Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Mar 2012 00:13 UTC
"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.
Thread beginning with comment 510480
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: The money is better at Microsoft
by Priest on Wed 14th Mar 2012 04:07
in reply to "The money is better at Microsoft"
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?
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.