The Google Caste System 358
managedcode writes "Google doesn't like to do things traditionally. Right from their IPO, when they dumped Goldman Sachs for secretly trying to deal with their big investor, Kleiner Perkins. Business Week covers the Google Caste System, 'in which business types are second-class citizens to Google's valued code jockeys [..] They deem the corporate development team as underpowered in the company, with engineers and product managers tending to carry more clout than salesmen and dealmakers.' At last a company is shouting at the top of it's voice, engineers make the world."
Importance doesn't equal control... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Importance doesn't equal control... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is how it should be. Engineers don't want to make those decisions... they just want to make sure that the options are the best versions of the options they can be.
So to sum up a summary; Executives execute decisions based on the available options given to them by producers, in this case software engineers, whom decide which solutions or innovations they will champion and make viable (when they are given the power to do so). Executives get to balance business opportunities with what technology is mature enough to take to the market in a real way. Engineers get to balance technology opportunities with what is viable as a mature business solution they can bring to market.
This is how it should be. Very rarely is this a reality... Google seems to do well with trying out potential technologies and discovering viable business opportunities along the way.
Long live executives who are smart enough to let engineers develop solutions in search of a problem and then discover a way to market them... Long live engineers smart enough to propose products in search of a user and then discover a way to realize them.
Re:Importance doesn't equal control... (Score:5, Interesting)
And yes, I wouldn't think most engineers would want "control" over the company. The good ones don't seem to have much in the way of ego. But it's hard to say really... I don't know if that's true of Google or not -- that the makers and designers don't have control over where the company is going. I mean have you noticed that Google isn't only in just one or two directions? It's moving like an amoeba. More precisely, it's growing like an amoeba. Pretty smart if you think about it. Simply let the good projects succeed on their own merit and the bad ones die quietly. "Embarassment" and ego do not appear to be factors in Google's progress. Again, as you say, "how it should be." If it's successful, let's just see if the egos of other companies will relinquish their importance to development.
Re:Importance doesn't equal control... (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at Japanese auto-makers. You will see their upper management are people that mostly started as mechanics and engineers, etc. and have been with the company 50 years. When you give a pres
Re:Importance doesn't equal control... (Score:5, Informative)
Case in point: I asked Eric Schmidt about a potential project based on some comments he made at an all-hands meeting. He point-blank told me, "Don't ask me about getting that going, find some coworkers and make it happen. I'm the wrong person to ask."
Projects don't come from the top. It is entirely bottoms-up. And the nice thing is that top-to-bottom agrees this is the best model.
Damn, I love working there
Really? (Score:5, Funny)
So much for sobriety in the workplace...
Re:Importance doesn't equal control... (Score:3, Interesting)
While that sounds very nice, I have to disagree as well. I've worked for the past 16+ years in a company that can be considered "normal" in that the executives are "in charge" (as oposed to the engineers), but that is very abnormal in that almost all o
Re:Importance doesn't equal control... (Score:3, Interesting)
If the engineers come up with concepts of what is feasible, and where the trends of technology are heading, or have an idea of a next great technology (which takes the tech background), and then table that to the execs, it's up to the execs (before the development time gets allocated) to work out if it's something that can actually make money (o
Re:Importance doesn't equal control... (Score:3, Insightful)
Before google maps I never really realized how much I hate mapquest or yahoo's map service. If someone would have asked me about google developing map software I would have said yahoo maps works well enough for me. The same goes for froogle, gmail, etc...
I really would have neve
Re:Importance doesn't equal control... (Score:2)
Yes, the execs make decisions.
Consider now a company with great management and lousy programmers. Do you really think that any amount of management can bail them out? The key to business is what you produce. If you produce nothing, you have nothing.
Re:Importance doesn't equal control... (Score:3, Insightful)
And the better the coders, the less management they requir
ERTW (Score:3, Funny)
Re:ERTW (Score:3, Funny)
bash-3.00$ uname
FreeBSD
bash-3.00$ cd
bash-3.00$ sudo make world
reminds me of the steve balmer speech (Score:5, Insightful)
this reminds me of when steve balmer made his famous developers speech... "developers developers developers developers..."
Re:reminds me of the steve balmer speech (Score:2, Funny)
Re:reminds me of the steve balmer speech (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Do they REALLY follow what they say? (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously MS needs
Perhaps all companies (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Semiconductor and Passives components manufacturing are normally:
a. small and founded by a geek with a good idea, who either...
1. sells out early OR
2. tries to make a go of it, spends too much time on pet projects and runs the company down.
b. large companies driven by suits who:
1. understand non-R&D business, ie. Sales and Operations, and remain competitive AND
2. acquire small companies run into the ground by geeks.
Why does Google do so well run by geeks? Dunno. It's astonishing they stay so focused. Guessing, maybe it's fear -- seems like they want to win so badly.
