Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Mar 2012 00:13 UTC
Google "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. Technically I suppose Google has always been an advertising company, but for the better part of the last three years, it didn't feel like one. Google was an ad company only in the sense that a good TV show is an ad company: having great content attracts advertisers." Note we're looking at a Microsoft employee. His points still carry some validity, though.
Order by: Score:
wow lots of credibility
by bnolsen on Wed 14th Mar 2012 00:25 UTC
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

Considering he's not an MS employee posting this on an MS blog, well take that for what it is. I'm not even going to bother reading it.

If the guy had left for some startup to try to get away from brain dead direction from a brain deal top management he might have some credibility. Instead he traded one for another.

Btw, I actually did scan the article...

Edited 2012-03-14 00:25 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: wow lots of credibility
by vaette on Wed 14th Mar 2012 12:23 UTC in reply to "wow lots of credibility"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

Microsoft primarily makes products for people to buy if they want to use it though, where Google sells people to advertisers to wring them for cash.

You may not like Microsoft, but they are clearly a very different beast from Google. There is no inconsistency in leaving Google for Microsoft if you take issue with companies doing everything to amass peoples personal information to sell to advertisers.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: wow lots of credibility
by JAlexoid on Wed 14th Mar 2012 14:11 UTC in reply to "RE: wow lots of credibility"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

There is no inconsistency in leaving Google for Microsoft if you take issue with companies doing everything to amass peoples personal information to sell to advertisers.


A) Microsoft and Facebook. Look up their relationship.
B) Where can I buy that personal information. I would like to call every single person that followed the link of my ads and thank them. Please, do point me to it. And then contrast it to what Twitter does.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: wow lots of credibility
by vaette on Wed 14th Mar 2012 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wow lots of credibility"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

Microsoft owns part of Facebook yes, but this guy did not take a job with Facebook. He has already noted that he runs a large development team inside Microsoft, so he is engineering something.

While you can't buy the information in list form from Google the personal information is certainly leveraged for the benefit of advertisers. Phone numbers don't enter into it, but do you really claim that Google isn't using a profile of you based on your web searches and similar to serve you ads?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: wow lots of credibility
by JAlexoid on Thu 15th Mar 2012 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: wow lots of credibility"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

He has already noted that he runs a large development team inside Microsoft, so he is engineering something.

And at Google he was the guy in charge of gathering your personal information? I'm not saying he made the wrong choice, but his explanation is more of a rationalization considering where he moved on. It's like complaining about bureaucracy in a government job and leaving for a job in a big corporation.

While you can't buy the information in list form from Google the personal information is certainly leveraged for the benefit of advertisers.

Thus your previous comment "to sell to advertisers" is at least an exaggeration and at most an intentional deceit(aka lie).

Phone numbers don't enter into it, but do you really claim that Google isn't using a profile of you based on your web searches and similar to serve you ads?

Not only web searches but page visit history and much, much more...

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: wow lots of credibility
by delta0.delta0 on Fri 16th Mar 2012 11:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wow lots of credibility"
delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

It gets worse ..

http://googletesting.blogspot.com/2009/06/james-whittaker-joins-goo...

He was a microsoft employee that left Microsoft to join Google in 2009 and then decides to Join Microsoft back 3 years later and he is a software tester and was a massive blogger for Microsoft.

http://goo.gl/x2nn4 look at the news interest this has generated, all the way to the daily mail, the register the huffington post.. So what was this blog post really about ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: wow lots of credibility
by dsmogor on Thu 15th Mar 2012 08:34 UTC in reply to "RE: wow lots of credibility"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

MS is now shifting heavily to Google's model, at least in part. They just haven't succeeded yet.

Reply Score: 3

RE: wow lots of credibility
by Hiev on Wed 14th Mar 2012 17:20 UTC in reply to "wow lots of credibility"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

So, Google fanboy, you don't question why he left Google for MS?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: wow lots of credibility
by delta0.delta0 on Fri 16th Mar 2012 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE: wow lots of credibility"
delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

So Microsoft fanboy, why did he leave Microsoft initially to join Google ? if Microsoft was such a great place to work why did he leave them in 2009 to join Google ?

