Hacker News Reader

Comment by mathattack | Hacker News Reader

It's very hard to believe that Ford will be able to compete for talent with the hottest startups in Silicon Valley. Would someone really take a position there over a similar one at Google, Apple or Uber? Or a smaller startup?

View on HN

Absolutely. Working on auto-related stuff would be far more interesting to me than any of those three you mentioned.

Same here. I'd love to work in automotive tech. I recently came across Koenigsegg's camshaft-less, pneumatic valve actuator system and it made me question everything I know about cars/bikes.

But you would prefer Ford over working at Apple or Google's auto groups? Or Tesla?

Good question... I guess I don't really care as long as the projects I get to work on are interesting and I actually get to work rather than dealing with bureaucracy. I like when big companies essentially create internal startups which are independently managed.

Subsidiaries are better than the mothership, but it's very hard for subsidiaries to get things done. (Lots of great ideas at Xerox/PARC, but they struggled to bring any to market) The Ford subsidiaries are forbidden from selling outside of Ford. That limits the customer base. Meanwhile, there won't be much in the way of equity, so hiring/retaining will be tough.

The overwhelming majority of businesses do not give their employees any equity. I think that will be the least of their problems.

Fair points, but as someone who is about -$25,000 in the last 9 years on ISOs/equity at startups, equity isn't something I'm really looking for or caring about unless I'm joining a very early stage company.

Would you really take the Ford bureaucracy over Google auto's? I can understand taking Ford for work-life balance, but I haven't heard anyone claim that's a reason to work there.

If people have true success stories of corporate outposts out here, please share. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Take a good look at the management structure.

If the management tree is deeper than log(2) your age, run away :-)

I personally slightly prefer deeper management structures, all else being equal, because they usually result in less management I have to directly deal with. In "flat" organizations it's often the case that you're not very deep in the org chart, but the layer you're on is densely webbed, so there are 3 or 4 people in the level above you who you de-facto report to in one way or another. With more hierarchical organizations you're usually insulated from these other managers because you only directly report to one. For me, having fewer layers of management above me, but in return having to deal directly with a larger number of individual managers, isn't a good tradeoff.

(This is assuming a roughly normal company overall. Something that really takes being flat seriously, like a worker's cooperative, might be different, but I've never worked at such a place.)

Absolutely. Working on auto-related stuff would be far more interesting to me than any of those three you mentioned.

Sure, but the question here is would you rather work on auto-related stuff at Ford or Apple? Admittedly I have no idea what Apple is up to, but I do know from a couple of acquaintances working in the car industry that they've recently interviewed a ton of automotive engineers.

> Sure, but the question here is would you rather work on auto-related stuff at Ford or Apple?

Ford, of course. Where my manager and my manager's manager and so on know about the technical aspects of automobile development, facilities for automobile-specific testing (engine test cells, turbocharger test cells, wind tunnels, anechoic chambers, etc.) are available, experienced technicians can advise me...

Ford, of course.

Given how many engineers I know of whom have left traditional car companies to go work for automotive 'startups' it seems that they have a real problem holding on to talent despite the advantages you mentioned.

Well, automotive engineering is a very big field involving lots of disciplines (mechanics, combustion, modelling, NVH, design, aerodynamics, etc.) so I assume it heavily depends on what you like to do :)

I have the same amount of knowledge of the internal workings of either company: none!

But I do know that if I wanted to get into the auto industry, I'd rather go with the one that has 100 years experience instead of the one just getting started.

It depends on what you mean by "auto-related stuff." In-Vehicle entertainment? I'd go to Apple. Powertrain management (the stuff that I'm more interested in)? Ford, no question.

Google/Alphabet X is working on auto tech. It's also pretty obvious that Apple is, too.

But would you prefer Auto at Ford to Auto one of those firms? Or Tesla?

Perhaps I'm just jaded by the traditional Detroit mismanagement.

But how about auto-related work for one of them (or Tesla) versus Ford?

Out of those three you mentioned? No brainer. But those aren't startups, by any stretch of the word. What ford really has to compete with is actual startups. Companies that are 10-100 people, offering positions where people can make a difference.

Without going on a spiel about the realities (often times) of working for startups, I'd say that - if Ford gets/hires the right people, I can't see a major reason not to consider them over many an SV startup. They at the least should have resources.

People can make a difference in a startup if it takes off. They can also make a difference by doing a small part of the work of a huge company which half the people in the world have heard about and from which hundreds of millions of people buy very expensive, important products.

If Ford can convince us that working for them is a path toward making motoring better for a hundred thousand people per vehicle model, wouldn't we be interested? Or are we only up for hacking on prototypes whose main hope of mass production is getting acquired by a major maker?

Different strokes I guess.

My main point was that at a startup I most likely would have the opportunity to shape the engineering culture, hire people, architect, and build a company from the ground up. I wouldn't have to deal with the horrifying corporate culture that comes with any massive company.

I'm a HUGE auto nerd. I'm pretty happy at my job but stuff like this would be the kind of thing that might make me listen...

Some would have said the same thing about Microsoft yet they are turning things around into an exciting place again

Secondly, $$$ can go a long way in competing for talent

Anon for obvious reasons. I got an offer from the SV Ford location and it was about 1/2 of what Google offered, if you count everything.

It's really unclear to me why a Ford would try to compete in SV given the level of competition and CoL. Sure, maybe establish an innovation center somewhere other than Michigan if only to send a signal that this is something new.But if you're trying to get good people, offer premiums in other locations that have a lot of good people--or even figure out some innovative remote work/travel work programs. You don't take on the Googles head-on.

What were your general perceptions of the team from the interview process, if you don't mind sharing?

Could you be more specific about "everything"?

Chances are there's somebody who is #2 at one of those companies and wants to be #1 and call the shots. Give that person a call, promise a budget in the millions and a chance to his product in millions of cars within a few years, and see what happens.

Better for Ford, there will be a #2 who isn't #2 on purely technical grounds but just because (s)he didn't arrive at just the right time, like the current #1 luckily did.

In my experience, the SW in the auto industry is broken and inefficient.

Yeah, I would.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com