Google's Turn To Be The Villain 835
caesar79 writes "The New York Times has an article titled "Relax, Bill Gates; It's Google's Turn as the Villain" (also evil but at least free registration required) According to the article, the "go-getting" attitude of Google is coming across as arrogance to many people in the Valley. More importantly, it draws attention to the fact that Google has drained the market of talent, caused a 25% to 50% hike in salaries and made it difficult for startups to get funding."
Damn you Google! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Google is a villain for improving the wages of technologists, and also retroactively (circa 2000) making it harder for startups to get funding?
<emote=plea style=Jon Stewart> Oh Google, why must you be so evil?<
Mox
So they are bad because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Blah (Score:5, Insightful)
"How dare google make better offers for top quality programmers! Who am I gonna hire at 10$ an hour with no overtime for 80 hours a week?!? Google is Evil!"
Evil is as Evil does (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is doing more damage to innovation in the Valley right now than Microsoft ever did," said Reid Hoffman, the founder of two Internet ventures, including LinkedIn, a business networking Web site popular among Silicon Valley's digerati. "It's largely that they're hiring up so many talented people, and the fact they're working on so many different things. It's harder for start-ups to do interesting stuff right now.
I see, they are damaging innovation through creating so many products.
What?
What he really means is "I can't get top engineers so I can't innovate as much". But that doesn't mean innovation is not occuring. And how are we to be sure innovation at that company would have been as skillfully executed or as good for the industry as it might be at Google.
People complain about Google "hoarding" good engineers. But programmers are not slaves, to be bought as sold as property. Each person makes a choice and it just so happens people want to work at Google. If other companies want to hire the same calibur of people they either need to figure out how to attract programmers OR get the heck out of Dodge and go to a market where obtaining labour might be easier.
If only the heads of whiny companies consider Google evil, then I would say that slightly improves Googles rep with me. So far Google's behaviour has been far better than most other companies - and after all, Evil is as Evil Does. As long as Google continues to compete through excellence then I have no issue with them.
Industry whiners go "WAHHHHHH....." (Score:5, Insightful)
and the B.S. about it hurting startups is insane. No startups worth a damn started by hiring expensive people... you do not create a business by spending money like mad, that is something everyone learned from the 90's. Every sucessful startup started with self made people with others they knew or could talk into starting a business with them.
Re:So they are bad because... (Score:5, Insightful)
"I've definitely been picking up on the resentment," said Max Levchin, a founder of PayPal, the online payment service now owned by eBay. "They're a big company now, doing things people didn't expect them to do."
Obviously hoarding engineers and paying them well is something that the rest of the industry isn't doing so why shouldn't they resent Google?
Especially when Google releases well-received products that are "free".
Kinda ruins the business model for everyone else.
Google Vs. Microsoft - No Bloody Battle Here. (Score:5, Insightful)
The attitude of Google reminds me a lot of the early days of Apple Computer. Out to win big - yes, but villian - no. At least not yet.
Re:Damn you Google! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So they are bad because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Econominc Dawianism at Work! (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between how this applies to Microsoft and Google is in the end products and services each produces. Google's place in the market is the result of quality applications, a building of a trust relationship with its users, and a eye towards putting out the best software and services it can.
Microsoft on the other hand owes its place in the market to luck, the laissez-faire attitude of govt. during the early days of its development, and a focus on corporate marketing double-speak that focuses on the "message" rather than the quality of their products.
Google may be evolving into a corporate giant, but that doesn't equate with them being evil. They are far more similar to early Apple, but with better leadership.
Boo, fucking, hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is pretty frustrating to see people constantly complain about large, successful companies. What the article fails to mention is that Google likely hires the best of the best. So I would guess that the talent level of the employees dictates the pay, instead of the company name dictating the pay. Make sense?
Google to Monopolize Web Applications? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that their efforts do stiffle web entrepenuers who are trying to break into new areas such as hosted groupeware for email, file, photo and video sharing etc. (I know this from personal experience). Keep in mind that not all web application developers are looking for a "good Salary" from a benign giant like Google. Some of us actually want to be masters of our fate and make a living on our own. But now the real fear is "Will Google invade my market and make a free version of my Widget?"
That's becoming more real every day. I can't buy bandwidth at the same cost as Google, and I can't leverage massive Advertising revenues to give away my products for free either.
"Do no evil" doesn't mean "don't crush small start-ups".
-Adam
Re:So they are bad because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google Rules (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Villainy will be temporary (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM is cool now because they're actively 1) paying for linux advertising (related to IBM, but still), 2) writing lots of Linux articles, 3) contributing to linux, etc etc.
Google Talk is cool because it uses an open, standardized protocol. You can't really go after Google under the Sherman Act for using the Jabber protocol.
It's still possible for Google's management to change, and for them to start leveraging their massive marketshare in a way that directly inhibits search engine competitors. Until they try something like this though, I'm going to sleep well.
(and note that MS is still, by far, the least likely to contribute to open source, or even seriously grok open standard protocols)
Re:Higher Salaries? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sorry to say it (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, yeah. Did you read the story? It's not that Google is outright EVIL(TM), it's that the other tech corporations think Google is EVIL(TM) because Google is bigger and more powerful. Techies still love Google, because they raise the general salary and promote good working conditions.
Microsoft was once A Good Company.
