"The problem is that there aren't many other options. Google is evil, Facebook is evil, Apple is evil if you care about open hardware, Microsoft is too stupid to be evil but might at some point become evil again, and Amazon is probably evil and may or may not treat it's employees like shit depending on who you ask. At some point, you have to put food on the table."
He is speaking as if there were only 4 or 5 technology companies working for in the whole world.
No, he realizes there are many other companies. His (possibly weak) argument is that unless you work for one of the five companies listed, you might suddenly find yourself working for one of those big five upon acquisition:
"This worries me deeply, because as these companies get larger and larger, they eat up all the other sources of employment. Working at a startup that isn't one of the big 5 won't help if it gets bought out next month."
Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft are the “Ivy League” companies. They are high ROI, you will work with a selective group of peers, these peers will remain an important part of your network after you “graduate”, and putting Apple etc. on your resume will make you eminently hirable or foundable.
I know this list of companies from constant press exposure. I know this list of benefits from having gone to Apple from my (state) college, seeing the effect this has had on my career and opportunities, and comparing experiences with colleagues who went to name-brand schools.
Is there a comparable list for non-profits and social purpose and benefit organizations?
If someone wants to maximize their earnings, peer quality, technical challenge, and impact, they know where to turn. If they want to maximize their social impact instead of earnings, while still working on challenging problems with quality peers, the mainstream and technology media aren't giving them this guidance. Is there a guide for this?
IWBNI the decision process for working on positive impact projects were easier than deciding to work for profit, given that one has to take a salary hit to do the former. (And maybe it is, and I just don't know where to advise that someone look.)
During the nineties, plenty of people thought Microsoft did plenty of evil things. Truly evil things, so I'm not sure the argument that Microsoft is incompetent, instead of evil, is very persusasive.
An outsider often sees evil where an insider sees good reasons.
He didn't say that Microsoft had never done anything evil, he said they hadn't done anything evil while he was at Microsoft. In fact, he said this:
This is evil. This is horrifying. This is the kind of stuff Microsoft did in the 90s that made everyone hate it so much they still have to fight against the repercussions of decisions made two decades ago because of the sheer amount of damage they did and lives they ruined.
Being that Windows 10 is such a huge pile of shit, I'd say Microsoft has never learned its lesson and never will. The OSes seem to be "occasional success" with a lot of awful failures.
Power once gained tends to be used. Google makes a lot of money, that translates into a lot of power, and that is going to be used to the advantage of Google's stakeholders, whether in soft ways or hard. That's not to say that all big and powerful companies do really obnoxious things. There are definitely differences between the morally compromised and the truly evil. But the tendency is toward worse, not better.
If you have a problem with that, you need to find an employer that is on the smaller side or in a market where there are lots of competitors. That way, the company just can't push around others all that much. But a company like that is probably running on very lean margins, so it can't afford to be generous to its employees.
> ...that is going to be used to the advantage of Google's stakeholders...
Except the censorship things Google is doing aren't in the best interest of the stockholders. Various stakeholders (senior level execs) may be interested in censoring people, but those interests are at odds with being a politically boring company that uses its marketing muscles to sell its products.
"I quit right before Windows 10 came out because I knew it was going to be a disaster."
What? This does not make much sense. The post, as a whole, reads immaturely. Microsoft also may have missed market opportunities, but to call the entire company and its employees incompetent is quite the claim to make. If he truly believes that, I fear there is no company that is moral, ethical, or full of enough smart employees to be deemed worthy of his talent. I hope he is working on being a capable entrepreneur, in this case.
Well they can take you for a one month long intensive recruitment ride only to dismiss you with a false negative (they can afford it on all fronts). At the end of the day Google is just an ad company. Everyone hates ads. I don't claim to be above it and if I had a serious offer from Google I would consider it, but it ceased to be my dream or even a goal long time ago.
