14 ms·

The Google of 2005 wouldn't do this. The Google of 2005 would use this as opportunity to monopolize all the talent and move into some new space and eat everythi

The Google of 2005 wouldn't do this. The Google of 2005 would use this as opportunity to monopolize all the talent and move into some new space and eat everything with fantastic software. * I had a good seat to watch google obliterate mapquest and yahoomaps with amazing javascript maps. It was day and night. Yahoo was penny pinching their mapping engineers while Google was buying geographic satellite companies and innovating with lazy loading javascript maps. It went from, websites can't provide anywhere near the functionality of desktop apps to why would ever use a desktop app for that. * I was building phone software and mobile search engines before, during, and after the launch of android so I got the inside perspective on cellular carriers reactions. Google was this a dinosaur ending asteroid to them and their wall gardens. They saw signs, then sky darkened and in their hearts they knew Google would build something 100X better than what they could ever build even if they wanted to give up their walled gardens which was a cognitive improbability. The carriers began going through the stages of grief, while they were still on anger, like the sound of thunder[0] android launched, and reality shifted under their feet. After that it seemed like nothing else had ever been possible or true. Hungry Google was sight to behold. [0]: The Sound of Thunder - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sound_of_Thunder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sound_of_Thunder

bumby 4y ago
Are your examples also examples of survivorship bias? I was reading in the WSJ how all tech seems to be paring back their moonshot programs. I think the Google example was a program cut that had $1B in revenue but $6B in costs. (forgive me if the exact numbers are wrong). It seems like prioritizing and cutting back on programs that lose money (despite being innovative or inspiring) is a natural consequence of economic downturns.
- acdha 4y ago
  There’s definitely some risk of that but I’d put it more at 2008: that’s when Google acquired DoubleClick, and the sea change away from building products which people wanted to use seemed to start a bit later when the ad focus had set in. It’s hard to think of something they’ve done since then which has been a popular success.
  - bumby 4y ago
    >when the ad focus had set in Isn't that the point? Something like 80% of their revenue is from ads so that's where their focus lies. As cool as a lot of the other products are, they just don't seem to do much for the "business" other than supporting the data for targeted ads. Meaning, anything that does support their main revenue stream is at risk during economic downturns. (I'd be happy to be proven wrong by someone who, unlike me, has real insight)
    - radlad 4y ago
      Yes it is. OP is pointing out that wasn't always the case - Google became an ads company, they didn't start as one.
      - bumby 4y ago
        You’re right and thanks for the re-focus. I guess I don’t know what else people would expect? All the incentives are for a publicly traded company to focus on what makes money. If you want to work on R&D solely for the sake of R&D, there are other options (notably in the public sphere). Expecting a company to continually funnel money into cool, but ultimately unsuccessful (by business metrics) ventures seems confused.
        acdha 4y ago
        To be clear, my argument isn’t that they should ignore profitability but that they could have multiple revenue models for different products, not to mention a better understanding of what it takes to succeed in different fields. I’d use GCP as an example of the problem: we buy services but their sales guys showed up like “we’re Google, of course we’re the best” and put approximately as much effort into selling as they do for Gmail. AWS makes a ton of people available, listens to what you need (and actually ships it), and follows up. Guess who gets the sale? Anthos was a cool idea, lots of smart people worked on it, … and none of that matters if you give up after begging them to show up to sell it.
    - acdha 4y ago
FlyingSnake 4y ago
Whatever’s happening is a prime example of how disruptions happen in tech industry. Previous giants become fossils and new incumbents take the spot. IBM -> GE -> Google etc will all follow the same trajectory towards irrelevance.
- droopyEyelids 4y ago
  Too many of us kid ourselves about 'irrelevance' The companies you list build a legal moat around their business (establishing some amount of monopoly) and then begin sucking taxpayer money
- BowBun 4y ago
  In general I agree that these companies retract from the forefront and maybe aren't the innovative powerhouses that they once were, however both IBM and GE do fine as businesses and will probably be around for a long time. And I think it's important we have a bit of both in the world. The new startups produce innovation and cutting-edge tech, but we need these huge monoliths for capital-intensive projects. Google has been a driving force in laying sub-sea internet cables across Africa and South America for a good chunk of time now, enabling billions of people to come online. I don't think a small company could achieve that since it costs billions of dollars to do.
  - avhception 4y ago
