Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

dubBAU5 t1_itvl8b3 wrote

The interesting thing to me is that google (and apple) have been buying up so much property in Silicon Valley over the last 5-10 years. Not residential so much as commercial. They have been building so much office space it is ridiculous. You would think they are expanding their work force as fast as they can hire. I wonder if they are planning on shifting business from advertising to property management.

149

[deleted] t1_itvszwi wrote

Here in Seattle, Google recently bought their office building from the developer (Paul Allen's Vulcan.) Trying to understand the strategy chews on my brain a bit.

63

appreciatethecandor t1_itvv9b7 wrote

It’s not that complicated… there is still a shortage of talented tech workers. Google isn’t looking for your typical college grad, they’re looking for the best of the best to work on very large scale and complex issues.

The engineers they need already work in big tech. The easiest way to steal them is to open an office right next to their current office, so they opened a location in Seattle since Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and others are there.

It’s similar to when Burger King wants to open a new location, they’ll just find the nearest McDonalds and put it across the street.

86

sweetmorty t1_itvwz08 wrote

Top tech talent mostly prefer working remote though.

28

appreciatethecandor t1_itvzelv wrote

I think what top tech workers actually prefer is a culture where they can decide to come in when they please, rather than being mandated to come in 3 days a week.

I’ve worked in several big tech companies, not many people are leaving to go to a remote place because you’ll lose a ton of leverage and pay with COL adjustments.

84

certainlyforgetful t1_itwv5m8 wrote

exactly this. I love remote work, but I would love an office in my city so I could come in every now and then.

I’m jealous of the cities we have offices in, but I’m not about to pack up my family and move across the country.

11

Dornith t1_itvxxfa wrote

Work in tech. This is not as much the case as people think it is.

Tech definitely has more remote workers than any other industry, but it's not the majority. Most top tech talent are still going into the office to work, either because they don't mind it, actively enjoy it, or don't think it's a big enough deal to switch jobs over it.

My old roommate recently moved across country, from CA to NY, to work at a tech startup making mid-6 figures. He's in his early 20s and is excited to move to a new part of the country and try a new way of life.

27

MoreHairMoreFun t1_itwpa4z wrote

He’s making 500k?

1

Dornith t1_itwpfgg wrote

I don't have his exact numbers (obviously) but he makes a few hundred k in base salary, plus large bonuses and benefits.

4

coffeesippingbastard t1_itwzp78 wrote

mid is 300-600k so in NYC- plausible. For top top- I've seen some really absurd numbers from the algorithmic trading companies.

4

MoreHairMoreFun t1_itwzsz4 wrote

I just wondered if he meant 150k. Good for anyone making that.

1

dukeofpenisland t1_ity6jzn wrote

150 is entry level software engineering at big tech in a high COL area

3

Dornith t1_iu0o4jy wrote

Funnily enough, that's the industry he's in now.

1

doubletagged t1_ityk0yx wrote

Been in the “top tech” companies mentioned here. My experience has been that the offices are consistently < 50% full. From that seems most prefer working remote.

1

movingtobay2019 t1_itycpls wrote

Don't think so. They like having choice. I don't know anyone who actually prefers 5 days a week at home. They also don't like being mandated to come in specific days either. More of a "Come in 2 days a week when you feel like it".

Humans are social creatures and work is one of the ways for people to socialize.

1

DankousKhan t1_ityfpeb wrote

I have worked from home for about 9 years with one "hybrid" job in-between. I never want to go to the office again. It's not for everyone but...

3

[deleted] t1_itwivnv wrote

My comment was about the strategy behind the purchase of a building, not mass agglomeration, though I do think your simplistic description does not align with the complex reality of what actually happened, and why, in tech hubs over the last decade.

8

appreciatethecandor t1_itwoxfv wrote

>My comment was about the strategy behind the purchase of a building, not mass agglomeration,

One way Google attracts talent by building nice offices and providing perks that their competitors don't, such as an office with a fully operating kitchen providing free meals, daycare, meditation areas, arcades, etc. They're not going to invest this much into a rental, because that would move all the leverage to the landlord to jack up the rent come renewal.

Would you spend $50,000 renovating the backyard of a house you rent? probably not.

