Google in shock as Samsung considers moving to Bing as default search engine

Re:Google in shock as Samsung considers moving to Bing as de... by revelio on Monday April 17, 2023 @04:29PM (#35606161)

>> since it is possible to keep recruiting to a very high standard even during exponential growth via spending exponentially more resources

Since when? You're assuming the pool of employees available to recruit is infinite which is clearly not true.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google in shock as Samsung considers moving to Bing as de... by MichaelZuo on Monday April 17, 2023 @06:51PM (#35607711)

It's clearly larger then 1 million worldwide, which is what matters to a company of Google's size.

It will breakdown if the company wants to run multiple Manhattan Projects simultaneously, but anything short of that is technically possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google in shock as Samsung considers moving to Bing as de... by revelio on Tuesday April 18, 2023 @05:56AM (#35611941)

Is that clear? How did you arrive at that number? Just because people exist and have some skills doesn't mean a company can find them and hire them. There are lots of reasons why that might not be the case. Even when I first joined the company very early on, they were struggling to recruit in the USA despite spending vast resources on the effort, and this was what pushed them into international expansion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google in shock as Samsung considers moving to Bing as de... by MichaelZuo on Tuesday April 18, 2023 @09:45AM (#35613926)

> Just because people exist and have some skills doesn't mean a company can find them and hire them.

I claimed it's technically possible with 'exponentially more resources', not that any private organization could feasibly possess the resources or cachet to, in practice, hire a million top notch people.

Maintaining the literal same average quality with Googler #1001 to #10000 would probably have required spending 10x more per hire, compared to hiring #1 to #1000.

[ Parent | on HN ]