4 ms·

From what I understand, it’s over the controversy in his statement about Google losing competitive advantage because they chose work life balance over in-office

From what I understand, it’s over the controversy in his statement about Google losing competitive advantage because they chose work life balance over in-office collaboration.

ozten 2y ago
I guess the humble-brag about being a registered arms dealer was just a bonus
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
HashiramaInc 2y ago
I feel like that was not that big of a deal. I mean was it a bad thing to say for multiple reasons? sure. But its still a good hour of content and no one says perfect things all the time.
thrdbndndn 2y ago
Genuine question: what would be the refutation of this opinion, if any? Out of options like "Google are not actually losing", "Google are losing but not because they chose work life balance", "Google are, indeed, but so be it", etc.
- dylan604 2y ago
  "Google isn't losing as we're not playing the same game of releasing a chatbot. We're working on something much bigger". They'd just have to do it
- coreload 2y ago
  Google is no longer a startup. Google is competing for a significant number of talented people. The startup mentality will not easily work for decades of competition with the other wealthiest tech companies.
- pknomad 2y ago
  I'm not a googler, but my take would be that Google was a smaller ship with technical founders at the helm who understood the problem and acted accordingly with first mover benefits. I remember when I started to use search engines in grade school (AskJeeves, AltaVista, etc) and Google just had the most relevant answers. Google is now a behemoth that seems to just chuck money and promo packets at problems (Stadia, Google Cloud, Nest, etc) with no clear vision for them. It kind of reminds me of the examples in this blog: https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611 https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611 There's also self selection going on - people joining startups generally have more vested interest in solving a problem and will work longer and harder, too. So I think there's some kernel of truth what Eric Schmidt was saying. How much enthusiasm can a person have about increasing the bottom line of a mega public company?
  - dangus 2y ago
    I don’t think startup aficionados and hustle culture members realize that the world runs on C-players. You’re right, startup people have a drive to build great things and they burn the midnight oil and they get divorced during the development of the original iPhone, etc. But the people who keep the lights on at most companies especially big ones like Google are a sea of average, steady, stable employees who do their tasks and not much else, go home at 5 or maybe earlier and have no interest in burning themselves out so that the CEO can have a second private jet. And you don’t want to run your company on all A-players and 10x developers because once the thing is built they’ll get bored and move on to the next thing, or they’ll hit a mental breakdown and rage quit because they’re the bulb burning brightest. Those C-players will just keep clocking in, they won’t be poached by more attractive places to work, they won’t be difficult to cover for when they go on leave, and they won’t write code that goes over the head of other C-players. Technically, a developer at a public company should work harder to boost the stock price because they’re getting shares as compensation. But at the same time, making 5% more in stock value isn’t worth working 50% harder. I personally don’t think there’s anything wrong with the culture at Google. People who wish Google would be exciting again like Schmidt are just grasping at nostalgia. Boring business may be boring but boring business is excellent business.
    - 2y ago
- hiddencost 2y ago
  Small company gets big, gets taken over by MBAs who all hire McKinsey to help themselves take over more of the company. The people at the top become professional ladder climbers, eventually too much of the leadership got their for the wrong reasons and the company is unable to insulate themselves from corporate's bad decisions. Kinda like Goodheart's law but for promotion criterion. The number of fairly senior people I've encountered who spend their whole career presenting things that have never been built as if they exist is exhausting.
- wodenokoto 2y ago
  Google always advertised their workplaces as fun. They pioneered the table tennis at work meme. So it’s odd for them to blame work life balance, when they have always pushed their work place as more fun, colorful and relaxing than other work places.
brewdad 2y ago
The it’s good, actually, to steal others IP. If you get caught later, the lawyers will fix it bit also probably wasn’t his finest message.

From what I understand, it’s over the controversy in his statement about Google losing competitive advantage because they chose work life balance over in-office collaboration.

ozten 2y ago

I guess the humble-brag about being a registered arms dealer was just a bonus

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

HashiramaInc 2y ago

I feel like that was not that big of a deal. I mean was it a bad thing to say for multiple reasons? sure. But its still a good hour of content and no one says perfect things all the time.

thrdbndndn 2y ago

Genuine question: what would be the refutation of this opinion, if any? Out of options like "Google are not actually losing", "Google are losing but not because they chose work life balance", "Google are, indeed, but so be it", etc.

dylan604 2y ago
"Google isn't losing as we're not playing the same game of releasing a chatbot. We're working on something much bigger". They'd just have to do it
coreload 2y ago
Google is no longer a startup. Google is competing for a significant number of talented people. The startup mentality will not easily work for decades of competition with the other wealthiest tech companies.
pknomad 2y ago
I'm not a googler, but my take would be that Google was a smaller ship with technical founders at the helm who understood the problem and acted accordingly with first mover benefits. I remember when I started to use search engines in grade school (AskJeeves, AltaVista, etc) and Google just had the most relevant answers. Google is now a behemoth that seems to just chuck money and promo packets at problems (Stadia, Google Cloud, Nest, etc) with no clear vision for them. It kind of reminds me of the examples in this blog: https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611 https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611 There's also self selection going on - people joining startups generally have more vested interest in solving a problem and will work longer and harder, too. So I think there's some kernel of truth what Eric Schmidt was saying. How much enthusiasm can a person have about increasing the bottom line of a mega public company?
- dangus 2y ago
  I don’t think startup aficionados and hustle culture members realize that the world runs on C-players. You’re right, startup people have a drive to build great things and they burn the midnight oil and they get divorced during the development of the original iPhone, etc. But the people who keep the lights on at most companies especially big ones like Google are a sea of average, steady, stable employees who do their tasks and not much else, go home at 5 or maybe earlier and have no interest in burning themselves out so that the CEO can have a second private jet. And you don’t want to run your company on all A-players and 10x developers because once the thing is built they’ll get bored and move on to the next thing, or they’ll hit a mental breakdown and rage quit because they’re the bulb burning brightest. Those C-players will just keep clocking in, they won’t be poached by more attractive places to work, they won’t be difficult to cover for when they go on leave, and they won’t write code that goes over the head of other C-players. Technically, a developer at a public company should work harder to boost the stock price because they’re getting shares as compensation. But at the same time, making 5% more in stock value isn’t worth working 50% harder. I personally don’t think there’s anything wrong with the culture at Google. People who wish Google would be exciting again like Schmidt are just grasping at nostalgia. Boring business may be boring but boring business is excellent business.
  - 2y ago
hiddencost 2y ago
Small company gets big, gets taken over by MBAs who all hire McKinsey to help themselves take over more of the company. The people at the top become professional ladder climbers, eventually too much of the leadership got their for the wrong reasons and the company is unable to insulate themselves from corporate's bad decisions. Kinda like Goodheart's law but for promotion criterion. The number of fairly senior people I've encountered who spend their whole career presenting things that have never been built as if they exist is exhausting.
wodenokoto 2y ago
Google always advertised their workplaces as fun. They pioneered the table tennis at work meme. So it’s odd for them to blame work life balance, when they have always pushed their work place as more fun, colorful and relaxing than other work places.

brewdad 2y ago

The it’s good, actually, to steal others IP. If you get caught later, the lawyers will fix it bit also probably wasn’t his finest message.