623
submitted 10 months ago by 1984@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] datendefekt@lemmy.ml 214 points 10 months ago

Who could've imagined that Google is becoming just as mediocre and boring as any other large corporation. What a surprise!

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 101 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's happening at my company right now. We just merged. I got a taste of power, performed well, then got written up for spending too much time on my power project. Now they have neutered any power I had, and I'm a glorified babysitter and messenger. The hunt now begins in earnest.

[-] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago
load more comments (13 replies)
[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 69 points 10 months ago

A few years ago the MBA suits took over from the nerds and it became inevitable.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Psyduck_world@lemmy.world 34 points 10 months ago

I am old enough to remember that Apple was the pirate of Silicon Valley, and then it became the most “cooperation” company in the industry. Then it’s Google then there will be a next one. It’s probably inevitable for any company to go this route.

[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago

It's cute that you think any new corporation of that calibre will be born in near future. It will get bought out before that happens

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They've long been quite mediocre judging by the incredible long hours of those working there and shit quality of basically any technical framework they put out.

They have shoved tons of resources into some things (such as Android) and thus at times succeeded (though usually they don't), but in terms of quality from a technical point of view (i.e. software design, technical architecture) their stuff looks like it was hammered together by a bunch of junior devs.

Lucky timing followed by some smart strategical decisions (and, seemingly, lots of money together with a throw everything at the wall and see what sticks management strategy) are what made Google, not excellence.

[-] psivchaz@reddthat.com 57 points 10 months ago

It's unfair to discount Google's early days. They DID have technical excellence. Search was leagues better than the competition. Gmail was an amazing leap from other providers. Android started as trash but improved rapidly. The Nexus line of phones was amazing. Google Maps was a huge improvement over what else existed. They did a lot right.

I can't pinpoint exactly when the fall started. Was it when Pichai became CEO? When they removed "don't be evil?" I remember a speech Pichai gave where he talked about "more wood behind fewer arrows" as why they were getting rid of employee child projects, so maybe it was that.

[-] baltakatei@sopuli.xyz 31 points 10 months ago

I can't pinpoint exactly when the fall started.

In my opinion, it was when anti-trust laws did not trigger upon Google acquiring YouTube because Google Video couldn't compete. That meant it was open season on start-ups that otherwise might have grown to kill Google or other big tech companies like Apple, Facebook and Microsoft.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz 20 points 10 months ago

Android started as trash

It started off by beating the pants off of iOS in terms of features, but was not nearly as polished.

Definitely not trash. But also not polished for the masses.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] stoly@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

It became this in approximately 2009 - 2010, around when the founders left and the business bros took over. We've been seeing the slow decline since then, though it may be accelerating now.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] charonn0@startrek.website 185 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The Verge reported that CEO Sundar Pichai defended the layoffs and claimed that workers sometimes reach out to express gratitude for the cuts. “And I just want to clarify that, through these changes, people feel it on the ground and sometimes people write back and say, ‘Thank you for simplifying.’ Sometimes we have a complicated, duplicative structure,” he said, per the Verge.

Chalmers: People send thank you's for lay offs?

Pichai: Yes.

Chalmers: May I see one?

Pichai: No.

[-] sundray@lemmus.org 56 points 10 months ago
  1. Who writes an email directly to the CEO of their company, and
  2. Who would that email have to be from for the CEO to actually bother reading it?

I'm guessing it's not your rank-and-file type "people".

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 23 points 10 months ago

Managers from unaffected departments who are glad they have less internal competition. And that's pretty much it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 38 points 10 months ago

"This is a conversation I could imagine happening if I spoke to my employees directly, and that's as good as an actual conversation."

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 21 points 10 months ago

Yeah that whole line smells like pure bullshit. I've never seen anyone be grateful for having their coworkers laid off.

[-] Grippler@feddit.dk 17 points 10 months ago

We had a coworker that got fired a while back, man that was a relief for the entire department. That person was absolutely toxic to work with, or even near.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] hades@lemm.ee 152 points 10 months ago

[...] Sundar Pichai defended the layoffs and claimed that workers sometimes reach out to express gratitude for the cuts.

"It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week."

[-] 1984@lemmy.today 62 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Those workers are kissing ass to make their careers.

Sundar is a complete idiot if he believes what those guys say. And he probably doesn't, but it sounds good to the press I guess.

[-] xantoxis@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Even the press isn't fooled. Sundar isn't fooled. The other employees aren't fooled. We, the outside observers, aren't fooled. You have to wonder what the point of all this was.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 123 points 10 months ago

I feel like the editor that wrote the headline missed the main point of the article. The headline makes the article sound like there are a bunch of dumb and boring middle managers at Google. The actual article has nothing to do with people's direct bosses or even their bosses' bosses. The article was about how Google execs are ruining the company to appease the shareholders. Best quote from the article is:

“We get that execs are excited about Google’s future,” another question reportedly said. “Why should we be excited, when we might get laid off and not be around to share in that future? If we lose our jobs and equity grants, it’s cold comfort that Google is succeeding off our hard work, and we don’t get rewarded for it, but you do.”

