←back to thread

FAQ on Leaving Google

(social.clawhammer.net)
462 points mrled | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.729s | source
Show context
thrtythreeforty ◴[] 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 #
sjwhevvvvvsj ◴[] No.39035738[source]
Both Maps and Earth were acquisitions. MOST Google products are.

The only two real big success products to come from Google that are still around are Search and Gmail. Maybe you can count Scholar but it’s really just a type of search.

Workspace was assembled from various acquisitions, YouTube they bought, Cloud is just a Jack Ma-esque “copy whatever Bezos is doing” initiative.

Most home grown Google products have either failed or been killed in the cradle. G+, Stadia, etc etc

20% was always a myth.

replies(6): >>39035852 #>>39036708 #>>39036792 #>>39037838 #>>39038129 #>>39045661 #
1. lokar ◴[] No.39036792[source]
20% was very real, I saw it many times

Googles main successful product was amazing infrastructure. Lots of real innovation. It enabled massive scale of everything else, including acquisitions. YouTube was about to hit the wall when they got acquired.

replies(2): >>39037434 #>>39037617 #
2. cmrdporcupine ◴[] No.39037434[source]
By the time I got to Google in 2012, 20% seemed dead to me. If it had any meaning, it just meant "you can do some extra work on something management approves", not "I have a wild idea and want to go off and try it in my 20%" (as I naively understood it before coming there.)

It was already the case, at that point, that 20% really just meant doing more of what Google was already doing.

But maybe I just didn't know the right people or have the right connections or status.

replies(1): >>39037544 #
3. lokar ◴[] No.39037544[source]
Yes, by then it was org dependent. Some were not supportive, but some were.

2005 was still very open

4. sjwhevvvvvsj ◴[] No.39037617[source]
100% - Google IS SRE. My favorite group of people to work with when I was there, a true honor, just amazing infra.

But the people “leading” the place are trash.