    While I think you're right and GE is a fine example, I'm not so sure with IBM. They seem to really have lost any direction or vision of what they actually want to do.
  - gotorazor 4y ago
    GE hasn't really been doing fine since the great Recession. The GE of the mid-2000's was a behemoth. If I have to guess and adjusted for inflation, GE hasn't been this poor since the mid-80's.
- bumby 4y ago
  >Previous giants become fossils and new incumbents take the spot. Or, alternatively, the giants focus on maintenance and "innovate" through acquiring the new incumbents.
kyrra 4y ago
It's worth stating that Google has been hiring like crazy for years. In their Q3 earnings[0], their year-over-year number of employees increased by 36,751. [0] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204422000090/goog-20220930.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204422...
- Aperocky 4y ago
  Back when I was in school Google was the company that had an aura where it's reserved for geniuses and next to impossible to get into. That was a number of years ago, I can't help but notice this perception changed among the people I know. I don't think it was entirely because I graduated and start having experience (disclaimer: did not work for Google).
  - typon 4y ago
    This perception changed 5-7 years ago. I actually can't think of a single software company that induces the same level of awe in university students anymore. Places like Jane Street do but they aren't really Silicon Valley tech companies.
    - irrational 4y ago
      I've never heard of Jane Street before. It's kind of hard to have awe of a place you've never heard of. How did you hear of Jane Street?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - ilikerashers 4y ago
        Most recently due to FTX leadership being Jane Street alumni but they get mentioned a lot here due to OCaml.
      - yodsanklai 4y ago
        They used to be quite a niche trading company, known in the functional language community for their use of OCaml. But they grew to one of the highest paying company in the world.
boplicity 4y ago
That also explains why carriers are obsessed with buying media companies; they just can't let go of their dreams of a walled garden.
- ascagnel_ 4y ago
  Carriers are doing their best to avoid becoming a "dumb pipe" utility-style service where other people make all the money.
  - dreamcompiler 4y ago
    I call this "the plumbing law of the internet business."
  - pjc50 4y ago
    The unspoken question: who does get to make all the money? At which point should the quasi-monopoly with the moat be? Hardware manufacturer? Retailer? Mobile carrier? ISP? Search engine? Social network? All of those companies have valuations which assume they'll work towards capturing most of the value, leaving the others competed away to nothing ..
xiphias2 4y ago
Google of 2008 didn't do this, I was there. The difference is that current Google is full of non-tech non-sales people who fight with eachother to reorganize tech people who are trying to build things. Other tech people change the API for no reason and give work to 1000 more people to ,,upgrade to the newer system'' and stop maintaining the old system. Also the new CEO is not a software engineer, so he doesn't understand the problems they are facing day to day.
- kderbyma 4y ago
  Pinchai has been a Terrible pick. He made google just worse. Like a passive aggressive leader...
  - peanuty1 4y ago
    Do you attribute that to his lack of EECS background like the poster above you? Also, is Pinchai a typo or a play on words with "penny-pincher"?
  - ptero 4y ago
    Not to defend him, but I think by 2015 google has already lost its way, focusing not on developing groundbreaking technology, but on using it's dominance to squeeze any money even if it meant encouraging addictive behaviors.
    - kccqzy 4y ago
      2015 sounds about right. Three Years of Misery Inside Google is one of the best articles you can find about the seemingly sudden change of culture that made working at Google miserable. https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery-happiest-company-tech/ https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery...
      - user_7832 4y ago
        Wow, thanks for that article. It’s quite a long read, though a bit sad/disappointing, as someone who once believed in Google.
Firmwarrior 4y ago
I dug up the original story* and read it for the first time just now, it was a great read. I particularly like the imagery of Apple and Google dealing the deathblow to that idiotic app-rental scam the carriers had been running It seems like we've pretty much come full circle in the 10-15 years since then. I wonder who'll be the ones to put old Google to sleep.. * A PDF of it popped right up in search results
- jcadam 4y ago
  > I wonder who'll be the ones to put old Google to sleep.. Hopefully soon, I make a concerted effort to avoid using Google services wherever possible. Even in cases where the alternatives are inferior.
nvarsj 4y ago
It's funny to me because this has been happening in tech a long time and is happening to the current giants. The old giants like IBM, GE, Motorola, etc. all suffered similar fates. And it's been discussed ad nauseum by disgruntled engineers who then go and make new companies/start ups to get away from the "suits". It's called "Takeover by MBA". You know it's happened when you start hearing phrases like "Cut costs", "Make things more efficient", "LEAN process", etc. Basically the garbage pioneered by Jack Welch and taught at MBA schools everywhere to boost stock prices in the short to medium term.