[-] asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world 37 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

IMO one thing I think should be made into law is that if a company grants unvested equity, everything granted will automatically vest when you get laid off.

If you decide to quit before they vest, I understand that those grants should be forfeited. If you get fired for not doing your job, I also get forfeiting them.

But if the company lays you off, that's on their side, so I think the opposite (automatic vesting) should be guaranteed by law.

[-] SoleInvictus@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

I had to verify the current situation in the United States is what you stated because it's intuitively so wrong. I can't believe an employer can set terms for compensation and, through no fault of the employee, legally prevent that employee from completing those terms.

Land of the free!

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] 1984@lemmy.today 29 points 10 months ago

It's the same everywhere. Companies will kick people out when they want to. Any talk of family or loyalty is extreamly manipulative.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

You're right. Google employs over 140k people.

If the average team is 8-10 people, this article is kinda complaining about 10000+ people being shitty at their jobs.

When really, middle managers are also part of the same worker class.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] ohlaph@lemmy.world 102 points 10 months ago

Layoffs will continue until morale improves.

[-] EnderMB@lemmy.world 101 points 10 months ago

This has been a huge problem for Google for several years now. Under Sundar, Google implemented several regressive "un-Google" policies like Unregretted Attrition (URA) to reduce worker numbers, shifting responsibility to managers and senior leadership to determine technical vision, and promoting people who are solely focused on "empire building" over delivering the best products. The result is a management-heavy structure where policies like "put AI in everything" and "display more ads" are likely to be a business driver over making the best products.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 72 points 10 months ago

This is why companies should be run by their workers. Even places that start out with a good culture get taken over by the business school blob whose only job is to get promoted and loot the company.

[-] jelloeater85@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

There are some folks that know both how to run a business well and are passionate about the technology, but they are rare unfortunately. More common in smaller organizations at least.

[-] sebinspace@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

They’re common in small orgs. Once you go public and the only thing that matters is the quarterly bottom line, you almost have no choice but to replace them with people whose only though is “make number go up”

[-] Clent@lemmy.world 62 points 10 months ago

From the article:

“And I just want to clarify that, through these changes, people feel it on the ground and sometimes people write back and say, ‘Thank you for simplifying.’ Sometimes we have a complicated, duplicative structure”

Employees think leadership is out of touch. This statement from the CEO proves this problem exists and starts at the top.

[-] ItsAFake@lemmus.org 46 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Glassy eyed: drunk and/or high as fuck.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] flathead@lemm.ee 41 points 10 months ago

Quick! Somebody order more pizza and ping pong tables...

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] luca@lemmy.today 32 points 10 months ago

Sounds like they're still wearing Google Glass.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago

This is what happens when entitled business bros take over. The sort of person who is uninterested in tech but is interested in quarterly bonuses will be inept and glassy eyed.

[-] nyakojiru@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 10 months ago

Only Google? Management is forged on that mostly

[-] Squire1039@lemm.ee 16 points 10 months ago
[-] laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 89 points 10 months ago
[-] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 46 points 10 months ago

A good example of a bottom-feeding boomer who went batshit insane.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago

This makes me so sad, I really enjoyed the comic for years and years. Then he had to go and open his fucking mouth and ruin the entire thing. Now I feel a twinge of disgust rather than delight when I see a reference of him.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Tramort@programming.dev 51 points 10 months ago

Scott Adams is a complete piece of shit

[-] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 52 points 10 months ago

I didn't know what this was about. I found this that can serve as context for others unaware: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/26/1159580425/newspapers-have-dropped-the-dilbert-comic-strip-after-a-racist-rant-by-its-creat

[...] Adams urged white people "to get the hell away from Black people" during a racist rant on his online video program last week, during which he labeled Black people a "hate group."

On his video show last week, the 65 year old said he had been identifying as Black "because I like to be on the winning team," and that he used to help the Black community. Adams said the results of the Rasmussen poll changed his mind.

"It turns out that nearly half of that team doesn't think I'm okay to be white," he said, adding that he would re-identify as white. "I'm going to back off from being helpful to Black America because it doesn't seem like it pays off," he said. "I get called a racist. That's the only outcome. It makes no sense to help Black Americans if you're white. It's over. Don't even think it's worth trying."

This is not the first time Adams' strip has been dropped. Last year, The San Francisco Chronicle and 76 other newspapers published by Lee Enterprises reportedly dropped Dilbert after Adams introduced his first Black character. Quinn noted that the move was "apparently to poke fun at 'woke' culture and the LGBTQ community."

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
623 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

60052 readers
3265 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS