherwise we'd have some choices and competition in *nix OS. AIX, dead. HP-UX, dead. Can't recall the DEC, Ultrix? Who runs that anymore. The last time I saw BSD commercially used was at a telco.

A lot of my early jobs were porting various Unix things to Linux. I spent time writing cross platform C++, perl, and bash on Solaris, IRIX, HP-UNIX, and DEC Tru46, but mostly Solaris and IRIX.

I gotta say, all those Unices fucking sucked. The userland tools were abysmal, with missing flags or bugs in their getopts, the compilers and their sockets libraries were extremely finicky, and their man pages were anemic.

GNU/Linux won because if something sucked, somebody somewhere would fix it. By the early 2000s, and especially after Linux 2.6, it was obvious closed-source UNIX was both worse and overpriced.

Even now it seems like the best part of the closed source MacOS Unix stack is the open source homebrew/macports stuff.

Agree with you that tooling was abysmal but all of those *nix had their bright flowering that subsequently pollinated other *nixes. AIX service management (SRC I think?) eventually saw life in Solaris as SMF. BSD jails reborn as containers. The HP-UX had batch job management that was very good. Solaris ABI/API compat between versions was exemplary, you can count on the OS upgrade not breaking your application. When the compiler was still being sold (thousands of dollars by the seat license), it was optimized for the SPARC processor and outperformed same code compiled by the GNU compiler. I wish we had all of that still.

Apropos of the "curated App Store" or "free-for-all" discussion currently active, I remember talking to a colleague in the early 2000s that Apple with its curated BSD-derivative OS was exactly what open sourced OSes needed. Users don't want to do more work than necessary; in retrospect, the selling point that users can do anything+everything with *nix OS was the wrong message.

You didn't mention package management and network booting to be pain points. They were nightmares, which Linux eventually solved. I think that's where the race was lost.

You're assuming the rest of the world is different but it isn't. There's a massive amount of companies where working pace is very slow. A large percentage of employees do barely anything and these companies exist forever.

This is something that was unknown to me until a few years ago and I believe it's unknown to many in the tech industry. I make a close to Google-level salary in my position (say, 85% of it) in a tech company and I barely do any work (or better, I do some work for some hours a week). Little accountability, zero stress. And when I say "I barely do any work", I mean that when I hear start-up people ridiculing the typical Google senior-and-up IC who works 30-35 hours a week with weekends off, I say to myself: that's crazy, what would they think of me working (barely) 1/3 of those hours? Would I be the village idiot?

There is always some drops fear trying to find a way up my limbic system whispering to me that one day this will be over. One day, I will have to work for real again and I will have to pass tough interviews and have new, possibly demanding bosses. But this has been going for more than 4 splendid years, very long-termism tend to make one's life pretty dull, and my dream is to open a bicycle shop anyway.

As a famous ad campaign used to suggest: "Think different".

Don't get complacent. I've been where you are, and when the party is over you're going to have a hell of a hangover unless you can ride that job to retirement. Relearning how to compete after a few years of coasting is brutal. I was just past 40 when my gravy train derailed. The slack years were fun but they went by fast. Compensation for a job is about more than money. It's about where you end up as a person when the job is over.

That's a good point and that's the drop of fear climbing making his way up to my brain. But I interview around, I got some offers that I have declined so far and I do some work, just a few hours a week.

You wrote: "Compensation for a job is about more than money. It's about where you end up as a person when the job is over.". It sounds good in theory, but in practice? Should I switch job, maybe/likely accepting less money and more stress in the coal train now because when the luxury train stops I will be in a better place (I am exaggerating for conversation purposes)? I have my doubts. This is specific to my situation and I don't want to explain too much (and that's why I use a throwaway account), but outside of the US that would sound bizarre. Switching from a cushy well-payed job to a demanding, paying-less job because in a few months/years it will be over? Yes, maybe I will get rusty here and there, but I can move to Tulum for 3 months and get ready for interviews, no?

EDIT: typo

I didn't say you should quit your job. Ride that train as long as you can. I'm saying you should manage yourself. If you only work half the day, spend the other half of the day:

- Look for opportunities to contribute more at your job. Don't wait for a manager to tell you what to do. Rewrite some code. Propose a new feature. Improve the documentation. Write more tests.

- Teach yourself new skills. Don't just skim books on new languages/technologies. Develop a personal project and pretend like you're being paid to work on it.

- Take practice coding tests. Stay up to date with relevent skills.

Enjoy the job you have now, but keep yourself ready for the day when that job goes away. I had a very easy job for about 6 years. I automated most of my job and effectively did not have a boss. I made great money and spent most of my time working on hobbies, hiking, or working on my house. When the job ended I suddenly realized all of my skills were rusty. I regret wasting all of that time, and wish I would have used it to better myself.

All very good points. However, if you do (1) (Look for opportunities at work), you don't have the time and energy for (2) and (3) with the regularity needed for making serious advances. At that point, you have a well-paid, non-stressful, truly full-time job. I would skip (1) and keep mostly (3) (well, that's what I do, more than advice. A pat on my shoulder, if you will). They are not paying you more, the more you do, the more troubles, stress, and annoyances you call in your direction, and when the tide turns, it is not that they are looking at some code review you did or improved documentation you wrote to keep you onboard.

As I like to say: there is no second life, the only one that was build was virtual and "failed".

Yeah I didn't mean to suggest doing all 1, 2 and 3. Pick one. Do something for at least half of your idle time, and do it with purpose.

> when the tide turns, it is not that they are looking at some code review you did or improved documentation you wrote to keep you onboard.

I mostly disagree, but it depends on your employer. As a senior engineer, I very much have the opportunity to differentiate myself and protect my position longer than others. I lost my easy job to lower paid, lower skilled engineer because I chose not to put in the work which would have defined my role as a more difficult one. It was easy to replace me when the time came because I allowed the scope of my role to shrink to menial tasks which did not require much thought.

> I can move to Tulum for 3 months and get ready for interviews, no?

I've worked with plenty of sysadmins who suddenly had no choice but to become software engineers. That learning is brutal for some of them–years long process, maybe never. 3 months may not be enough if you coast for long enough.

Honest question from an eng working the last few decades at a FAANG and finding themselves burnt out to the point of panic attacks some mornings (e.g. "can I keep going at this pressure"; which has me laughing at least a little about the "FAANG is easy" sentiment elsewhere in the thread)

Where? How do I find jobs like this?

I get what the sister comment points out about long-term stagnation, but at the same time, I could desperately use a few years without a resume gap, but without a perpetual dagger hanging over my head.

There are plenty of high-revenue companies looking for people with prestigious backgrounds in a non-explicitly-called-that-way advisory role. It is not difficult to find jobs like those in general, but IMO most FAANG people lack the finesse needed to understand how to position themselves and understand what other people want, which, most of the time, are not the coding skills.

Panic attacks are brutal and getting employees to the point of having panic attacks is part of what is wrong in the tech world. And it happens, in big corps, because some people want to advance at the expense of others.

Very true on the last part. There are some quotes I'd love to share from mentors in the space but that would ID me too tightly.

Would you say that any particular background and skill set or credentials/laurels (publishing? writing? speaking? management? management at a certain level?) sets you up most appropriately for getting this sort of role? Basically, how do I take any actionable steps to find those positions or move in that direction.

Certainly the FAANG-er needs to be in a senior role. To have a less stressful job, you need to look for senior- IC work, not management. Coming from management would be ok, but mostly companies I am talking about are looking for technical guidance or, more likely, reassurance. Publishing is helpful only if in the very specific area they are interested about.

As to how to find those positions, my recommendation would be to look for (1) high-revenue, big companies (they have the money and they have the space), (2) going through some sort of transformation (moving to the cloud, opening a new business area), and (3) need prestige, both internally and externally.

You can find those jobs in job ads, but you need to look at the ad written most of the time by a semi-clueless recruiter through the lens of points (1-3) above.

This is mostly because at (a lot of) these places - there is no reward for doing any work. You don't get promoted if you do a good job. If you get a raise, it's like an extra $1k a year.

You get little more than a pat on the back.

in my personnal experience, the only kind of companies that are really comfortable to employees (in terms of perks) and adopt a slow rythm, are benefiting from some kind of monopolistic, regulatory situation.

Either public sector companies, or banks & insurance whose business model can't be disrupted that easily because of regulatory pressures.

Giant IT companies from the valley that successfully built a way to lock down users are the other example.

could also be a niche market product created a decade ago that some other large company depends on. money keeps rolling in with little effort. source: personal experience. the company is no longer in operation but it lasted for a god 30 years.

another example is a company which is highly specialised in making a certain thing. (for instance some kind of widget for a specific kind of industrial machine). usually demand is stable enough to keep the company healthy for a long time, but scale up is not necessary because the demand isn't there.

Except that Google was known for all these perks, 20% time (I wonder what this guy would think about someone wasting ONE DAY A WEEK for something not on his project?!), good food, etc. pretty much since inception.

Isn't that why so many people flocked there to work in the first place?

I’d say most people flocked there for prestige and compensation. Perks were just icing on the cake.

How many employees do the FAANGs have ? Must be above 100K spread over the world. Even 5K talented engineers are enough for all the (admittedly superb) software they build and sell. With those profits still up, the rest of the employees can just be coasting along, endlessly arguing about things.