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.
Yes, I’m in no danger of being fired it doesn’t seem. I’ve been there 6 years and have an enormous amount of knowledge of our product and operations. And it was just a ‘verbal counseling’ (which is written down, sent to HR, and added to your record; totally verbal though). So I’ll just keep on project managing timelines and crap, and collecting my Pacheck. But now I have like 8 months of successful product management under my belt to add to the resume
I thought the same thing at 5 years, and everyone I heard from said it was a mistake to lay me off. Last I heard, my responsibilities were being split up between 3 people. On top of that I found out I was getting underpaid, so I was a good deal on top of that :p
Anyway despite all that, I still wasn’t part of whatever vision upper management had going forward, so they gave me a sweet severance and sent me on my way. I’m not mad, but it’s definitely made me careful not to expect my job to be safe.
If you don’t have docs it’s a tough competition between having your more knowledgeable devs re-explaining what they know X times to X new hires, or letting new devs figure it out on their own which is both costly in terms of their time and more importantly, risky as hell.
Bad managers love risk though. Since it usually is a choice between speed now and risk later, it only blows up in your face later, and quite spectacularly, and everyone looks like heroes while they are putting fires out on overtime.
That said good managers probably don’t tolerate that shit from bad managers under them and can sniff out a firefighter culture pretty quick.
I guess what I meant to say was, managers that value doc do exist. If they really do, they’ll let you know.
Yeah I can’t feel good about that kind of stuff anymore (it’s the same thing in my field with IaC - Infrastructure as Code). Even if I agree that these are good ideas, it all comes down to being able to treat workers like interchangeable cogs rather than people who can amass knowledge and expertise over time.
Then the dream: that you could sell an entire skeleton of a company with none of the old workers clinging to the bones, and another team of replaceable workers could just slot themselves in place and start making money for investors!
I’m not sure it’ll ever get that extreme, but it’s not ethics that is blocking it from happening, but material reality.
I hadn’t considered the impact of IaC type things, but I can see bean counters thinking “well it’s documented, so any monkey will do”, without being able to quantify to lost time/opportunity cost when people have to fumble through.
In my case, I’m always thinking ahead, trying to see the ways our imperfect systems are going to be a problem, and at least consider high-level options for those things, or for directional change we may see.
I don’t make any plans, just some notes, in case any of those questions come up.
Someone unfamiliar with these systems will be in “fix” mode all the time, trying determine why something doesn’t work, and reading through docs trying to comprehend things.
I’m a big fan towards pushing for IaC and configuration as code too. What you have to do is also push for policy as code and finops too keep the managers and power point pushers on their toes too. At least it’s seemed to engender some empathy from some for me.
Working with people is a very core skill. You suggest that this came out of the blue - but I would bet that there were a lot of missed signals on the way. Escalating straight to verbal warnings and demotion in role or responsibility means you’re missing something very fundamental in what wasn’t working or was missed.
TBH I don’t get why people criticize selling out as if they wouldn’t do it, too. I don’t want to sit and amass wealth indefinitely, if I have a company and someone comes along and offers “retire rich forever” money, I’m taking it and fucking off to somewhere fun. Especially if we’re talking billions, no one will ever hear my name again.
It seems as though you underestimate the appeal of billions of dollars. It’s not just the ability to never have to work again. Or power, prestige or any other nonsense. Or even just having tons of money. It’s not greed that makes it appealing.
It’s the security. The safety if knowing you’ll never have to worry about food or housing. That your parents and family will be well taken care of. Your children will be able to have it all, that you’ve set them up for success and they won’t have to struggle. It’s knowing that your best friend who was diagnosed with cancer will have the best care available, wherever that may be in the world, and won’t have to worry about food or housing or anything else while getting better.
You’re either too young to understand or are lacking in empathy.
I’m not saying being a billionaire isn’t inherently immoral. But the reason people take payouts like that are not solely down to greed.
I don’t quite understand. Are you saying it’s immoral to sell a business? Is it retiring that’s immoral? I didn’t say that everyone secretly anything, I just don’t understand why the hate.
Look, there’s no such thing as an ethical billionaire. I get that, and fully believe it. But I don’t get why people think “selling out” is a thing when it’s often basically short hand for “retiring and letting someone else make the money.”
It’s not immoral to sell a business but anybody who actually has or even founded one and has an intact moral compass would not sell in a way you described.
