This is from March of last year, BTW, and has been discussed numerous other times on HN.
(Ironically, there have been so many other articles titled "Why I left Google" on HN that I can't actually find this one in the archives. But it's there :)
> The Google I was passionate about was a technology company that empowered its employees to innovate. The Google I left was an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus.
I'd basically written that off a year ago as unfair, maybe someone with "everything used to be better" bias. Seeing it again in right after the Reader shutdown, it shifted my thinking a bit.
I know this hasn't really snuck up on many other people, there've been other great product deaths, and Google sells a lot of ads, but seeing this again, it just nudged me to consciously reevaluate it all...
The issues around "Why I left A_PUBLIC_COMPANY" are really important. The question go beyond Google(s), it forces us to think if there are alternatives to growing or being public without doing a deal with the "devil". I don't think so, the definition of a public company implies that.
Can private companies with less capital win this game and stay relevant in the long term?
So he leaves Google because of steps they are taking to protect and enhance their revenue stream, and joins Microsoft? As a former Microsoftie, all I can say is that is like going from the kettle to the fire and doesn't make sense.
The way these things read... I wonder if people are getting paid an extra bonus to have PR write up a "why I left the other guy" post and put their name on it as way to just bundle up a bunch of FUD in one place.
I'm not a big fan of either Google or Microsoft, so I don't really care about what they say. It's just that these "why I quit" letters have become boilerplate PR pieces that don't really offer anything new or interesting.
I look at it as a more public exit interview. I don't doubt that his expressed concerns were part of why he did leave (I also don't doubt that there are other factors)), and by making those concerns public there's a chance that more people may see it and try to rectify the problems.
Given how transparent Microsoft's "Scroogled" campaign is and how closely the reasons given here skew to the Scroogled message, I'd wager you're pretty close if not bang on.
They probably genuinely believe what they write though, at least on some level. You'd have to, or go mad.
EDIT: I also feel mild antipathy towards both parties.
That sounds a little paranoic. I imagine the negative PR a company would get if this gets known would be far worse that whatever they could gain with a small blog post like this one.
I lost all interest in reading the article after looking at the msdn.com domain.
EDIT: Downvoters, I don't see how this is wrong. Microsoft has a long history of spreading FUD about competitors (Florian Mueller/FOSSPatents, http://www.scroogled.com/ [when their own practices are very much the same], sponsoring fake studies that show that the TCO of Linux is much greater than that of Windows, and so on.) I certainly would be interested in an unbiased opinion on the topic, but I don't think anyone on Microsoft's payroll can give me that.
The article is all about the difference between the innovation being created by low level employees and the stupid decisions by top level management who want to shut it all down. The author is among the former and even says he doesn't like ads, so I think your proposition that he is a Microsoft shill working in an elaborate anti-Google marketing campaign is misguided.
There's not much excuse for not reading things and then complaining about them.
This guy was only at Google for three years (less, in fact), but this reads like he was a 10 year veteran or something. I can't really take it all that seriously because of that.
He was offered a Partner position at Microsoft. That's why he left. No need to philosophize about corporate culture here.
"You want to innovate in mobile? ...deal with the made men who run the relevant cartel. And if they don't like you or your idea, your innovation goes nowhere."
Automated cabs would be a great place to advertise for nearby businesses and things. "Google, what restaurants are nearby?" which gives a list sorted by relevance ( X of Y users returned to restaurant Z more than twice ), with a few purchased restaurant advertisements proceeding them
No, they are a way to more effectively collect photos for Street View and WiFi AP locations for GPS-free location based services... both are which are products of Google Maps which itself is a vessel for selling advertising.
I believe the overarching focus at Google is search. To search Google must index.
To continue indexing and searching Google has to make money. The most obvious path to billions is leveraging the indexing and searching into ad revenue.
What makes me more nervous than Google being capitalistic is Google not having boundaries about who/what/when/where/how they will index the whole world's data.
No , that is the first foray of Skynet .. much more interesting than ads.. and provably the single handed elimination of human drivers from taxi services ;-).
I think this person's opinion is rather colored. Google has been about ads since before they were public. I personally don't have a Facebook page, and don't use g+ that much, so I'm not as infatuated with social networking as much as some I suppose, but I keep track of my karma on HN hourly when I post a message here, so to each his own.
I have no idea what his second article about Microsoft and the mobile space is getting at. Look, if you think g+ is failing, what makes you think Microsoft is going to suddenly own the mobile space? I interviewed at a place in Seattle about 7 years ago that was doing Windows phone stuff, and again at MSFT at a different point for the windows mobile team as an embedded SWE. Microsoft has been in the mobile space forever, yet he's saying they are the innovative company capable to turning on a dime and taking over a new space? I don't believe it.
