624
Google workers complain bosses are 'inept' and 'glassy-eyed'
(www.sfgate.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
624 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
59710 readers
1826 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.