BTW The corporate promotion of multiculturalism and sexual minorities has very primitive motivation. It just happens that most of the cheap workforce is mostly male, from various south Asian regions, plus there is justified black guilt in the Anglosphere. The cheap workforce has to be agreeable and inner fights or conflicts are undesired.
This seems like a really weird stretch, included to justify the narrative of the "big 5" being evil. Apple not caring about open hardware isn't evil. That's kind of like saying Starbucks is evil because they don't care about non-coffee-based energy drinks.
> Microsoft is too stupid to be evil but might at some point become evil again
But unfortunately by this point it's beyond dispute that Google has engaged in some seriously questionable behavior, on ethical fronts -- such that to refer to this conduct as a serious "mistakes" smacks of denial, or whitewashing.
I share some reservations with the author of this post but this reads like a rambling rant more than a coherent piece of thought.
I don't want to work for companies where the toxicity permeates through the culture, and I assume that that feeling is close to how the author feels when he mentions now wanting to work for "evil" companies.
But the fact is that whole institutions aren't really evil or good - they are merely reflections of the people who are incharge of them at that moment. You can see that in any company that has gone through massive managerial changes - the company's culture & outlook has changed with them. Microsoft is the most prominent example of that.
So is Google evil or is it just that its policies as dictated by the current managerial top layer contradicts with your morality?
I guess any sufficiently large company will quickly start pushing the boundaries of ethics just by the virtue of being powerful enough to influence other people.
To avoid working at such companies you can always choose to work at the second fiddle tech shops - which provide just as much of an engineering competence (if that is what you care about primarily) without the power of influencing policies. Then you can be sufficiently happy.
Also it is hilarious to talk about putting food on the table at this day and age - yes compensation between companies can heavily vary but even a moderately competent software developer today makes more than they need just to make ends meet.
I also used to want to work for Google, but for a different reason. Early in college, I had read the original Google whitepaper from the 90's, and I had a view of google doing lots of cool tech work and lots of open, beneficial research. I viewed them as a positive force on the industry.
Then, senior year, I ended up flying out to California for an onsite interview. The all day event included meeting many people for interviews, tours, and discussions. Not a single one was doing open research, or Android development, or anything similar.
They were all directly, or at least moderately involved, with Building and targeting ads "better".
That shattered my world view. I had always viewed working for large companies as a positive thing, a protective and supportive environment that could afford to invest in employees and their future and work with them to improve lives.
Nope, every member of google was a cog to either squeeze more ad revenue out of the world, or burn money to push their ad infrastructure into other markets.
The amount of money Google makes is mind numbing, and it nearly all comes from selling space on infrastructure for programs and software whose core design is to convince you to spend money, no exception.
The amount of money spent all around me every day just to attempt to bend my will, to convince me to spend my hard earned dollars on this or that, utterly terrifies me.
You've got lucky. Android catches up with internal Windows dev nowadays. Last time I met with Google engineers, they told me Android team was always on fire because of target release dates, infinite bug backlog and other similar stuff.
> This is evil. (...) This is the kind of stuff Microsoft did in the 90s
and
> at no point did I think Microsoft was doing something evil
It honestly seems like the author is lacking empathy and looking for a way to justify going back to Microsoft.
I sympathize with his point that Google seems to be doing many things that aren't "good" but outright calling the entire company "evil" is not productive.
And I also turned down an offer from them, in part from the increased focus on share value, but I don't consider them outright evil. Companies are complex and should never just be reduced to "evil".
All those companies named there can be considered "evil"(operating with their interest in mind) in one way or the other and yes Amazon is. They stopped selling the Chromecast and Apple TV because it competed with its own product, the FireTV.
If Google decided to pull all Amazon's apps that competed with its own in the Play Store people would have been running around with their pitch fork at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway.
People sometimes also dont care to work for a company because of the company's altruistic nature but for "selfish" reasons like, the prestige, paycheck and perks.
There are non profits for those who care solely for this kind of thing.