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  It’s an anecdote but it’s also what I heard from my doctor dad working in the NHS. There was a time when the UK health system was actually run by doctors or people with medical knowledge. Now it’s MBAs and generalist managers. It doesn’t work, all it does is increase overhead, both in staff and bureaucracy. In his opinion that’s what ruined the NHS not underfunding. Business and management courses are not necessarily good.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > Business and management courses are not necessarily good. I suspect it's a sort of "penny wise and pound foolish" thing. You end up optimizing the small stuff (cost cutting, etc) and you lose the ability to drive big innovations.
    - ilikerashers 4y ago
      I worked in a UK government office once where they had stopped giving teabags to staff as a cost-cutting measure. The project was £50 million over budget. That's a lot of teabags.
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        That's tragically hilarious.
      - 4y ago
tuan 4y ago
In my orientation (2017) an executive was there giving a speech about how great the company is. I still remember he said something to the effect of we never layoff people because we’re family. Oh well.
- theGnuMe 4y ago
  Executives lie left and right. Stay at a company long enough and you will see their stories shift. They are essentially politicians.
7ewis 4y ago
I suspect they aren't getting rid of the talent. It's more likely to be a fat trimming exercise. The market has reacted in the way you'd expect, share price is currently up 4.3% today. It's easy to use the recession to restructure and leave room for new potential talent to come in.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  > I suspect they aren't getting rid of the talent. If you just announce a layoff, you are already getting rid of talent. > It's more likely to be a fat trimming exercise. Large companies can't lose fat in large strokes. There is simply no way to organize a mass layoff that results in "fat trimming".
- pjc50 4y ago
  > fat trimming exercise The company that is most notorious for having an aggressively difficult interview process has "fat"? How?
  - AdrianB1 4y ago
    Hiring process is never perfect, you find after 6-12 months you made a mistake. I saw that many times, I did that myself 3 times (hired people that were later fired, even after being promoted, as they did not perform well even if they were really good on paper and in interviews).
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      Perhaps the interview process is not as good as they think.
    - perfecthjrjth 4y ago
      How did they get promoted, when they did not perform well?
      - AdrianB1 4y ago
        Diversity targets.
pjc50 4y ago
> I got the inside perspective on cellular carriers reactions. Google was this a dinosaur ending asteroid to them and their wall gardens. They saw signs, then sky darkened and in their hearts they knew Google would build something 100X better than what they could ever build even if they wanted to give up their walled gardens which was a cognitive improbability This - and also the iPhone. The two of those were just so much better for the user than Symbian, and also short-circuited all the egregious billing of mobile carriers. It once used to cost £1 to send a message with a picture attached (MMS). But a lot of anticompetitive hurdles had to be overcome to let that happen. The worst possible outcome for users is where the old company has enough energy to squash competition, usually by cheating, but not enough to actually do so by improving its products - because "improving" to the user would mean cutting into their revenue stream.
KMag 4y ago
Though, note that both Android and Google Maps were acquisitions. Someone needed the vision to acquire those companies, for sure, but their initial incarnations aren't great examples of Google innovation.
- camdenreslink 4y ago
  YouTube as well…
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
danielmarkbruce 4y ago
This sounds great, but obliterating tiny markets isn't going to move the needle anymore. Google Cloud is the size of bet required these days. And they are still investing heavily in it.
suddenexample 4y ago
Poetic but misguided. The Google of 2005 didn't have so much fat to trim. When you have 150k employees, there's no escaping it. Not everyone is going to be hungry, and certainly not interested or in a position to build things 100x better. Many are happy to collect their paycheck while doing 20 hours of unambitious work per week.
- acituan 4y ago
  Now the remainder will do 50 hours of "ambitious" work for projects that will eventually get axed, redone, reorganized etc. It was never a raw productivity per hour problem, it was an organizing productivity behind meaningful, useful and profitable projects problem. > certainly not interested or in a position to build things 100x better in an organizational complexity of 150k -> 138k workforce, no one is in a position to make things 10x better, let alone 100x. Shedding 12k is a scapegoating gesture as if there is such a possibility, merely to ease the anxiety of the market price of shares. It doesn't even directly move the needle for profit/asset ratio, but it will help depressing wages with the theatre of "look what we had to do".
barfingclouds 4y ago
Uhhhh, Google didn’t make Android, Google bought Android…

