4 ms·

Someone said to me once that a small number of people want to build a great company. A larger number of people want to work at great companies. I'd wager that

Someone said to me once that a small number of people want to build a great company. A larger number of people want to work at great companies. I'd wager that (more and more) Google is less attractive to the former and more attractive to the latter. I don't think that bodes well for them.

nostrademons 16y ago
I think you're thinking of Zawinski's Netscape resignation: "you can divide our industry into two kinds of people: those who want to go work for a company to make it successful, and those who want to go work for a successful company." http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html
rudiger 16y ago
Why doesn't it bode well for them? Google is a great company. It's also a big company ($200B market cap, 20,000+ employees). Given their size, it's a tautology that they'll appeal to the larger number of people who want to work at a great company rather than the people who want to build a great company.
- wyclif 16y ago
  Grandparent is mouthing a typical false dichotomy. Any company that is successful will grow, right? What you're saying seems fairly obvious to me.
- jfoutz 16y ago
  People who want to work at a great company are (likely) unwilling to make radical changes to improve things. People who want to build a great company would be willing to automate their jobs away, sure that they will find more work to do. The trained employee, that performs a specific task with direct supervision will resist new technology that diminishes their importance. my brother poster points out it's a false dichotomy, but it's fair to say we all fall in some percentage in one category and the rest in the other. No one would be comfortable showing up to work tomorrow obsolete. No one would be happy never growing in their work.
  - ez77 16y ago
    People who want to work at a great company are (likely) unwilling to make radical changes to improve things. IBM hired Ted Codd, AT&T Ken Thomson, while Google is currently Rob Pike's employer. Clearly you would not expect all employees to do basic research (not even at the Institute for Advanced Study!), but I think we ain't seen nothing yet in terms of Google's research legacy. (The kind of which you won't find in a start up.)
    - jfoutz 16y ago
      Would Ted Codd tell his boss to cut the database division? It turned out to be a win for IBM, but if the writing was on the wall, would he seriously cut his own division and go work on something else? There are thousands of second best-second brightest that think they're amazing. They might make something cool someday, they might not. Do you expect them to give up their budget in a bad year?

nostrademons 16y ago

I think you're thinking of Zawinski's Netscape resignation: "you can divide our industry into two kinds of people: those who want to go work for a company to make it successful, and those who want to go work for a successful company." http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html

rudiger 16y ago

Why doesn't it bode well for them? Google is a great company. It's also a big company ($200B market cap, 20,000+ employees). Given their size, it's a tautology that they'll appeal to the larger number of people who want to work at a great company rather than the people who want to build a great company.

wyclif 16y ago
Grandparent is mouthing a typical false dichotomy. Any company that is successful will grow, right? What you're saying seems fairly obvious to me.
jfoutz 16y ago
People who want to work at a great company are (likely) unwilling to make radical changes to improve things. People who want to build a great company would be willing to automate their jobs away, sure that they will find more work to do. The trained employee, that performs a specific task with direct supervision will resist new technology that diminishes their importance. my brother poster points out it's a false dichotomy, but it's fair to say we all fall in some percentage in one category and the rest in the other. No one would be comfortable showing up to work tomorrow obsolete. No one would be happy never growing in their work.
- ez77 16y ago
  People who want to work at a great company are (likely) unwilling to make radical changes to improve things. IBM hired Ted Codd, AT&T Ken Thomson, while Google is currently Rob Pike's employer. Clearly you would not expect all employees to do basic research (not even at the Institute for Advanced Study!), but I think we ain't seen nothing yet in terms of Google's research legacy. (The kind of which you won't find in a start up.)
  - jfoutz 16y ago
    Would Ted Codd tell his boss to cut the database division? It turned out to be a win for IBM, but if the writing was on the wall, would he seriously cut his own division and go work on something else? There are thousands of second best-second brightest that think they're amazing. They might make something cool someday, they might not. Do you expect them to give up their budget in a bad year?