Ask HN: Why the Google Hate?
So I recently graduated from college and joined Google in NYC. I considered going the startup route, but instead chose to apply to big companies based on my short-term financial goals and the rationale that once I paid off my (small) student loan debt, I can go on and join or start a startup without sacrificing financial stability in the short term. Besides, the work lines up wonderfully with my studies and skillset.
Since I've joined, I've noticed people seem to have a particular... attitude towards Google employees. Many of my friends went to work at startups, and they've become somewhat chilly. I've learned to avoid bringing up my employer's name at certain meetups because I've noticed people being visibly turned off by me when I mention it.
What I'd like to know is: why? As someone with little experience in this market, I'm a little uncertain as to what might cause such a reaction.
20 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 52.0 ms ] threadI'd think it's probably a mix of envy (we all know Google pays well, offers great perks and benefits, looks good on a CV, etc.), and maybe fear - Google controls/funnels so much of how people interact with the web today, as a start-up you have to a) stay in their good graces and b) hope they don't come in to your start-up's space and stomp on you.
Oh, and hope - to be bought by Google if your start-up's product is compelling enough ;)
You are probably employee #sixdigits counting everyone who's no longer employed and #50000-and-something for current employees and that just isn't as prestigious even if their standards haven't changed.
They make a lot of unpopular decisions - most things with google plus, no more free google apps with your own domain, significantly changing app engine pricing, reader and the long list of other dead services that collectively spell "be careful" even to their most vocal fans - the tech industry who made god knows how many millions pandering to Google and Google fans openly mocked Keep's launch!
To counter that they offer perks and they work on some really cool stuff and they still have a reputation for hiring smart people ... but all of that is normal for any startup today.
I would guess (but don't know) that a similar transition happened for HP, IBM, Oracle, Sun, Microsoft, PayPal, eBay etc as well when they finished puberty. I would be somewhere between indifferent and disappointed if one of my friends settled for a job at any of those companies.
It's great if it's your dream though.
I think this is emblematic of what I'm encountering: Joining Google is "settling." When I was in college, Google was at its peak, and I was very attracted to Google both because of the amazing work it did and the deep technical challenges it solved.
What I'm concerned with today is that, due to whatever cause, Google fatigue is needlessly costing me friends and respect. I don't think of myself as a Google employee, I see myself as an educated, capable engineer who happens to work for Google at the moment. I have actually received disrespect in social settings for this. Why do people take PR missteps and apply them to me as a professional?
While google makes very public, very loud decisions that people dislike you're going to be held accountable for it. Their decisions impact 100,000,000s of people, the ones you know are going to bust your balls for it.
Anyone who literally doesn't want to be your friend because you work at Google is a douche.
In the 90s, people felt exactly this way about Microsoft. Part of it is simply market strength and longevity. Like the Yankees, people just get tired of always seeing and hearing about Google.
A lot of people have issues with Google's business policies. Very little human support, even for paying customers. Websites that rely on Google's traffic both fear and are frustrated by Google's (unintentional) power over their business, and this includes many startups.
Some people are unhappy with Google's recent moves, including a lot of former employees. The new focus on Google+ and sunsetting of several products has alienated some people who are concerned about Google's identity and goals.
Lastly, some people feel that Google's employees tend to be either arrogant or naive. It's important to realize that people have developed these strong feelings over many years by interacting with Google's products, so when employees assume that Google is great and "would never do anything to hurt small companies" or something like that, it angers people who feel like they have personally experienced just that.
I certainly don't believe most of these concerns are valid or judged by the same standards any other company would have, but that is the nature of being a for-profit company so central to the workings of the Internet.
The bottom line is, people have fallen out of love with Google because Google is no longer different. They're on the path to becoming a new Microsoft. (Heck, they basically had a freebie with something as neat as Google Glass and they even fucked that up. Just wow. Let's award it to Newt Gingrich and the guy who joked about cutting himself with it. Good job Google. Good job. )
By "people" do you mean the absolute height of the technological elite? The startup-founding, meetup-attending, venture capital funding-acquiring geniuses that apparently make the tech world go round? In that case, yes, Google is no longer the darling of the tech world, but rather just another large, profitable business with a solid bottom line and a horde of (presumably gullible) employees. To them, my working there is a sign that I'm too risk-averse and boring to ever be successful in their little patch of the knowledge economy.
But to the people who matter most, i.e. the people who interact with the mass of products Google puts out, the company is still quite positive. I find it difficult to believe that such intelligent people as the technorati are willing to lose faith in any company that does meaningful work that positively impacts massive amounts of people.
I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely trying to understand this. Is it the search for novelty? Is it the loss of connection to some ideal? Is it just part of a company growing up?
