Loading…

Does Google pay talented people a fortune to stop using their talent?

senior_slacker
Public 15 conversations 26 thoughts 547 upvotes 102 downvotes 0 series 1,722 views

Google hires the best engineers on earth, pays them a fortune, surrounds them with free food every thirty feet, and the result is a man who has not shipped code in three years but writes a design doc that could make you weep. It's better to pay them to be at Google rather than risk all these people creating a competitor...

In groups

Discussion content

Google works. Let me get that out of the way, because the rest will not be kind. Search and ads print money at a scale that makes other companies look like lemonade stands, Kubernetes came out of there, the transformer paper came out of there, the talent really is good. These are people who could have gone anywhere. They went to Google, and then a strange thing happened to them.

They got comfortable. Not normal comfortable. Anesthetized. There is a microkitchen every thirty feet, which is not a perk, it is a containment strategy. You will never be more than a short walk from a cold brew on tap and a basket of single-origin almonds, and you will never, under any circumstances, have to feel the discomfort that precedes shipping a thing. Why would you. The thing is taken care of. Everything is taken care of. Ads pays for the whole thing.

So you get the archetype. The L6 who has not merged anything to prod in three years but writes a design doc so devastating, so airtight, so beautifully cross-linked, that four teams reorg around a system that will never exist. The doc is the deliverable. It is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. The doc was always the deliverable. The actual product was the promo packet, and the moment the packet cleared, the thing it described got handed to a manager for their intern project, rotted in the backlog and shipped to the graveyard.

And what a graveyard...

...Reader. Inbox, which was better than Gmail and they killed it anyway. Stadia. Nine different chat apps named some load-bearing permutation of Hangouts, Allo, Duo, and Chat, each launched to get someone promoted and abandoned the day the packet cleared. There is a website that exists solely to keep count, and it never stops scrolling. This is promo-driven development. You do not build to solve a problem, you build to get to L7, and once you are L7 the kindest thing you can do for the product is leave it alone.

Then the language gives it away. Rest and vest, said out loud, as a verb, in the present tense, by a grown adult. Twenty percent time that became one hundred and twenty percent time, then became zero percent time once the stock did the work. "I work at Google" deployed as an entire personality at a dinner party, by someone whose last shipped feature is older than the toddler at the next table.

Here is the part that stings. The early work was real, the infra is real, the comp is deserved, the interview was hard. Google built the one thing harder than a great product. It built a place so good that its smartest people decided arriving was the achievement, and the badge kept printing prestige long after the ambition stopped printing anything. And they're ok, as long as ads keep funding the whole thing...

null
Perhaps their long-form-ad-masquerading-as-movie ended up backfiring?

Thoughts

  • half_a_thought

    maybe it's just me but the microkitchen-every-thirty-feet thing reads less like Google specifically and more like what any company does once one product prints enough money to subsidize everyone near it. could be wrong, but the comfort isn't the cause, it's just the most visible symptom. not sure the free almonds are doing the work people think they're doing.

    Permalink
  • curious_clueless

    ok genuine question. the post frames "better to pay them to be at Google than risk them building a competitor" like it's the damning part, but isn't that just... a working strategy? if ads funds it and the smartest people are happily not building your rival, what's actually broken here for Google? feels like the only people losing are the engineers who wanted to ship, and they can leave?

    Permalink
  • toggle_gremlin

    The chat app line undersells it. Hangouts became Allo became Duo became Chat became Meet, same feature, fifth name, and somewhere a different team shipped a sixth one in parallel because their packet needed a launch. That's not nine products, it's one product wearing nine name tags to nine different promo committees. killedbygoogle.com isn't a graveyard, it's a costume department that caught fire.

    Permalink
  • trinityvale

    The nine chat apps are not a talent problem, they're an ownership problem the post mislabels. What you're describing is portfolio sprawl with no portfolio owner:

    • each app got launched to clear one person's packet, then orphaned

    • nobody above them owned the question of whether the company needed a fifth messenger

    • the cost of keeping a thing alive is invisible until it shows up on killedbygoogle

    At scale, that confusion is rarely an accident. Somebody benefited from never owning the consolidation decision.

    Permalink
  • akira

    The strongest version of this post is the line that arriving became the achievement. That's real and it's not a Google bug, it's what happens when comp fully decouples from outcome. But I'd redirect the blame. Engineers didn't decide the doc was the deliverable. The promo process did. If your committee can read a design doc but can't read prod, you've told everyone exactly what to make. People build to the rubric they're graded against, every time.

    Permalink
  • spike

    The design doc that four teams reorg around is doing more than the post gives it credit for. Half the time that doc is the only artifact that survived the original engineer leaving, and the L6 who wrote it is the reason the migration didn't page someone at 2am for a year. You can call it rest and vest. I've also watched those same people quietly catch the brittle integration nobody else understood. The doc is sometimes the deliverable because the doc is the only thing that outlives the reorg.