No, Microsoft was once an upstart. i.e. "The Underdog." They were never a "good" company. Their primary product (Microsoft BASIC) was a complete ripoff of University code. That started a trend in Microsoft history where every product was either a stolen or bought-out design. (Which isn't to say that Microsoft employees don't work hard. It's just that Microsoft as a corporation doesn't have an honest or original bone in its metaphorical body.)
Business and Academia (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies in Silicon Valley are a dime a dozen anymore. There's always some kid sitting in an apartment dreaming up The Next Big Thing. Some of them do come up with great stuff, but for whatever reason they just never get to the point where they're selling or distributing what they dreamed up. Those that do often do it on a limited basis because they lack the resources to go bigger. Those who really are onto something neat get bought out.
Google is hated by these guys now for the same reason academics look down their noses at their equivalents in the professional world. Because Google successful in ways others could only dream of. It's jealousy really. They claim it's because Google has lost its small-company spirit, that it's no longer doing what they do for the pure reasons of doing "cool" stuff or whatever. Google has taken the spirit and the drive of so many startups and they actually went somewhere with it.
We tend to hate, or at least target, those who do better than us.
Industry vs Google (Score:3, Insightful)
I just think that these people are worth 25% more to google than they were to other companies.
If you work for my company you will make me $100k, I might say it is worthwhile for me to pay you $75k.
However if a competator will make $150k from you, he could quite rightly pay you $110k.
I wasn't underpaying you, the job market has just changed. This is competition, and it's a step up.
Basically the market gets 50% more value from the same resource (you). In the economics this is productivity improvement.
Right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, in the view of Mr. Kraus, "Microsoft is becoming I.B.M. and Google is becoming Microsoft." Mr. Kraus is the chief executive and a founder of JotSpot, a Silicon Valley start-up hoping to sell blogging and other self-publishing tools to corporations.
Step 1: Create start-up to compete against Google.
Step 2: Compare Google to MicroSoft in NYT.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Keep fingers crossed?
"Google is doing more damage to innovation in the Valley right now than Microsoft ever did," said Reid Hoffman, the founder of two Internet ventures, including LinkedIn, a business networking Web site popular among Silicon Valley's digerati. "It's largely that they're hiring up so many talented people, and the fact they're working on so many different things. It's harder for start-ups to do interesting stuff right now."
"When I meet with venture capitalists, or if I'm engaged in a conversation about going into partnership with someone, inevitably the question is, 'Why couldn't Google do what you're doing?' " said Craig Donato, the founder and chief executive of Oodle, a site for searching online classified listings more quickly.
"The answer is, 'They could, and they're probably thinking about it, but they can't do everything and do it well,' " Mr. Donato said. "Or at least I'm hoping they can't."
So, Google is evil and is hurting innovation because they have so many smart people working on so many projects that there's nothing else to work on?
It sounds more like Google is raising the bar rather than killing innovation. The bubble burst, ladies and gentlemen. You can't get new money for old ideas anymore. Get over it.
Re:25-50% hike in salary (Score:4, Insightful)
I love the idea that talented people can make more money, especially in areas with ridiculously high costs of living.
However, consider the coder who comes up with an idea for the next killer app. If they can't get startup funding to hire a few extra sets of brains and typing-fingers domestically, what are their options? Seek assimilation by a corporation, or get in touch with the folks in Bangalore, it seems.
If the talent pool is drying up, be it from Google's quest for brainpower or from other reasons, then perhaps it's time to seek the means to increase the pool.
(Geeks ordered to reproduce; film at 11!)
Re:Damn you Google! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's certainly evil if you are an investor, they're behind the great outsourcing spree of Y2K. It's not evil to John Q. Public. (Now whether Google remains the free and helpful search engine we're used to, is still dubious)
But seriously, who in the hell seriously believes they've drained the market of talent? How many readers honestly do not know at least a dozen people who want to leave but cannot due to a poor job market or fear of a pay cut?
The job market still sucks, it's not as awful as it was a few years ago, but it's not good. People aren't going to float their resume's around until they're sure they won't put their existing job in jeopardy.
So outsourcing doesn't cut it eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evil is as Evil does (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evil is as Evil does (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't agree more.. Except I think he really means "I probably could get the engineers, except I don't want to pay them what Google does, and I'm not willing to match the working conditions whereby they have proven to be effective and creative.".
For some reason people seem to believe that the only people worth looking at are the 'names in lights'. Years ago, companies used to take people on, train them, educate them over years in apprenticeships until they fulfilled their full talents. Then they were looked after while they spent years producing works of art, and the company made back what they invested in the apprenticeship period.
For some reason, they now believe that highly skilled and trained people suddenly grow on trees, and should be available as and when they want them, whether colleges train them or not, or whether activities such as outsourcing mean that people just don't want to put their time into training for a job where they believe they'll spend two years designing something innovative, then have the foot work of incremental changes and maintenance shipped abroad while they get laid off until some company decides they need a highly trained innovative person for a while.
Perhaps this is a long awaited wakeup call.
Search monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
If Google has a monopoly on search engine services, it's a very fragile one.
Oodle has no clue (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think we have a winner here.
Re:Villainy will be temporary (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you have to abuse your monopoly power. MS didn't get in trouble for having one, they got in trouble for trying to keep it through nasty tactics.
As for "support for open source" wake when they have a Linux "Desktop Search", or Linux "google deskbar" or any of a number of other technologies they implement on Windows (and don't give source code away for).
So, what, OSS that doesn't work on Linux isn't OSS anymore?
Google releases useful code to the OSS community. They're basing Google Talk on the open Jabber format. They release useful services with public APIs.