bumby 4y ago

Are your examples also examples of survivorship bias? I was reading in the WSJ how all tech seems to be paring back their moonshot programs. I think the Google example was a program cut that had $1B in revenue but $6B in costs. (forgive me if the exact numbers are wrong). It seems like prioritizing and cutting back on programs that lose money (despite being innovative or inspiring) is a natural consequence of economic downturns.

acdha 4y ago
There’s definitely some risk of that but I’d put it more at 2008: that’s when Google acquired DoubleClick, and the sea change away from building products which people wanted to use seemed to start a bit later when the ad focus had set in. It’s hard to think of something they’ve done since then which has been a popular success.
- bumby 4y ago
  >when the ad focus had set in Isn't that the point? Something like 80% of their revenue is from ads so that's where their focus lies. As cool as a lot of the other products are, they just don't seem to do much for the "business" other than supporting the data for targeted ads. Meaning, anything that does support their main revenue stream is at risk during economic downturns. (I'd be happy to be proven wrong by someone who, unlike me, has real insight)
  - radlad 4y ago
    Yes it is. OP is pointing out that wasn't always the case - Google became an ads company, they didn't start as one.
    - bumby 4y ago
      You’re right and thanks for the re-focus. I guess I don’t know what else people would expect? All the incentives are for a publicly traded company to focus on what makes money. If you want to work on R&D solely for the sake of R&D, there are other options (notably in the public sphere). Expecting a company to continually funnel money into cool, but ultimately unsuccessful (by business metrics) ventures seems confused.
      - acdha 4y ago
        To be clear, my argument isn’t that they should ignore profitability but that they could have multiple revenue models for different products, not to mention a better understanding of what it takes to succeed in different fields. I’d use GCP as an example of the problem: we buy services but their sales guys showed up like “we’re Google, of course we’re the best” and put approximately as much effort into selling as they do for Gmail. AWS makes a ton of people available, listens to what you need (and actually ships it), and follows up. Guess who gets the sale? Anthos was a cool idea, lots of smart people worked on it, … and none of that matters if you give up after begging them to show up to sell it.
  - acdha 4y ago

FlyingSnake 4y ago

Whatever’s happening is a prime example of how disruptions happen in tech industry. Previous giants become fossils and new incumbents take the spot. IBM -> GE -> Google etc will all follow the same trajectory towards irrelevance.

droopyEyelids 4y ago
Too many of us kid ourselves about 'irrelevance' The companies you list build a legal moat around their business (establishing some amount of monopoly) and then begin sucking taxpayer money
BowBun 4y ago
In general I agree that these companies retract from the forefront and maybe aren't the innovative powerhouses that they once were, however both IBM and GE do fine as businesses and will probably be around for a long time. And I think it's important we have a bit of both in the world. The new startups produce innovation and cutting-edge tech, but we need these huge monoliths for capital-intensive projects. Google has been a driving force in laying sub-sea internet cables across Africa and South America for a good chunk of time now, enabling billions of people to come online. I don't think a small company could achieve that since it costs billions of dollars to do.
- avhception 4y ago
  While I think you're right and GE is a fine example, I'm not so sure with IBM. They seem to really have lost any direction or vision of what they actually want to do.
- gotorazor 4y ago
  GE hasn't really been doing fine since the great Recession. The GE of the mid-2000's was a behemoth. If I have to guess and adjusted for inflation, GE hasn't been this poor since the mid-80's.
bumby 4y ago
>Previous giants become fossils and new incumbents take the spot. Or, alternatively, the giants focus on maintenance and "innovate" through acquiring the new incumbents.

kyrra 4y ago

It's worth stating that Google has been hiring like crazy for years. In their Q3 earnings[0], their year-over-year number of employees increased by 36,751. [0] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204422000090/goog-20220930.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204422...

