5 ms·

Yeah, I’d complain if I were a Google employee too. 70B in wasted potential for new and improved products, plus a CEO who admitted to overhiring getting a big s

Yeah, I’d complain if I were a Google employee too. 70B in wasted potential for new and improved products, plus a CEO who admitted to overhiring getting a big stock grant (in addition to a bonus, err, stock price bump from buybacks). It feels like the board has said, “We don’t care about the company or it’s future, just the price of our stock.”

edgefield 4y ago
This is basically every public company —- Prioritize short term stock price gains over long term growth and sustainability. The only exception are founder run companies and perhaps a few public companies with strong culture/mission (e.g., Costco comes to mind). Google is no longer founder led and it threw out its mission several years ago.
- falcolas 4y ago
  I guess one bonus is that no companies will survive intact to become Cyberpunkesque monopolies with such shortsighted planning. Instead the stock market and its adherents will be (are now?) our overlord.
  - darkwizard42 4y ago
    I don't know, giving Google/randomBigCo leadership too much credit here on even being able to plan long term enough to do that.
  - pitched 4y ago
    The way biology evolves to adapt is also very shortsighted! Even without long-term planning, it can still make spiders!
    - falcolas 4y ago
      Or, more broadly, crabs. Carcinisation for all!
    - zmgsabst 3y ago
      Biology does that through a try-and-fail approach. Something akin to venture capital, where it makes many, many tries most of which fail and the occasional success moves the field forward. Presumably investors want more reliable returns from mature companies.
  - LeonB 3y ago
    The survival of the monopolies, monopsonies, oligopolies, oligopsonists is down to whether or not they can defend, protect and retain their monopolies (etc.)
- andsoitis 4y ago
  > The only exception are founder run companies Page and Brin collectively own 51.2% of Google's voting power. They seem to be happy with the company direction and its leadership.
  - mikepurvis 3y ago
    Owning it and running it are hardly the same though. Their priority is probably also "whatever makes money" at this point, other than occasionally grunting in the direction of AI and other moonshot projects.
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      > Owning it and running it are hardly the same though. While they do not run day to day operations, both are on the board https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35810965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35810965
  - LeonB 3y ago
    It’s not founder run though. They have a level of separation from the running of the business. (And even if they were running it, it’s no guarantee that it would stick to any respectable values… just “more likely”… but in their case… still very unlikely.)
  - AwaAwa 3y ago
    Page and Brin are happy that the stock stays up without having to spend any effort running it.
  - PaulWaldman 3y ago
    Maybe they're just apathetic or complacent? Almost like when a hobby feels more like a job or you just get bored with it. With their voting shares, what stakeholders, maybe besides the government, could really exert leverage over them?
    - hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
      That's not how capitalism works. If you don't like something about the company, just don't buy the stock. Simple.
- bushbaba 4y ago
  That’s not entirely true. Long term growth also impacts stock price and could be preferential for investors.
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  > This is basically every public company —- Prioritize short term stock price gains over long term growth and sustainability. Berkshire Hathaway invests in public companies exactly not like you describe, generally seeking companies whose priorities are evident in dividends not share price.
- sidcool 3y ago
  Tesla also prioritises long term
eqmvii 4y ago
> It feels like the board has said, “We don’t care about the company or it’s future, just the price of our stock.” Well since the board is hired to represent the stockholders...
- falcolas 4y ago
  It has been upheld in court that one of the duties of a company to its shareholders is ensuring the continuation of the company. Of course courts have also upheld the duty to increase stock value too, but still…
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    You don’t need any court rulings to understand this. The owners of a company decide how it will be run. The shareholders own the company, they elect a board to represent them. The board hires a CEO and defines their compensation package (along with its performance incentives). The decisions of the shareholders and their board may prove to be unwise in retrospect, but this doesn’t change how the governance structure works. The board (and thus the CEO) can only do what the shareholders want them to do. All of the ruminating over short term thinking is also nonsensical. A company that has no future has very little value. Perhaps the share holders, or the board, or their CEO have a long-term vision that you disagree with. But this isn’t anything close to an objective fact, it’s just your own self-aggrandising opinion that if you were running the 4th largest company in the world, that you’d be doing a better job.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