They're "distributing" their software via a web server, but nobody gets to see the code behind the scenens, improve it, or fix bugs, or anything else.
Oh, honestly. If using a Linux server meant you have to release all code running on it, no one would use it.
Can the zealotry. If you don't like people being able to do what Google did, don't GPL it - write a more restrictive license for your code.
It's not arrogance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Research labs like Xerox PARC back in the day were viewed as arrogant, in large part because of their technical success and lack of business success - "if you're so smart, home come you're not rich?"
Microsoft is viewed as arrogant because they're wildly successful commercially, but their technology is middle-of-the-road at best - from a purely geek point of view they don't deserve their success.
Google is an almost unheard-of beast that does truly technically innovative things and profits by doing so.
The "google evil" index seems flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
In contrast to Microsoft's image of industry dominance at all cost, Google has cultivated a friendlier image with its adoption of open source technology and its philosophy of "do no evil"
'tis an amusing graph, but completely meaningless.
Vast difference (Score:3, Insightful)
A illustration of this difference is that Microsoft will bury a startups chances by introducing a press release saying they are working on an area (even if not). Google is accidentally hurting some startups because they do NOT say what they are working on, and venture captialists make assumptions.
25-50% hike in salaries? (Score:5, Insightful)
To me this seems like one of those times where someone just threw out a number and that number instantly becomes the focus of everyone's attention because they don't have any better numbers.
Re:So they are bad because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh no, we can't have that can we.
First, it's the fault of the Open Source community! They release all their software for free! We can't have that, it's ruining our business model!
Second, it's the fault of Microsoft! They use their money to undercut the competition and release their software for free! We can't have that, it's ruining our business model!
Third, it's Indochina's fault! They don't have to pay the same wages as we do, so they can release all their software for free (or near free)! We can't have that, it's ruining our business model!
Fourth, hey, now it's Google's fault...
What a load of horseshit. It's basic human nature. I want to get as much as possible for the least amount of effort. There's nothing wrong with that. If you can do that better than the competition, then you're better off. That's how things have always worked, and how things will continue to work.
There's nothing new here. Move a long.
Bryan
Re:Damn you Google! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Villainy will be temporary (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has to lose their biggest market and nearly go out of business first.
Remember, people were mad and afraid of IBM because they had the market on various things, most notably mainframes, locked up.
When the dominance of Windows is over, then there's room for thinking happy thoughts about Microsoft.
take a few business classes (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think being an executive is easy, I seriously recommend you take a few accounting classes just as a starter. There's just as much complexity in C-level jobs as there are below, if not moreso, but it is complexity in different areas that are all too easy for gearheads to airly dismiss as trivial (just like it is all to easy for managers to dismiss our jobs as being Simple Matters of Programming). Complexity that if not handled well can completely sink the company, putting everyone on the street and potentially the executive in jail. Sure, large companies have people dedicated underneath the C-level people to the "dangerously complex" tasks like accounting, but your average startup CEO wears not just more than one hat, but pretty much EVERY hat.
Yes, executives make a lot of money. But they do that because of the risks and responsibilities they have. Imagine, for a second, that you're the CEO of Dell or Microsoft or IBM... Nice life, right? Now imagine looking out of your office and every person you see is able to feed their families because of your continued track record of not screwing up, and that companies you couldn't even name are also depending on you to not screw up. Bit more pressure, eh?
I've got a simple standard regarding listening to somebody's economic opinions: has the person ever held a job with a regular paycheck and had to pay rent/buy food/pay bills every month? If not, their opinions are borderline worthless. The same standard writ large applies to corporate management: if you haven't had to meet payroll every month, your opinions about the tasks and difficulty involved with running a company are basically shit.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of dumb managers and executives out there. I've worked for and hated several of them. But to blanket assert that the tasks of a worker bee equal or exceed the risks and responsibilities of an executive's is just absurd.
Re:25-50% hike in salary (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, the point is there. Startup company's over there hem and haw about not finding talent this, or talent that. Get a CLUE, most of us don't want to live in Overpriced-everything land, ok ?
So if that there aren't enough engineers in the valley is the excuse start ups are using to try to get in more H1B's then they deserve to crash and burn like they did during the DotBomb Boom. There is NOT a shortage of qualified engineers in the United States of America ( and Canada ). What there IS a shortage of, is legislators who will stop being namby-pamby's whenever someone like Bill G complains that it's costing him 2 Million more to drill out a new wing for his house, and his financials won't look right because he can't get the number of UNDERPAID H1B's and F1's that he wants.
There isn't a shortage of skilled engineers, it's not like we're picking tomatoes out of the ground people, it's that company's have come up with progressively sneakier and more loop-hole clinging ways to try to maintain the pay scales down.
Hence, why I've gone back to contracting. As long as you're going to think you're going to run your company with impunity, I'll charge you for the privilege of that false sense of power.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again,....more power to the company who is prepared to pay for a skill, they will keep that skill longer, and get more ROI dollar for dollar, out of that person, than the company who isn't. Sure, some of you younger guys are willing to work for "wheatgrass" drinks, but just wait until you have a family and have REAL bills, we'll see if that extra indoor basketball court is really worth that absense of a commensurate salary.
Re:Google to Monopolize Web Applications? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So they are bad because... (Score:3, Insightful)
They are probably resented because companies were able to keep good people with the FUD of "we're sorry there are no raises this year, but the economy is down. It's like that everywhere." I was told this. I was told it's a bad job market (which it was). That I was "lucky to have my job". Many people will keep lapping that up, but I went out and looked, and eventually took another job. When I left, I told my boss "Gee, I guess there are other jobs out there."