Aperocky 4y ago
Back when I was in school Google was the company that had an aura where it's reserved for geniuses and next to impossible to get into. That was a number of years ago, I can't help but notice this perception changed among the people I know. I don't think it was entirely because I graduated and start having experience (disclaimer: did not work for Google).
- typon 4y ago
  This perception changed 5-7 years ago. I actually can't think of a single software company that induces the same level of awe in university students anymore. Places like Jane Street do but they aren't really Silicon Valley tech companies.
  - irrational 4y ago
    I've never heard of Jane Street before. It's kind of hard to have awe of a place you've never heard of. How did you hear of Jane Street?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ilikerashers 4y ago
      Most recently due to FTX leadership being Jane Street alumni but they get mentioned a lot here due to OCaml.
    - yodsanklai 4y ago
      They used to be quite a niche trading company, known in the functional language community for their use of OCaml. But they grew to one of the highest paying company in the world.

boplicity 4y ago

That also explains why carriers are obsessed with buying media companies; they just can't let go of their dreams of a walled garden.

ascagnel_ 4y ago
Carriers are doing their best to avoid becoming a "dumb pipe" utility-style service where other people make all the money.
- dreamcompiler 4y ago
  I call this "the plumbing law of the internet business."
- pjc50 4y ago
  The unspoken question: who does get to make all the money? At which point should the quasi-monopoly with the moat be? Hardware manufacturer? Retailer? Mobile carrier? ISP? Search engine? Social network? All of those companies have valuations which assume they'll work towards capturing most of the value, leaving the others competed away to nothing ..

xiphias2 4y ago

Google of 2008 didn't do this, I was there. The difference is that current Google is full of non-tech non-sales people who fight with eachother to reorganize tech people who are trying to build things. Other tech people change the API for no reason and give work to 1000 more people to ,,upgrade to the newer system'' and stop maintaining the old system. Also the new CEO is not a software engineer, so he doesn't understand the problems they are facing day to day.

kderbyma 4y ago
Pinchai has been a Terrible pick. He made google just worse. Like a passive aggressive leader...
- peanuty1 4y ago
  Do you attribute that to his lack of EECS background like the poster above you? Also, is Pinchai a typo or a play on words with "penny-pincher"?
- ptero 4y ago
  Not to defend him, but I think by 2015 google has already lost its way, focusing not on developing groundbreaking technology, but on using it's dominance to squeeze any money even if it meant encouraging addictive behaviors.
  - kccqzy 4y ago
    2015 sounds about right. Three Years of Misery Inside Google is one of the best articles you can find about the seemingly sudden change of culture that made working at Google miserable. https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery-happiest-company-tech/ https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery...
    - user_7832 4y ago
      Wow, thanks for that article. It’s quite a long read, though a bit sad/disappointing, as someone who once believed in Google.

Firmwarrior 4y ago

I dug up the original story* and read it for the first time just now, it was a great read. I particularly like the imagery of Apple and Google dealing the deathblow to that idiotic app-rental scam the carriers had been running It seems like we've pretty much come full circle in the 10-15 years since then. I wonder who'll be the ones to put old Google to sleep.. * A PDF of it popped right up in search results

jcadam 4y ago
> I wonder who'll be the ones to put old Google to sleep.. Hopefully soon, I make a concerted effort to avoid using Google services wherever possible. Even in cases where the alternatives are inferior.

nvarsj 4y ago

It's funny to me because this has been happening in tech a long time and is happening to the current giants. The old giants like IBM, GE, Motorola, etc. all suffered similar fates. And it's been discussed ad nauseum by disgruntled engineers who then go and make new companies/start ups to get away from the "suits". It's called "Takeover by MBA". You know it's happened when you start hearing phrases like "Cut costs", "Make things more efficient", "LEAN process", etc. Basically the garbage pioneered by Jack Welch and taught at MBA schools everywhere to boost stock prices in the short to medium term.

