> Google has, what, 20,000 engineers? That's a LOT of effort for what they have to show for it.
That criticism would hold true if Google were a pure product company. Salesforce is a great example of this: in their SIGMOD/SoCC keynote they've mentioned they only employ 200 engineers. They don't face the sort of scalability and algorithmic challenges that warrants developing custom infrastructure: they use of the shelf commercial products and open source products (Oracle RAC, Lucene).
At Google that great deal of work goes into amazing internal infrastructure that is rarely read about (I'd imagine the published papers are only the tip of an iceberg) i.e., people hacking on the kernel, on file systems, on databases, firmware etc... This infrastructure is their competitive advantage and their moat. At Salesforce, their ability to out execute competitors (via aggressive selling and marketing) on an innovative but not inventive business model.
In the case of Google, being a major contributor to the Linux kernel, they're effectively their own operating systems vendor. With BigTable, MegaStore, Spanner, their MySQL patches and more, they're their own database vendor. With Chubby, GFS, MapReduce, their own web server, etc... they're their own distributed middleware company. They're also one of the largest hardware manufactures, with themselves as their only consumer.
In terms of their core competencies (search/IR/ML), they're an incredible research organization. Not all research results in products, but they've been able to productize their research much more effectively than Microsoft has (perhaps at the cost of having a less theory and more systems focused research organization i.e., employing Rob Pike but not Leslie Lamport).
I have a feeling it's great to be a researcher or an advanced developer (working on infrastructure or algorithms) at Google: you have the capability to focus on actually building incredible pieces of software. In terms of application development, it might be slightly less appealing (although, I've been extremely impressed with Android, Chrome and Gmail as _finished products_ too).
Of course, if someone's _primary_ goal out of a job is to become an enterpreuner and found their own company, going to Google may not be the best place for this (other than for making connections and gaining credibility much like going to Stanford): building an infrastructure start-up is much more difficult than building a web application start-up. For those who are first and foremost technologists (that would be me), Google still symbolizes the "ideal" job: perform incredibly advanced development (implicitly frowned upon in most product companies) and build practical, working software that gets put to production use (implicitly frowned upon in research centers and academia). At one point one such place was AT&T Bell Labs, at a later point it was Sun. Now that place is Google.