>though I do think your simplistic description does not align with the complex reality of what actually happened, and why, in tech hubs over the last decade.

It's easy to be critical, but you haven't offered any insight as to what actually happened.

If what I said wasn't true, why would Google buy a building in Seattle and not in Alabama? If there is a cluster of talent, it's easier for them to open a building there rather than expecting people to move to you. That is why Amazon is also expanding in Bellevue to poach Microsoft talent, because Microsoft employees refuse to drive over the bridge.

1

doubletagged t1_ityk3zj wrote

Eh it’s primarily because Amazon has major beef with Seattle city council

1

appreciatethecandor t1_iu1cvyn wrote

Definitely true, but Amazon has bigger issues asides from beef with city council that forced HQ2 and expansion outside of Seattle.

I would say most of it was ability to continue to recruit tech talent, their reputation is essentially a "bottom of the barrel" tech company, a great place to join if you can't get into a better shop.

Amazon has completely saturated the Seattle market, due to the fact that everyone here has worked there once (and used them as a stepping stone to a better company) or would prefer not to touch them with a 10 ft pole, so they kind of had their hand forced and had to expand elsewhere.

1

[deleted] t1_iu0c1p5 wrote

I think we're still talking about different things. Maybe I poorly explained, perhaps you'd have to understand the local context of SLU.

1

thornwilder t1_itwp110 wrote

Google’s top tech talent doesn’t seem to be working on anything usable. I think the are just being used to devise more ways to get advertising revenue.

2

josefx t1_itylxo0 wrote

> they’re looking for the best of the best to work on very large scale and complex issues.

Weren't they caught in a wage dumping and non compete scheme with about half of silicon valley? Aren't they just looking for the cheapest, most gullible fools they can find?

2

Aplejax04 t1_itw73zn wrote

In Boston google just built a big new building in Cambridge. Word on the street is that it’s mostly empty.

6

tvtb t1_ity99qu wrote

Oh did they leave the building with the MIT COOP and subway entrance? Are they still in Tech Square?

2

lucun t1_itw1gfb wrote

If you're there long term, I imagine it saves costs to own outright than renting. Also cutting out a landlord gives you more control on any changes you want done to the property.

5

mrcobra92 t1_ity46ea wrote

They just bought the Thompson center in Chicago too. They want to move/add 5000 employees to the building.

2

menemenetekelufarsin t1_itw17pk wrote

This is what all tech money has been doing - converting from "fake money" (esp. highly overvalued stocks, etc) to real money. Same same with crypto. They are all following the McDonald's strategy. They can offset the leveraged-purchases on their balance sheet for tax reductions, and then end up owning all assets. This is kind of how we got where we are.

10

searchresults t1_itwwkft wrote

For Google it’s partly because their original campus is not well designed or located.

The new San Jose office complex is actually intelligently designed for transit, worker enjoyment, proximity to housing, etc.

3

quikfrozt t1_itwp4g7 wrote

That’s as good a business case for WeWork had they been run by a grown up before the IPO - and in fact they were moving forward with owning their own properties and providing property management services to companies that want to outsource.

2

Riptide360 t1_ituz957 wrote

Recessions are when you scoop up talent and fund projects. Google’s dependency on ad search revenue is just going to get them hammered.

139

reddlvr t1_itv3qey wrote

They can probably get serious about any of the other 1000s projects they have and they'll start printing money. They'll be fine.

71

azurleaf t1_itvbhqo wrote

That's if they get serious. They're well known for axing many projects way before their prime when they don't immediately print money. They're allergic to commitment.

The only reason Google Docs is probably still around is because B2B basically prints money hand over fist, and top execs love the thought of having a competitor to Office 365.

33

Derigiberble t1_itvuyej wrote

I'm not sure that Google Docs is being kept alive by execs loving the idea of having an O365 competitor as much as by execs loathing the prospect of having to buy an O365 license for over 150k employees.

28

lookaroundprettybaby t1_itvcr53 wrote

This is a key thing "IF". A few people I know work in those big tech firms and Google is notorious for axing projects if they don't become a cash cow. Innovation be damned.

8

Not_invented-Here t1_itvzfjg wrote

It such a meme its going to be hard to launch anything anyway.

