Slashdot Mirror
Google's Turn To Be The Villain
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."
For instance, everyone who identifies BillG as the wellspring of all evil forgets how scared we all were of IBM back in the day. Now IBM is seen with much favor in the community. It wouldn't be that way were it not for Microsoft.
So really, it isn't Google's turn to be villain, it's Microsoft's turn to be the good guys.
Hrm, did I really just say that?
--
You didn't know.
Increased salaries is bad for business and the number of employ hired, but you can't quote a 25-50% hike in salaries as a bad thing... c'mon!
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
that a wildly successful software company that only went public a year or so ago is scaring venture $ away from start-ups...what the heck was Google until 2 years ago if not a start-up?
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Paul Graham has an essay about this: The Submarine.
"Suits make a corporate comeback," says the New York Times. Why does this sound familiar? Maybe because the suit was also back in February, September 2004, June 2004, March 2004, September 2003, November 2002, April 2002, and February 2002.
Why do the media keep running stories saying suits are back? Because PR firms tell them to. One of the most surprising things I discovered during my brief business career was the existence of the PR industry, lurking like a huge, quiet submarine beneath the news. Of the stories you read in traditional media that aren't about politics, crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms.
We have seen this before with anti-Linux campaigns. Nothing new.
Is a better link to the story available? The NYT web site goes into a redirection loop if you have cookies disabled or are behind a firewall that stops cookies.
The irony is that Google pays below what other companies do! (Ask anyone who has been made an offer). The working conditions are what is so different, with many people willing to be paid lower in return for such good conditions.
The startups are offering worse working conditions and so they have to pay more to tempt people away.
If Google is draining talent, forcing pay raises and making it hard for start-ups, then it only means that the system is working. Money (and people) go where they are appreciated in a free, capitalist economy. If the start-ups have a better (more valuable) idea than Google's then they should be able to convince both prospective employees and VCs that they start-up is worth it.
Although economies aren't zero-sum games (many activities do grow the pie, or raise the tide that floats all boats), some aspects do have a win-lose component to them. Successful companies can afford (and should afford) to pay their workers more than unsuccessful ones. This means that successful companies will inevitably harm less successful companies by "draining" the labor pool and seem "evil."
If Google is evil it is because change is evil (to some) and because competition (for money, workers, customers, etc.) can be evil -- at least in the eyes of the less successful.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Google shareholder (their stock seems very overpriced relative to the long-term risks of Google's business model and the high expected earning built into the current stock price), but they do seem to be very successful.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Google becomes ubiquitous is a good thing, it seems, for consumers. However, I think there's a real danger that it has too much information that can be construed as personal and valuable on millions of individuals. While I appreciate the "do no evil" mentality that has diven Google so far, the lure of "evil" and better returns are what drive shareholders, and Google after all, is a public company. On another note, one has to be amazed at the way in which Google's unique take on technology and on familar things like web search (Google Suggest), GMail, Google Talk and Google Earth, have allowed it to quickly supplant the leaders in every sphere it steps into. It's quite remarkable, and telling of the culture that thrives in the company. I fear however, that after conquering just about every communication medium (IM, Email, Web Search, VoIP, and rumor has it, free WiFi), stepping out of Google will be as hard as it is to step away from Micro$oft. What is it they say -- too much of something good can't be too good for you after all. In this case, a ubiquitous publicly traded company that features in so many forms of communication exchange, can't possibly resist the temptation to exploit that monopoly... or can it?
Microsoft, on the other hand, can pretty much hold the whole computer industry hostage by virtue of having the most deployed systems hence anyone who wants to buy or write software for a computer has to obtain the MS OS to transact business. This is worse than the classic "utility" type natural monopoly -- the better analogy would be if someone owned a perpetual patent on 60Hz AC.
Seastead this.
I remember when Yahoo! was The Cool Company. They offered arseloads of free applications, the applications were nifty, cool, hip and where-it's-at.
Then somewhere along the line, the free email accounts and home pages got so choked with ads and bloat that I couldn't stand using them anymore.
I like Google's stuff. Lots. I've just got this nagging feeling that I've been here before, and I hope I'm wrong.
http://downwithpants.org Overthrow the tyranny of your pants
I think people are actually scared of Google because they don't know what to think of it. At first, everyone wanted to know how to achieve the golden orgasmic PageRank 10 from that little upstart search engine with such a simple friendly page. Now you have companies paying large sums of money to have 'experts' optimize their site for a seemingly great and monolithic Google, sometimes at the cost of ignoring all other search engines. So with this gigantic company, they have a Think Big kind of attitude, as the article points out. Where have we heard that before?...