But right now every 'free' thing they do, from maps to mail, pumps the very serious ad business with eyeballs and press.
Re:Nah... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nah... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nah... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. What's not sustainable are companies that get taken over by accountants and MBAs after their founding engineer/executives move on or retire. This has been true since the dawn of the industrial age. Read some industrial history -- from before 1999 -- especially if you can't remember back that far as an adult.
Re:Perhaps all companies (Score:3, Insightful)
Betamax vs VHS is the much-quoted example. But having worked in anti-virus, it's exactly the same. The best product is rarely the most popular - the most popular is always the one with the best sales and marketing people.
In economics terms, people rarely have perfect knowledge of the market place, and they WILL be taken in by good sales people. EVERY TIME. The reason Google don't need to advertise is because they aren't asking users, who are their primary resource, to pay to u
The exception (Score:3, Insightful)
While that is somewhat true, Google seems to be the exception to that rule.
Google hardly does any advertising or pushy sales - it has got where it is because of the quality of what they offer. I was a huge AltaVista fan and I moved to Google only because of how well it worked, no other reason needed.
Now what Google does very well at is marketing, which to my mind is bigger than sales.
I'd like to thank... (Score:4, Interesting)
I always hated selling stuff because more often than not one must compromise moral standing to have the product appeal to and compensate for the insecurities and needs of the potential buyer. That is not to say that we are not good at selling things, or even being "face", it just goes to show that some of us perfer to sleep at night and look at ourselves in the mirror without disgust; hence the nature of Open Source. I know, I know, without salesmen we wouldn't be the great company we are. Blah blah.
It has to kick ass working there with that kind of weight. If I had a dollar for every time I had to live up to the mouth of some lying sales rep I'd have enough to buy myself one of those impossible systems I've built, and I only put up with that shit for a few months. But in the end it all boils down to me staring the salesman in the face saying, "If you are so fucking smart why don't you do it yourself?". I never got an answer back when I would ask. In fact, I usually got to take the rest of the day off.
The answer must be clear. Code monkeys are just that, but salesmen are a true phenomenon. I can only surmise that liars are very hard to come by these days and those who actually make the world go 'round are a dime a dozen. A true testament as to why we as a civilization are still around.
Re:I'd like to thank... (Score:3, Insightful)
And just look at the wonders... (Score:5, Interesting)
...that the caste system has done for the Indian economy (though I jest---see my last paragraph)!
In fact, if you read TFA, you'll find that the author writes of Google's 'caste system' in negative tones (unsuprising, given that the article is from Business Week!). Western culture may not be perfect, but one real advantage it has over traditional subcontinental culture is that it has dispensed with this particular anachronism. At any rate, the point the article makes is that people with book smarts are typically terrible at running businesses. If you really want to feel superior, then feel superior because you have the freedom to indulge your intellectual curiosity, and not because you're running the show. In my opinion, intellectuals don't need to feel as though they are 'better' than business people. It is just that we find joy in different ways.
Further, if you really want to make a comparision with the Indian caste system, there are two fundamental differences with the Google approach:
Ease off the literalism there (Score:2)
I believe the idea is that the tech people have a certain veto power over the suits. How this can be a bad thing, I'll never know.
Re:Ease off the literalism there (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe the idea is that the tech people have a certain veto power over the suits. How this can be a bad thing, I'll never know.
Are you serious?
In my company, the engineers have a lot of control over what gets prioritized. They spend the vast majority of their time working on projects that are very very cool and will never ever make a dime. Meanwhile projects like optimization and bugfixing that are unglamorous but actually affect our customers go untended.
Look, there are a lot of dumb "suits" out
Caste is just another name for race. (Score:5, Interesting)
Usually its always a caste based environment where elite well connected white males have meetings with their friends to decide the fate of your business or your job, while at the same time giving themselves a raise and reducing your salary.
Google on the other hand is going about this in a completely different way, the idea is good, lets see how far Google can take it. On the other hand, we should not let Google be the last corporation like this, we should use the Google model in future businesses. The model seems to work, its profitable, and its not based on abusing workers. As much as Americans complain about Chinese sweatshops, lately it seems child labor and sweatshops are a good idea for the US economy, its better to have the sweatshops than the prisons.
Re:Caste is just another name for race. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are falling prey to the media hype.
America caste system is more based on money than color. True there are always exceptions to these social structures and always will be, but the decision to include or exclude someone is done more on the basis of financial standing and potention to improve my financial standing than color.
Meritocracies abound - outside of tech (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider my former employer [kiewit.com], the largest heavy civil construction firm in the U.S. Warren Buffet called them "the greatest meritocracy in American business," and with good reason - the company made something like $5+ billion in revenue the last year I was with them, but there were only 1,300 or so stockholders, all current employees.