My wife has a windows phone, I don't like it, she hates the Bing search. I just bought a nexus 4 to replace my G2 because I want software updates for a long time. My wife is probably moving to an iPhone or Nexus. Last I looked gmail supports imap, you don't have to view ads. I only see ads on my nexus when I use google services, they don't flash up on my screen randomly.
I work on security for Windows, but for my own personal use, I just bought an ARM chromebook. It's a great price, despite the 'secure bootloader', it took me about 5 minutes to get the Ubuntu install started on an SD card, and if I screw up the recovery is drop dead simple. Right now, we are sweating bullets because if we make a mistake on Win8 boot, we are going to hose up the machine and recovery is long and painful.
Google has plenty of problems, and sure if you ask me, Google+ has a terrible interface and shipping it without a good API was brain dead, but Microsoft sure doesn't seem to be setting the mobile world on fire.
So I'd take this and many articles like it with a giant cake of salt.
What is the juxtaposition of these two sentences supposed to convey?
They seem to be pretty consistent: "sharing is not broken - here are some the places that people are already sharing stuff without Google's involvement".
I recently switched from using the Google Translate API to the Bing/Microsoft Translator API for my Android app, because Google charges usage fees while MS is free at the lowest tier. This was the first time I saw Google charge money for a service that Microsoft offers for free.
Can you be kind enough to comment on the quality of translations? I am in need of a translation API for one of my projects and it is down to Google or Bing.
Maybe it's a play on words, initially as the author participating in the act of "google quitting" but also meant to be interpreted as google itself quitting being the google it was.
Little mention of Android and Chrome? No mention of Docs/Drive, self driving cars, Go, Google Fiber or their growing forays into hardware (Nexus, Glass)?
As a lot of these indicate, one of Google's chief contributions in recent memory is helping to make computing cheap, ubiquitous and decidedly not monopolized by Microsoft. In the blink of an eye, we've gone from a world where everything the average person owns that can install software runs on Windows to a world where more like 1/3 (and shrinking) of a household's computing devices run Windows. And in 2013, Chromebooks and Steamboxes look like they could displace a lot more of MS's presence.
There's a conflict of interest here. Even if their game is more complex than Coke vs Pepsi, these are very direct competitors. An ambitious Microsoftie has something to gain in a coy, well written put down that conveniently ignores the competition's bigger recent achievements.
I feel like I've read or seen a fair bit of Google criticism from ex-Googlers on the msdn blogs. Can anyone confirm I haven't just been seeing this post over and over?
I don't care if it's just optics; having a post about this on your current employers blog platform makes me highly suspicions, no matter how many people share his opinion
Between this piece and other comments I've seen in the wake of the anti-Google backlash of this past week, why is it that supposedly under Eric Schmidt, a "business guy" Google was all innovation and tech, and then when Larry Page, a very technical cofounder, took over, the company is now some sort of ad machine? If this is true, what does this say about leading personalities and company culture?
Google first Kills or acquire small companies and then kill the acquired company for integrating it with Google Plus. Then turn off the service without thinking about the peoples using it.
It is the power of huge money, monopoly and over confidence.
[+] [-] jrockway|13 years ago|reply
(Ironically, there have been so many other articles titled "Why I left Google" on HN that I can't actually find this one in the archives. But it's there :)
[+] [-] brownbat|13 years ago|reply
This bit:
> The Google I was passionate about was a technology company that empowered its employees to innovate. The Google I left was an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus.
I'd basically written that off a year ago as unfair, maybe someone with "everything used to be better" bias. Seeing it again in right after the Reader shutdown, it shifted my thinking a bit.
I know this hasn't really snuck up on many other people, there've been other great product deaths, and Google sells a lot of ads, but seeing this again, it just nudged me to consciously reevaluate it all...
[+] [-] niggler|13 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3700277 was the previous discussion (910 upvotes, 370 days ago)
[+] [-] wslh|13 years ago|reply
Can private companies with less capital win this game and stay relevant in the long term?
[+] [-] theltrj|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelwww|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forgotAgain|13 years ago|reply
Anyone who licenses software from Microsoft knows that lately their most important objective is increasing licensing revenues.
Changing products to increase licensing or changing them to enhance a different revenue stream is six of one, half a dozen of the other for me.
[+] [-] numbsafari|13 years ago|reply
I'm not a big fan of either Google or Microsoft, so I don't really care about what they say. It's just that these "why I quit" letters have become boilerplate PR pieces that don't really offer anything new or interesting.
[+] [-] niggler|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] James_Duval|13 years ago|reply
They probably genuinely believe what they write though, at least on some level. You'd have to, or go mad.
EDIT: I also feel mild antipathy towards both parties.
[+] [-] pablasso|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rpgmaker|13 years ago|reply
Still no answer from the guy.
