Slashdot Mirror
Google Wave Creator Quits, Joins Facebook
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.
so he goes from a company that doesnt give a shit about user privacy to another that doesnt give a shit about user privacy.
Seriously, can anyone explain to me in words of two syllables or fewer what Google Wave is/was (other than a Firefly reference) or why I should have bothered to find out for myself?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This is the guy that made google-maps as well, it is quite a loss.
Google has the company policy where 10% of every employee's hours are to be spent on projects of their choosing. They're known for providing their employees tons of flexibility to explore new ideas.
Lars is suggesting he is jumping ship to Facebook so he can have the freedom to see what happens. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with money.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
We get to do evil now! Yeah!
What, you think being a prostitute is popular because these women like to have sex?
His brother (the other guy who made google maps) will stay with google. So it seems that relations between the two internet companies, at least at the top, are not as hostile as they often are portrayed.
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!
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Mark is a 24-year old billionaire...
If he invented some incredible green energy break through, I'd be thinking way to go!
If he found a way to eliminate much of the poverty and sickness in the Third World, I'd say way to go kid! You deserve every penny!
If he came up with some sort of medical breakthrough that eliminate breast and ovarian or prostate cancer, I'd be really happy for him.
No, he didn't.
He became an instant billionaire by selling what is basically personal web pages that broadcast updates automatically.
Tesla did more for humanity and he died penniless.
Excuse me, I'm having an attack of mumbling "Bullshit!"
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
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.
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.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
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.
Just look at the dominant languages in Google: not C++ or C. Not serious languages.
Google only normally permits their developers to commit C++, Java, Python and Javascript to their source tree.
(maybe now Go as well)
Without being snide about Javascript (since it's fairly obvious why they use it), which of these is not a serious language?
Just look at the dominant languages in Google: not C++ or C. Not serious languages.
Um, ever heard of Google's implementation of MapReduce? Given that it underlies their search, which is still the cornerstone of their business, I don't know how more dominant it can get.
As for the web apps part of it - why would anyone sane use C++ rather than Java for those?
And what the hell is a "serious language", anyway? According to your definition, it's either C or C++. I guess this means that there were no "serious languages" before 1972.
Wrong on both counts. It's been more than 30 years since I was under 25.
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.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.