this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
572 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

72828 readers
2744 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] datendefekt@lemmy.ml 199 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Who could've imagined that Google is becoming just as mediocre and boring as any other large corporation. What a surprise!

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago

A few years ago the MBA suits took over from the nerds and it became inevitable.

[–] Psyduck_world@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I am old enough to remember that Apple was the pirate of Silicon Valley, and then it became the most “cooperation” company in the industry. Then it’s Google then there will be a next one. It’s probably inevitable for any company to go this route.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

It's cute that you think any new corporation of that calibre will be born in near future. It will get bought out before that happens

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] psivchaz@reddthat.com 52 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] baltakatei@sopuli.xyz 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't pinpoint exactly when the fall started.

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.

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, I even forgot Google Video used to be a thing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Android started as trash

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] stoly@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It became this in approximately 2009 - 2010, around when the founders left and the business bros took over. We've been seeing the slow decline since then, though it may be accelerating now.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] charonn0@startrek.website 173 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

The Verge reported that CEO Sundar Pichai defended the layoffs and claimed that workers sometimes reach out to express gratitude for the cuts. “And I just want to clarify that, through these changes, people feel it on the ground and sometimes people write back and say, ‘Thank you for simplifying.’ Sometimes we have a complicated, duplicative structure,” he said, per the Verge.

Chalmers: People send thank you's for lay offs?

Pichai: Yes.

Chalmers: May I see one?

Pichai: No.

[–] sundray@lemmus.org 53 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  1. Who writes an email directly to the CEO of their company, and
  2. Who would that email have to be from for the CEO to actually bother reading it?

I'm guessing it's not your rank-and-file type "people".

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 22 points 1 year ago

Managers from unaffected departments who are glad they have less internal competition. And that's pretty much it.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Certainly only certain people have email addresses that can even send to his inbox. Everyone else would be blocked.

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"This is a conversation I could imagine happening if I spoke to my employees directly, and that's as good as an actual conversation."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Delta_V@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

"a lot of people are saying" = the voices in my head are telling me

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ohlaph@lemmy.world 97 points 1 year ago

Layoffs will continue until morale improves.

[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 94 points 1 year ago

This has been a huge problem for Google for several years now. Under Sundar, Google implemented several regressive "un-Google" policies like Unregretted Attrition (URA) to reduce worker numbers, shifting responsibility to managers and senior leadership to determine technical vision, and promoting people who are solely focused on "empire building" over delivering the best products. The result is a management-heavy structure where policies like "put AI in everything" and "display more ads" are likely to be a business driver over making the best products.

[–] psychothumbs@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is why companies should be run by their workers. Even places that start out with a good culture get taken over by the business school blob whose only job is to get promoted and loot the company.

[–] jelloeater85@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are some folks that know both how to run a business well and are passionate about the technology, but they are rare unfortunately. More common in smaller organizations at least.

[–] sebinspace@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

They’re common in small orgs. Once you go public and the only thing that matters is the quarterly bottom line, you almost have no choice but to replace them with people whose only though is “make number go up”

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago

From the article:

“And I just want to clarify that, through these changes, people feel it on the ground and sometimes people write back and say, ‘Thank you for simplifying.’ Sometimes we have a complicated, duplicative structure”

Employees think leadership is out of touch. This statement from the CEO proves this problem exists and starts at the top.

[–] ItsAFake@lemmus.org 39 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

Glassy eyed: drunk and/or high as fuck.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] flathead@lemm.ee 37 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Quick! Somebody order more pizza and ping pong tables...

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] luca@lemmy.today 29 points 1 year ago

Sounds like they're still wearing Google Glass.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

This is what happens when entitled business bros take over. The sort of person who is uninterested in tech but is interested in quarterly bonuses will be inept and glassy eyed.

[–] nyakojiru@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 1 year ago

Only Google? Management is forged on that mostly

[–] Squire1039@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 81 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

A good example of a bottom-feeding boomer who went batshit insane.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This makes me so sad, I really enjoyed the comic for years and years. Then he had to go and open his fucking mouth and ruin the entire thing. Now I feel a twinge of disgust rather than delight when I see a reference of him.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Tramort@programming.dev 46 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Scott Adams is a complete piece of shit

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't know what this was about. I found this that can serve as context for others unaware: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/26/1159580425/newspapers-have-dropped-the-dilbert-comic-strip-after-a-racist-rant-by-its-creat

[...] Adams urged white people "to get the hell away from Black people" during a racist rant on his online video program last week, during which he labeled Black people a "hate group."

On his video show last week, the 65 year old said he had been identifying as Black "because I like to be on the winning team," and that he used to help the Black community. Adams said the results of the Rasmussen poll changed his mind.

"It turns out that nearly half of that team doesn't think I'm okay to be white," he said, adding that he would re-identify as white. "I'm going to back off from being helpful to Black America because it doesn't seem like it pays off," he said. "I get called a racist. That's the only outcome. It makes no sense to help Black Americans if you're white. It's over. Don't even think it's worth trying."

This is not the first time Adams' strip has been dropped. Last year, The San Francisco Chronicle and 76 other newspapers published by Lee Enterprises reportedly dropped Dilbert after Adams introduced his first Black character. Quinn noted that the move was "apparently to poke fun at 'woke' culture and the LGBTQ community."

[–] Tramort@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for that. I should have included some context.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wish I could be an inept and glassy-eyed boss.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›