geodel 3y ago
> We don’t care about the company or it’s future, just the price of our stock. Yeah board doesn't care, founders don't care, investors don't care, CEO doesn't care. Who cares then? Google employees because they are taking the biggest risk by being employed there.
- skybrian 3y ago
  To be fair, many employees care about the stock price too, for good reason.
YetAnotherNick 3y ago
Google always hired more people than needed to run existing services. So overhiring is a standard procedure for them and would likely be repeated if the market becomes good again. In almost all the cases in the past it worked in their favor.
nashashmi 3y ago
He did go through a lot of struggle having to cut so many jobs and actually keep the company remarkably profitable. That's why he deserves a raise. He cut costs instead of being like the previous leaders who frequent burned money. And played with shareholders the entire time. I'm not saying the ceo is right for what he did. I like the previous ceo who kept products alive even when they did not make money. But like IBM, companies do grow up and start acting like adults. This is one of those times.
- thiht 3y ago
  > He did go through a lot of struggle having to cut so many jobs Poor Sundar. That’s quite some mental gymnastics here.
- jsnell 3y ago
  The job cuts had nothing to do with keeping the company profitable. In fact, the company was significantly less profitable in Q1 than it could have been due to not yet realizing any savings but additionally having billions in charges from the layoffs. It's possible that Google becomes a significantly more profitable company as a result of this, but it seems equally plausible that in three months they'll go on another hiring binge. That's what weak leadership like Sundar's gets you: no vision and no consistency.
  - nashashmi 3y ago
    He should have given no severances. That would have kept Q1 up. And he should have just kept it within the senior level to start laying off and let them decide. No sudden movements.
- lenkite 3y ago
  > In January, PIchai said he took “full responsibility” for conditions that led to the companywide layoffs. According to his own words - if he is taking "full responsibility" for layoff conditions, he should be fined or docked his pay right ? Or just resign ?
  - 3y ago
SilverBirch 3y ago
I completely disagree. The pure fact is that Google throws off more money than anyone knows what to do with. It's smart to return some of that to share holders. Google needs to be innovative, build new products and invest in them. But they basically have a massive money hose and that isn't going to make their products better. It's going to bloat projects, bog them down in too many people with too many ideas, delay the need to find product market fit and remove any financial constraints in the development process. It's very hard to run lean when you've got all that cash. Take a look at what went on at Meta. They took the money they could've returned to investors and lit it on fire. They've got a mediocre product, no product market fit, and now they're pivoting. You're more likely to see a team of 5-6 people somewhere within Google come up with a great idea and get it to market than you are going to see a team of 500-600 people. And even if the 500-600 person team does ship, the economics mean that they need to have one of the most successful product launches in history for it to be economically viable.
- ashinybrowncoat 3y ago
  "Google needs to be innovative, build new products and invest in them." What has Google really built? Seems to me they try, fail ,and then buy something when their attempts fail (when something is available to buy). Nest? Android? Google is not innovative and they never really were, nor are they actually capable of building any viable new products.
  - 93po 3y ago
    i laughed out loud browsing https://about.google/intl/en_us/products/ https://about.google/intl/en_us/products/ as a result of your comment, and the first random one i clicked on (cloud print) has a big banner at the top saying it was discontinued in 2020. a second laugh when I went to the "migration options" link and it says "We recommend that you find another way to meet your printing needs." never change, google
- 93po 3y ago
  Your comment has me confused. First you say > Google needs to be innovative, build new products and invest in them. and then > Take a look at what went on at Meta. They took the money they could've returned to investors and lit it on fire. You're criticizing Zuck for doing exactly what you said Google should do. Granted the price tag was huge, but you can't innovate without building and testing something first.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tennisflyi 3y ago
> It feels like the board has said, “We don’t care about the company or it’s future, just the price of our stock.” Again, why is tech (in this day and age) expected to be different than big tobacco or big pharma? It's about money at the end of the day. Period.

edgefield 4y ago

This is basically every public company —- Prioritize short term stock price gains over long term growth and sustainability. The only exception are founder run companies and perhaps a few public companies with strong culture/mission (e.g., Costco comes to mind). Google is no longer founder led and it threw out its mission several years ago.

falcolas 4y ago
I guess one bonus is that no companies will survive intact to become Cyberpunkesque monopolies with such shortsighted planning. Instead the stock market and its adherents will be (are now?) our overlord.
- darkwizard42 4y ago
  I don't know, giving Google/randomBigCo leadership too much credit here on even being able to plan long term enough to do that.
- pitched 4y ago
  The way biology evolves to adapt is also very shortsighted! Even without long-term planning, it can still make spiders!
  - falcolas 4y ago
    Or, more broadly, crabs. Carcinisation for all!
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    Biology does that through a try-and-fail approach. Something akin to venture capital, where it makes many, many tries most of which fail and the occasional success moves the field forward. Presumably investors want more reliable returns from mature companies.
- LeonB 3y ago
  The survival of the monopolies, monopsonies, oligopolies, oligopsonists is down to whether or not they can defend, protect and retain their monopolies (etc.)
andsoitis 4y ago
> The only exception are founder run companies Page and Brin collectively own 51.2% of Google's voting power. They seem to be happy with the company direction and its leadership.
- mikepurvis 3y ago
  Owning it and running it are hardly the same though. Their priority is probably also "whatever makes money" at this point, other than occasionally grunting in the direction of AI and other moonshot projects.
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    > Owning it and running it are hardly the same though. While they do not run day to day operations, both are on the board https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35810965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35810965
- LeonB 3y ago
  It’s not founder run though. They have a level of separation from the running of the business. (And even if they were running it, it’s no guarantee that it would stick to any respectable values… just “more likely”… but in their case… still very unlikely.)
- AwaAwa 3y ago
  Page and Brin are happy that the stock stays up without having to spend any effort running it.
- PaulWaldman 3y ago
  Maybe they're just apathetic or complacent? Almost like when a hobby feels more like a job or you just get bored with it. With their voting shares, what stakeholders, maybe besides the government, could really exert leverage over them?
  - hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
    That's not how capitalism works. If you don't like something about the company, just don't buy the stock. Simple.
bushbaba 4y ago
That’s not entirely true. Long term growth also impacts stock price and could be preferential for investors.
jjtheblunt 3y ago
> This is basically every public company —- Prioritize short term stock price gains over long term growth and sustainability. Berkshire Hathaway invests in public companies exactly not like you describe, generally seeking companies whose priorities are evident in dividends not share price.
sidcool 3y ago
Tesla also prioritises long term

eqmvii 4y ago

> It feels like the board has said, “We don’t care about the company or it’s future, just the price of our stock.” Well since the board is hired to represent the stockholders...

falcolas 4y ago
It has been upheld in court that one of the duties of a company to its shareholders is ensuring the continuation of the company. Of course courts have also upheld the duty to increase stock value too, but still…
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  You don’t need any court rulings to understand this. The owners of a company decide how it will be run. The shareholders own the company, they elect a board to represent them. The board hires a CEO and defines their compensation package (along with its performance incentives). The decisions of the shareholders and their board may prove to be unwise in retrospect, but this doesn’t change how the governance structure works. The board (and thus the CEO) can only do what the shareholders want them to do. All of the ruminating over short term thinking is also nonsensical. A company that has no future has very little value. Perhaps the share holders, or the board, or their CEO have a long-term vision that you disagree with. But this isn’t anything close to an objective fact, it’s just your own self-aggrandising opinion that if you were running the 4th largest company in the world, that you’d be doing a better job.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

geodel 3y ago

> We don’t care about the company or it’s future, just the price of our stock. Yeah board doesn't care, founders don't care, investors don't care, CEO doesn't care. Who cares then? Google employees because they are taking the biggest risk by being employed there.

