Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
Honestly, this is just big tech all over. I don't think there are many people that work at FAANG companies any more that feel things are better than they were even 3-4 years ago. They are no longer idealised, and CEO's have decided to take company failures out on employees instead of their inability to target long-term success. I've friends at Amazon, Google, and Apple - all say that their "culture" is basically dead.
IMO, we've reached a point where all of the big names in tech are now out of ideas. None of them have innovated in recent years, outside of (maybe) AI, and the culture of supporting moonshot ideas (where someone can work on something new/exciting and not be personally liable if it doesn't work out) is now dead with layoffs in these divisions. The only incentive that big tech has any more is pay, and with no long-term stability and pay decreasing over time, I think we'll see a shift away from FAANG and towards the new breed of tech. FAANG will become the IBM and Oracle's of tech, and things will move on.
Notable exception which must be mentioned is Facebook/Meta: their AR/VR plan is one gigantic moonshot. Whether it will pay off remains to be seen, and if it doesn't then obviously the thousands of people employed in that division won't be able to find a home in WhatsApp or whatever.
They aren't even out if ideas, it's management which demands safe ideas only with huge returns, so they block common sense shit because it doesn't boost the quarterly results
That's a symptom of capitalism as a whole.
The whole perpetual growth, and being legally bound to try to provide that to shareholders, means only "safe" ideas are given any traction.
The only time any "innovative" comes out is when billionaires have a pipe dream.
However, they lack the skills or expertise (or even common sense) to execute them.
Musk had ideas, bought his way into leadership, and essentially had to be corralled by handlers while other people did the actual hard work.
Then, at the platform formally known as Twitter, with no handlers... Well, the world has seen how an unleashed Musk handles that. Spoiler: not well.
They are no longer idealised, and CEO’s have decided to take company failures out on employees instead of their inability to target long-term success.
It is not CEO's inability (or at least not always). You cannot think long term when the only thing that matter is the next quarter result.
I've never heard of FAANG before. What is it?
It's shorthand for Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google.
Lost me completely at
Much of the criticism Google received around Chrome and Search, especially around supposed conflicts of interest with Ads, was way off base
Both are ad delivery services that sometimes do something slightly resembling benefiting the end user.
If not for near-monopoly market share and therefore everything being integrated with and "optimised" for both, nobody who cares enough to know would use that crap willingly.
If not for near-monopoly market share and therefore everything being integrated with and “optimised” for both, nobody who cares enough to know would use that crap willingly.
Chrome built its market share on desktop up over many many years.
I also think you're underestimating the number of people who couldn't care less if a company harvests their data for ad personalisation - by this point the majority of people understand Facebook's business strategy, but they still have over a billion users. The preferences of us terminally online folks are not the preferences of the population at large.
Chrome built its market share on desktop up over many many years.
Yes, by making the best product. Then once they'd achieved the market donination necessary to not lose everyone, they changed that product from optimised for best user experience to optimised for maximum ad revenue.
I also think you're underestimating the number of people who couldn't care less
No, I am aware that they're sadly the majority. Hence why I specifically said "anyone who cares enough to know better"
preferences of us terminally online folks are not the preferences of the population at large.
You don't have to be "terminally online" (which is a slur invented by the wilfully ignorant to denigrate people with different interests and priorities than them, no matter how much you try to reclaim it) to care about basic privacy rights, but yeah, that sentence is otherwise correct, as I said earlier.
This is exactly why I look at companies and corporations with a side-eye of doubt when they claim to have some sort of "do not be evil" motto baked into thier company culture.
It doesn't matter if a gigantic company has a hundred philanthropy focused CEOs, all ot takes is one greedy or evil one to destroy a company's dogma
After the investors, managers, and profiteers taste easy money, they will continue to demand to be fed that blood flavored stew.
Once that happens, they either need to be lobotomized or put down for the good of all lest those who are not in the know continue to put money into the frothing imitation it has become.
When I first heard Google's "don't be evil", all I could think is a not-evil person doesn't need to say this.
Google removed their "do no evil" slogan. That says a lot.
This is the behavior the maximizes short-term shareholder value, not building a long-term profitable, innovative enterprise. When some other company temporarily discovers a money spigot like Google did, there might be a brief resurgence of such an environment, but generally no one values or wants to protect innovation, as dollars are easily quantifiable and future potential is subjective. This is why 99% of the time people keep their head down and collect their paychecks.