You have a responsibility for your customers and employees and you don’t just throw it into the dumpster like that because money isn’t everything.
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.
It’s a well travelled path for any company in the tech sphere. Start out as a disruptor and breath of fresh air in a stagnant industry and then slowly crank the dial toward enshittification over time hoping that the reputation you previously built will keep your customer base from jumping ship too quickly.
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.
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.
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.
Gmail really wasn’t any better than Hotmail at first, it was just that they gave you a huge (at the time) amount of storage, when Hotmail users regularly had to delete old mail or attachments.
Coding standards, library standards (stuff like naming conventions), software development processes, higher level software design concerns (for example, take in account the need for change in the future as part of a software design), design libraries taking in account extrenal concerns (say, how 3rd parties actually work with them) and so on.
It’s basically the next level from software design, which in turns is the next level from coding.
The most senior position one can have in the technical career track in programming is Technical Architect.
As far as I can tell, Google doesn’t really have any of those (or they’re not at all good at their job).
Having a dedicated technical architect who hovers above the dev team handing architectural decisions down is also not always seen as an ideal construct in software development.
If you have a technical architect who does that then they are just bad at their job, but that doesn’t invalidate the importance such a position can have (if done right) in a large software development company.
They probably do, but with how expansive they are, the massive variety of acquisitions, and not being clairvoyant, it’s gotta be like herding cats.
I’ve worked in tech companies (systems management, telecom, etc) and in conventional businesses (manufacturing, distributing, production, reselling, banking, etc).
The arch teams in conventional business are more structured, formalized, as their remit is to ensure infrastructure is stable, predictable, and to practically eliminate risk.
The tech companies have arch teams whose focus is interoperability between business units, high communication, maximize utilization, etc. Risk is still a concern, but it’s not primary (unless you fuck up). Tech orgs are about flexibility.
Notable: Google Home can no longer set timers and does not understand what “stop playing” means. It’s basically only usable for asking for music to be played since it has declined so heavily.
I just tried to reproduce your comment. Google home set a timer for me and play/paused my TV (chromecast with google tv) I don’t have streaming music to test it on. I do agree that the quality of Google home has gotten terrible though. It takes a lot more prompting to do simple things and has stopped some scheduling tasks as far as I can tell.
When I ask it to set a timer, it tells me that it doesn’t understand me. If I ask it to stop playing, it tells me that it doesn’t understand me. I have to just say “stop”. It also used to transfer whatever you were listening to between speakers, but cannot understand me anymore if I ask for that.
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.
I loved Google for so long, but they have really lost it. I switched back to Firefox last year as a meek sign of protest. My work still uses Gmail and my personal email is still Gmail, it’s gonna be rough to extricate myself. My fucking phone number is Google voice
“Don’t be evil”. Not-evil people don’t need to say such things.
That was a reference to Microsoft. They were on trial / convicted for abusing their monopoly in awful ways to screw over any potential competitors, and making the experience terrible for Microsoft users. As bad as Google might be today, they’re nowhere near as bad as Microsoft was. And, in the early years, they were definitely the anti-Microsoft in the tech world.
Who could’ve imagined that Google is becoming just as mediocre and boring as any other large corporation. What a surprise!
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.
Good luck.
Damn that sucks. I’ve been laid off before, and I was lucky enough to have a bunch of references and ins at other jobs right away.
Just keep making friends and building marketable skills on the company dime, is what I am doing anyway
Yes, I’m in no danger of being fired it doesn’t seem. I’ve been there 6 years and have an enormous amount of knowledge of our product and operations. And it was just a ‘verbal counseling’ (which is written down, sent to HR, and added to your record; totally verbal though). So I’ll just keep on project managing timelines and crap, and collecting my Pacheck. But now I have like 8 months of successful product management under my belt to add to the resume
I thought the same thing at 5 years, and everyone I heard from said it was a mistake to lay me off. Last I heard, my responsibilities were being split up between 3 people. On top of that I found out I was getting underpaid, so I was a good deal on top of that :p
Anyway despite all that, I still wasn’t part of whatever vision upper management had going forward, so they gave me a sweet severance and sent me on my way. I’m not mad, but it’s definitely made me careful not to expect my job to be safe.
Last time I was laid off it started with “we need to really nail down the docs for these systems”.
No one ever gives you extra time for documentation.
Like you, my responsibilities were split between 2 or 3 people.
