3 ms·

Disclaimer: I'm a founder of an early stage startup, so I'm biased. You need to figure out what your goals are. We can't answer for you because we don't know w

Disclaimer: I'm a founder of an early stage startup, so I'm biased. You need to figure out what your goals are. We can't answer for you because we don't know what you want. If your goal is just money (which is fine, don't be afraid to say this), then definitely go to google. In 10 years you'll be earning 500k per year, and have put away a ton of cash too. Financially, if the startup is successful you_might_ make $10m, but that's unlikely. At google you can guarantee you make $1m. There are some good reasons to choose a startup: 1) you want the work environment of the startup. Less politics, less optimizing for career advancement, much closer to the customer and the decisions. 2) You want to learn. At a startup, you'll get to do everything. I'm assuming you're an engineer, so you'll get to do backend, frontend, ML, scaling, infra, etc. But you also get to do things like customer support, sales, marketing, etc, which are very valuable skills to learn and understand. 3) You want to do a startup yourself. Seeing how a startup works, and learning the hard lessons of how it doesn't, makes a huge difference if you ever want to start one later. There are also other good reasons to go to google: you'll get to operate at a scale that a startup wont (that's a plus and a minus), you'll automatically have tons of customers for whatever you build, etc, etc. Decide on your goals and what to optimize for, and only then can people help you choose.

m_ke 8y ago
I was a 1st employee at a fairly successful startup and am now an "early stage founder". The experience from one doesn't carry over as much to the other as you'd expect. 1) Somewhat true, it's definitely the case initially but you'll see politics develop if the company gets above 15-20 employees. 2) You'll half ass everything. It's nice to get exposure if you don't know what you're interested in yet but it will be hard to go deep in any subject. If you're doing ML the startup will probably have no data, process and infrastructure for you to be effective. At Google they have all the data you can dream of, 1000s of people to label things if you need them, unlimited hardware and tooling to run and manage experiments. 3) You'll learn a lot more about functional organizations at Google than as an early engineer at a startup. You'll also come out with a network and resume that will make raising money and hiring a lot easier.
- pbiggar 8y ago
  Thanks for the insight, good to have views of both. My main point was to focus on goals. There's no point arguing any of these points without a focus on what OP wants from their career.
plinkplonk 8y ago
>if the startup is successful you_might_ make $10m if the startup is the next facebook, sure. But usually an employee doesn't make 10 million, even for 100 million dollar(+) acquisitions. Founders do, but that is a different game.
khazhou 8y ago
Disclaimer: I'm an ex-FANG, ex-founder, now-again-FANG, so I'm also biased. I'm somewhat bothered by your comment about money: > If your goal is just money (which is fine, don't be afraid to say this), then definitely go to google. I find this disingenuous, as money is also a big reason why people do startups, both the employees and the founders. The founders could have chosen to implement their idea inside Google or wherever (with an army of marketing, virtually unlimited funding as long as the idea is working out, and all forms of support to bolster the team and the product), but the founder passed on that in order to reap the huge rewards that come with owning a successful company. Or, in order to have "personal" control (inasmuch as you can have that when you still have investors, a Board, and an indifferent target audience). Sure, there are _some_ founders whose vision genuinely doesn't fit inside any FANG... but those are the exception. For most visions, the best possible way to realize them is inside BigCo. Also, the promise of a Google-sized payday is hinted at to employees ("Join us... we think this is a Google-sized opportunity" is a common thing founders say). Even your own statement ("you _might_ make $10m, but that's unlikely") embodies the dream and the challenge presented to a prospective employee who's ready for a big risk, to put their guarantees and expected-outcomes on the line for that sweet $10m. The prospective employee probably doesn't realize that the founders who are pitching them on .01% still hold 60% between the two of them, and a different class of shares. The prospective doesn't realize that there is only an infinitesimally, vanishingly small likelihood they'll make even close to what they'll make at the big company. But even when the employees make very little, the founders still have a good path to making bank, in the case of even a minor acquisition or an acquihire.
- stock_toaster 8y ago
  Startup Non-founders statistically /rarely/ have their options worth much of anything in the end. Startups also generally pay less than FANG companies to boot (typically until they are no longer startups).
- SZJX 8y ago
  Not sure if big companies are the best place to realize most visions. Google seems to make a mess of almost every new product they put out nowadays. They simply don't care with all that revenue. Many startups that focus on one thing and do it well are unlikely to have developed at a similar pace at a big company?

m_ke 8y ago

I was a 1st employee at a fairly successful startup and am now an "early stage founder". The experience from one doesn't carry over as much to the other as you'd expect. 1) Somewhat true, it's definitely the case initially but you'll see politics develop if the company gets above 15-20 employees. 2) You'll half ass everything. It's nice to get exposure if you don't know what you're interested in yet but it will be hard to go deep in any subject. If you're doing ML the startup will probably have no data, process and infrastructure for you to be effective. At Google they have all the data you can dream of, 1000s of people to label things if you need them, unlimited hardware and tooling to run and manage experiments. 3) You'll learn a lot more about functional organizations at Google than as an early engineer at a startup. You'll also come out with a network and resume that will make raising money and hiring a lot easier.

pbiggar 8y ago
Thanks for the insight, good to have views of both. My main point was to focus on goals. There's no point arguing any of these points without a focus on what OP wants from their career.

plinkplonk 8y ago

>if the startup is successful you_might_ make $10m if the startup is the next facebook, sure. But usually an employee doesn't make 10 million, even for 100 million dollar(+) acquisitions. Founders do, but that is a different game.

khazhou 8y ago

Disclaimer: I'm an ex-FANG, ex-founder, now-again-FANG, so I'm also biased. I'm somewhat bothered by your comment about money: > If your goal is just money (which is fine, don't be afraid to say this), then definitely go to google. I find this disingenuous, as money is also a big reason why people do startups, both the employees and the founders. The founders could have chosen to implement their idea inside Google or wherever (with an army of marketing, virtually unlimited funding as long as the idea is working out, and all forms of support to bolster the team and the product), but the founder passed on that in order to reap the huge rewards that come with owning a successful company. Or, in order to have "personal" control (inasmuch as you can have that when you still have investors, a Board, and an indifferent target audience). Sure, there are _some_ founders whose vision genuinely doesn't fit inside any FANG... but those are the exception. For most visions, the best possible way to realize them is inside BigCo. Also, the promise of a Google-sized payday is hinted at to employees ("Join us... we think this is a Google-sized opportunity" is a common thing founders say). Even your own statement ("you _might_ make $10m, but that's unlikely") embodies the dream and the challenge presented to a prospective employee who's ready for a big risk, to put their guarantees and expected-outcomes on the line for that sweet $10m. The prospective employee probably doesn't realize that the founders who are pitching them on .01% still hold 60% between the two of them, and a different class of shares. The prospective doesn't realize that there is only an infinitesimally, vanishingly small likelihood they'll make even close to what they'll make at the big company. But even when the employees make very little, the founders still have a good path to making bank, in the case of even a minor acquisition or an acquihire.

stock_toaster 8y ago
Startup Non-founders statistically /rarely/ have their options worth much of anything in the end. Startups also generally pay less than FANG companies to boot (typically until they are no longer startups).
SZJX 8y ago
Not sure if big companies are the best place to realize most visions. Google seems to make a mess of almost every new product they put out nowadays. They simply don't care with all that revenue. Many startups that focus on one thing and do it well are unlikely to have developed at a similar pace at a big company?