Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses Facebook Social Networks Technology

Google Wave Creator Quits, Joins Facebook 191

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the well-there-aren't-that-many-choices dept.
srimadman found an interview with Wave creator Lars Rasmussen where he talks about his recent decision to join Facebook, leaving Google behind. Apparently getting personally pitched by Zuckerberg helped. He says, "I've got a job description of 'come hang out with us for a while and we'll see what happens,' which is a pretty exciting thing." The article talks about Big vs Small companies, and notes that about 20% of Facebook's staff are former Googlers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Wave Creator Quits, Joins Facebook

Comments Filter:
  • by sakura the mc (795726) on Monday November 01, 2010 @08:46AM (#34087690)

    so he goes from a company that doesnt give a shit about user privacy to another that doesnt give a shit about user privacy.

  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Monday November 01, 2010 @08:58AM (#34087768)
    "I think if you were to ask me two or three years ago if Facebook was going to be this big, I wouldn't have picked it. And I have a great deal to learn there from Mark and his team," he said.
    And a great deal of cash to earn, hey Mark is a 24-year old billionaire and they need me.
    WAVEs goodbye...
  • by trickyD1ck (1313117) on Monday November 01, 2010 @09:00AM (#34087796)
    And why would these companies care, when users themselves don't?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 01, 2010 @09:09AM (#34087888)

    What, you think being a prostitute is popular because these women like to have sex?

  • by blahbooboo (839709) on Monday November 01, 2010 @09:17AM (#34087982)

    Are you kidding? User privacy (or the lack thereof) is their main revenue stream!

    I stopped putting anything of consequence on Facebook (including pictures) over a year ago. After seeing how much Facebook changed since I joined when Facebook was still a closed edu community (a LOT better back then too) and the endless crazy privacy settings I stopped using it. Privacy is now simple, there is absolutely nothing on facebook that I care about anymore. For example, if someone tags me in a photo, I immediately un-tag the photo.

    By now, if you keep posting things about yourself on Facebook that you're concerned about it's you're own fault. Privacy is easy now for me on Facebook.

  • by Kilrah_il (1692978) on Monday November 01, 2010 @09:17AM (#34087986)

    Wow, you found out that a top Google programmer is being hired by another company for money. Oh, and he agreed to switch companies because he is being paid big bucks. Yep, you sure deserve the Insightful mod.

    Most people here dream about doing a good enough job to be hired by one of the top companies and being paid big bucks for it, but when we see someone with a proven track record getting paid for it: Sellout!

  • by Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) on Monday November 01, 2010 @09:25AM (#34088066)

    If there was *ever* anything you cared about on facebook, then you still have something to worry about. You might not be able to see it any more, but it's still there.

  • by GaryOlson (737642) <slashdot@ga[ ]lson.org ['ryo' in gap]> on Monday November 01, 2010 @09:36AM (#34088166) Journal
    Company paid trips to SpringBreak^W marketing opportunities with Hot Young College Girls^W^W^W^W Facebook's target market.
  • by jitterman (987991) on Monday November 01, 2010 @09:36AM (#34088178)
    To be fair, they ARE brilliant, but even brilliance doesn't always result in "wow, awesome!" A case in point, Wayne Cherry designed both the 1970 Vauxhall SRV [blogspot.com] and the Pontiac Aztec. [insideline.com]

    It's true that Wave made almost no ripples (sorry, bad pun), but I very much doubt "hacks" defines the vast majority of Google's workforce.
  • Loyalty (Score:3, Insightful)

    by slasho81 (455509) on Monday November 01, 2010 @10:10AM (#34088600)
    The value of loyalty is completely gone in today's organizations. No loyalty to the company; No loyalty to the employees, and no loyalty between employees. I'm not advocating blind loyalty, but when people change companies every couple of years for a slight bump in salary, or a shinier title, or just so they don't appear "stagnant", it's a problem. And it's a problem first and foremost for the employees themselves.
  • by OpenGLFan (56206) on Monday November 01, 2010 @10:13AM (#34088634) Homepage

    Eventually trickle-up lack of privacy will catch up with these companies and they will suffer. And those who hang with Facebook (and Google) will have severe hangover. It's Moby Dick all over again, with Eric Schmidt (the "creep") - the new captain Ahab.

    Privacy is not, and has never been, a killer app. We still don't regularly encrypt email; we send it plaintext and leave it on google servers. NSA's pressure on Zimmerman didn't kill PGP email, apathy did.

    People don't want privacy. People want Farmville.

  • Re:Loyalty (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chowderbags (847952) on Monday November 01, 2010 @10:53AM (#34089232)
    What do you expect when businesses stopped being loyal to their employees? There used to be things like pension plans and long term job security. Now companies might match some portion of your 401k and at a slight downturn in the economy they might lay off hundreds or thousands so that their numbers look a little bit better. If they're willing to toss workers overboard for slight profit, workers are well within reason to toss their company overboard for their own slight profit. Give people a good reason to stay and you'll get loyal employees, otherwise you get what coming to you.
  • by Raenex (947668) on Monday November 01, 2010 @11:12AM (#34089504)

    People don't want privacy. People want Farmville.