Here's where everyone gets confused, though. Google isn't forcing its software onto nearly every computer manufactured. They aren't trying to force any sort of vendor lock-in or commit evil business practices so they can continue to give you "good enough" software either.
Forgive me for quoting people's gripes with Microsoft, but that's the difference between the services provided. To the end user, Google isn't costing us much of anything. People wanted a company to kill Microsoft, and now they might get it...and it scares them because the company they're tired of wanted to 'Think Big' and have big ambitions a long time ago too. People are trying to attribute the track history of MS to Google simply because of how quickly Google has taken off, and the fact that both companies were open about having great ambitions early-on.
Who hasn't? Can a company honestly succede without big goals to reach for? No.
On the other side of things, I was waiting for the day that Google would start getting bad press for anything and nothing. So far, every search engine that soared after it's IPO sunk not too long after and was quickly tossed to the wayside. Yahoo! actually survived surprisingly enough, but Google seems to be going another route: They're still worth money (and lots of it) but now some are turning from curious to suspicious about their former favorite. The little child with lots secrets can be seen as cute, the rich and powerful social elite with lots secrets must be hiding something malignant.
The only part about the negative press that annoys me is that nobody is giving Google the flexability to be a new company. They have to know how to behave like a giant from the start, and giants obviously must behave like monsters as far as the press is concerned.
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
And: is the same reason applicable to Google?
Well, Both MS and IBM were perceived to be bullys. They used their overwhelming advantages in one market to extend control to other markets. Typically, they cut prices in the new markets in order to drive competitors out, even competitors with superior products. The investment community saw this, and feared investing in excellent products and technologies whenever Microsoft trumpeted that they were moving into a market. I can only think of two products that survived that onslaught: Oracle and Quicken. This is the fear, uncertainty, doubt (FUD) strategy.
The other bullying tactic which both used was to offer low ball buyouts to companies with promising technologies. They would, at the same time, threaten to buy similar technologies elsewhere, and then overwhelm their target company. In many cases, Microsoft seemed to steal technology outright, both from buyout targets, as well as from partner companies. In short, they were thugs, and were known as such.
IBM has changed over the last 20 years. Bill Gates still sings the same tune that he did 20 years ago. I haven't heard those notes from Google.
Some of the benefits might be difficult to reproduce for smaller companies (such as the cafeteria), but there is no shortage of very nice office space in the valley nor is there any great difficulty in allowing engineers a certain amount of time and resources for their personal projects.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Uh, well, a few months ago I did the offer/counter offer thing with Google and there was nothing below average about what they were offering me. I know more than a few who work there and none make less than they did at their previous gigs.
What turned me off was the interview process, the whole rediculous MS style crap; Im suprised I didnt get an ink blot test or have someone read the lumps on my skull. That tells me something very unflattering about a company, and any company that wants to hire me after one of those interviews just increased my cost 50% more than it would have been had they a more-sane interview approach.
Makes you wonder why those startups can't improve working conditions. Is it more expensive to improve working conditions than to increase salaries, or just too difficult for these entrepreneurs to do?
0 50.html
i think it's just stupidity. joel from joel on software has a good article about paying people in things "cheaper than money." and that in the end it's cheaper for the company, for example, to give away free drinks because employees value it more than it cost you. here's the article: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000
If they can't compete in Google's market, innovate in another market. This is, at least used to be, the strength of start-ups. The ability to recognize an area that needed innovation and fill that need. Google has a stranglehold in Information Management right now. Find something else.
You guys are supposedly intelligent, right?
With reference to your reply here to the post about him not giving a shit about group outings, and pizza parties...I do agree with you to a point. An outing on company expense can be fun, and team building. A happy employee does work harder and better. I worked at a place once, that had team outtings for us programmers in the business unit. I ranged from lunch and a day of bowling or laser tag....to a day at the lake where they rented wet bikes and a couple of ski boats for us. Was a blast...we even went 'tubing' down a river once...and got full days pay. It was a fun place to work. But, they started getting cheap and more corporate...and these things disappeared, especially when they didn't give raises enough to cover the loss of the perks.
Since I've gotten older...well, I tell ya, I can put up with a lot less perks...and would rather have cold hard cash. I generally can spend my time and money a lot more effectively to attain pleasure. But, a little group stuff is fun. You need a good balance...but, I lean more towards the cash thing as years go by.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
or at least those in a position to weigh competing offers.
Wait, that's new? Isn't that in every field? Like, what does a top grad from a law school make his first year compared to one in the middle of his class, or even in the top 15%.
Isn't this true in pro sports- the guys who garner competing offers generally make a lot... and so on. and so on...
The only place this isn't true is with unionized places....
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By