5 ms·

Google, in my experience, is a place where smart people go to retire. I have many brilliant friends who work there, but all of them have essentially stopped pro

Google, in my experience, is a place where smart people go to retire. I have many brilliant friends who work there, but all of them have essentially stopped producing interesting work since the day they started. They all seem happy and comfortable, but not ambitious. I'm sure the pay is great, but it's not a place for smart people who are interested in doing something. I've followed Francois (and had the chance to correspond with him a bit) for many years now, and I wouldn't be surprised if the desire to create something became more important than the comfort of Google.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
I wonder how/if that mentality will shift over time. As it seems the market capture phase it over and the current big tech aren't simply keeping top talent around as a capture piece anymore. Maybe they'll still do it, but basically only if it feels you can startup a billion dollar business. As opposed to a million dollar one.
- kortilla 2y ago
  Not really any different than what happened to IBM, Intel, Cisco, etc. The people that want to build great things want the potential huge reward too, so they go to a startup to do it.
  - azinman2 2y ago
    Except… it’s about leverage/impact factor. Google has very large impact, so if you do something big and central you’re instantly in the hands of hundreds of millions / billions of people. That’s a very different situation than IBM or Cisco.
    - kortilla 2y ago
      Not really. Despite having a platform with lots of people. Most are out of date software and hardly use any features. It’s like the claim that Microsoft teams has hundreds of millions of users just because it’s installed on Windows by default.
dmafreezone 2y ago
It’s the other way around. Working at Google (or any other FAANG) for a time period past your personal “bullshit limit” will ensure you will never do anything ambitious with your life ever again.
- lazystar 2y ago
  ambitious? man, i can barely pay rent and i work at a FAANG.
  - dbmnt 2y ago
    This says more about the cost of rent than it does the compensation of FAANG.
kristopolous 2y ago
Am I almost alone in having no interest working for a large firm like Google? I've been in tech since the 90s. The only reason I'd go is to network and build a team to do a mass exodus with and that's literally it. I don't actually care about working on a product I have exactly zero executive control over.
- Agingcoder 2y ago
  Why zero executive control ? I’d expect a company like google ( like most large orgs ) to have a very large amount of internal code for internal clients, sometimes developer themselves. My experience of large orgs tells me you can have control over what you build - it depends on who you’re building it for ( external or internal)
  - kristopolous 2y ago
    That's not what I mean. I've got a deep interest in how a product is used, fits in a market, designed, experienced AND built. If I went to Google what I'd really want to do is gather up a bunch of people, rent out an away-from-Google office space and build say "search-next" - the response to the onslaught of entries currently successfully storming Google's castle. Do this completely detached and unmoored from Google's existing product suite so that nobody can even tell it's a Google product. They've been responding shockingly poorly and it's time to make a discontinuous step. And frankly I'd be more likely to waltz upon a winning lottery ticket than convincing Google execs this is necessary (and it absolutely is).
    - Agingcoder 2y ago
      My point is that if you build internal products usually there’s a lot less convincing to do, and it’s much easier to get a lot of control ( no marketing, communication, etc ). Now, if you want to ship a product to millions of people _and_ have full control over it, then a large org is indeed not the right place.
      - kristopolous 2y ago
xyst 2y ago
you can say this about any Fortune 500 corporation, to be honest
belter 2y ago
Used to be called IBM :-)

johnnyanmac 2y ago

I wonder how/if that mentality will shift over time. As it seems the market capture phase it over and the current big tech aren't simply keeping top talent around as a capture piece anymore. Maybe they'll still do it, but basically only if it feels you can startup a billion dollar business. As opposed to a million dollar one.

kortilla 2y ago
Not really any different than what happened to IBM, Intel, Cisco, etc. The people that want to build great things want the potential huge reward too, so they go to a startup to do it.
- azinman2 2y ago
  Except… it’s about leverage/impact factor. Google has very large impact, so if you do something big and central you’re instantly in the hands of hundreds of millions / billions of people. That’s a very different situation than IBM or Cisco.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    Not really. Despite having a platform with lots of people. Most are out of date software and hardly use any features. It’s like the claim that Microsoft teams has hundreds of millions of users just because it’s installed on Windows by default.

dmafreezone 2y ago

It’s the other way around. Working at Google (or any other FAANG) for a time period past your personal “bullshit limit” will ensure you will never do anything ambitious with your life ever again.

lazystar 2y ago
ambitious? man, i can barely pay rent and i work at a FAANG.
- dbmnt 2y ago
  This says more about the cost of rent than it does the compensation of FAANG.

kristopolous 2y ago

Am I almost alone in having no interest working for a large firm like Google? I've been in tech since the 90s. The only reason I'd go is to network and build a team to do a mass exodus with and that's literally it. I don't actually care about working on a product I have exactly zero executive control over.

Agingcoder 2y ago
Why zero executive control ? I’d expect a company like google ( like most large orgs ) to have a very large amount of internal code for internal clients, sometimes developer themselves. My experience of large orgs tells me you can have control over what you build - it depends on who you’re building it for ( external or internal)
- kristopolous 2y ago
  That's not what I mean. I've got a deep interest in how a product is used, fits in a market, designed, experienced AND built. If I went to Google what I'd really want to do is gather up a bunch of people, rent out an away-from-Google office space and build say "search-next" - the response to the onslaught of entries currently successfully storming Google's castle. Do this completely detached and unmoored from Google's existing product suite so that nobody can even tell it's a Google product. They've been responding shockingly poorly and it's time to make a discontinuous step. And frankly I'd be more likely to waltz upon a winning lottery ticket than convincing Google execs this is necessary (and it absolutely is).
  - Agingcoder 2y ago
    My point is that if you build internal products usually there’s a lot less convincing to do, and it’s much easier to get a lot of control ( no marketing, communication, etc ). Now, if you want to ship a product to millions of people _and_ have full control over it, then a large org is indeed not the right place.
    - kristopolous 2y ago

xyst 2y ago

you can say this about any Fortune 500 corporation, to be honest

belter 2y ago

Used to be called IBM :-)