skybrian 3y ago
To be fair, many employees care about the stock price too, for good reason.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago

Google always hired more people than needed to run existing services. So overhiring is a standard procedure for them and would likely be repeated if the market becomes good again. In almost all the cases in the past it worked in their favor.

nashashmi 3y ago

He did go through a lot of struggle having to cut so many jobs and actually keep the company remarkably profitable. That's why he deserves a raise. He cut costs instead of being like the previous leaders who frequent burned money. And played with shareholders the entire time. I'm not saying the ceo is right for what he did. I like the previous ceo who kept products alive even when they did not make money. But like IBM, companies do grow up and start acting like adults. This is one of those times.

thiht 3y ago
> He did go through a lot of struggle having to cut so many jobs Poor Sundar. That’s quite some mental gymnastics here.
jsnell 3y ago
The job cuts had nothing to do with keeping the company profitable. In fact, the company was significantly less profitable in Q1 than it could have been due to not yet realizing any savings but additionally having billions in charges from the layoffs. It's possible that Google becomes a significantly more profitable company as a result of this, but it seems equally plausible that in three months they'll go on another hiring binge. That's what weak leadership like Sundar's gets you: no vision and no consistency.
- nashashmi 3y ago
  He should have given no severances. That would have kept Q1 up. And he should have just kept it within the senior level to start laying off and let them decide. No sudden movements.
lenkite 3y ago
> In January, PIchai said he took “full responsibility” for conditions that led to the companywide layoffs. According to his own words - if he is taking "full responsibility" for layoff conditions, he should be fined or docked his pay right ? Or just resign ?
- 3y ago

SilverBirch 3y ago

I completely disagree. The pure fact is that Google throws off more money than anyone knows what to do with. It's smart to return some of that to share holders. Google needs to be innovative, build new products and invest in them. But they basically have a massive money hose and that isn't going to make their products better. It's going to bloat projects, bog them down in too many people with too many ideas, delay the need to find product market fit and remove any financial constraints in the development process. It's very hard to run lean when you've got all that cash. Take a look at what went on at Meta. They took the money they could've returned to investors and lit it on fire. They've got a mediocre product, no product market fit, and now they're pivoting. You're more likely to see a team of 5-6 people somewhere within Google come up with a great idea and get it to market than you are going to see a team of 500-600 people. And even if the 500-600 person team does ship, the economics mean that they need to have one of the most successful product launches in history for it to be economically viable.

ashinybrowncoat 3y ago
"Google needs to be innovative, build new products and invest in them." What has Google really built? Seems to me they try, fail ,and then buy something when their attempts fail (when something is available to buy). Nest? Android? Google is not innovative and they never really were, nor are they actually capable of building any viable new products.
- 93po 3y ago
  i laughed out loud browsing https://about.google/intl/en_us/products/ https://about.google/intl/en_us/products/ as a result of your comment, and the first random one i clicked on (cloud print) has a big banner at the top saying it was discontinued in 2020. a second laugh when I went to the "migration options" link and it says "We recommend that you find another way to meet your printing needs." never change, google
93po 3y ago
Your comment has me confused. First you say > Google needs to be innovative, build new products and invest in them. and then > Take a look at what went on at Meta. They took the money they could've returned to investors and lit it on fire. You're criticizing Zuck for doing exactly what you said Google should do. Granted the price tag was huge, but you can't innovate without building and testing something first.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tennisflyi 3y ago

> It feels like the board has said, “We don’t care about the company or it’s future, just the price of our stock.” Again, why is tech (in this day and age) expected to be different than big tobacco or big pharma? It's about money at the end of the day. Period.