I’ll never again do documentation that well. Fuck 'em. That’s not true - I will, for myself.
Those are really stupid managers.
If you don’t have docs it’s a tough competition between having your more knowledgeable devs re-explaining what they know X times to X new hires, or letting new devs figure it out on their own which is both costly in terms of their time and more importantly, risky as hell.
Bad managers love risk though. Since it usually is a choice between speed now and risk later, it only blows up in your face later, and quite spectacularly, and everyone looks like heroes while they are putting fires out on overtime.
That said good managers probably don’t tolerate that shit from bad managers under them and can sniff out a firefighter culture pretty quick.
I guess what I meant to say was, managers that value doc do exist. If they really do, they’ll let you know.
Yeah I can’t feel good about that kind of stuff anymore (it’s the same thing in my field with IaC - Infrastructure as Code). Even if I agree that these are good ideas, it all comes down to being able to treat workers like interchangeable cogs rather than people who can amass knowledge and expertise over time.
Then the dream: that you could sell an entire skeleton of a company with none of the old workers clinging to the bones, and another team of replaceable workers could just slot themselves in place and start making money for investors!
I’m not sure it’ll ever get that extreme, but it’s not ethics that is blocking it from happening, but material reality.
So yeah, fuck the docs.
I hadn’t considered the impact of IaC type things, but I can see bean counters thinking “well it’s documented, so any monkey will do”, without being able to quantify to lost time/opportunity cost when people have to fumble through.
In my case, I’m always thinking ahead, trying to see the ways our imperfect systems are going to be a problem, and at least consider high-level options for those things, or for directional change we may see.
I don’t make any plans, just some notes, in case any of those questions come up.
Someone unfamiliar with these systems will be in “fix” mode all the time, trying determine why something doesn’t work, and reading through docs trying to comprehend things.
I’m a big fan towards pushing for IaC and configuration as code too. What you have to do is also push for policy as code and finops too keep the managers and power point pushers on their toes too. At least it’s seemed to engender some empathy from some for me.
An interesting proposition, and one I’ll be thinking about for sure. Sadly we probably won’t ever get “VC as Code” hah so none of us are safe
I’ve watched entire teams of people with 15+ years at a company get decimated. All firedwith made-up BS. From director level down.
All because a bean counter told senior management they weren’t firing enough people (their firing stats were below some metric).
Maybe that’s because, somehow, you did a good job hiring and on boarding people?
Not for nothing, it doesn’t sound so successful.
Working with people is a very core skill. You suggest that this came out of the blue - but I would bet that there were a lot of missed signals on the way. Escalating straight to verbal warnings and demotion in role or responsibility means you’re missing something very fundamental in what wasn’t working or was missed.
deleted by creator
A few years ago the MBA suits took over from the nerds and it became inevitable.
I’m not sure the nerds ever really had the best intentions, so were probably really easy to buy off
TBH I don’t get why people criticize selling out as if they wouldn’t do it, too. I don’t want to sit and amass wealth indefinitely, if I have a company and someone comes along and offers “retire rich forever” money, I’m taking it and fucking off to somewhere fun. Especially if we’re talking billions, no one will ever hear my name again.
deleted by creator
It seems as though you underestimate the appeal of billions of dollars. It’s not just the ability to never have to work again. Or power, prestige or any other nonsense. Or even just having tons of money. It’s not greed that makes it appealing.
It’s the security. The safety if knowing you’ll never have to worry about food or housing. That your parents and family will be well taken care of. Your children will be able to have it all, that you’ve set them up for success and they won’t have to struggle. It’s knowing that your best friend who was diagnosed with cancer will have the best care available, wherever that may be in the world, and won’t have to worry about food or housing or anything else while getting better.
You’re either too young to understand or are lacking in empathy.
I’m not saying being a billionaire isn’t inherently immoral. But the reason people take payouts like that are not solely down to greed.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I don’t quite understand. Are you saying it’s immoral to sell a business? Is it retiring that’s immoral? I didn’t say that everyone secretly anything, I just don’t understand why the hate.
Look, there’s no such thing as an ethical billionaire. I get that, and fully believe it. But I don’t get why people think “selling out” is a thing when it’s often basically short hand for “retiring and letting someone else make the money.”
It’s not immoral to sell a business but anybody who actually has or even founded one and has an intact moral compass would not sell in a way you described.