Companies will treat their employees like crap as long as they can get away with it. The grass may not be greener at Google, but it might be a different variety of grass.
Or MOVE (Score:5, Insightful)
Well one option is to leave freaking California! There are a lot of talented programmers that for whatever reason do not want to live in CA. Find a place where a lot of them are and go there.
If you can't stand the heat then move somewhere cold.
Drained Talent? (Score:2, Insightful)
But any newly available jobs are just as boring as our current jobs, with the same bad incentives. Without a reason to change jobs, I won't change jobs. Give me an environment as conducive to working as Google does (good pay, freedom to work on cool things you want to work on, cool things the company wants you to work on, etc...), and I'll gladly let you pay me for my talent.
Until then, I'll let my current employer keep paying me while I expand my knowledge and dream of new ideas.
Re:Evil is as Evil does (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not a company. Neither I nor my company compete with them. (Yet. I'm sure it's only a matter of time.) Yet I am wary and suspect them of being evil.
Consider their current power. They are the> primary search point online. People don't say "search for it" anymore, they say 'google it'. If it's not on google, for many people it doesn't exist. So if they want to control access to information, to a limited extent they are fully capable of doing so.
They have Gigabytes worth of private email at their fingertips. Sure, they say they won't ever publish or publicly index it. Now we have the same for IM.
Google desktop is supposedly secure. Yet what is our guarantee? Have any of you seen the source code? Even if it is now, can you guarantee that'll always be the case?
Companies change, owners change. As they continue to absorb large quantities of internet functionality and do it well the risk of them being corrupted by what they've accomplished becomes greater.
Obviously, from a different context, but it is an appropriate exposition on the nature of power generally and its effect upon people. While Google's power is limited by its being a corporation, and not a government, it is still something we should at least be aware of. I do not advocate some sort of wholesale rejection of google, they've done nothing to warrant that. Yet I certainly think caution and awareness are called for.Re:Villainy will be temporary (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as us violating the 'spirit' of the GPL. You have no clue what you are talking about. This kind of crap drives people away from using free software in the first place. What have you done to help open source?
Chris
Compare and Contrast Micrsoft and Google... (Score:4, Insightful)
- Maintaining market dominance using closed standards. For example, the Microsoft Word file format.
- Embrace-and-extend. Adopting an open format, then corrupting the standard by deviating from the specification. For example Java and Kerberos.
- LONG latency in security patches and too many exploits.
- Devious scheming against competitors: the Halloween documents.
Well I could go on, but there is probably no need for that here... coals to Newcastle.
Some reasons why Google is earning a reputation for Evil:
- They have attracted many customers by providing a superior product.
- They attract star employees by providing better working conditions.
Others have made the point and I agree, Google hatred bowls down to jealousy, envy and anti-capitalism. The success of Google, much like the success of Apple's iPod, owes primarily to the superiority of the product, not to evil corporate machinations. They are winning market share fairly. Good for them. Good for their employees. Good for their investors. Good for their customers. GENUINE innovation makes everyone better off, except for those competing against it.
Requires signup, here's the text of article (Score:0, Insightful)
But instead of embracing Google as one of their own, many in Silicon Valley are skittish about its size and power. They fret that the very strengths that made Google a search-engine phenomenon are distancing it from the entrepreneurial culture that produced it - and even transforming it into a threat.
A year after the company went public, those inside Google are learning the hard way what it means to be the top dog inside a culture accustomed to pulling for the underdog. And they are facing a hometown crowd that generally rebels against anything that smacks of corporate behavior.
Nowadays, when venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and technologists gather in Silicon Valley, they often find themselves grousing about Google, complaining about everything from a hoarding of top engineers to its treatment of partners and potential partners. The word arrogant is frequently used.
The news last week that Google plans to sell an additional 14 million shares of stock, adding $4 billion to its current cash reserves of $3 billion, will only provide more reasons to gripe.
"I've definitely been picking up on the resentment," said Max Levchin, a founder of PayPal, the online payment service now owned by eBay. "They're a big company now, doing things people didn't expect them to do."
Mr. Levchin, who last year founded a multimedia company in San Francisco called Slide, said Google "still has a long wick of good will to burn off," but he added, "I'm surprised at how fast the company's reputation is changing."
It was not that long ago that Google reigned here as the upstart computer company that could do no wrong. Now some working in the technology field are starting to draw comparisons between Google and Microsoft, the company in Redmond, Wash., that Silicon Valley loves most to hate.
Bill Gates certainly sees similarities between Google and his own company. This spring, in an interview with Fortune, Mr. Gates, Microsoft's chairman, said that Google was "more like us than anyone else we have ever competed with."
Google's success has already spurred Microsoft to develop its own Internet search engine (a project code-named Underdog), but Google has legions of engineers banging away on a range of projects of its own that, if successful, could dislodge Microsoft from the pre-eminent spot it has enjoyed since the early 1980's.
Of course, Silicon Valley has had past pretenders to the throne. Netscape, which went public 10 years ago this month, and its Web browser, Navigator, were supposed to fell Microsoft - but it is Netscape that is no longer in business. And while Google is riding high, those closely following the company caution that it is hardly invincible; an inflated stock price, a desire to compete in too many sectors simultaneously or simple hubris might cause it to stumble, they say. Even Microsoft, after all, has had legal troubles.