Reply Score: 1

RE: wow lots of credibility
by bassbeast on Wed 14th Mar 2012 23:13 UTC in reply to "wow lots of credibility"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

So in other words it makes ZERO difference if any of his points are valid if they don't fit into your myopic worldview? Biased much? He has made it clear that his reason for leaving was an all consuming obsession with FB, who hasn't seen this? the changes in privacy policies, the pushing of Google+, the killing of any projects that don't tie into social, its pretty obvious that Google is as obsessed with FB as Ballmer's MSFT is with Apple.

To me what is sad is that because there is zero brand loyalty in search Google's obsession could easily do to them what happened to Altavista and yahoo before them, which is run off their users. i am using yahoo search full time now (which i know is powered by Bing's backend as is DuckDuckGo and several others, but I like the Yahoo Search UI better) because frankly the search results on Google have been getting worse. Blame it on SEOs, their obsession with social, whatever, but when i need to find a review of a product i'm looking at and get pages of SEO spam Google just isn't helpful.

Personally I just wish the whole "hey jump on the bandwagon!" crud would just DIAF already. We have all the major OSes ripping off smartphone UIs even though it makes NO sense because smartphones are "hip" right now, Ubuntu wants to be a smartphone, MSFT wants to be Apple, Google wants to be FB, Mozilla wants to be Chrome, enough already! Just be the best at what you already are and stop playing follow the leader already!

Reply Score: 1

Google+ > Facebook
by WorknMan on Wed 14th Mar 2012 00:50 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

I think Google+ is superior to Facebook, for the sole reason that there's not many people on there. At least for me, it's just myself and a small group of friends who are all techies. Thus, the conversations on Google+ seem a lot more interesting than the 'Post this as your status for an hour if you've ever been disemboweled by a wooden cooking spoon' shit I see on Facebook all the time.

That being said, I think this whole sharing thing has been way overblown. Not because I'm concerned about privacy, but because I'm sick of apps like Spotify constantly nagging me to log in using Facebook, just so I can share a bunch of information with my friends that they probably don't want to see anyway. That, and certain apps/services only being available through Facebook. And I'm not even anti-Facebook like a lot of my friends are. Also, new features in apps these days seem geared more around sharing than any real functionality. For example, most RSS apps on the planet give you the ability to share articles in several different ways, but virtually none of them I've found offer any way to combine/filter feeds. For that, I have to use Yahoo Pipes.

Reply Score: 7

Very good ranticle
by ronaldst on Wed 14th Mar 2012 01:10 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

Google isn't a social company. It's not in their corporate culture. Even Microsoft failed at it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Very good ranticle
by lfeagan on Wed 14th Mar 2012 08:01 UTC in reply to "Very good ranticle"
lfeagan Member since:
2006-04-01

Google isn't a social company. It's not in their corporate culture. Even Microsoft failed at it.


In general, a developer-centric company isn't likely to be social in an encompassing manner. Developers, like most people, have cliques with those who share similar opinions. Google seems to be working very hard at changing their culture to be more open and transparent to outsiders, actively engaging with others, and trying to build something social. While at times it comes off as a bit awkward, I applaud them for trying.

Reply Score: 1

A mostly agree
by Priest on Wed 14th Mar 2012 03:03 UTC
Priest
Member since:
2006-05-12

I post to Google+ more than facebook but I agree with him about the direction shift he mentioned at Google.

I used to just surf to google labs once in while just to check out the cool things Google was cooking up and I was sad to see it go.

I think the companies trying to copy Facebook mostly don't get it. I don't want my email account feature added to provide social networking.

I still don't think all hope is lost for Google+ though. I think its still possible for them to find some success with a niche like workgroup collaboration that would be aimed more at the out of high school crowd.

I think Facebook is making some mistakes in that it is too open, too willing to violate everyone's privacy, and things like being on a web site and looking down at the comments section to notice I am pre-logged in with my Facebook account give me the creeps. The constant bombardment of BS app spam from farmville etc.