You have a responsibility for your customers and employees and you don’t just throw it into the dumpster like that because money isn’t everything.
You’re kinda right but is there really a way to tell if someone who’s buying your business is going to do good or bad (except when selling to M$)?
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.
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
It be the age of pirates no morrre? Arr… :C
It’s a well travelled path for any company in the tech sphere. Start out as a disruptor and breath of fresh air in a stagnant industry and then slowly crank the dial toward enshittification over time hoping that the reputation you previously built will keep your customer base from jumping ship too quickly.
Unregulated capitalism ruins everything if given enough time.
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.
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.
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.
Oh yeah, I even forgot Google Video used to be a thing.
See List of mergers and acquisitions by Alphabet for the graveyard list. Sorting by Price helps. Some other notable companies that Google acquired rather than compete with:
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.
And they acquired it in the first place.
To their credit (or at least the Android team), they quickly moved it from Linux-on-a-handheld to a real thing.
Android still isn’t as polished as iOS, but it’s a far more capable system.
And that’s good. iOS has it’s place, as does Android.
Gmail really wasn’t any better than Hotmail at first, it was just that they gave you a huge (at the time) amount of storage, when Hotmail users regularly had to delete old mail or attachments.
What’s a technical architecture? Serious question.
Coding standards, library standards (stuff like naming conventions), software development processes, higher level software design concerns (for example, take in account the need for change in the future as part of a software design), design libraries taking in account extrenal concerns (say, how 3rd parties actually work with them) and so on.
It’s basically the next level from software design, which in turns is the next level from coding.
The most senior position one can have in the technical career track in programming is Technical Architect.
As far as I can tell, Google doesn’t really have any of those (or they’re not at all good at their job).
Having a dedicated technical architect who hovers above the dev team handing architectural decisions down is also not always seen as an ideal construct in software development.
It isn’t ideal because it slows the project down, which may be good if it reduces technical debt.
If you have a technical architect who does that then they are just bad at their job, but that doesn’t invalidate the importance such a position can have (if done right) in a large software development company.
They probably do, but with how expansive they are, the massive variety of acquisitions, and not being clairvoyant, it’s gotta be like herding cats.
I’ve worked in tech companies (systems management, telecom, etc) and in conventional businesses (manufacturing, distributing, production, reselling, banking, etc).
The arch teams in conventional business are more structured, formalized, as their remit is to ensure infrastructure is stable, predictable, and to practically eliminate risk.
The tech companies have arch teams whose focus is interoperability between business units, high communication, maximize utilization, etc. Risk is still a concern, but it’s not primary (unless you fuck up). Tech orgs are about flexibility.
Notable: Google Home can no longer set timers and does not understand what “stop playing” means. It’s basically only usable for asking for music to be played since it has declined so heavily.
I just tried to reproduce your comment. Google home set a timer for me and play/paused my TV (chromecast with google tv) I don’t have streaming music to test it on. I do agree that the quality of Google home has gotten terrible though. It takes a lot more prompting to do simple things and has stopped some scheduling tasks as far as I can tell.
When I ask it to set a timer, it tells me that it doesn’t understand me. If I ask it to stop playing, it tells me that it doesn’t understand me. I have to just say “stop”. It also used to transfer whatever you were listening to between speakers, but cannot understand me anymore if I ask for that.
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.
I loved Google for so long, but they have really lost it. I switched back to Firefox last year as a meek sign of protest. My work still uses Gmail and my personal email is still Gmail, it’s gonna be rough to extricate myself. My fucking phone number is Google voice
Yep. Gmail is the final piece for me. Everything else has been migrated at this point.
I will keep YouTube sadly. Sad because it’s Google.
“Becoming”?
“Don’t be evil”. Not-evil people don’t need to say such things.
Also, any large organization is a shit show, regardless of what it’s organized for. It’s the nature of humanity.
A (former) boss used to say “if you have 3 employees you have nine problems”.
They famously threw out “Don’t be evil” when they formed Alphabet, a move that was, I have to admit, surprisingly honest of them.
It was a Warrant Canary
That was a reference to Microsoft. They were on trial / convicted for abusing their monopoly in awful ways to screw over any potential competitors, and making the experience terrible for Microsoft users. As bad as Google might be today, they’re nowhere near as bad as Microsoft was. And, in the early years, they were definitely the anti-Microsoft in the tech world.