'Morale is at an all-time low': Ex-Googler writes scathing latter slamming layoffs and 'eroded' culture
businessinsider.com
'Morale is at an all-time low': Ex-Googler writes scathing latter slamming layoffs and 'eroded' culture::An ex-Googler wrote a 1,500-word letter criticizing the firm and CEO Sundar Pichai's lack of "visionary leadership."
You are viewing a single comment
Sundar Pichai has got to be the worst CEO in the silicon valley period
Google has managed to produce next to nothing of value with a dreamteam of engineers the likes of which no one else had access to
From one uninspired leadership decision to the next they've just been sitting there bolstering what's already there while every once in a while adding a new product to the Google graveyard
Google is one of the most engineer driven companies out there. Their engineers are simply massively overrated. A ton of leetcoder kiddies got into FAANG companies over the years and a lot of them are just plain shit as professional developers.
Edit: also the way they evaluate engineers drives them to create half-baked products that get abandoned. It's incredible how they still haven't figured out that people want stable, maintained products, not "innovation" that doesn't actually help anyone and never turns into a finished product.
Their hiring process is the reason why leetcoder kiddies get in there in the first place. 3 seperate coding rounds with questions not even related to the domain that you need to solve in a timer of 45 mins.
Yep. And they also used to do the stupid brain teaser stuff back in the day. That's what happens when you hire out of touch PhDs to design your hiring process instead of people with real world experience.
Nah this one is on the business bros who networked their way through an mba without learning anything.
Nope, Google hired a bunch of PhDs to design their hiring process years ago.
This has long been my impression. It’s a plaything for the “elite” engineers aka former children of wealthy people who grew up with tutors but never developed as people.
IRTc innovation, I’ve also long felt this way. There are so many good products out there but most seem like the software equivalent of As Seen on TV plastic crap that solves some problem that nobody has.
They did produce something of value, Stadia, but instead of investing in it further with some exclusive games to show off its capabilities and lure more people and developers in ... or just outright signing a deal to paying for the development cost to port some hits or Call of Duty to Stadia, they wrote it off, refunded everything, and shut it down.
It's a major fail, they tried next to nothing to fix their messaging issues, failed to invest in areas that would've made a difference, and didn't stick with it to challenge people's beliefs that Stadia was going to be shut down.
They should've:
Imagine if people literally just pressed a few buttons on their old gaming computer and suddenly could play a bunch of their steam library in the cloud with better graphics for free on any device they wanted. I can't imagine folks wouldn't have stuck around with that kind of a deal.
This would have given people confidence, but really doesn't reflect on Google as a whole, and just reinforces that they as a company will kill things at a moment's notice.
I think in addition to all your points, they could have distanced Stadia from Google, and announced a new gaming company under the Alphabet umbrella. The hardware bundles they were selling with Chromecasts probably wouldn't have been a thing, but I'm not sure if that would have been a bad thing. Having stadia as a completely separate entity from Google may have given it the breathing room it needed to get a good user base, without the stigma of google killing products.
I've typed up several replies to this but really, I think this is completely meaningless statement. It's a hypothetical example, and regardless of how it "reflects on Google", it would've addressed the concern and proved they were in it for the long-haul. Perception is reality and the perception of many was that Google is flaky.
You don't fix perception by pretending perception issues don't exist, you take actions that prove those perception issues either never were or no longer are valid concerns. Google making a promise like this would've worked towards that goal.
Maybe; ultimately I don't think this would've mattered much. Google is Alphabet's software tech company and YouTube integration and general Google Ecosystem integration were selling points. If they ever properly leveraged having the Google Assistant integrate into games (like they posed) that would've been a really cool feature.
I mean it tooks Stadia like 3 years to get a search bar. It screamed of a promising product that had a rocky launch, and rather than investing in it (ala No Man's Sky) they reduced it to a skeleton crew and went all shocked pikachu when that didn't result in something gamers embraced.
Sweetie, you don't just get heavy-hitting exclusives right out the gate.
In what world does Google shell out enough cash for a game that's so good it pulls people to Stadia when the developers can just sell their good game on already-proven platforms?
They'd have to make their own studio or contract it out. I never saw Google shelling out $50m for a AAA game, and small-time shit is stuff people can just get on their phones.
That's the point. They started their own game studio when Stadia was launched and shut it down about a year later.
They also paid a lot of money for some of the licenses they got in the early days of Stadia. And then someone a pay grade or two above decided to stop this and suffocate the little bit of momentum the platform had gained.
As a counter-point, what new services or products have any of the FAANG companies released that the average person uses, over the last few years?
Big tech was built on a handful of runaway successes, and building on moonshot ideas, allowing engineers to work on "the next big thing" without fear of liability.
Now, if it doesn't work, you get laid off. At least if you worked for a startup, you'd get enough equity to make a ton of money if it works out...
Pichal is shit, but so are Zuck, Tim Cook, Andy Jassy, and the two at the helm at Netflix.
You mean MAANA? I genuinely don't know why Netflix is included, it should just be MAAA...
Also Microsoft should really be in there somewhere.
Facebook: messenger for kids, which is messenger but with good parental controls. Believe me as a parent I want more products to look at this.
Also Threads. Jury's still out if it wins but it's a good product.
Netflix buying the long tail of excellent old Android Indie Games to offer as a platform benefit is a fun idea, jury's still out on that one too.
But imho the one that's winning at product development isn't faang, it's Microsoft.
Also Meta Horizon, which was a massive flop. And rebranding Oculus, tbf they are pushing innovation in the VR hardware space. But I don't want a whole load of Facebook controlled cameras in my house thank you.
Yup, he's the absolute worst. I can't think of a single product that Google has even improved during his tenure as CEO... let alone a product that he successfully launched on his own. All he can do is make existing products more expensive.
Look at how he completely lost his shit when chatgpt was released - probably a huge part of the reason he lost it is cause he realized he'd have to actually do something useful instead of just squeezing more blood from the collective stone of all Google's existing products. His claim to fame is creating Chrome. What fucking good is that? Web browsers have existed since the time he was born. There's nothing to innovate there, and there never has been. It's clear: he's not an innovator.
Whoever takes over after he's gone is going to be in for a hell of a time. The only thing he's created for Google is a shit-ton of anti-trust lawsuits. The company is an empty husk at this point. There's nothing left for them to become.
From a shareholder's perspective, which is the only perspective C suite executives care about, he's been the best CEO of all time for Google.
Sure, in the short term. I've switched to DDG and I'm not getting another Pixel when I need a new phone, and hoards of tech savvy people are feeling the same way. Dissatisfaction is causing them to lose customers and talent.
Eventually, they'll start feeling it in their bottom line. And by then it might be too late to change course.
When you're ready for a new phone, check out the Fairphone! I got that with CalyxOS. Works and feels just like Pixel, but super private 👍
Fairphone is amazing but will they ever launch outside of the EU?
Not sure where you're located but I live in the USA and have it. I just ordered the phone int and then signed up with a US carrier.
Has he increased short term profitability?
Google became Apple
Was GO made during Pichai's tenure? I don't use GO but apparently they got the guy who wrote C on it so...?
No, Go dates back to when Eric Schmidt was running things.