Here's how it worked: If you were in a position with profit-and-loss responsibility and were doing a good job, you'd be invited (after a few years with the company) to purchase stock. No options, no gifts - you were invited to make a purchase at the current share price and told exactly what the maximum was you could buy. Couldn't afford it? Then they'd hook you up with a bank in town that would happily loan you the money, since the stock (which had earned double-digit returns for decades) was great collateral.
What happens when everyone on the team is an actual owner, and the only way you could become an actual owner is through doing a good job? Several things:
It sounds like I'm just reminiscing, but it was a great place to work and (if you stuck around) a great place to get rich - it's a shame other companies don't follow that model.
Re:Meritocracies abound - outside of tech (Score:3, Funny)
Only time I ever saw him was when I stood in line next to him at the building's cafeteria. It's weird because the second he's grabbing a piece of cherry pie, you're forced to think "oh man, now I gotta go short chocolate futures!" or some such thing.
Re:And just look at the wonders... (Score:3, Insightful)
If we're bringing out Constitutions in this regard,
Re:And just look at the wonders... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Hinduism" was a term invented by Westerners for "the whole set of religious beliefs of the Indian people who aren't identifiably followers of a systemized religion". It is accordingly exceedingly difficult, on the margins, to systematically separate "Hinduism" from "Indian cultural practice".
By analogy, imagine Chinese Traditonal Religion had been given the label "Hanism" by Western scholars. Now, would ancestor reverence, a cultural tradition which is supported by Hanist religious arguments, be "Chin
caste system (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:caste system (Score:2)
maturity predictions (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure you are right, because I have seen it happen. Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) was founded in 1959 by a couple of engineers. When I became aware of the company in 1963 it still had an engineering culture: the engineers ran the show, and the sales people were secondary. Somewhere around 1968, they renamed the programmers "software engineers" to give them more prestige.
As the company matured the culture changed. Even though I worked for DEC from 1975 to 1992, I cannot point to a specific event that was the watershed. The first symptom that I noticed was that the KS10 was said to be developed in secret to prevent it from being cancelled. Even if that wasn't true, the fact that engineers believed it indicates that the engineers no longer felt that they were making the decisions.
I wonder if paying commissions to the sales people was a symptom or a cause.
I don't blame the demise of Digital entirely on the shift from an engineering focus to a sales focus. There were some bad decisions made by engineering in the last few years. But I can't help wondering if those decisions might have been corrected more quickly by a younger company.
Strangely, IBM appears to be a counter-example. They are by far the oldest computer company, but they seem to have achieved some sort of dynamic equilibrium, where they are able to change direction as technology and markets change quickly enough to survive. I am sure some of that has to do with their size, but as General Motors reminds us, size is no guarantee of survival. I suppose they have internal institutions that keep them nimble.
There are some good books on Digital Equipment Corporation. See The Ultimate Entrepreneur [ebay.com] for the story of DEC at its height, and DEC is Dead Long, Live DEC [ebay.com] for a look back after its death.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
Just give it time (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think that hackers arent experts (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, what makes you think Google would hire manipulators or people who seem like a threat? And if they did don't you think they have security mechanisms in place? You make it seem as if its as simple as someone just walking in and hiijacki
Re:What makes you think that hackers arent experts (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just give it time (Score:4, Insightful)
Both viewpoints are drastic oversimplifications and neither is very accurate, but all things considered I like the engineering standpoint over the businessman standpoint.
Goldman Sachs vs. Google (Score:5, Informative)
But Goldy wanted to get some easy money, they got caught and shut out of the deal. That makes my night. If you've dealt with bankers (esp. "New York" bankers), you'll know why.
Here's a nice article on this. [telegraph.co.uk]
Perhaps this also explains the "Google will fail" articles that appeared before the IPO; the powers-that-be were peeved that Google did the IPO their way, and wanted it to fail.
Code words (Score:2, Informative)
Ruined it for me.
Re:Code words (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Code words (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Code words (Score:3, Insightful)
Which only makes putko's comment even stupider. That's assuming he knew the meaning of the phrase to begin with--I live in NYC and I've never heard it before.
Also, you might be interested to know Goldman Sachs' origins basically lie in the fact that Jews were so marginalized in 19th-century New York finance (J.P. Morgan et al., all the other banks, would only
Race or religion? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:VC's don't like Google... (Score:2)
What can I say? What kind of software engineer would complain about this? Why don't you want to make more money? Why don't you want demand for your trade to go up? Why do you think that a company that engineers want to go to is evil?
Caste Systen, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
This rather reminds me of Wall Street's desperate attempts to declare the Google auction IPO a failure, even after Google got more than twice the dollars per share than they would have in an investment bank-priced IPO. If you can't beat them, have your puppet press hang an ugly label on them.