Some things facebook does are worth copying others features are crap and I don't see many people figuring out the difference any time soon.

Part of being a publicly traded company comes a well established nasty habbit of not being able to see past the next quarters numbers and even the mighty Google has shown it isn't immune. In saying that though, maybe Facebook IPO could be the break its competitors are looking for.

Edited 2012-03-14 03:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Why?
by JAlexoid on Wed 14th Mar 2012 03:05 UTC
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

Ok. I will agree in general on the content in his post, but...
Going from Google to Microsoft? It does not compute.

I mean, if that was his actual reason for leaving Google, Microsoft should have been the last place he should have gone to. I just suspect that Microsoft offered him better options and he is now rationalizing the decision.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Why?
by vaette on Wed 14th Mar 2012 12:30 UTC in reply to "Why?"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

Microsoft sells actual products to people for direct payment, they are not in the business of farming peoples personal information to sell them out to advertisers. There is no inconsistency.

You may not consider Microsoft a moral company, but they are an old-style business, and their fundamental business model (build thing, set a price, sell it to people) is one I can't imagine that anyone outside of RMS can really take issue with.

Either way, apparently we will know his motivation shortly: https://twitter.com/#!/docjamesw/status/179700356694028288

Edited 2012-03-14 12:30 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why?
by JAlexoid on Wed 14th Mar 2012 14:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19
RE[2]: Why?
by lucas_maximus on Wed 14th Mar 2012 16:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

There is no point talking sense on OSNEWS ... if you support Microsoft or Like anything Microsoft in the comments you are either "paid","trolling" or "mis-informed".

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Why?
by ilovebeer on Wed 14th Mar 2012 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

There is no point talking sense on OSNEWS ... if you support Microsoft or Like anything Microsoft in the comments you are either "paid","trolling" or "mis-informed".

Very say, but very true.

For the record, I know a lot of people who have worked or are currently working for Microsoft. I can count on one hand how many people didn't/don't like it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why?
by MollyC on Thu 15th Mar 2012 06:59 UTC in reply to "Why?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

comment deleted by the author

Edited 2012-03-15 07:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

But
by Earl C Pottinger on Wed 14th Mar 2012 03:10 UTC
Earl C Pottinger
Member since:
2008-07-12

Over on Slashdot.org there is a pointer to an article that is complaining that Google does not concentrate on advertising because they are spending $16,000,000,000 on research ideas, many that will probably fail.

Also the investor community thinks Google is dumb letting it's engineers spend 20% of their time researching anything they want.

The above does not sound like just an advertising company to me?

Android Phones - pure advertising?
Self driving cars - pure advertising?

Google Maps - Ok, I have used it to find stores/services that I needed. But I have also used it to search for trails in the bush near my cottage. To print out better maps of Caribbean islands I am going on a cruise.

A number of Google's services do more than just advertising.

Reply Score: 3

RE: But
by Priest on Wed 14th Mar 2012 03:56 UTC in reply to "But"
Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

Many of those things happened or were in the works before Google was a public company. Even after they went public the company didn't change over night.

Gmail was 2004, Android acquired 2005, Maps 2005, Earth acquired in 2005, Google code 2005.

Their IPO was 2005, since then they acquired Youtube in 2006, DoubleClick in 2007, acquired AdMob in 2009, closed Google Labs in 2011 "in order to provide better focus on non-experimental applications"

Other notable pre IPO products and aquasitions were Picasa, Toolbar, News, Orkut, Groups, Books, News, Video, Froogle, and Blogger.

Google was a frenzy of cool acquisitions and products up untill 2006. They went public 7 years ago and since then the only really cool thing I can name that came out is Chrome in 2008 and the seed of which could have easily been planted before the corporate mentality really started to do real damage to creativity.

Reply Score: 3

The money is better at Microsoft
by ozonehole on Wed 14th Mar 2012 03:32 UTC
ozonehole
Member since:
2006-01-07

I presume that Microsoft offered him more cash. That's why he went there. Of course, he had to come up with some ludicrous reason to justify it.