    I'm not so sure they don't, but they're just not willing to give up convenience for it. If you asked users if they could magically have privacy without any cost, I'm sure most would opt for it. The problem with encrypted email is that it's not an easy default.

  • by ztransform (929641) on Monday November 01, 2010 @11:42AM (#34089970)

    You make it sound like it’s easy or something.

    Why do the apologists keep trotting this lame line out. You're a big company making massively huge profits. You can afford real software developers.

    And sure, I'll work on a large website that's used by millions of people every day. Oh wait, I already do.

  • Re:Loyalty (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Matt Perry (793115) <perry,matt54&yahoo,com> on Monday November 01, 2010 @11:44AM (#34090020)

    The value of loyalty is completely gone in today's organizations.

    It should have never been there in the first place. Employment is a business transaction for both the employee and the employer. Employees have long fantasized that it wasn't, but are now waking up. Why shouldn't both parties attempt to maximize their returns? For the business this usually means getting what they are paying for. For the employee it might mean better pay or benefits, or it could be for more intangible returns such as achieving personal goals, helping others, working on interesting things, that shiny new title, etc.

  • Re:Loyalty (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slasho81 (455509) on Monday November 01, 2010 @12:00PM (#34090302)
    You are either an economics major or under 25.

    Employment is more than just business in the real world. It's a social activity and organizations are social structures rather than ideal friction reducing "infrastructure" that some academics think they are.

    The economics revolve around society and not the other way round.
  • Re:Money is nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IICV (652597) on Monday November 01, 2010 @12:13PM (#34090546)

    Well but that only makes sense - it's still time you're at work, even if you're not working on a management-blessed project.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 01, 2010 @12:27PM (#34090790)

    Seriously, suggest she gets a facebook account. Leave it blank if you wish, no information, no activity. It won't help with untagged pictures, but if she is there then maybe people will tag. At least then you have the possibility of getting notification.

  • Re:Loyalty (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Matt Perry (793115) <perry,matt54&yahoo,com> on Monday November 01, 2010 @12:58PM (#34091180)

    You are either an economics major or under 25.

    Wrong on both counts. It's been more than 30 years since I was under 25.

    Employment is more than just business in the real world. It's a social activity and organizations are social structures rather than ideal friction reducing "infrastructure" that some academics think they are.

    It may be a social activity for the employee but it's most certainly not for the employer. Businesses are all about business transactions either by design or due to legal obligations imposed by government.

    In any case, we are discussing loyalty between employer and employee. A business is not a person and employment is not a marriage. Expecting to stay with an employer out of loyalty is absurd. Ultimately, the relationship between employee and employer is one of cost and benefit. Are both parties deriving benefit? If so, there's no reason to change anything. But needs and desires change. The business may change direction which could lead to redundancy in employees. The desires or needs of the employee may change which might facilitate them leaving for another business.

    Speaking for myself, I have been thinking of making a career change within the next five years. I am creeping up on retirement age anyway, but have a desire to work with a non-profit for which I have been volunteering over the last several years. It would mean less pay but far more job satisfaction. At my age, with a paid off house, plenty of retirement savings and a vested pension, I am willing to make that sort of change because the benefit of accomplishment and happiness outweighs my financial desires. I can assure you that the situation was reversed when I began my career 30 years ago.

    Should I stay with my company out of some misguided sense of loyalty? Am I arrogant enough to think that this company can't continue to function without me? Of course not. I am replaceable and I know that. I have a lot of company knowledge in my head but others can cover for me and a replacement can be trained. I will do what is best for me and, if I leave, make the transition happen in a responsible manner for all concerned.

    I suspect that Lars is in much the same situation. He created something interesting and sold it to Google. I imagine that he's quite financially secure. Now he has other priorities and wants to pursue those things that interest him and this opportunity is what he decided to pursue. Should he be loyal to Google? If so, for what reason? The company will survive without him. There are plenty of smart people at Google with many more clamoring to get in. Meanwhile, Lars only has one life and I can't fault him for wanting to live it.

    Maybe this is one of those things that can only be understood with age. As you become more financially secure and the kids grow older and leave home, your priorities change. You'll experience it some day, I'm sure.

  • by hey! (33014) on Monday November 01, 2010 @02:38PM (#34092628) Homepage Journal

    Gosh, I remember having to explain what "email" was to people. Their reaction: "Why would I send some kind of computer message? If I'm in a rush, I'll phone. If I'm not, I'll send a letter. If I'm in a rush and they need a record, I'll fax." Hell, when radio was introduced people thought of it as wireless telegraphy. You could locate a telegraph office anywhere without running wires. Speaking of telegraph offices, many people imagined that we'd be going to the telegraph office to pick up written messages transcribed from the telephone.

    We evaluate new tools in terms of how we use familiar ones. If all we've known is the hammer, then we're pretty shrewd about evaluating the latest innovation in hammer technology. But then we look at the first screwdriver and see nothing more than a very awkward way to drive nails.

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.

Working...