Engineer make the world (Score:3, Funny)
Of course we do!
Re:Engineer make the world (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure if that was the parent's joke or not, but whether it was or not, I'm sure there are some linux-only folk on here that wouldn't have gotten that.
Winds of change (Score:5, Insightful)
Many business leaders have began to realize, that people aren't using Google's product because they're running nice commercials on TV, but because they're just good products. It's no wonder why there have been so much polemic about bad quality of software products. Atleast where I've worked, all products have been done with a minimum effort. When a first alpha version start to emerge, business leader have already arranged massive demonstration events to customers. Focus from finishing the product shifts to making a good demonstration. Google makes a difference here. Unlike its competitors (like Micro$oft), its products actually work and what I've said many times to myself, a good product sells itself.
I hope those investors (in the article), that are looking for companies to fill up market gaps left by Google, understand it's not the market gap people are willing to buy. People are looking for good products that also might fill up a market gap in the process.
All ad-based information companies work this way (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about TV. Who runs things, the people selling air time for commercials or the station manager who chooses what shows appear and what the format is when the network isn't forcing its agenda? Or even at network level, what directs them - people who sell ads or creative people who think their program could be a hit?
Radio is the same. Google's business model is: Sell non-obtrusive ads associated with information services. To do this, they need compelling services to make people get ads on the same web page. These services are like shows on TV or juicy news articles - they drive eyeballs, which allows for ad revenue.
Really, there is no other way to run it and make money.
Re:All ad-based information companies work this wa (Score:5, Interesting)
From what I can tell, this example doesn't apply. The Ad people are the ones who run the company when it comes to TV. The quality of programming continues to decline to pandering for whatever will get the most viewship, becuase more viewers means more eyes at commercial break and higher rates commanded for ads in that timeslot. When a major sponsor of a show doesn't like the political/ethical fork a show's storyline takes, does the network tell the writers to edit the script? Or the sponsor to live with the story or find another show?
For insight into the correct answers, check out such movies as The Insider [imdb.com] and the currently playing Good Night, and Good Luck [imdb.com].
Yeaaah baby ! (Score:2, Funny)
(to be read with Austin Powers' voice)
--
anonymous engineer
My Grandmother knows what Google is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Another example; I was explaining Picasa to someone who was looking for a way to easily email photos who wasn't the most computer savvy of all people. She was leery about trying a new piece of software until she found out it's a Google product. She was all for it after that. In a lot of people's minds, Google == Quality. I am not saying it's right, but perception rules the world.
Re:My Grandmother knows what Google is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps they consulted Michael Bolton? (Score:3, Funny)
They don't understand. I could come up with a program that could rip that place off big time.
I'm just waiting for... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm just waiting for... (Score:3, Funny)
sour grapes? (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect this is just sour grapes on the part of executives who were called on the carpet for this type of behavior, especially since that the guy interviewed in the article seemed shocked and amazed that he was asked to demonstrate his acumen prior to being hired.
Having seen my share of "Strategic Initiatives" (code for: we're going to rip out a working system to replace it with a multimillion dollar "solution" barely works, requiring 10x the hardware and manpower to operate, and no, we aren't open to feedback from the technical staff) over the course of my career only convines me further that this is what's going on. Incorporating sanity checks by technical types sounds more to me like removing a caste system (with the suits as Brahmins) rather than creating one.
And without a caste system, why should the suits be exempt from requirements of competence and integrity?
Is this really that different? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree its cool, I'm just not so sold that its a new idea that applies only to Google.
Revenge of the Nerds! (Score:2)
I've sure when Google was starting out plenty of business types would have tried to put one over them. Must be sweet to be able to return in kind now everyone wants a piece of the action!
Software engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Add to that picture all the horribly programmed engineering tools we have to use (and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for), with GUIs that were created by retarded lemurs on acid, and, well, my opinion of the current state of the science of programming is not very healthy. Nice to see someone out there is taking some initiative.
Seriously, when a Mac head like me favors using your tool via the command line and C shell scripts, you need to *FIRE* whomever it is that designs your GUIs.
Oh, and X Windows programmers? The text that's highlighted? That's what I expect to be replaced by my typing. It's not meant for the random decoration that you all use it for.
Well, I used to think this way too (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, he convinced me that it was a two way street. That there is no shortage of good ideas and products out there, and the ONLY reason some succeed over others is becuase people like him and Sales people make it happen. They sell products that they know aren't quite ready yet (vaporware) because the company needs the revenue. They sell products that they know are inferior to the competition because their Scientists and Engineers made a stupid mistake early on in the product development lifecycle that didn't get caught until too late and the company can't afford to start over.
Basically he convinced me (a seasoned Engineer) that we need them as much as they need us.