cloutchaser 4y ago
It’s an anecdote but it’s also what I heard from my doctor dad working in the NHS. There was a time when the UK health system was actually run by doctors or people with medical knowledge. Now it’s MBAs and generalist managers. It doesn’t work, all it does is increase overhead, both in staff and bureaucracy. In his opinion that’s what ruined the NHS not underfunding. Business and management courses are not necessarily good.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > Business and management courses are not necessarily good. I suspect it's a sort of "penny wise and pound foolish" thing. You end up optimizing the small stuff (cost cutting, etc) and you lose the ability to drive big innovations.
  - ilikerashers 4y ago
    I worked in a UK government office once where they had stopped giving teabags to staff as a cost-cutting measure. The project was £50 million over budget. That's a lot of teabags.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      That's tragically hilarious.
    - 4y ago

tuan 4y ago

In my orientation (2017) an executive was there giving a speech about how great the company is. I still remember he said something to the effect of we never layoff people because we’re family. Oh well.

theGnuMe 4y ago
Executives lie left and right. Stay at a company long enough and you will see their stories shift. They are essentially politicians.

7ewis 4y ago

I suspect they aren't getting rid of the talent. It's more likely to be a fat trimming exercise. The market has reacted in the way you'd expect, share price is currently up 4.3% today. It's easy to use the recession to restructure and leave room for new potential talent to come in.

marcosdumay 4y ago
> I suspect they aren't getting rid of the talent. If you just announce a layoff, you are already getting rid of talent. > It's more likely to be a fat trimming exercise. Large companies can't lose fat in large strokes. There is simply no way to organize a mass layoff that results in "fat trimming".
pjc50 4y ago
> fat trimming exercise The company that is most notorious for having an aggressively difficult interview process has "fat"? How?
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  Hiring process is never perfect, you find after 6-12 months you made a mistake. I saw that many times, I did that myself 3 times (hired people that were later fired, even after being promoted, as they did not perform well even if they were really good on paper and in interviews).
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Perhaps the interview process is not as good as they think.
  - perfecthjrjth 4y ago
    How did they get promoted, when they did not perform well?
    - AdrianB1 4y ago
      Diversity targets.

pjc50 4y ago

> I got the inside perspective on cellular carriers reactions. Google was this a dinosaur ending asteroid to them and their wall gardens. They saw signs, then sky darkened and in their hearts they knew Google would build something 100X better than what they could ever build even if they wanted to give up their walled gardens which was a cognitive improbability This - and also the iPhone. The two of those were just so much better for the user than Symbian, and also short-circuited all the egregious billing of mobile carriers. It once used to cost £1 to send a message with a picture attached (MMS). But a lot of anticompetitive hurdles had to be overcome to let that happen. The worst possible outcome for users is where the old company has enough energy to squash competition, usually by cheating, but not enough to actually do so by improving its products - because "improving" to the user would mean cutting into their revenue stream.

KMag 4y ago

Though, note that both Android and Google Maps were acquisitions. Someone needed the vision to acquire those companies, for sure, but their initial incarnations aren't great examples of Google innovation.

camdenreslink 4y ago
YouTube as well…

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

danielmarkbruce 4y ago

This sounds great, but obliterating tiny markets isn't going to move the needle anymore. Google Cloud is the size of bet required these days. And they are still investing heavily in it.

suddenexample 4y ago

Poetic but misguided. The Google of 2005 didn't have so much fat to trim. When you have 150k employees, there's no escaping it. Not everyone is going to be hungry, and certainly not interested or in a position to build things 100x better. Many are happy to collect their paycheck while doing 20 hours of unambitious work per week.

acituan 4y ago
Now the remainder will do 50 hours of "ambitious" work for projects that will eventually get axed, redone, reorganized etc. It was never a raw productivity per hour problem, it was an organizing productivity behind meaningful, useful and profitable projects problem. > certainly not interested or in a position to build things 100x better in an organizational complexity of 150k -> 138k workforce, no one is in a position to make things 10x better, let alone 100x. Shedding 12k is a scapegoating gesture as if there is such a possibility, merely to ease the anxiety of the market price of shares. It doesn't even directly move the needle for profit/asset ratio, but it will help depressing wages with the theatre of "look what we had to do".

barfingclouds 4y ago

Uhhhh, Google didn’t make Android, Google bought Android…