←back to thread

FAQ on Leaving Google

(social.clawhammer.net)
462 points mrled | 1 comments | 17 Jan 24 22:12 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
thrtythreeforty ◴[17 Jan 24 23:40 UTC] No.39035233[source]▶
The author also published [1] an email he wrote at the beginning of his tenure. It is amazing how alien and out of place early Google sounds in today's corporate environment. They have completely eroded the perception that Google is this kind of place:

> Google is the opposite: it's like a giant grad-school. Half the programmers have PhD's, and everyone treats the place like a giant research playground [...] Every once in a while, a manager skims over the bubbling activity, looking for products to "reap" from the creative harvest. The programmers completely drive the company, it's really amazing. I kept waiting for people to walk up to me and ask me if I had declared my major yet. They not only encourage personal experimentation and innovation, they demand it. Every programmer is required to spend 20% of their time working on random personal projects. If you get overloaded by a crisis, then that 20% personal time accrues anyway. Nearly every Google technology you know (maps, earth, gmail) started out as somebody's 20% project, I think.

Even if this was only half-true back then, there's very little you could do to convince me that it's true at all now. This culture and the public perception of it has been squandered.

[1]: https://social.clawhammer.net/blog/posts/2005-09-25-FirstWee...

replies(6): >>39035428 #>>39035523 #>>39035569 #>>39035617 #>>39035738 #>>39046460 #
zffr ◴[18 Jan 24 00:13 UTC] No.39035569[source]▶
Are there any places today that are like Google in the early days? I would love to work at a place like this.
replies(5): >>39035721 #>>39036450 #>>39036530 #>>39036619 #>>39038071 #
potatolicious ◴[18 Jan 24 01:45 UTC] No.39036450[source]▶
IMO no. The unique combination of parameters with early-Google were:

- Small, relatively young company.

- Absolutely gargantuan amounts of revenue

You can't run a company this way unless you have a very large money firehose.

The last time this happened was early-Facebook. I don't think there has been a single company since then that fit the description - which IMO is fine, the celestial alignment of factors is pretty rare.

Companies nowadays have kind of the opposite problem: lots of hiring, but not enough revenue to show for it. Some tried to build a similar culture on VC funding but imploded once the cash ran out. You really need an intensely profitable product to make this formula work.

replies(7): >>39036577 #>>39036607 #>>39036616 #>>39036791 #>>39037541 #>>39053363 #>>39054394 #
1. freedomben ◴[18 Jan 24 02:02 UTC] No.39036577[source]▶
Indeed. I don't know that something like this can ever happen again, barring another major upset. Many people don't realize or remember how transformative the dot-com era really was. The amount of money firehose that was there to go around was staggering. We're just at a much more mature point in the market. Ironically, a lot of the people that make it difficult/impossible to have the money firehose are the ones that made their fortune from that environment!

It's still possible for a one-off startup here and there to maybe get into this boat, but at this point the big tech players are there to slurp up the real money makers early and often and assimilate them into the borg.

If this sort of environment were what I wanted to work in, I'd probably look at specialized teams/niches inside of big corps. Surely very difficult to find, but they do exist.