Why would I say invest in Google iot core (which they won't develop much anyway until it generates money) and risk losing my infrastructure with little warning, when MS has an option and you know they will develop and grow the hell out of it?

6

lookaroundprettybaby t1_itw72c8 wrote

And imagine, that was during good times. People are definitely trying to transfer into cash cow departments as those would be least likely to get the axe. Word is that it's coming.

4

movingtobay2019 t1_itydaob wrote

I mean, there has to be a business case eventually. Otherwise, what are you spending money on?

1

FabricatedWookie t1_ityviq6 wrote

stares at you like youve said the most unhinged thing he has heard in his life while wearing a labcoat and and holding a butter knife with peanut butter on it The spreadability index!

1

technicalmonkey78 t1_itwyq2l wrote

What is B2B? Less legalese, please.

−5

lynnwoodblack t1_itx591b wrote

Business to Business. You (a business) are selling a product to other businesses. You don't deal with individuals consumers. You deal with the executives who decide what everyone at the company will use to do their job.

Alternatively B2C. Business to Consumer. This is probably what you would normally think of as a business. Making stuff and selling it directly to the people who will use it.

3

igloofu t1_itxr97r wrote

Then shut the 10 projects that actually make it to market down within a year.

It is the Google Way.

1

bigkoi t1_itvqlj4 wrote

6% growth over a booming 2021. That's still very strong, the market is just upset they didn't do 9%. Google also has more cash on hand than any other company, they can scoop up talent at anytime.

19

Willinton06 t1_itvtrv3 wrote

Well they are an advertisement company, they don’t have much of a choice

5

coffeesippingbastard t1_itwzxb8 wrote

I was surprised that GCP is losing 600mil/quarter. Either they have crazy scaling happening or something terrible is happening cost wise.

3

rabbit994 t1_iu2ryve wrote

> I was surprised that GCP is losing 600mil/quarter. Either they have crazy scaling happening or something terrible is happening cost wise.

Datacenter build out and massive discounts to major companies to sign them up. I worked at a company that was dragged into GCP by our CTO and part of the reason was massive discount GCP gave us. Generally everything was half off list price with some stuff higher than that.

1

Orbital666 t1_itvm6su wrote

Oh well maybe stop cancelling every fucking thing you make 15 minutes after launching it and you’ll stop hemorrhaging cash you chucklefucks. No one wants to pay you? Fucking WILD how that works I cannot fathom why no one would trust the creators of long running well supported platforms like Stadia and Nest and Fitbit, truly the worst stewards of all their acquisitions.

If you run an “idea percolator” as they like to fancy themselves, that expense is a given, but it kinda requires you end up with saleable, finished products that people can rely on. Google and it’s management are in an abusive relationship with consumers, and consumers are catching on.

47

Anon_Logic t1_itw3tp3 wrote

Just want to echo this.

I don't buy things from Google, or through Google, because I just assume Google will either drop all support for it. And the quality of their products doesn't match the cost. And everything comes with a subscription fee. Remember when you bought a FitBit and you just fucking owned it!?!? Or trying to force you onto YouTube.

Or something will go wrong and you don't have to look too hard to find Google customer support is abysmal.

And also, they're slow to adapt to the things people actually want. Like when the pandemic hit, Zoom became the default platform. Google had a platform ready to go... but its restrictive model back then meant no one cared when they finally opened it up.

Their track record finally caught up with them. Wasn't long ago people were laughing at the idea that anyone would care...

13

Xytak t1_itw4loo wrote

I remember when AngularJS was an easy Javascript library that anyone could learn in an afternoon and include on a web page in about 5 minutes.

Then Google famously deprecated it when a lot of people had already built apps in it.

Don't get me wrong, the replacement Angular is better, but also has a MUCH higher learning curve. And more importantly, who can trust that they won't just retire that when it becomes inconvenient, too? Leaving any business that used it high and dry.

9

mcrissjr t1_itxdqog wrote

I mean your points are valid but "hemorrhaging cash" is the most off base description I've ever heard for Google

2

paullyprissypants t1_itvog7b wrote

But here’s the thing. They are hiring a literal fuckton of contractors still. They are going to slash salaried positions and then hire them back as contractors.

45

Krappatoa t1_itwbn4u wrote

Google was mostly contractors in their early years.