Still, similarities between Google and Microsoft are evident to local entrepreneurs including Rob Malda, who worked at Microsoft between 1993 and 1999 but now lives in San Francisco, and Joe Kraus, a founder of the 1990's search firm Excite.
"There's that same 'think big' attitude about markets and opportunities," said Mr. Malda, who has visited the Google campus in Mountain View many times to be penetrated by friends who work there. "Maybe you can call it arrogance, but there's that same sense that they can do anything and get into any area and dominate."
To place Google in context, Mr. Kraus offered a brief history lesson. In the 1990's, he said, I.B.M. was widely perceived in Silicon Valley as a "gentle giant" that was easy to partner with while Microsoft was perceived as an "extraordinarily fearsome, competitive company wanting to be in as many businesses as possible and with the engineering talent capable of implementing effectively anything."
Now, in the vie
Re:Search monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't using the word "gatekeeper" imply that without Google, the information wouldn't be available? That really isn't the case..
Google is the "gatekeeper" because it's the easiest, quickest way to find what you're looking for on the net. If Yahoo was markedly better, people would switch (back) in droves, and Yahoo would become the new "gatekeeper".
IMHO this whole Google paranoia meme is pretty laughable. Seems like people need to fret about some big corp threatening to take over, and the once-favorite whipping boy Microsoft is seemingly on the ropes so the paranoid venting gets pointed in Google's direction, mostly undeservedly.
If Google strongarmed ISPs into null routing competing search engines, it'd be comparable to the way Microsoft blocks OEMs from installing competing operating systems, but Google doesn't do that. Google's good at what they do, and they deserve to succeed as long as that's the case.
Is Google evil? Compared to MS??? Comon... (Score:5, Insightful)
What if Microsoft stopped patching Windows XP? I mean, if there's a vulnerability to Windows, and a BIG one that cripples businesses and users worldwide... Things in this world would HALT. Financial institutions that rely heavily on Excel would not trade. Banks that use SQL Server couldn't make transactions. Of course, this is a very 'doomsday' scenario, but it also can portray the stranglehold Microsoft has on the current business world.
Google on the other hand well... they don't have that kind of power. The resentment in the article comes from different Silicon Valley 'players'. One that I found amusing was the PayPal founder -- and the article later mentioned there may be a PayPal rival in the works. I wonder why he's bitter against Google?
Others complain about the talent Google is 'stealing'. Another post mentioned this but I feel it's worth reiterating -- you pay people what you feel they are worth. Trust me as much as I'd like to work for Google, if they don't pay me more than I make now... I don't think I'd make the move. There is a huge bonus to Google because of the way they treat their employees -- and people worldwide know it, and they want to be a part of the community that ENJOYS their jobs. If you work at a bank as a programmer, where you have to wear a dress shirt and tie, arrive promptly and work extra hours with no appreciation, then the wunder-stories of employees at Google are extremely appealing. If you are mad about not getting that 'talent' that Google is 'stealing' then start changing your work environment. Make employees ENJOY their work, give them freedoms -- it's software development after all! And yea, PAY THEM MORE! I find it amazing that computer programmers who LITERALLY have to study longer and harder than DOCTORS (due to the ever-changing atmosphere of technology, new languages, methods etc), get paid so little so many places in this country. When a computer programmer makes less than a garbageman it's indicative of a larger problem. So fix that problem you complainers -- don't blame Google because they saw past the problem and offered a solution.
I won't say Google is full of angels, but by in large when they express the "Do no evil" philosphy, they are pretty close to following up on it. They release an IM client, and show you, ON THEIR SITE, how to make it work with other 3rd party clients like Trillian or iChat. They release a web based email with a lot of free space, and to no addition revenue, offer free POP3 service for it. They release Google Earth free of advertising. They buy Picasa, update it, and release it better and ad free, even better (imho) than the Photoshop Gallery software or anything else. They release plugins for Internet Explorer, and follow by releasing similar plugins for Firefox. They create AJAX and allow royalty free use of it.
Evil huh? There may be examples of how Google is being 'evil', but at this point it's as laughable as the character with the same name in an Austin Powers movie.
Let's inject some reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Google, Mr. Hoffman said, has caused "across the board a 25 to 50 percent salary inflation for engineers in Silicon Valley" - or at least those in a position to weigh competing offers.
First, Mr. Hoffman begins with a load of steaming hyperbole. Then the reporter appears to add some facts to the stew.
It appears that there has been salary inflation for those who have highly desirable skillsets. However, I can tell you for damn sure that there has not been across the board salary inflation. Ask any engineer in the valley how much his/her salary increased in the past two years.
Re:So they are bad because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously hoarding engineers and paying them well is something that the rest of the industry isn't doing so why shouldn't they resent Google?
This has been my point all along. The status quo in business these days is to treat your shareholders like gods and your employees like dirt. And (you have to admit) the vast majority of these big companies bring NOTHING AT ALL useful to society.
Now here comes Google. They bring out products that people (and businesses, but mostly people) want, charge little or nothing for them, treat their employees well, and encourage innovation both within the company and in the external community.
And by Dog, they're making a killing at it. The other companies are both jealous and fearful at the same time. Jealous of Google's rampant success and fearful that their labor pool will come to realize that a comfortable, encouraging, and challenging workplace isn't just a fool's dream.
What goes up must come down of course, but my only hope is that Google can stay perched at the top long enough that their way of doing business erodes to some degree the modern business status quo.