So, be careful in your thinking about this issue.
Re:Well, I used to think this way too (Score:4, Funny)
In other words, a high-ranking Marketing expert managed to convince you (nay, sell you! ) regarding the importance of marketing experts?
Ladies and gentlemen, suddenly I have an idea how the whole marketers-before-employees meme got started!!
Marketing Exec. (Score:4, Insightful)
People hate Microsoft for being more of a marketing than a technical company, and it is in part because techies could have better jobs elsewhere producing quality work, if it weren't for the Marketing behemoth.
It will change..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Should be (Score:3, Insightful)
Any company that gives too much weight to marketing and accounting types eventually runs things into the ditch of bad products...wrong thing - wrong way.
This is a leason that has been learned many times over, by many companies. Google is hardly the first to demonstrate the discipline to stick to it.
Chrysler supposedly learned this lesson the hard way in the 70's & 80's, when bean counters were allowed to decide which models cars and trucks would go to market. The company paid dearly for that mistake, and is only now comng off the ugly results.
Just remember that the group most capable to 'get it right' (right thing - right way) includes design engineers, usability engineers, mechanical and electrical engineers, as well as project managers, tech writers and testing types.
Find good ones and give them the tools they need and get out of their way. You'll be a hero without even trying.
Imagine Microsoft being run that way:-) (Score:4, Insightful)
joy quote (Score:3, Interesting)
This idea of a caste system at google sounds more to me like that, where nurturing development is the primary deal - giving developers a healthy environment and keeping irrelevant crap out of their hair. Seems smart to me. But caste system? I'd imagine that no one wants their benefits coordinator to feel like they aren't doing an important job - the marketing/sales initiative doesn't seem ignored to me, but they're pretty smart about leveraging the nature of the beast to no be too obtrusive about it. Clearly the management over the aren't a bunch of drooling morons, they're doing something right and the product that gets deployed is great....
Re:joy quote (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, PARC was a great success in every way, and made fortunes for everybody but Xerox.
So Xerox didn't know how to capitalize on what PARC made - how is that PARC's fault?
No Daffy Duck for you (Score:3, Interesting)
"But perhaps more compelling to Google is AOL's access to reams of content owned by sister companies such as Time Inc. and cable channel HBO."
So if Time-Warner sells off AOL, doesn't that mean that AOL won't have any more access to TW-owned content than anybody else?
Remember when AOL was so overvalued that it could buy TW instead of the other way around? And then Wall Street was going on about how the monopoly on accessing TW content via the web would cause millions to flock to AOL to get their online Elmer Fudd fix? And then that didn't exactly happen and they took AOL out of the parent company name? Maybe they're so desperate to get rid of AOL that they're willing to throw Bugs Bunny and Wolf Blitzer in to sweeten the deal.
Wall Street speaks with forked tongue (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess what one senses here is anger. The business establishment doesn't understand Google, hence this dismissal of anyone who isn't a numbers man as a mere "engineer". And, perhaps, there are a lot of investment houses out there playing a double game. They know what Google is currently where the money is, but they also have a burning desire to get revenge for the way Google humiliated them in its Dutch-auction style of IPO.
Google is going to have to be very, very careful with this lot. Nothing would please some of these bankers more than to make a few billion out of Google in some crock-of-shit deal before delivering them to the trashcan with "Don't ever cross Wall Street" stencilled on their brow.
Interestingly, the article doesn't mention Apple which has been a poster child in several eras now. Apple is run by, arguably, one of the world's greatest salesmen, and yet Apple also displays engineering and design excellence that's taken them to the top of the tree. I guess such marriages of engineering and business are possible, though very rare. Google has quite a challenge ahead of it.
Engineers and Managers (Score:5, Funny)
In the train, the engineers took their seats as did all of the managers bar two, who took up sentry positions at each end of the coach. After a while, one of the managers on sentry duty made a sign and he all the other managers headed immediately for one of the toilet cubicles. Two minutes later the ticket inspector arrived, saw the toilet door closed, knocked on the door and said "ticket please", upon which one ticket was duly slid under the door.
The engineers of course understood the ploy immediately and congratulated the managers on their guile and coordination.
Come the return journey, the engineers sent one of their crew to buy just one ticket. Puzzlingly, the managers didn't buy any tickets at all this time. Again the engineers refrained from asking questions and observed events studiously. Everyone climbed aboard the train and once again the managers immediately posted sentries. Sure enough, in due course, one of the managers on sentry duty made a sign upon which the watching engineers immediately crowded into a toilet. Strangely the managers didn't move. But as soon as the door had closed on the engineers, a passenger sitting nearby observed a manager leaving his seat, walking to the toilet, knocking on the door, and asking "ticket please".