16

Outrageous_Monitor68 t1_itwt2gv wrote

At double the pay ?

−1

paullyprissypants t1_itx0r49 wrote

No, it’s definitely not because there’s no insurance or benefits and contractors pay sec employment taxes. It actually ends up saving them a ton money while they exploit people for cheap labor.

7

Outrageous_Monitor68 t1_itx1h1v wrote

In Australia you need to pay 30-40% more for contractors.

Fairly common for many people to contract Especially in technology.

So 150k employee would get paid around 1000 a day as a contractor.

0

paullyprissypants t1_itx58j0 wrote

Lucky Australians. America is capitalism at its worst. This is just one of the examples.

2

movingtobay2019 t1_itycyem wrote

What are you talking about. Highly skilled contractors make bank in this country, more than enough to offset no insurance and benefits. Not to mention all the tax write offs you don't have access to as a W-2.

1

jeffyoulose t1_itxt1o9 wrote

How much is medical insurance? It's high deductible anyways so it's really unused for most young workers.

0

[deleted] t1_itvsnxr wrote

Can anyone ELI5 how companies like Google and MS got so project bloated during the last decade? Felt like projects and staffing for the sake of it, not actually to fulfill actual user needs.

26

GrinningPariah t1_itwa40u wrote

Hiring freezes and layoffs actually end up being counter-productive to curbing bloat.

If you're a mid-level manager and you know that the company goes through cycles of hiring freezes or layoffs, does that incentivize you to run a lean organization where you only have the engineers you need? Of course not, because everyone is going to be asked to cut back.

Instead, you're incentivized to hire as many people as you can when you can, specifically so that the cut backs aren't as painful when they come. If you're overstaffed, you can weather a hiring freeze and you can afford to lose some to layoffs.

But everyone else is doing the same math, and so everyone tries to be overstaffed, so the company ends up massively overstaffed, which forces leadership into more hiring freezes and layoffs because those are the only tools they have.

24

[deleted] t1_itwdj0b wrote

Of course these companies rake in cash, but this, at big tech TC this defensive tactic seems so expensive and wasteful... but thanks to you comment, I realize that is isn't really the concern or dynamic.

In "tech hubs" this style of staffing has really disrupted our local economies in ways that have been harmful to communities and made civic systems unsustainable. This isn't a "get out, tech bro" complaint - but a systemic recognition. Seems so pointless.

3

bigbadbruins92 t1_itvtv2u wrote

Product Managers are no longer afraid of pissing off engineers.

The engineers used to be able to push back, internally.

That, plus none of these companies having actual consumer technical support means the only feedback they get is from KPIs they define themselves. A lot of this crap is actually seen as successful endeavors...

22

Destination_Centauri t1_itvznja wrote

F ' C K - B O S T O N !

G O - H A B S !

Sorry... sorry, couldn't help it.

But yes, I absolutely agree with your comment! Middle management is really destroying a lot of company reputations unfortunately, much to the dismay of the talented teams of engineers working below them.

Probably the best example of this tragedy: Boeing.

6

coffeesippingbastard t1_itx0bws wrote

> Middle management is really destroying a lot of company reputations

I think this is inevitable for any large enough popular enough company.

SOOOOO many people in management consulting/finance who picked up some coding because "that's where the money is"

There is a non trivial amount of "influencer VCs" in social media.

Google/Meta will have to sort out their cultural cruft fast otherwise they'll go the way of IBM.

4

tvtb t1_ity9gjw wrote

Google killed several projects that users enjoyed (eg. Reader) but they couldn’t find a way to monetize.

1

scribbyshollow t1_itvdgfv wrote

who cares we don't need google anymore, its become so full of ads that its the modern day yahoo of search engines. Duckduckgo is way better and the first page of results isn't all people who paid to be there. Honestly it be better for the overall internet if they went. More room for people to start up new websites, people who arn't already huge corporate sellouts who collect everyones data and sell it.

14

linkerman300 t1_itvejr7 wrote

I’ve used duck duck go it sucks at searching anything even when I put Reddit at the end of the search it dosnt bring up Reddit threads. I wanted to use it for privacy but if I can’t find anything I’m searching for what’s the point

39

SnoopysAdviser t1_itvqnq0 wrote

Agree DDG is just not as good as Google search.