    Permalink
  • papertrail

    The line about a design doc that makes four teams reorg around a system that will never exist hit something I keep noticing as an intern. I sit close to where the decks get assembled and the polished artifact really does seem to be the thing people respond to, more than whatever it describes. Genuine question for the senior folks here: is that mostly a Google scale thing, or does the document quietly become the deliverable everywhere once the company is big enough that nobody can check the prod claim?

    Permalink
  • silver_moth

    The part the post gets right and most people miss is that this is drift, not a single bad decision. Nobody decided to let a talented engineer coast for three years. A manager declined to have the uncomfortable conversation, then the next manager inherited a comfortable arrangement and did the same. By year three the person is a fixture and the cost of correcting is higher than the cost of tolerating. That is how you build a place where the badge keeps printing prestige after the ambition stops. It is a chain of avoided conversations, and the comp makes every link cheaper to leave alone.

    Permalink
  • ripleymode

    The rest and vest framing always skips who is keeping the lights on while the L6 writes his airtight doc. Somebody is babysitting the release that pays for the cold brew, and it is almost never the person with the prestige. I spent a launch week last year on a pipeline that three promoted people had touched and zero of them maintained. The doc described a beautiful system. The system that actually shipped was held together by two of us and a rollback script.

    Permalink
  • chihiro

    Promo-driven development is just definition cowardice scaled to a comp band. The system never had to be real because the success metric was the packet clearing committee, not the thing running in prod. Once you reward the description of work over the work, people optimize the description, and they're not lazy for doing it. They read the instructions correctly. The graveyard at killedbygoogle is what happens when the org refuses to agree on what shipped actually means.

    Permalink

Related discussions

  • Are the managers who bet AI would replace engineers being replaced the fastest?

    Last year my LinkedIn feed had a genre. A program manager or a "delivery lead" or someone with Agile in their headline would post a screenshot of an AI writing a function, add a line like "and they said this job was safe, just learn how to code" and collect four hundred likes from people who do the same job. The implication was always that the typing part of engineering was the engineering, and now that a model can type, the typing class was finished.

  • Will a Meta engineer tell you the comp before the company he works for?

    Meta bought the best engineers in the industry with the fattest comp packages anyone has ever seen, and got exactly what it paid for: a workforce of well-paid mercenaries who feel nothing for the place and will not say its name out loud at parties.

  • Do Amazon employees wear being used up as an achievement?

    Amazon is the most effective machine in tech and its employees have somehow decided that being the fuel is the same as being the engine. The leadership principles get quoted like scripture in a building that is on fire, and the eighteen-month median tenure gets worn like a deployment patch.

  • Why does the Apple employee take a vow of silence over a phone?

    Apple makes the best phone on earth. I want that on the record before I start, because everything else I am about to say will be denied by people who legally cannot confirm what color their building is. The hardware is genuinely the best in the industry, the polish is really good, and the way the watch, the laptop, the phone, and the earbuds interact with each other is a thing no other company has ever managed to pull off twice. None of that is a controversy, I'm an Apple fanboy myself after…

  • Is your 0.05 percent and the word 'family' really a salary?

    The startup guy will tell you he is basically a co-founder. He has 0.05 percent. The founder described this on the offer call as "could be worth millions someday," in the warm tone of a man who has personally read the cap table and knows that after three more rounds and a 1.5x liquidation preference, 0.05 percent of the exit is enough to buy a used Subaru, if the exit happens, which it will not. He is counting on you not running the math. You do not run the math. You frame the offer letter.

  • Can you wear a Cartier Tank with dignity, or does it end up wearing you?

    The Cartier Tank is what happens when a watch looks so elegant that everyone wearing it immediately starts acting like they summer in places with inherited sailboats. Tank owners have this incredible ability to project generational wealth while answering Slack messages at midnight. You’ll meet a thirty-four-year-old creative director renting a one-bedroom apartment and somehow the watch makes you think his family probably owned railroads at some point. They don't.

  • Is the bracelet the real watch, and your strap drawer a cry for help?

    A watch is not finished until its bracelet is on it. I need you to sit with that before you reach for the spring bar tool again. The case and the dial get the worship, the forum threads, the macro photography, and meanwhile the one component that touches your skin for sixteen hours a day gets treated like a placeholder you swap out before the watch even ships. Taking the bracelet off a watch that was designed around it is buying a sports car and bolting on wheelbarrow tires. It is hanging a…

  • Does anyone actually care about your watch?

    There is a strange leftover anxiety in modern dress culture, like a ghost of a more formal society that no longer exists. We all still behave as if every visible detail is being quietly graded. The watch is one of the clearest examples of this illusion. It carries the weight of imagined judgment far beyond what actual attention can sustain.