Why cant everyone get along? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to clear things up:
- Users don't need big colourful buttons to be able to figure out how something works, this does not automatically create an intuitive interface. It does however satisfy specifications and make it look like you care, if that's all that matters to you.
- Every product on the market, from TV's to computers to cars, have numerous hacks and last minute workarounds in them, they won't be a perfect system and they will have bugs or defects. you're product _will_ be the same.
- Every market has 3 products: the best, the cheapest, and the one with most value for money. While technically all other competing products are useless and not even worth assembling, that won't stop you being able to flog them to people if yours doesn't happen to fit into one of those 3 categories.
- There are two types of people: those who work 9-5, satisfy specifications and instructions *technically* and deliver on time, and those who work all the time, ignore specifications and go out of their way to make things actually work properly even if the original plan was flawed (as it usually is).
Marketthinking. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some bloppers:
That's not to say Google could afford to go out and do a big deal just for the sake of it. A mega-takeover potentially could wreak havoc on Google. Even Piper Jaffray Co's. (PJC ) 11/18/05 @ 9:05 PM --] Internet analyst Safa Rashtchy, one of Wall Street's biggest Google bulls, says: "If they were to buy AOL or eBay, it would hurt the stock."
Google buying one of the Evil Giants would certainly hurt the stock, by damaging reputation of Google. People hate AOL and at least mildly dislike eBay. Loss of capital by Google has nothing to do with it. Loss of trust does.
All the same, the lure of a big deal could prove hard to resist, particularly if Google's strategic position is threatened. For the past two months, Google has been battling Microsoft Corp. (MSFT ) at the bargaining table for a stake in Time Warner Inc.'s (TWX ) AOL unit
Whoa, Google lost such a deal to Microsoft, such a big battle, such juicy morsel...? No. Google was acting as a shill, for its own interest. Bloat the price of a mostly worthless piece of junk, make the competition offer way more than they would offer initially, and then let them have the rotten carcass for price of luxury dish.
Losing some battles gives more profit than winning them.
Young Googlers' preoccupation with these perks tend to drive mature VCs to distraction. "If I hear one more [punk] complain about his omelet, or tell me he's bored with the smoothie selection, I'm gonna, I don't know," splutters one.
What would YOU prefer to do? Make the job fun and it will be efficient. Not in terms "lines of code per day" but in terms "satisfied customers per day". Still hard to get for some.
Says the aggrieved VC: "Did it ever occur to them that this was like asking us to do their homework for them? It's the height of arrogance."
It's lots of VCs who hope to make a lot of money on that. Google just does the usual thing, and is only one. So, usual marketing rule, if the sales outweight demand, sellers must look for ways to attract the customer and the customer may afford demanding much more for the same price. I thought these guys are businessmen? You don't want to do the homework for Google? Someone else will, and they will get the candy, not you, mr Very Senior Partner.
The suits inside Google don't fare much better than the outside pros. Several current and former insiders say there's a caste system, in which business types are second-class citizens to Google's valued code jockeys.
As opposed to the caste system where the business types rule the second-class "production crew".
They argue that it could prove to be a big challenge in the future as Google seeks to maintain its growth. They deem the corporate development team as underpowered in the company, with engineers and product managers tending to carry more clout than salesmen and dealmakers.
I think they just misunderstand "corporate development". Google took this term right. Marketoids still think it means themselves.
The candidate, a Wall Street tech M&A specialist who was looking for a change of scenery and a more relaxed lifestyle, calls the experience "chaotic, bureaucratic, and very rigid." Strung out over more than nine months and numerous coast-to-coast flights, the courtship culminated in a jarring "pop quiz."
Drummond rejects the accusations that Google is anti-businesspeople. He says Google has hired many MBAs and bankers and is constantly assessing its dealmaking strategy.
Google is just anti-assholepeople. Jerks who hope to get cash from the suckers. And they get punished pretty cruelly for attempts to pick on Google.
What's more relaxing for the coders crew than to see a super-important suit, a stockmarket shark to jump through loops and sweat heavily just to get a candy they wave in front of his nose? Less bull from your side and deals with Google would become pleas
Not big-money deals (Score:5, Interesting)
(Paul Graham link missing) (Score:3, Informative)
How hard is it to buy from google? (Score:4, Insightful)
Previously my company tried to purchase and use a google search engine box. However if you try and buy the google box for your corporate searching needs you will find it impossible to deal with their sales people. They don't offer support, they won't tell you anything. Funnily enough technically if you want to make it work its a doodle.
Google needs to improve its sales drastically if its honestly going to take over the world, technology just is not enough.
Both extremes are short sighted (Score:5, Insightful)
Both extremes are short sighted.
Microsoft has ossified because engineers, creativity, and innovation don't carry enough clout.