Stock purchases should have a minimum investment period of like 5 years. Move the focus towards longer-term goals instead of quarterly profits.
Much of the criticism Google received around Chrome and Search, especially around supposed conflicts of interest with Ads, was way off base
Key word "was." The teams may not have had that intention, but they sure as fuck do now.
I don't know if I agree.
A lot of of this article is in a very familiar tone for "are we the baddies" corporate employees, and it's less a deterioration of conditions than a realization of ongoing facts.
The language is everywhere. "We made data-driven decisions" is a big red flag for me, for instance. It often translates to "we obsessed over a maximizing a single data point because we confirmation-biased it into a justification for the thing we wanted to do". Real data driven decisions are called science, and nobody in corporations has the time to do actual science, outside of hard research funding, which is not the case of building a UX toolset.
Likewise for his passing defense of tracking cookies or the lack of firewalls between search and ads. And how telling is it that he at one point defines the essence of "don't be evil" as "long term success at the cost of short term losses". That's not what that means.
It really does sound like the culture had convinced itself that it was working for "the greater good" as a strategy for long term success, but you hear the same thing from a lot of other large corporations. It mostly sounds like what actually changed for this guy to dislike Google is management style and working conditions. Which hey, sure, it's a part of it. But not what lies at the core of the issues. If you take short term losses for long term success you're just a corporation with a long term plan for growth, not a nice corporation. It's techbro speak and the attitude that has driven startups through the entirety of the VC-dominated era of business.
The degradation we see in Google is not triggered by a change of ethos, it's the chickens coming home to roost now that tech businesses are switching from a focus on growth to a focus on profit as the tech business ecosystem matures and free money goes away for a while.
I feel like a big part of the change was also due to the US mass surveillance, which became broadly known with the Snowden revelations in 2013.
Before 2013, you could genuinely claim that collecting as much data as possible, might be done with good intentions. Afterwards, collecting more data than necessary for a given task turned into a moral failure. Their whole business model, while it should have felt sketchy beforehand, turned evil over night.
And of course, Google employees weren't forced to reflect on that. The spotlight was on the US government. Everyone expected the US government to just stop with that shit, after they got caught. And well, they didn't. Obama even doubled down on it, Trump certainly didn't drain the swamp either and Biden probably wouldn't even think about it anymore, if the EU didn't constantly get its ass sued for exchanging data with US companies.
The more it became apparent that the US government wouldn't go back on that, and as people had ever more critical data of themselves online, the more the public perception of Google fell down a hole, even if as a Google employee you could still be doing the same things you did in 2005.
It's definitely not too late to heal Google. It would require some shake-up at the top of the company, moving the centre of power from the CFO's office back to someone with a clear long-term vision for how to use Google's extensive resources to deliver value to users.
Why would this happen though? The change the author is describing came from the company's shareholders and their desire for profit. Shareholders who have no connection to the core domains of Google, who vote for directors on the board that further profit extraction, who then maintain executive leadership who implements that. You have to convince those shareholders that they should want Google to focus on something other than profit maximization. But they don't understand you. They can dump Google's stock at a moment's notice. Why care about some long term profit when they can make it now and dump the stock as soon as it stops making it? And then, you can't even talk to them because you're sitting behind the exec layer and the board layer, both of which are shareholder creations. So you have to tightrope your exec team into believing you, then they have to tightrope the board, and then the board has to tightrope the shareholders. The odds are stacked against reversing course. If on the other hand you're not acting alone but you are the head of the union that can shutdown Google at a moment's notice, then not only you can talk to the exec layer, you don't have to tightrope while doing it. Better yet, you can simply broadcast your message and it's gonna hit the board and the shareholders directly. That's why I don't think Google can reverse course without a strong union. I think the incentives are simply not there.
Crazy how the declination in the office culture translates to such an obvious downturn from a public perspective as well.
creators made too much money and aren't involved in the work beyond demanding more money. MBAs just do what they do. Hire and fire isn't concerned with not being evil. They were always about indexing the internet. If you are on the internet you will be indexed, categorized and sold as data.
Thank you so much for sharing. I found the rest of this persons web content equally interesting, e.g. their CV. https://hixie.ch/