I am not condoning or criticizing people for working wherever they please but not everyone wants the same thing.
At this point, the large compensation package offered at these places is starting to look like hush money to keep your mouth shut and to turn a blind eye towards anything that looks from the outside like some kind of systematic manipulation (e.g. of public opinion, suppression of disconcerting viewpoints).
Agree or disagree with his reasoning, but this is the crux:
> This is the kind of stuff Microsoft did in the 90s that made everyone hate it so much they still have to fight against the repercussions of decisions made two decades ago...
The grumblings that, only a year ago, were reserved for the hardliners have now started to gain steam amongst the general in-the-know developer population.
Soon, technologists will start thinking of alternates to Google when choosing what products and APIs to use. Eventually whole companies will sprout up just to provide competitive products that only serve the need of not being in the Google ecosystem.
They fucked us on GWT, they fucked us on Angular 1 -> 2. I'm done. I got off of GMail two weeks ago, got Brave browser, am getting my shit out of Docs. I can use someone else's maps. I still may have to have an Android phone because it's a tossup between Apple & Google which one is more fucking stupid.
Why was this post flagged? Yes it's a bit of a rant, but overall the topic is definitely valid. And most of the author's basic observations (if not his overly charged moral characterizations) seem reasonably valid, also.
38 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 43.1 ms ] threadHe is speaking as if there were only 4 or 5 technology companies working for in the whole world.
"This worries me deeply, because as these companies get larger and larger, they eat up all the other sources of employment. Working at a startup that isn't one of the big 5 won't help if it gets bought out next month."
I know this list of companies from constant press exposure. I know this list of benefits from having gone to Apple from my (state) college, seeing the effect this has had on my career and opportunities, and comparing experiences with colleagues who went to name-brand schools.
Is there a comparable list for non-profits and social purpose and benefit organizations?
If someone wants to maximize their earnings, peer quality, technical challenge, and impact, they know where to turn. If they want to maximize their social impact instead of earnings, while still working on challenging problems with quality peers, the mainstream and technology media aren't giving them this guidance. Is there a guide for this?
IWBNI the decision process for working on positive impact projects were easier than deciding to work for profit, given that one has to take a salary hit to do the former. (And maybe it is, and I just don't know where to advise that someone look.)
“There's a reason they call it compensation.”
An outsider often sees evil where an insider sees good reasons.
This is evil. This is horrifying. This is the kind of stuff Microsoft did in the 90s that made everyone hate it so much they still have to fight against the repercussions of decisions made two decades ago because of the sheer amount of damage they did and lives they ruined.
If you have a problem with that, you need to find an employer that is on the smaller side or in a market where there are lots of competitors. That way, the company just can't push around others all that much. But a company like that is probably running on very lean margins, so it can't afford to be generous to its employees.
Except the censorship things Google is doing aren't in the best interest of the stockholders. Various stakeholders (senior level execs) may be interested in censoring people, but those interests are at odds with being a politically boring company that uses its marketing muscles to sell its products.
What? This does not make much sense. The post, as a whole, reads immaturely. Microsoft also may have missed market opportunities, but to call the entire company and its employees incompetent is quite the claim to make. If he truly believes that, I fear there is no company that is moral, ethical, or full of enough smart employees to be deemed worthy of his talent. I hope he is working on being a capable entrepreneur, in this case.
They force-upgraded millions of PCs without even the thinnest veneer of opt-in. If I did what they did I'd be charged with a felony and go to prison.
BTW The corporate promotion of multiculturalism and sexual minorities has very primitive motivation. It just happens that most of the cheap workforce is mostly male, from various south Asian regions, plus there is justified black guilt in the Anglosphere. The cheap workforce has to be agreeable and inner fights or conflicts are undesired.
This seems like a really weird stretch, included to justify the narrative of the "big 5" being evil. Apple not caring about open hardware isn't evil. That's kind of like saying Starbucks is evil because they don't care about non-coffee-based energy drinks.