On the side, Apple is a second rate power in the I.T. world. They could be dominating the I.T. world like Microsoft now does, if not for the poor business decision they made when they got started of pricing their computers above IBM's crappy PCs. Giving more clout to smart business men at that time could have changed things.
A successful tech company needs to both the businessmen and the engineers sufficently empowered.
It seems Google has learned its lessons from Microsoft. Lets see if they also learn Apple's. More importantly, lets see if they remember both lessons as they expand and get big.
Ego much? (Score:5, Insightful)
The funny thing about mediocre sales people is that they see mediocre engineers, and don't understand what the big deal is. Meanwhile, the mediocre engineer sees the mediocre sales guy, and *also* doesn't understand the big deal.
Meanwhile, the talented engineers and sales people look at the other side and know that they couldn't do that job nearly as well as the person they are looking at.
The companies that are currently ridiculously succesful are the ones that recognize that employees are their greatest asset.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Spin (Score:3, Informative)
They're right. Most acquisitions lose money (Score:4, Insightful)
First, it's something for the CEO to do. Really. Acquisitions are something the CEO can actually do. If the CEO has a financial or legal background, acquisitions are something they understand. On the operational side, the CEO of a large company mostly has to just pick people and give them general direction. There are exceptions to this, but they're rare. If you can't fix the company you're running, acquisition gives the illusion you're doing something.
Second, acquisitions are highly visible events for a CEO. They get you on the cover of Business Week. You can talk to other CEOs about them. You get better golf dates. Improving manufacturing productivity by 15% doesn't do this, even though it might triple profits.
Third, acquisitions usually result in increased CEO income. The company is bigger now, so the CEO should make more. Right? Don't underestimate this. Also, acquisitions tend to increase stock volatility, and if much of your pay is in options, volatility pays off, even if, on average, the trend is neutral or even down.
Now, it can actually make sense to acquire a company for its technology or its market share. In the first case, the acquired company is usually small, and you're buying technology, not a customer base or manufacturing capability. A successful example is Google buying Keyhole. Keyhole was small, had good technical assets, and wasn't too expensive. An unsuccessful example is SGI buying Cray. Cray had a large mainframe manufacturing operation and too many people, neither of which SGI needed. (SGI comes to mind because I was in a building yesterday I'd previously visited when SGI owned it. They don't own it any more.)
Buying market share makes sense if you buy something in the same business. You're reducing competition and can raise prices. You might even get economies of scale. Blockbuster, which bought out many other video store chains, is a successful example.
On the other hand, buying companies for "diversification" or to "expand into a new business area" usually doesn't work out too well. Buying for vertical integration, where you buy your supplier or customer, used to be popular half a century ago, but is now somewhat out of favor. It made sense to buy a coal mine when you had a steel mill. It make less sense to buy an ISP when you're a phone company.
I've watched these behaviors for years. See Downside's Deathwatch [downside.com] for the results. (When it says "Chart not available for this symbol, it's not because there's a bug. It's because the company died.)
That explains their lack of focus (Score:3, Insightful)
Well then, maybe that's why none of their products seem to support any common goal (besides being 'cool'). It often seems like Google's left and right hands are completely unaware of each other, and that could be due to teams of gifted engineers all cranking away without ever taking the time to talk to other teams and figure out what the hell the company is doing.
Engineers are important, but alone they're not sufficient to build a viable company.
the secrets of google's success (Score:3, Interesting)
Google decided to try invention instead and to maximize value by paying top dollar for inventors rather than treat R&D as a commodity and engineers as something real businessmen buy like cans of beans and that isn't important enough to keep in-house.
Makes sense in retrospect, if one is in the business of selling technology ideas embodied in the form of tech goods and services, if one wants to maximize the number of ideas under one's control that one can make money from, buy as many as possible of the very rare people who can make these ideas and turn them into real products.
The companies that hit home runs do this not by following everyone else's "tried and true" strategies, but by doing something different and executing that "different" correctly. As google has done.
I can understand why the author of the BW piece is offended by the very idea and the ideological committment to the idea that MBAs and marketdroids and buying politicians to protect one's market are the only real source of value at high-tech companies.
But "google is ineptly managed" and google's market cap suggests that either the author is full of shit or google is. I don't see anyone trying to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the author of the BW article.
Re:How quaint. (Score:4, Funny)
I work for google. On Monday I'll work for 7.2 hours and then me and Larry and Page will go out for drinks...
depends on the language. (Score:3, Funny)
Larry == Page, but Larry ne Page
Re:How quaint. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is probably true. After all, if everybody who read this article decided to actually have a pair and start a business, it would suddenly make it much harder to actually start a business at all. Right now is a great time to do a lean and mean startup, you can literally start an internet application company with very little capital, just enough to run and connect servers.
