Hacker News Reader

A few retorts (I work for Big Tech):

"You see lots of very good ideas (like proper source control)" - you mean the group that still uses VSS 4.0 on a network share b/c they're terrified of moving their repo to Git (or even SVN)?

Unsurprisingly, companies that have millions of lines of code have to take extra precautions.

"You get to work with lots of clever people" - no, you get to work with people who work there for no reason other than they live close to the office and have spent the last 14 years building an impenetrable fortress around themselves.

This is a lazy dismissal.

In reality -- lots of smart people work at big companies and small companies. That being said, big companies will invariably have more people dedicated to research than startups. Microsoft Research alone has over a hundred people just doing brilliant things.

"They have lots of perks" - Yes, that one day a year I got to donate $5 to cancer research so I could wear bluejeans (collared shirt still, of course) makes it all worth it. I'll take my catered breakfasts, lunches, impromptu beer runs, work-from-anywhere policy and unlimited vacation days, thank you.

Again, this is lazy and untrue -- unless you want to say that Facebook and Google's perk packages are about wearing bluejeans -- but I think playing the perks game is silly anyway. Distilling things down to money (with some exceptions, like WFH) is always the smarter way to go.

---

Personally, I think the biggest difference working at a big company vs. a small one is that of depth vs. breadth. At a startup, its not beyond the realm of possibility to understand the majority of the code base: you'll be wearing lots of different hats, doing lots of things at once. At a big company, the organization is usually such that you'll spend your entire employment working on one little niche -- this has its advantages (you become an expert at that one thing) and disadvantages (you're only an expert at that one thing, after all).

Personally, I can't imagine why someone wouldn't want to just spend time at both types of companies and see which one they like more.

> Unsurprisingly, companies that have millions of lines of code have to take extra precautions.

Which is why they drive to work in a Model T and rely on an IBM 7090 for their backroom stuff, correct?

Being cautious is the opposite of using technology which is inimical to good practices.

Which is why they drive to work in a Model T and rely on an IBM 7090 for their backroom stuff, correct?

This is a goofy analogy. Whining that BigCo, Inc. won't shift their embedded "way of doing things" is like whining when it's not easy to up and move the Empire State Building... there's a ton of architectural complexities and in the end the building is still making money and housing people.

Not that I'm advocating the status quo just "because", but the reality is that big companies work via risk models that determine it's often better to stay with the SQ than move "forward".

In comparison, hopping around with tech in a startup is like packing up the RV and shuffling somewhere else... it's lightweight and easy to do so.

Fair enough. Of course, I am only drawing on my own anecdotal experience. However, the big companies you mentioned above, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft - I would propose that they are truly exceptional in "big company" culture. Like one-in-a-million exceptional.

Perhaps my experience in each world was exceptional, but I have a feeling they were rather typical.

Those three being "1 in a million" implies that there are three million big companies.

You've answered what you describe as a "lazy dismissal" with what appears to be one of your own.

The big difference is that most "large companies" people will work at are not Google and Facebook. Name any other enterprise who's motto is "move fast and break things". That is a rare culture. Even Google, who's engineers report that they're catching a bit of the dread corporate-itis is still different from your average enterprise.

More commonly, enterprise is known for being a place where fast moving is discouraged, individuality is stifled, pointless bureaucracy is the order of the day, mediocrity is indirectly rewarded, and productivity and common sense take a back seat to political demands.

Yeah startups (and small companies) come with their share of headaches, but I'll take it any day over the soul-crushing, creativity-stifling cubicle hell that is a big company.

You'll take the startup experience you have had over the big company experience you have had. Crucial difference, there.

A lot of large organisations are quite aware of the world around them, and are entirely capable of taking the better parts of startup culture and absorbing them. I work for a big company, but on a small team (there is five of us) that is largely trusted to know what we are doing. There is no dress code, and I can work from anywhere if I so require.

On the flip side, I have many friends still in Startupland who are in working misery. Just because a company takes on the label "startup" doesn't magically make it a fantastic place to work- in some ways you could argue they're likely to be worse as there is considerably less oversight.

> I'll take my catered breakfasts, lunches, impromptu beer runs, work-from-anywhere policy and unlimited vacation days, thank you.

I have all of those perks at my 200 person company now, but with a fraction of the start-up risk. (Which may be a plus or a negative, depending on who you are.)

What it comes down to is every company is different, regardless of size; there are pros and cons to work environments of all sizes.

I'd say a 200 person is still pretty small.