Hacker News Reader

Comment by epochwolf | Hacker News Reader

In case anyone missed it, she's talking about Google. :)

I think you're reading way too far into it being about a specific company. A number of companies people love to like/hate could fall into the specifics she lists, depending on one's views. It's like a crystal ball or clouds in the sky--one sees what they wish to see.

Guessing the actual company, if there is one, is kind of disingenuous to the article's message itself though, since it is good depiction of the "ideal" company most of us would want to avoid.

Context is everything here. There may be a number of companies that fit the pattern, and she could be speaking hypothetically, but Rachel worked at Google and has an axe to grind.

My assumption is based on the author's previous writings. While it can be applied to many companies, google is the best fit for companies she has talked about.

The post could just as easily describe the U.S military, law enforcement, religions, or any other highly competitive company. It's eerie how well this applies so broadly.

That wouldn't actually surprise Marxist (&tc) critics of capitalism that much. I'm largely not persuaded by their worldview but they have some solid insights on organizational structure as an emergent system of control.

If so, it is rather only her impression of Google. For any company that creates technically challenging products, senior hires should be (and most often are) vital.

It is only her impression. :)

Most of it also applies to Microsoft, the proprietary angle even more than Google.

Actually, I think the proprietary technology problem at Google is an entirely different beast from that at companies like Microsoft. At least there are comparable competing components, libraries and, heck, entire open source operating systems, to Microsoft's internal and proprietary technologies. Google, on the other hand, is so far ahead in some areas that tools that are commodities within Google don't have anything even remotely comparable outside.

How do you figure? It sounds like it would apply just as well to Microsoft or Apple.

Not really. All of this can be applied to almost any bank, accountancy firm or large corporate's graduate recruitment strategy.

Is this a common reaction to working at Google?

Not in my experience, no.

If nothing else, almost everyone I work with is on their second or third career. I'm possibly the youngest guy on my team, and I'm 30. That said, I work out of the Seattle office. Lots of Amazon and Microsoft expats. Nobody around me seems to have any interest in going back.

I'll second that, despite having had a pretty bad experience at Google myself. I can't remember the whole list off the top of my head, but around fifteen of my friends moved over to Google over the span of a couple years, mostly from Microsoft and Amazon. Besides me, only two have left; one had a bad time and another wanted to do a startup.

Perhaps Mountain View is different, but the Seattle office sure seemed to be full of experienced, hard-working, basically contented engineers. It had many of the same faults I have come to associate with any large company, sure, but when the linked article asks "does any of that sound familiar", I have to say, "not really".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com