> Microsoft is too stupid to be evil but might at some point become evil again
This is less of a stretch, but still pretty weak.
I feel sorry for Google employees.
Only making 120k and having to go into an office with a hundred distractions.
Much better to make 170k and 100% remote without being treated like a child.
I already have a mother and dont need my lunches prepared for me, toys left around and fucking napping pods and slides.
You're a grown fucking adult.
Google has made mistakes and will continue to make mistakes. Evil? Nah.
But unfortunately by this point it's beyond dispute that Google has engaged in some seriously questionable behavior, on ethical fronts -- such that to refer to this conduct as a serious "mistakes" smacks of denial, or whitewashing.
I don't want to work for companies where the toxicity permeates through the culture, and I assume that that feeling is close to how the author feels when he mentions now wanting to work for "evil" companies.
But the fact is that whole institutions aren't really evil or good - they are merely reflections of the people who are incharge of them at that moment. You can see that in any company that has gone through massive managerial changes - the company's culture & outlook has changed with them. Microsoft is the most prominent example of that.
So is Google evil or is it just that its policies as dictated by the current managerial top layer contradicts with your morality?
I guess any sufficiently large company will quickly start pushing the boundaries of ethics just by the virtue of being powerful enough to influence other people.
To avoid working at such companies you can always choose to work at the second fiddle tech shops - which provide just as much of an engineering competence (if that is what you care about primarily) without the power of influencing policies. Then you can be sufficiently happy.
Also it is hilarious to talk about putting food on the table at this day and age - yes compensation between companies can heavily vary but even a moderately competent software developer today makes more than they need just to make ends meet.
Then, senior year, I ended up flying out to California for an onsite interview. The all day event included meeting many people for interviews, tours, and discussions. Not a single one was doing open research, or Android development, or anything similar.
They were all directly, or at least moderately involved, with Building and targeting ads "better".
That shattered my world view. I had always viewed working for large companies as a positive thing, a protective and supportive environment that could afford to invest in employees and their future and work with them to improve lives.
Nope, every member of google was a cog to either squeeze more ad revenue out of the world, or burn money to push their ad infrastructure into other markets.
The amount of money Google makes is mind numbing, and it nearly all comes from selling space on infrastructure for programs and software whose core design is to convince you to spend money, no exception.
The amount of money spent all around me every day just to attempt to bend my will, to convince me to spend my hard earned dollars on this or that, utterly terrifies me.
You've got lucky. Android catches up with internal Windows dev nowadays. Last time I met with Google engineers, they told me Android team was always on fire because of target release dates, infinite bug backlog and other similar stuff.
and
> at no point did I think Microsoft was doing something evil
It honestly seems like the author is lacking empathy and looking for a way to justify going back to Microsoft.
I sympathize with his point that Google seems to be doing many things that aren't "good" but outright calling the entire company "evil" is not productive.
And I also turned down an offer from them, in part from the increased focus on share value, but I don't consider them outright evil. Companies are complex and should never just be reduced to "evil".
If Google decided to pull all Amazon's apps that competed with its own in the Play Store people would have been running around with their pitch fork at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway.
People sometimes also dont care to work for a company because of the company's altruistic nature but for "selfish" reasons like, the prestige, paycheck and perks. There are non profits for those who care solely for this kind of thing.
I am not condoning or criticizing people for working wherever they please but not everyone wants the same thing.
> This is the kind of stuff Microsoft did in the 90s that made everyone hate it so much they still have to fight against the repercussions of decisions made two decades ago...
The grumblings that, only a year ago, were reserved for the hardliners have now started to gain steam amongst the general in-the-know developer population.
Soon, technologists will start thinking of alternates to Google when choosing what products and APIs to use. Eventually whole companies will sprout up just to provide competitive products that only serve the need of not being in the Google ecosystem.
It's the circle of life.
The post is so over-the-top inflammatory I can't take anything seriously. That's what people are likely reacting to.