[+] [-] aviraldg|13 years ago|reply
EDIT: Downvoters, I don't see how this is wrong. Microsoft has a long history of spreading FUD about competitors (Florian Mueller/FOSSPatents, http://www.scroogled.com/ [when their own practices are very much the same], sponsoring fake studies that show that the TCO of Linux is much greater than that of Windows, and so on.) I certainly would be interested in an unbiased opinion on the topic, but I don't think anyone on Microsoft's payroll can give me that.
[+] [-] jere|13 years ago|reply
There's not much excuse for not reading things and then complaining about them.
[+] [-] onemorepassword|13 years ago|reply
Just like this particular post, which regardless of the author's ulterior motives is factually accurate.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nilkn|13 years ago|reply
He was offered a Partner position at Microsoft. That's why he left. No need to philosophize about corporate culture here.
[+] [-] platinum1|13 years ago|reply
"You want to innovate in mobile? ...deal with the made men who run the relevant cartel. And if they don't like you or your idea, your innovation goes nowhere."
[+] [-] wslh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knome|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] subsystem|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meerita|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dale386|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frogpelt|13 years ago|reply
To continue indexing and searching Google has to make money. The most obvious path to billions is leveraging the indexing and searching into ad revenue.
What makes me more nervous than Google being capitalistic is Google not having boundaries about who/what/when/where/how they will index the whole world's data.
[+] [-] Hitchhiker|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoCoLa|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] qdog|13 years ago|reply
I have no idea what his second article about Microsoft and the mobile space is getting at. Look, if you think g+ is failing, what makes you think Microsoft is going to suddenly own the mobile space? I interviewed at a place in Seattle about 7 years ago that was doing Windows phone stuff, and again at MSFT at a different point for the windows mobile team as an embedded SWE. Microsoft has been in the mobile space forever, yet he's saying they are the innovative company capable to turning on a dime and taking over a new space? I don't believe it.
My wife has a windows phone, I don't like it, she hates the Bing search. I just bought a nexus 4 to replace my G2 because I want software updates for a long time. My wife is probably moving to an iPhone or Nexus. Last I looked gmail supports imap, you don't have to view ads. I only see ads on my nexus when I use google services, they don't flash up on my screen randomly.
I work on security for Windows, but for my own personal use, I just bought an ARM chromebook. It's a great price, despite the 'secure bootloader', it took me about 5 minutes to get the Ubuntu install started on an SD card, and if I screw up the recovery is drop dead simple. Right now, we are sweating bullets because if we make a mistake on Win8 boot, we are going to hose up the machine and recovery is long and painful.
Google has plenty of problems, and sure if you ask me, Google+ has a terrible interface and shipping it without a good API was brain dead, but Microsoft sure doesn't seem to be setting the mobile world on fire.
So I'd take this and many articles like it with a giant cake of salt.
[+] [-] Colliwinks|13 years ago|reply
"Share this on Facebook, Twitter, Digg, Delicious, Reddit, LinkedIn, SlashDot, Myspace, Technorati, Friendfeed, Messenger, or Stumbleupon."
[+] [-] rburhum|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gormo|13 years ago|reply
They seem to be pretty consistent: "sharing is not broken - here are some the places that people are already sharing stuff without Google's involvement".
[+] [-] elaineo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nivla|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lucb1e|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] piyush_soni|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dclowd9901|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saturdaysaint|13 years ago|reply
As a lot of these indicate, one of Google's chief contributions in recent memory is helping to make computing cheap, ubiquitous and decidedly not monopolized by Microsoft. In the blink of an eye, we've gone from a world where everything the average person owns that can install software runs on Windows to a world where more like 1/3 (and shrinking) of a household's computing devices run Windows. And in 2013, Chromebooks and Steamboxes look like they could displace a lot more of MS's presence.
There's a conflict of interest here. Even if their game is more complex than Coke vs Pepsi, these are very direct competitors. An ambitious Microsoftie has something to gain in a coy, well written put down that conveniently ignores the competition's bigger recent achievements.
[+] [-] nchlswu|13 years ago|reply
I don't care if it's just optics; having a post about this on your current employers blog platform makes me highly suspicions, no matter how many people share his opinion
[+] [-] Apocryphon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petrel|13 years ago|reply
It is the power of huge money, monopoly and over confidence.
[+] [-] niggler|13 years ago|reply
(nice writeup, as it mirrors the feelings many of my google friends feel)
[+] [-] sidcool|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikecane|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] piyush_soni|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qwertzlcoatl|13 years ago|reply
- Jeff Hammerbacher, Facebook
[+] [-] voodoomagicman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thinkling|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaredmcateer|13 years ago|reply
http://googletesting.blogspot.ca/2009/06/james-whittaker-joi...
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]