Reply Score: 5

Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

While valid, you have to consider that a lot of talented people that went to Google could have had higher paychecks (and titles) elsewhere but decided they would rather work at Google.

Google has stated in the past that they staff people in positions they are generally overqualified for. They have people walking around with masters degrees and PhD's from some of the best schools in the country doing jobs that you can do in many other companies without a degree.

If google becomes like every other company then what is the point of being an overqualified and underpaid employee for them?

Reply Score: 4

Why I left google
by Soulbender on Wed 14th Mar 2012 03:41 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

is because Microsoft gave me a better offer. Hey, nothing wrong with that but why would you feel the need to justify it? All this talk about advertising and stuff sounds just a wee bit hollow when your new employer is Microsoft. If he had went and started his own little innovative and social company I could have bought it but this? No.

Edited 2012-03-14 03:41 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: Why I left google
by jimmmy on Wed 14th Mar 2012 16:57 UTC in reply to "Why I left google"
jimmmy Member since:
2012-01-02

is because Microsoft gave me a better offer.

See, now this is more insightful. "My new company does this for me" rather than "I'm mortally wounded about my old company." He went off on a rant about how bad Google was for him but didn't mention a damned thing about how his new job was doing things better. Is it doing things better for him and how so?

Hey, nothing wrong with that but why would you feel the need to justify it?

In my experience people go out of their way to justify things because the alternative is admitting they might have made a mistake.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why I left google
by Hiev on Wed 14th Mar 2012 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Why I left google"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

In my experience people go out of their way to justify things because the alternative is admitting they might have made a mistake

As always, Google zombies try to justify Google at any cost, even being desillutional, A man who actually worked at Google says Google sucks now, deal with it, don't try to pull out theories from thin air.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why I left google
by jimmmy on Wed 14th Mar 2012 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why I left google"
jimmmy Member since:
2012-01-02

As always, Google zombies try to justify Google at any cost, even being desillutional, A man who actually worked at Google says Google sucks now, deal with it, don't try to pull out theories from thin air.


I'm not waving a Google flag here. I'm just saying that the article seems more like bitter QQ than anything else. If in a few years when he quits his current job, I'm sure he'll have lots of QQ then too. Pointing out that it's senseless QQ won't make me a Microsoft fan.

I'm no Google fanboy. Stop trying to pigeonhole me as one. That's something you pulled from thin air, angry man.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Why I left google
by lucas_maximus on Wed 14th Mar 2012 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why I left google"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I would suspect he got asked why he left Google a lot by people.

I personally wouldn't want to work at Microsoft even though I love their products, I am too much of a "hacker" and I don't like development processes where management are overly involved.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Why I left google
by JAlexoid on Thu 15th Mar 2012 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why I left google"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

you support Microsoft

Wouldn't the best way of supporting Microsoft be actually joining Microsoft and building tools for them?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Why I left google
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Mar 2012 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why I left google"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I didn't say anything about supporting them. I like their products. If they make a product I like, I use it ... if it sucks I use something else.

Reply Score: 2

crimperman
Member since:
2006-11-09

Anyone else come here expecting to see a piece about why somebody moved their search/mail/docs/data away from Google's services?

I was kind of hoping to see a list of alternatives for these and how well putting your eggs in several baskets works out.

Ah well.

Reply Score: 3

Says a lot about Google
by bowkota on Wed 14th Mar 2012 09:05 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

This guy was pretty important at Google, his opinion on how things have changed is important; although he's not saying something we already didn't know.
To anyone wondering why he joined Microsoft, you're getting your answer soon

Wow. Seem to have hit upon a topic many are thinking about. I am working on a 'Why I joined Microsoft' post. Stay tuned.

https://twitter.com/#!/docjamesw

PS: Google Labs was pretty awesome, it's pretty sad that they shut it down.

Edited 2012-03-14 09:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

tamed comments
by Tractor on Wed 14th Mar 2012 09:27 UTC
Tractor
Member since:
2006-08-18

It seems the blog would filter out any comment which would look even lightly detrimental to Microsoft.