Re:Villainy will be temporary (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe, but as one of several hundred people running a small, highly-specialized search site for a type of technical data (details of which don't matter here), I can say that I have yet to see any signs of google trying to wield such supposed power.
While we all know the value of google, there's still the general problem that keyword search of text just isn't very good for finding a lot of technical data. Suppose, for example, that you're doing DNA research, and want to locate sites that deal with a particular string of DNA. Ask google about "CGA TCC CAT TGG TGC" and see how many responses you get.
There is a fair amount of research going on for other kinds of search, plus of course the research on making computers "understand" text iin order to give matches that are more relevant than is possible with keyword matching. Google is doing some of this, as are the other big search sites. But so far, there doesn't seem to be any pressure on us independent sites to stop our research or sell out to the big guys and do it their way. (Some of us have had feelers out to google to see if they're interested in hiring us; that doesn't seem to be getting much of a response so far.
With google, there are encouraging signs of the opposite. Thus, with google maps, they are actively encouraging people with various kinds of databases to correlate them with google's maps. Some of the sites leveraging google's maps are even commercial sites, and I haven't yet heard that google is trying to discourage them.
Of course, they could be just waiting for a better opportunity, when lots of small sites are dependent on google's maps, and they they'll pounce. Now that google is a public company, as others have pointed out, they just might suddenly decide that a major takeover campaign is in their stockholders' best interests. So we should definitely keep our eyes open. They could suddenly decide to copy Microsoft's move to kill Netscape, and set back search research for years in the process by killing or buying out all the small, specialized search sites.
But if there are signs of this sort of evil from google, I haven't read about them. Anyone have more information? Some of us would be very interested in any symptoms or clues about the future behavior of this 500-pound gorilla of searching.
Re:Damn you Google! (Score:5, Insightful)
Google... Good or Evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since then, google seems to be positioning themselves to be the sole internet portal where everything will go through them, web searches, email, IM, your map searches. I mean, if google wanted to, it could know more about you than I think it should.
So far, their policy has been "do no evil." I for one hope that remains the case. Right now, my only real gripe is their lack of giving back to the open source community. They used linux to build their empire but give very little back to it other than being able to use it as an example of what linux can do. Ok, that's useful, but given how large they are, I think they could actually spend some resources to give back to the community.
But wait, they are using jabber for their IM servers. Well yes, I could use any IM client that uses jabber to connect to them, I think using an open standard like that is great, except you can't use the voice features that way, you have to use their program which isn't open source and currently only available for windows. So basically they are using an open source product to create a closed source program. Sure it's free, but that doesn't help me, the linux or mac user at all.
So unless you use windows, you can't use their IM client, you can't use google earth and I still haven't seen them release any source code. Is this evil of them? No, I don't think using open source products makes them evil, I think it's good in a way but I certainly wont consider them a friend until I'm running google earth on my linux box while talking to my friends over GIM.
Re:So outsourcing doesn't cut it eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
What a freaking load. He's basically saying that Google is paying good engineers well and they can't compete because they don't want to pay well. Welcome to capitalism! You know.. it's that whole supply and demand thing. These guys want to have their cake and eat it too.
We're the same engineers that experienced a high drop in salary after the dot-com bust when there was a large glut of engineers. This guy makes it sound like its Google's responsibility to keep wages low and not hire the best talent they can.
Re:Villainy will be temporary (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, Google-vs-MS is a canonical examples obvious example of this, but if you really need it to be explained...
Google naturally became the huge marketshare leader because its product was so damn good. This is a good thing for the little people.
Microsoft may have naturally come upon its OS leadership (there's no need to argue over that for this discussion). Microsoft then continued and tried to use its huge marketshare in the OS world to gain a majority marketshare in several other businesses: office suites, vsideo/audio player, ISP, internet browser, etc. Especially in the case of the browser, it seemes that if MS would not have had the OS dominance that it had, it wouldn't have been able to gain dominance in browsers. MS also got exclusive deals with computer manufacturers (and/or required them to pay for an MS Windows license even if windows was not sold on that machine) to try to maintain its marketshare in the OS market, and artificially supressed competitor OS's from doing very well in the market. (arguably, there are natural pressures that encourages the market to settle upon a single standard [slashdot.org], but in actively going beyond that, Microsoft was acting against the best interests of consumers).
Now, if a real competitor to Google pops up, and Google starts using its largess to hinder its competitors, then that's a problem. If, instead, Google decides to not be evil, and focuses on making the best search engine they know how, and allows the marketplace to choose whichever search product is the best, then google will have no problem, no matter how large its marketshare becomes.
Re:Damn you Google! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Villainy will be temporary (Score:2, Insightful)
What I meant was that you have benefitted greatly from open source. Your entire operation runs on code derived from open source, yet you have released next to nothing of that derived code back into the open source community.
The core code you use to run your operation, not tangential code used in side projects. You've released *NOTHING* that can be used to challenge your search engine dominance.
Also, much of the stuff you have released has been things like API's, which are merely stubs to access open source derived code being distributed as a service.
Why aren't you releasing GDS as open source? Why aren't you releasing Google toolbar as open source? That's my point.
I guess I'm just a money-grubber. (Score:3, Insightful)
The criterion of "monopoly power" (Score:5, Insightful)
If you start sucking and you deliberately compromise the user's interests to make some money or crush some company, do those users have to bend over and take it, or do they have elsewhere to go?
