Comparison of Working at the 3 Big Search Giants

castironwok writes "Finally, everything you've ever wanted to know about being an employee at Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. Tastyresearch describes his (or her) past few years interning and working at the three companies. Things I didn't know from before: Bill Gates wears old shoes, Google's internal security watches you like a hawk, the office styles of each company, and how to fill your suitcase with Google T-shirts. He calls the few select companies the 'prestigious internship circle', noting 'once you have worked at one, it's a lot easier to get into another'."

Interesting random fact

[antifoidulus]

Yahoo prefers one 24" monitor compared to the dual setup at Microsoft and Goolgle(19" and 20" respectively) Considering that most 24" LCDs cost at least as much if not more than a pair of smaller ones, I wonder why they opted for less screen real estate(also interesting to me since I am in the market to upgrade displays and am debating between the two setups as well)

Maybe a tamed, blind hawk?

[kaigeX]

"Google's internal security watches you like a hawk"

Uhh...no. I walk around with my badge concealed, explicitly to see how much of a problem it causes, and I have been stopped less than a handful of times this year, and probably less than twenty last year. (Barring events that are explicitly high-security.)

Only for Interns

[lancejjj]

Finally, everything you've ever wanted to know about being an employee at Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo.

... based on a few weeks of experience of an intern.

This is intersting information for someone who is looking to be an intern, but that's about it.

Re:all great places

[kaigeX]

...but who would choose Microsoft from that mix? o_O

Re:Only for Interns

[skoaldipper]

Maybe, but not necessarily. Some subtle observations can define corporate culture or even their mission statements.

For example, I actually met Sam Walton a few times back in the 80s while working for him. He drove an old beat up 50s vintage Ford pickup, and he dressed in overalls and a plain white t-shirt. He was frugal even for being the richest man in the world at the time. Also, while working for Ross Perot at EDS, I had to follow a very strict dress code; no hair below the collar, no beards, plain color button collared shirt, dress slacks, and tie. And all I did was run around on rollerskates changing out tapes in the library for mainframes. From CEO to janitor, a professional image was expected at all times; in part because government officials frequented the place.

Re:big three?

[timeOday]

While we're throwing out percentages, my biggest surprise reading the article was something I could have just looked up: the market cap of google is about 50% that of microsoft, and over 300% that of yahoo! It amazes me that within just a few years, an ad-sponsored website (yes, that's all google is) could reach half of Microsoft's size!

Re:Maybe a tamed, blind hawk?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a little different than public security/police you know. The security guys are on the look out for door jumpers, gate crashers and all sorts of snoops trying to figure out what is going on.

After all, when there are 3 google stories in 6 on slashdot today, all that scrunity also applies to real life.

I always felt the google security guys were on our side. They are there to make the work safe, keep unauthorized people out (so I dont get shit stolen, etc), and generally just BE there.

how fast things change

[heroine]

2000 is a distant memory. In 2000, VA Linux and Redhat were the it companies. Work at one and you could work at the other and the world would kill tthemselves for your autograph. Now no-one even knows what VA Linux was and Redhat is a troll. Hard to believe in 4 years we'll probably forget what Google was.

Re:Pretty good actually

[rossifer]

The top security guy rigged a test: He had an arbitrary soldier replace his picture with one of a baboon. He walked past security points at least 6 times a day and was only discovered after 6 months when he dropped his card and people had a really close look at it.

Similar story at Texas Instruments. To get into a TI building, you're supposed to have an electronic or visual inspection of your badge. Where we worked in Sugarland, TX, they used a visual inspection station (you put your badge over a video camera and the security guy in some security office remotely "verifies" your badge). But this happened so quickly, we knew they weren't doing anything more than glancing at the badge.

One of the interns (red badge, meant less than 5 years senority back in the 1990's) thought they probably weren't even doing that. So he taped the front of a small box of Sun-Maid [sun-maid.com] raisins over his badge. And used it like that for six months. Was only caught because we were laughing so hard about it at lunch one day while his boss was walking by, and the cat was out of the bag. The security office actually got in trouble, not the intern, and I don't think they use the visual inspection stations any more.

Regards,
Ross

Re:big three?

[ghjm]

Don't make the mistake of equating market capitalization to "size."

Google has $10 billion in assets, $6 billion in revenues and 10,000 employees. Yahoo! has $10 billion in assets, $5 billion in revenues and 11,000 employees. Microsoft, on the other hand, has $70 billion in assets, $44 billion in revenues, and 71,000 employees.

Google's market capitalization means that overall, the market has spent $144 billion in cash in order to own Google's $10 billion in assets. The market believes that somehow, it will make future profits with a current value over $134 billion.

To do this, Google would either have to start paying dividends within a few years, and pay out an amount well in excess of the company's total assets every year for 20+ years; or it would have to see revenue growth such that the company turns a profit 5 or 10 times better than the best Microsoft has ever done.

None of these scenarios are remotely plausible; the market has clearly overvalued Google. As such, the market cap figure is not very useful for valuation or market-strategic purposes.

-Graham