Welcome into the tamed/controled/censored world of Microsoft.

Reply Score: 1

I U NO JUSTIFY ON YOUR PERSONAL BLOG
by Risthel on Wed 14th Mar 2012 11:04 UTC
Risthel
Member since:
2010-12-22

Why justify this on a Microsoft Blog, and not on your personal blog right after the departure?

Making this post on the MS blog, just decreased the reputation of it, because it seems that you posted just to create FUD against Google.

Reply Score: 1

Why I left series
by edzob on Wed 14th Mar 2012 14:07 UTC
edzob
Member since:
2012-03-14

It looks like a trent.
After the two google left chronicles, today also one of goldman sachs..

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-...

Not techy, but hope ti give it some more meaning (duiding in dutch)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why I left series
by JAlexoid on Wed 14th Mar 2012 14:15 UTC in reply to "Why I left series"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I'm going to write, why I left IBM.

Spoiler - 4 ze moneyz!

Reply Score: 3

real reason
by fran on Wed 14th Mar 2012 15:09 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Probably for greener pa$ture$

Reply Score: 2

other side
by fran on Wed 14th Mar 2012 16:37 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Google said it was going to "put more wood behind fewer arrows".
Almost the anti argument of that blog post can be found below. Google was waisting money on projects that went nowhere.

http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=240386&print=y...

Edited 2012-03-14 16:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Between a rock and hard place
by Tony Swash on Wed 14th Mar 2012 17:52 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Googles sole source of revenue (95%) comes from selling internet advertising coupled to user data and the vast majority of that comes from advertising associated in some way with the internet being accessed from a browser on a traditional PC. That world is going away. It's going away because increasingly people are accessing the internet though mobile devices (where mobile advertising is a piffling small market), or not via a browser but via an app, or spending most of their time inside walled off places like Facebook where Google is not collecting much user data or selling advertising.

Being dependent on just one revenue stream leaves Google vulnerable and the way the internet and technology and computing are all developing is threatening to undermine that one revenue source, possibly quite quickly. Hence Google2 is becoming a much more focussed creature than Google1 (even though the still fairly shambolic internal structures it inherited from Google1 is making the development of focus hard) and Google2 is trying to expand and deepen revenue collection. Google1 could afford to be altruistic and could try to be ethics and value driven. Google2 can't. Although Google2 can still talk the talk it inherited from Google1 it is often acting in an entirely different way a lot of the time. I wonder how long the disconnect between words and deeds will last?

As Brian Hall asked in a recent post

"You tell me -- based on Google's actions not the words of the CEO -- what is Google's stance on:

Net neutrality
Search neutrality
Operating in China
Patents and patent lawsuits
Licensing
Open standards -- that they do not control
Android -- without other Google products embedded
Web innovation - that they do not control"



I liked Google1 and I wasn't too bothered about being dependent on or watched by Google1 as I used it's excellent free offerings. I am not so sure about Google2, I find myself looking for alternatives to Google services a lot more now. And they are available

Reply Score: 2

Validity?
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Mar 2012 09:31 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Why can't it be taken at face value ... he was actually someone who worked in the company, unlike you who didn't

Microsoft is just too big of an entity to be as evil as everyone makes out. If you work in an organisation with more than a few hundred employees, one end department rarely knows what the other is doing.

Microsoft is massive ... leave the conspiracy theories at home.

Edited 2012-03-16 09:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Validity?
by JAlexoid on Fri 16th Mar 2012 14:43 UTC in reply to "Validity?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Their corporate policies and practices are what make them "evil". A big company only implies that you can't judge a whole company by a few lower rank employees.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Validity?
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Mar 2012 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Validity?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

:sigh:

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Validity?
by JAlexoid on Sat 17th Mar 2012 02:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Validity?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Try working at one.

Reply Score: 2

Stop burning bridges...
by sithlord2 on Fri 16th Mar 2012 15:56 UTC
sithlord2
Member since:
2009-04-02

It's never a good idea to talk bad about a previous employer, especially on the internet.

People who badmouth their previous employers are less likely to get hired...

Reply Score: 1