I always see them hiring Android programmers on Linkedin, including right now
https://careers.tiktok.com/position?keywords=android&categor...
Wonder if Android people will be laid off.
https://careers.tiktok.com/position?keywords=android&categor...
Wonder if Android people will be laid off.
I quite like this article from interviewing.io on the make-up of most layoffs by position based in LinkedIn data: https://interviewing.io/blog/2022-layoffs-engineers-vs-other...
If you look at pure software engineering, it's about 5%. When we say "tech layoffs" we default to thinking "technical people", but that's not really the case.
For companies outside the big techs that are still wildly profitable and sitting on mountains of cash, laying off people is largely about refocusing on actual profitable activity. Keeping engineers around makes sense for them.
For companies that are on the cusp of profitability, or still actively burning through money, layoffs seem to be more about reducing burn, which means you're more likely to lay off highly paid engineers.
Still, 5% seems low. How do you square this with the observation that every open SDE role at a company that pays at least somewhat decently seems to have hundreds of applications? If so few SDEs were really laid off, I wouldn't expect the SDE hiring market to have turned as drastically as it did since last summer / fall.
Bothering to do a layoff only makes sense if management wants to see the company survive. So, assuming that the only outcomes being targeted are the ones in which the company is still alive, consider the cost of replacing the employee later: at least right now, engineers are more expensive to hire than most other roles[0], so it could cost less overall to lay off HR/recruiting with the expectation that you'll backfill those roles in 9-18 months.
[0] for various reasons; to hire for any given role, you have to source, engage/recruit, interview (which takes up the time of the people on the team they'll join), somehow pick one or more of the candidates, make offers, and then onboard them. These costs are largely the same for any role, except that interviewing engineers costs engineering time (and it's harder to get enough quality candidates in the top of the funnel for engineers than other roles, so you have to spend more HR/recruiter time there).
That's what they want you to assume, that way us engineers feel pressure to fall in line. Welcome to the disinformation era.
Also, tech does have a lot of people on visa compared to other industries, who need to find a job within 60 days of termination or leave the country.
Wouldn't HR and recruiting folks be able to look for work with companies the broader economy?
Hardest hit positions are "tech adjacent".
> For companies that are on the cusp of profitability, or still actively burning through money, layoffs seem to be more about reducing burn, which means you're more likely to lay off highly paid engineers.
Twitter was an example of that, but it was massively overblown by the media due to the company profile (and the identity of the buyer!).
Companies trimming senior talent are also slowing down the pace at which they can ship new features and products. That's ok short term, but longer terms, those that will be able to secure funding to keep their engineering will get ahead.
> How do you square this with the observation that every open SDE role at a company that pays at least somewhat decently seems to have hundreds of applications? If so few SDEs were really laid off, I wouldn't expect the SDE hiring market to have turned as drastically as it did since last summer / fall.
How many serious applications?
This has always been the case.
The engineers that were axed were in business units that focused on unprofitable products, and couldn't or wouldn't relocate to other engineering teams in the company. Think Amazon's devices unit. Even then, the they were mostly kept around, and administrative roles were the first to go.
It sounds a little callous but the way I make the distinction is working _in_ tech vs working _on_ tech.
There is bloat, of course, but there is also a reason why those tech-adjacent positions exist.
Why is that? Does iOS present similar hiring challenges?
I would actually argue the opposite. Any techie that loves to tinker on things will probably prefer an andriod phone over an apple one.
Then there is fragmentation, availability of $50 devices that guaranteed to have issues with your app.
IMO iOS development is very pleasant (if you have someone other than you to deal with code signing) and Android isn't pleasant at all. Combine that with companies not caring about android apps... All of that contributes to a smaller number of good developers available.
I hear that, though fastlane [0] makes like 1000x easier. Now my first step for any app is setting up a fastlane job to run Github Actions. My goal is to be able to push code and have an app show up in TestFlight without me ever needing to manually manage that. I can even make "blind" changes to the code and push it which is nice for old codebases or when I'm not on my main laptop but have access to my code.
Then there's the develop loop where the Android emulator is terrible, and the iOS simulator is great. So Android development meant constantly futzing with a device, which you really only want to have to do when you're ready really test.
[1] Games may be different since the game UI is often the same across platforms.
I literally feel like I understand the Windows Win32 dev ecosystem, and I've never written a Windows app in my life.
Personally I have never been anything but annoyed by the whole concept of the short videos, but my 5 year old daughter likes it. But then again I also get irrationally angry at programming tutorials in video form as opposed to text, so maybe I just don't "get it".
The tech is made to be addictive. You shouldn't let children use such a thing IMO.
That's about 40% of GOOG - which prints $60B per year. TikTok makes nothing.
It's only growing revenues at 53%, and they're massively decelerating.
It's going to be hard to IPO for anything near that without ZIRP when they don't have profits and their growth rates are declining...
Easiest way to make the numbers look better for IPO is fire half the employees and make the other half work 3x as much.
Alphabets revenue in 2022 was $280B, with ~$60B profits.
ByteDance info is harder to find, but in 2021 it was ~$60B revenue, with $7B loss. [1]
Chances are those openings are just bait, permanently there regardless of whether they actually need people.
100%.... most firms will have permanent reqs open just to see if there are outstanding candidates available.