I think in Google's case, it's pretty obvious they have somewhere else to go. Google doesn't have anyone locked in, not with Search, not with Maps, and definitely not with Gmail. If they turned evil, that would definitely compromise their quality of service, and there are many people including MS eagerly lining up to serve Google emigrees who only came to Google in the first place because Google's lack of evil made for a good user experience.
I think it's incredibly immature to equate the size and power, or even the ambition of a company, with evil. I guess there are some people who can't distinguish legitimate moral objections from mere sour grapes and envy. Remember that what makes Microsoft bad is the fact they deliberately screw their users (just because they can) and try to undermine open standards and install their own proprietary ones. This behavior should be condemned whether it's done by a big or a small company (remember Rambus?). And Google, big as they are, are not doing this. They are the sort of company we should cheer - a pro-user company with a bit of power. The alernative is that only the evil companies have the power, and I wouldn't like that.
Awww... (Score:1, Insightful)
Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. When you're visible, you make a good target. Sorry. It's not fair, but that's life.
Chris, you're going to have to come to the realization that Google is not perceived as any sort of an upstart or underdog anymore. You and your company are likely best served by just letting people rant a little. I appreciate your position, but don't fall into the trap of criticizing muckrakers. Your "what have you done" comment is really beneath you. I understand your anger (and think you have some justification for it), but there are some people who make many contributions to open source projects but not feel a special need to brag about it. It's this close to asking him to whip it out and see who has a bigger dick.
Re:Platform doesn't matter, as long as it's Window (Score:4, Insightful)
Works to a point (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hiring up a boat load of talent to cause a tech labor shortage is a bad thing too? I think there are a lot of unemployed and underemployed techies out there who would benefit greatly by this.
The perspective here seems to be from a corporate standpoint, one that doesn't want to pay it's people any more money and wants to be able to replace them easily at a whim. I would hardly call Google evil for that.
Re:Awww... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, there are times when just watching people trash you is the best course, but this isn't one of them. Also, I don't really care about googles under/overdog status. We're doing a lot of work with open source and if we want people to take that seriously, we have to take credit os that future works will be taken seriously and not just a sops to curry favor.
I think that asking people what they've done is completely appropriate...if people want to stay on their high horses, I want to see thier credentials.
Re:I guess I'm just a money-grubber. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google Evil? yeah and Microsoft is good now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft however destroys companies in ways to increase it's profit margin for inferior product, stifling the market for the consumer and forcing people to shell out a large amount of money for a product that is outdated, trying to keep it to be the only product in the market.
I don't see how one can even compare the two. Google is a website, and hasn't even tried to be the only one (well they wish to be but they don't push out others).
Personal story upcoming. I liked Yahoo Maps, I typed in my work address and searched how to go to a claim service for my insurance (got my stereo stolen and window broken) well Yahoo had me going all these ways that were SO inefficent, and the starting point didn't even match my location. So I went to Google Maps, not only did i get a perfect route (the one I pieced together out of a couple Yahoo maps and 10 minutes). I got perfect directions, exact locations, and every position was perfectly marked.
Yahoo Maps and Mapquest is STILL there, and they are available to you if you want, but Google takes the idea of driving directions and doesn't just do it, they mastered it. What is the Satellite Imagery do? not much but it's a nice feature if you want to use even more advanced stuff (and it looks better to some)
There's a difference between that and what Microsoft has done in the past. Comparing Google to Microsoft in this time frame is just a joke. Microsoft has been doing evil stuff for years, Google is just trying to get more users and it's success is evident, I haven't seen them as "evil" rather they are just proactive, in improving themselves. However it hasn't damaged the market to do so (and they make mistakes... Atom over RSS? heh)
Kudos Googles, Boo Microsoft, and WTF New York Times (also get rid of the damm registration, please or we'll keep use bugmenot.com
Google != Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's products in the 1990's were essentially bloated foistware. Their software implemented critical functionality poorly and was outpeformed by other products, but they used marketing tactics bordering on extortion to ensure that they picked up a monopoly on end user operating systems. And they still made us pay for their crappy software.
Google's products in the 2000s are available for free. They compete with other free products for market share, and therefore are differentiated by performance and functionality.
In my opinion, Google is leading the way in good technology implementations, and they deserve to have an industry-leading position. Where they need to be careful is to remain competitive, and not stray into the realm of anticompetitive behavior.
My guess is that they are going to launch some initiatives in nontraditional (for them) categories of business, and maybe one or two will have some success. The rest will fizzle out because the company will not be able to translate its success on the internet to success in other media avenues. If they are smart about how much capital they risk on these projects, they will learn their lesson, and still keep the top spot in the internet-based free services.
Re:Villainy will be temporary (Score:1, Insightful)
Please, the Summer of Code was just the summer of cheap labor for Google. I'm certain it wasn't done simply for the purpose of helping open source it was either A) Used as a recruiting tool to weed out more smart people from the many applying B) Used to get kids to help develop products that Google will use to sell AdSense space (notice all the sponsors could in some way help Google's business model?)
Re:Villainy will be temporary (Score:4, Insightful)
That's bizarre. Even the GPL doesn't have an "undermine your own business" clause. Where did this idea that open source means losing your competitive advantage come from?
I have a lot of code I give away on outshine.com, but I have a lot more that I don't. This is legal. The GPL states that you are not required to give back code if it remains internal. It's only when you begin distributing it that you must make sure it is available under a GPL license. Google has done nothing to violate the GPL as far as I know, and hasn't even violated the spirit of the GPL. Google allows employees to spend 20% of their work hours on open-source projects! They are so many times better than any other company here in the area that I am at a loss to see any justification for the critique.