No not at all! Actually, I'd say those that I respect for their technical ability still respect Google the most, but even their attitudes are less positive than they were.
I'm not saying anyone is burning-down-buildings mad, but that they are keeping their eyes open for other things. That's all. Even the non-technical. Especially the non-technical.
> Is it the search for novelty?
I'm not sure. My gut is to say "No." to that because it doesn't seem like people are currently craving novelty, but rather bored with Google for doing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yet_another way of doing something they already have installed. Be it Google Keep in the Play store or Google Offers copying Groupon years ago.
ABC News/Wash Post poll on most favorable tech brands: http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1127a22FavorabilityNo2...
In the context of this site, commenters tend to use the word "people" when referencing a relatively narrow swath of early adopters and influencers. It doesn't usually mean "normals" who really don't know the difference between a browser, a search engine, and "the Internet". The problem is, normals look to influencers to help them decipher the Interweb, and meanwhile Google's been ramming itself down both groups' throats. Consider the Google+ (tech influencers) and YouTube (millennial influencers) real names policies. Neither group is a fan, and sees it as pandering to marketing interests.
And there's your answer. You joined up in the old Doubleclick building, so you know ad revenue powers the ship. When Google seemed to use that revenue to not be evil, to support 20% time and innovate recklessly, spawning tools that subsets of influencers could love and rave about -- even with the beta label and no support, it worked. When it started to come across more cynically, killing "Labs", killing people's pet Google products, taking away "free" and dumping the beta labels without adding a human face of support, it's bound to cause some eye opening to what Google's real business is: not a toy factory, but an ad revenue engine.
It's part of the company growing up, but doesn't have to be. I would argue the company could still easily tweak its image back towards altruism even at the expense of some revenue. Pursue a little more karma than klout to avoid embarrassments like the Google Glass selection.
Sustain information organizing products genuinely, not cynically. Have a soul.
Whay exactly do they say ? just curious.
I definitely get that, and I do sometime think that the safety of working at a place like Google is addictive, but on the other hand, I'm basically a child in this market. I've almost never worked on anything for more than the two weeks it takes to complete a school project. If I were to go out and work at a startup and get saturated with the "disregard quality, acquire technical debt" mentality, I'd never become a respectable engineer.
I don't want to be mocked because I value technical experience over adventure.
Suffocating industries with verticals, with poor /no support and then moating, (Think local search and Yelp/online Yellow Pages").
The Binghoo vs. Google pissing contest, (They both look like bullies).
Hijacking loans, mortgages, credit cards, new cars, (and other 'big ticket' items) with aggregated results yet cracking down on aggregators algorithmically in core organic claiming it's not good for the user, (Double standards).
G +... fake numbers they are throwing around when they've clearly strong armed users and 'advertisers' such as the Google Places migration.
Google reader...
Lots more, but generally it's the "Do no evil" BS. Where folks feel hoodwinked into believing G was anything more than a money making machine, even at the cost of their own integrity.
I blame Mayer for the mess in search and Schmidt for the borg like focus on $$$ and social, at any cost.
Why? I'm not sure. I guess Google, to me, used to be about pushing what's possible. With each service, Google created something that surprised and impressed me.
Lately, everything they do seems to be rooted in aggressive data mining and advertising. Google is almost psychotic in controlling users for data. They feel threatened by Facebook, enough to force and wedge everything into Google+. What does Google even know about social? Why would they feel the need to move into that area?
Google can't seem to make up their mind on what services they feel like running. It's not just Reader, although that was the final straw for many. Over 40 services[1] have been axed by Google so far. How many more? Can anyone rely on Google for anything, and when they neglect services millions rely on AND host them for free, how can one realistically compete?
Is Google+ just yet another 'this is how to do something' - like Wave was? Just a demo. Just a way to 'kickstart' innovation in something? Now look Google Glass - is it really an innovation to help us or is it just yet another front for data mining? Makes you wonder doesn't it, if Google cares so much about data why they cancel so many services.
Google have an overall terrible attitude which I only feel is getting worse. I no longer trust them with my privacy, which is why I'm migrating almost all my online services to ones hosted on my own server - At-least then I can stay away from the ever prying eyes of Google.
[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/map_of_the_week/201...
Yes.
My personal pet peeve is when Google breaks search results links for the sake of data mining. Search results links often now no longer give the destination site, but some awful URL like:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&#...
This neither improves the web nor helps me organize information. Of course the SER offers a partial link shown in green, but I can't single click copy it, and if I swipe and copy, it doesn't have the protocol.
Worse is that the titleless garbage URL goes into Safari's web browsing History, and when after reading several results I want to go back to one, I cannot figure out which is the article I liked, because there's no title in my history:
http://i.imgur.com/ogJnx6B.png
This is breaking my web. Aside from being broken in my history so I can't tell which of 15 visited results is which, I also cannot even see, months from now when I run the same search, which I've visited before.