And DDG has ads as the first few entries when you search.

I still use both, but Google search still wins in general for finding what I really need.

10

Dornith t1_itvywo2 wrote

>I put Reddit at the end of the search it dosnt bring up Reddit threads.

Use site:reddit.com

1

Witty_Tomato666 t1_itvtfkc wrote

Lol, Google processes over 8.5 billion searches per day

5

scribbyshollow t1_itvzlzh wrote

not because its needed though, other search engines exist and do fine. People use google because its the most recognizable at this point.

2

745395 t1_ityyikw wrote

> People use google because its the most recognizable at this point.

And because it provides better results. Like Google or not, that's the truth.

1

Obviouslydoesntgetit t1_itvxyej wrote

Duck duck go was unusable for me. I switched because of all the benefits they touted and found myself searching for what i wanted to find, getting no results that fit what i was looking for and then typing in google.com just to search it again. I decided to cut out the middleman after 2 weeks of poor search results.

5

scribbyshollow t1_itvz6cu wrote

I have never had a problem with the search. Haven't had to use google in years outside of the map services it offers.

4

LunaticSongXIV t1_itx1i8p wrote

Thing is, people use search engines in different ways. One user might use keyword-based search queries. Another person might use natural language. Different search engines will handle those differences in different ways.

2

745395 t1_ityghlb wrote

That's the problem with all these privacy focused searches. They're TOO private. There's nothing wrong with collecting info to provide better results. Just be transparent about how you use that data, and don't mistreat user's data. One-size-fits-all search does not work.

3

green-tank t1_ityiqz4 wrote

In the vast majority of searches it works well for me bit for those rare cases where I don't and I habe the feeling google would have done better I just type "g! whateveritrytofind" and it automatically searches in google and displays the results.

So default is duckduckgo for me and the fallback is google without much effort.

1

bamfalamfa t1_itvpdzj wrote

never forget facebook tripled their employees but saw no revenue growth or new (relevant or impactful) innovation. just pissing money away in cap ex. the big tech companies went on a hiring spree during the pandemic and are now realizing they didnt need 50000 engineers making widgets

11

InterestedObserver20 t1_itw120l wrote

Meta's revenue has grown massively over the past 5 years or so. It was 27bn in 2016, 70bn in 2019 and 117bn in 2021. Over what period did they triple employees but see no revenue growth?

13

monchota t1_itvs3rf wrote

Welcome to the recession, for those that were not adults in 2008. Welcome to the ride and enjoy.

10

Dornith t1_itvzs4l wrote

Eh, overall employment numbers are still very high and I doubt anyone who could realistically get a job at Google would struggle to find employment elsewhere.

I don't see this turning into 2008.

9

DarthBrooks69420 t1_itw8mg8 wrote

It would take something like staggering fraud by the corporate mega landlords, mass evictions of everyone living in those unattainable small homes and subsequent actions by banks keeping people out of those houses, mass layoffs and unavailability of reliable automobiles to cause a similar crisis to 2008.

If all those factors came together, then we would see the US economic engine grind to a halt. The biggest worry really is a cascade event that would lead to the monopolization of many different parts of the US economy and neutering of what little federal ability is left to prevent it from happening. If it does happen, it means record profits for the new monopoly class and everybody else left to fight over ever dwindling scraps of what's left.

3

monchota t1_itwf1na wrote

Oh its going to be worse by marchish. Many tech companies will be cutting 40% of thier bloated staff.

1

babyyodaisamazing98 t1_itx85w4 wrote

They aren’t even firing anyone they are just slowing down how fast they hire people. That’s like the opposite of a resession.

1

nomad_grappler t1_itv1xd5 wrote

Gotta keep those capitalist making billions while the workers get paid pennies.

5

Hefty-Ad-4302 t1_itv66gx wrote

I’m all for workers rights and fair compensation but Alphabet employees are hardly an example of under-compensated laborers

55

nomad_grappler t1_itv83f4 wrote

Compared to the owners they are.

7

Hefty-Ad-4302 t1_itvci0j wrote

Compared to the other 99% of the workforce they’re doing just fine

10

Headytexel t1_itvnz0p wrote

They’re still underpaid for the value they create.