However, what if everyone who ends up chaining themselves to their desk tomorrow instead stayed home and started dedicating themselves to some internet application that they cooked up over the weekend? Well, so many of them would fail, because many of them would be overlapping ideas, that the conventional wisdom would quickly swing the other way, and no one would want to start a business anymore.
The moral of the story? Because right now is a great time to start a business, right now is a bad time to start a business. Wait until it is a bad (in peoples' perceptions) time to start a business, and then you'll be golden.
-decatur
Re:How quaint. (Score:5, Interesting)
Meh. If the time is right for *you* then it's time to start a business. There was this old gas station where I went to school. Outside was a sign that said "since 1936" give or take a year. I always used to think, "Wow, that guy opened up a business during the Great Depression, and it's still doing well". OTOH, a lot of companies that were founded during the earlier go-go "robber barron" era of the late 19th century came through the Depression, and are still with us in some form. I think you and your own personal circumstances, talents, and abilities are the biggest factors, not the general mood. Also, let's face it--there is a lot of chance involved. We like to think that the best ideas win, but sometimes the best idea walks in the door 5 minutes after the VC handed money to a bad idea. Of course if your idea is so much better, you might get money from somebody else; but it's more likely your idea is only marginally better. No big loss to society, just a loss to you.
Re:How quaint. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think what you and the parent post are saying are in some ways the same thing, since he's saying wait until others aren't flocking to that industry to start companies and you've cited an example of someone starting a company during such a non-booming time. I do think it comes down to a lot of hard work, luck, and part of that is definitely that it has to be the right time for yourself. So why put off when you can get a head start now, regardless of the market? Since it's so cheap to start a company now, it's not much loss to operate under if the market isn't quite ready for you yet. Markets fluctuate, and if a company is going to survive the next downswing it doesn't really matter where you start on the curve as long as you do start, you're willing to work through challenges, and have some luck on your side too.
Re:Who works 8 hours (Score:5, Insightful)
To quote an old movie, Auntie Mame from 1958: "Life's a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death!" If you work 50-60-70 hours a week, you are starving to death! Do you really want to look back on your life and say "Geeez.... What happened? I was at work!" Not me, no thank you very much!
Re:Who works 8 hours (Score:5, Interesting)
The only exception to the eight hours max a day rule is when you're with a small startup or some other venture in which you have a direct stake. Then working like a madman, at least temporarily, may be worth it (full disclosure: I'm in a startup).
But on the whole, yeah, the thought of looking back at my life and thinking, "Hmm, I just spent my entire youth working" is a horrifying one.
Which brings me back on topic: I wonder how many Google developers have totally thrown themselves into their work, going at it 60+ hours a week? It doesn't matter how cool your job is - at that rate, if you're a salaried employee, then your life is slipping away.
Re:Who works 8 hours (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, take Tax Prep firms. In the US, they all have a really steep peak in workload in late January and another Peak in April, Because just about everyone wants to file as early as possible if they are getting a refund, or as late as possible if they owe. Their coders have to update the software in late november-december, because Congress never finalizes the changes until nearly the first of the new year. There's always a lot of updates needed then, as Congress ALWAYS changes the tax code, and ALWAYS in some ways they haven't discussed publicly until the last moment (This is one of very few circumstances where the word always is clinically accurate and not hyperbole). Between April and November, there's literally no workload at all for 90-95% of the employees.
There are bound to be other businesses with variants on that last problem - i.e. anyone who relies heavily on Federal Law enforcement, OSHA, DOE, or DOD related contracts can expect a huge influx of new rules that affect code in the last month or so of the year. These firms all rely on 60 Hr+ weeks in their respective peak seasons, and often seasonal lay offs the rest of the year. The better ones usually pay worth such conditions too - there's nothing like getting 60 K for 3 months work in an area where the average income is 17 K., and realizing that your toughest decision come May is whether you want to find something else to try and make 100-120 K total or just be a beach bum until next February or so. I know people who hiked the whole Appalachian Trail rather than bother to get a second job that year.
Re:old joke (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Sorry chook (Score:5, Informative)
As a software engineer in safety-related software for the last 10 years (first job was power station controls, current job is car engine controllers), I can assure you that we are *very* serious about responsibility for mistakes. You screw up, people die. As a result, only about 10% of our time is spent actually coding; around 30% of the rest is spent on requirements capture and design; and the other 60% is spent testing the living shit out of it until we're sure what we're putting out is safe.
On projects that don't have safety implications, there isn't anything like as much testing. But this is an engineering judgement based on the impact of bugs on the customer - if your car radio bugs out for example, it's annoying but it doesn't kill you. Same in any other engineering discipline - you don't think that the mechanical engineers who design plastic toys use the same level of testing that engine designers would, do you?
Grab.
Re:money (Score:5, Insightful)