This redirect counter URL is incredibly useful for "aggressive data mining and marketing", but is so anti-user that it has managed to change my behavior from accepting my default browser search configuration to manually spending the time to change it to something not broken -- and tell other people how to change theirs as well.
Now, when I'm researching something I know I've researched before, when I want to see visited sites as visited and want to end up with site titles in my history, I use Duck Duck Go (or even Bing!), so at least I can see what I've visited:
DDG: http://i.imgur.com/mj5c5Gt.png / Bing: http://i.imgur.com/xzBCK4Z.png
To anyone who uses Safari and wants to expand their "Omni" bar beyond the Googleplex, check out http://safarikeywordsearch.aurlien.net. After installing, right click the page, choose Keyword Search Settings, select a different search engine (d for Duck Duck Go), and set it as default.
This is how Google being "evil" influences an influencer to influence others.
// The SER are not always broken. Sometimes links are left alone. The behavior changed on me during this post, and at the moment, all links after the first are normal. Unpredictability is itself disconcerting, making users lose trust.
I wish Google would use the ping attribute on <a> but that's too easy to disable.
I agree largely with lubujackson and cupcake_death. It really stems from Google's scrappy startup persona at the beginning and their new corporate goals. Anyone can tell that Google is taking more and more space on the search result pages for themselves using design tricks to add spacing, barely highlight the ads at the top, and even going so far as to build their own vertical search engines in the shopping and travel spaces and then inserting them at the top (to be fair Bing does this to an extent as well) pushing other websites down the page where users barely look.
Google claims these moves are in a users best interest, however, when they came online in 2000 the drumbeat was far different and the best interest was to serve up applicable websites. It seems they are slowly pushing towards a 'google knows best' world where "I'm feeling lucky" is eventually replaced with "this is 100% exactly your answer" and there is little need to go anywhere else.
The pushing of Google+ has not helped their persona any. From seemingly pointless integration with Android and YouTube to forced (and very broken) usage of Google+ Local by small businesses and let's not forget that AuthorRank could EASILY have been a partnership with other social media websites but Google decided to force it on Google+ only and then made it a ranking factor (so use it or lose traffic) which is resulting in some spammy queries as shown here: https://twitter.com/YoungbloodJoe/status/318834815837290497/...
Combine all of that with Google's killing off of beloved products, and making some free products paid only (Google apps) and you get many who are fast to wake up and smell the new order of things like smelling salts shoved under our noses. It should be clear that Google is now a pure wall street business and their core focus is no longer serving up the best search results in the form of webpages, but continuing to find ways to increase revenue from their single largest source of income, Google web search.
For some there is a bit of dissonance. For example, loving Android but getting fed up with how Google might treat a small business through their broken local system, or wanting to see the future of the Google self-driving car, but suddenly being aware of Google's growing governmental ties and seemingly lack of caring about privacy protection for some. In a recent interview with Reuters Vince Cerf, a Google Executive, was quote as saying "Google should not force internet users to use their real names" but then went on to say that Google is not forcing anyone to use a real name to use Google services and that users have a "choice" however, he clarifies that users under oppressive regimes seem to get a pass more than those in say the USA,Canada, or the UK. All of this while Google gets nice and cozy with the USA's "National Strategies for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" a program that seeks to identify everyone online. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/google-services-not-require-real-na...
side note: Google is not the only one chasing after a day when Anonymity is dead: http://wrightimc.com/blog/2013/03/04/the-death-of-the-anonym...
Finally there's the matter that Google has been much more of a copycat in recent years than an innovator. Google's business model works like this: If it's really popular and a solid brand name, make a ridiculous offer to acquire the company. If not, build your own free version and use the power of the Google homepage / search results / Android / YouTube to push your new version. If successful in either capacity wait until competitors die off, then add lots of advertising/monetize in other...
Personally I have lost some enthusiasm with Google because of some of the bugs I see in their software. My Google Account was created in the UK, but I now live in Switzerland - when I visit Google Maps I get a mixture of English and a different language e.g. "Maletgs". No-one at Google seems contactable to solve this - I have posted to the Google Group (another shambolic piece of software - dejanews minus the spam was better IMO) and nothing happens. I have one Google Apps account with my domain and one other Google account. Yesterday I tried signing into gmail and it told me both accounts were active - there was no sign out button. But when I logged in it just kept reloading the same page without any error. So I was stuck. Eventually I loaded plus.google.com where there was a sign out button.
Some of Google's software is becoming super frustrating IMO - but I guess this happens in many places, when it stops being new software and is (effectively) legacy software that's hard to maintain.