We need worker solidarity, people at Google being paid less doesn’t help a server or a Mail man get paid more, it helps Google CEOs and major shareholders get paid more.

6

nomad_grappler t1_itvdxip wrote

I mean according to the interviews with employees that work content moderation they dont get paid shit for what they to through.

2

elmohasagun13 t1_itveleb wrote

I don’t think you understand the tech sector.

7

Content_Flamingo_583 t1_itvm3od wrote

I don’t think you understand the tech sector. Google’s CEO is worth 1.3 billion.

If the average tech employee had a net worth of a million dollars (which they don’t), their CEO has about 1.3 billion dollars more than them.

That is, the CEO makes over one thousand times as much money as one of their employees. And that’s being conservative.

7

elmohasagun13 t1_itvpy1e wrote

The entry level salary for a google software engineer hovers around $200k, with total comp potentially being orders of magnitude higher based on the market value of vested RSUs. This employment relationship is not comparable to someone on hourly wages as the base salary alone puts you above 98% of Americans.

The median home value in Santa Clara County is $1.4 million, so any of those “average” south bay tech workers would be millionaires if they owned their home outright.

You’re extrapolating a critique of the gap between executive and employee compensation to an industry with extremely high salaries and a large percentage of employees who are granted ownership (shares) into the company simply through working there.

4

nomad_grappler t1_itvezvc wrote

Yeah maybe. I do know its wrong to hoard gaint piles of money cause your a greedy asshole.

0

iPlayWithWords13 t1_itve8fa wrote

There is not a singular owner of Google. You're making the worker's rights movement look terrible right now.

2

nomad_grappler t1_itvf29d wrote

So no one owns google?

−7

iPlayWithWords13 t1_itvf5x5 wrote

No, it's a publicly traded company which means it's all shareholders.

6

nomad_grappler t1_itvfo9f wrote

Fine whatever replace owner with "shareholder" its the same shit.

−3

iPlayWithWords13 t1_itvftc9 wrote

No, it's not. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and you've repeatedly made that clear throughout your comments on this post.

5

z0rgi-A- t1_itvake5 wrote

Well, they didn't create the world's most popular search engine did they.

−8

Nebuli2 t1_itvbmhy wrote

I mean, yes? Google employees did create it, and continue to maintain and improve it.

14

nomad_grappler t1_itvdnp6 wrote

I mean they literally did. Or did the owner of alphabet do literally all the coding and moderation?

2

Curtis_Baefield t1_itvj443 wrote

Google literally uses a two tiered labor system to keep people like you believing they pay their employees well. A lot of their “employees” are contractors who live paycheck to paycheck and can’t even say they work for YouTube or what have you without being terminated. Don’t simp for alphabet.

7

Elliott2 t1_itvgigs wrote

id imagine half of them are overpaid.

2

camo750 t1_itwe5cl wrote

"Alphabet is ramping up scrutiny of all of its projects, and cutting hiring in half as it tries to MAINTAIN UNSUSTAINABLE PROFITS"

Thats the issue. Not cost.

5

appleflaxen t1_itwswd1 wrote

Google graveyard is about to explode

3

Leiryn t1_itxr9ph wrote

Cool, any bets on what "product" they will kill next?

2

irescueducks t1_itvv6re wrote

Judging by the surprise Android Auto survey i got today, that product is on its last leg.

1

i8abug t1_itxdd1u wrote

Oh no! What was the survey about? That's a key feature I wanted for my next car

1

irescueducks t1_itykk7j wrote

How useful do i consider the product to be. There are no ads in Android Auto so it's just bad business.

1

redEPICSTAXISdit t1_itxrhaf wrote

I'm tellin ya if they just finally made lmnop one letter that would solve half their problems and they'd be well on their way.

1

Moe_Capp t1_itvgt84 wrote

They need to bring back Daydream and release a 6DoF mobile headset.

0

Aggravating_Pen_115 t1_itvtpud wrote

The next depression is coming.

−3

[deleted] t1_itw0jfg wrote

[deleted]

3

Aggravating_Pen_115 t1_itw4qna wrote

Changing the definition of recession to fit the current politics doesn't work either. We've been in a recession the last few months and it's going to get much worse over this winter season I believe. Just my opinion.

−1