Re:Awww... (Score:3, Insightful)
I clearly realize that addressing misconceptions are important. I'm not questioning your motives, or your work (which is damn fine, IMHO). I'm just believe your tactics are off. With respect to Google and open source, you are a 4 to 5 star general. To stretch the military analogy (too far?), replies to individual posts are something that should be handled at the squad level (okay, Slashdot might need a platoon or even a whole company :-). Generals shouldn't go beating the bush hunting snipers. What are you going to do when 20 people post things like this? 100? Are you going to read at -1 to make sure you get everyone? I'm sure you've got better things to do with your time.
I still disagree with you about "credentials", though. I believe you get off your high horse yourself when you do that. I think you make your point better (and more succinctly) without resorting to it. You can just point to all the work you guys have put out to the open source world. Some people will be bound and determined to hate you no matter what you do. Some people will praise you and always believe you do no wrong. Most people will make decisions based on what they see and when someone perceived to be at the top takes a defense "well, what have YOU done" tone, I believe it works against you. If you want to clear up misconceptions, then you should very much care about Google's under/overdog status. People perceive what you say differently given on how they view you.
I'm coming off like I'm bagging on you, and I'm not meaning to. I'm trying (in my own way) to help. I think that most people realize the things you've done and you damn well deserve credit for them. All I'm saying is just stress what you've done and not worry about what your critics have done.
Re:Damn you Google! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sorry to say it (Score:2, Insightful)
And so it seems fitting that they gained a 90+% marketshare due to people stealing/ripping them off(read software piracy).
Re:Damn you Google! (Score:5, Insightful)
I sure as hell wouldn't take a job there. My ideas are MINE, not some companies. I've turned down jobs before because they tried to shove this "all your ideas are belong to us" crap on me. I suggest you offer to refer them to a guy you knew in school who had a straight C average and tell them that he probably values his own ideas little enough to take the job, but you don't. It's not going to make you any new friends, but it's very amusing to watch.
This is all I could think about when I read about their "summer of code", a big company exploiting a bunch of kids who don't know any better and ripping off their best ideas. Do no evil indeed.
Re:Leaked insider trading data (Score:2, Insightful)
Informative? Thats just plain incorrect. First of all the IPO was in August 2004, he wrote the following: in January 2005. There is nothing there that would be considered sensitive or insider information...the growing financials are public record (and showing him financials before an earnings announcement would be illegal). Yes, announcing that Google would be going worldwide might be somewhat secretive...but common its not an unexpected move, and i'm pretty sure it was in the prospectus... certainly nothing to FIRE someone over.
Difference between evil and side-effects (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Damn you Google! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Damn you Google! (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you realize that many people find this whole idea rather attractive? Not everyone is rushing to get away from their jobs or their coworkers at 5pm. A lot of folks actually love what they do for a living and like the people they work with. So much so, that it's not a job to them; it's a lifestyle. Granted, it's not the lifestyle for everyone. But I don't understand why so many people feel that it's wrong for a company to operate this way. Especially when everyone working there has made the choice to be there.
Hell, I'd love to find an environment like that to work in. One that wasn't full of negative paranoid slackers. I already love what I do; I just don't have the support staff or amenities to make it an enjoyable lifestyle.
Re:Damn you Google! (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, idealism *is*, essentially, what's making Google rich.
As for their platforms, from what I've heard, they just released on Windows first. It's not always easy to port these things -- should they just not release at all until there's versions available for all common OSes?
Plus, Google Earth is primarily a special, EXE-based case of Google Maps, which runs on lots of browsers that run on lots of operating systems, because they support Firefox. Google Toolbar now runs on Firefox. Google Talk uses Jabber, so anyone with a Jabber-compatible client and a Gmail account can use their network.
What I see in Google is a company doing the best they can given limited resources. I won't say I always agree with them (that filtering search for China thing still sticks in my craw) but at least they *are* trying.
Re:Damn you Google! (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you prefer they gave you a test on your knowledge of the syntax of c++/c#/java/your programming language of choice?
Would you prefer they made you take the SAT or something?
What good companies want to know is how well you are able to think. The only way to do that is to put you in unfamiliar situations and see how you handle yourself.
Perhaps you were frustrated with not being able to answer the questions "correctly", as these questions are usually take more time than what is available in an interview -- hell, some don't even have "perfect" solutions at all.
Anyways, if you don't like that kind of interview, you probably don't want to interview at Amazon.com, either (for this or possibly other reasons).
Yes, I work and interview for Amazon.
Re:Damn you Google! (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, I have no idea what the actual employment contract looks like. Perhaps google says they own all your ideas developed off the job, too, perhaps not. You'd have to ask someone who works there. To be honest, though, unless you're working for a company on a contract-only basis (and then, only if you're a good negotiator), you rarely get to keep the rights to the "ideas" you develop for them. Work-for-hire is the default mode.
As for the "Summer of Code" program, it looks more like an elaborate employment exam and PR tactic.
Re:Damn you Google! (Score:2, Insightful)
When I'm working on a coding project, if I work on that project non-stop, I eventually hit walls. I tend to work on other projects every now and again just to keep the brain juices flowing.
By giving their employees the opportunity to work on other projects, they're both keeping their minds stimulated as well as (I'd imagine) lowering stress levels.
I used to work for a company that understood this effect and would let me tinker with things unrelated to work whenever I wanted, without the manager getting on me about "milestones" and "release dates."