Stephen D. Williams
sdw at lig.net
Fri May 31 10:33:39 PDT 2013
On 5/31/13 10:09 AM, Adam L Beberg wrote:
> Google is very uneven, only a handful of people are doing anything boundary-pushing, far under 1%. But the core of the
> discontinuity it is that what they try to be and present to the world, and what they actually are on the inside are WILDLY
> different things. It's a megacorp advertising company, and everything they do must feed that beast, and it's a beast that could be
> disrupted away very easily.
> Apple has a great shares = ( stock_grant / stock_price ) right now, so that's great, but the culture and that my work will make
> peoples lives awesome is much more important to me.
I can see that. By losing candidates to them, I have some insight into possible packages from Google, Apple, Intel, and AMD, so I
know that they can be very good. The real players have learned how to compete with an active startup environment.
Can't knock Apple much other than their secrecy and need to strive toward uniculture a bit too much. Hard to see how they are going
to keep up with Android, so that's probably depressing.
> On 05/31/2013 08:36 AM, Stephen Williams wrote:
> > Join when companies, which you know will survive and succeed eventually, are hurting the most. Tesla was obvious from the IPO
> on, if they had more of what I was interested in.
> I appreciate the philosophy. But having spent the past 7 or 8 years first at IBM and then at SLAC, I'm hoping to spend some time
> at a place that *isn't* hurting. Maybe after my brain has healed a bit I'll be willing again to deal with high levels of hurt.
> - Joe
I have a general rule against going into sick environments, unless I am there to clean them up. Cash strapped environments are no
fun, unless the looming upside is huge. IBM has been fighting to stay relevant forever, and I've seen them try to kill good ideas
at W3C that they thought might affect a cash cow. SLAC seems cool, but unless they generate some unlikely commercial or endowment
revenue stream (like Stanford itself, which has both), hard to see how it wouldn't constantly degenerate into academic backstabbing
to preserve funding.
> And yes, I'm hiring for people to work on an Apple project. But everyone on this list is trying to hire aren't they :)
> Stephen Williams wrote on 5/31/2013 8:36 AM:
>> I suspect actual experience at Google is uneven depending on where you
>> end up, working with whom, working on what. Google seems to have tried
>> better than most to stay meritocratic and effective (contrast with
>> Microsoft, with obvious results), opportunitiful, and exciting, but all
>> environments have some range of amazing down to soul-killing. Presumably
>> some assignments are anti-loops also. Presumably they won't take being
>> fired as an employer as a fatal event toward future relationships.
>> Seems like a good time to join Apple. Why join at the peak? They don't
>> need you or anything at that point and upside is much less likely.
>> While flush with cash, at peaks they are more likely to be arrogant.
>> Join when companies, which you know will survive and succeed eventually,
>> are hurting the most. Tesla was obvious from the IPO on, if they had
>> more of what I was interested in. (I supposed they did if I would have
>> looked / thought about it.) LinkedIn, etc.
>> On 5/31/13 6:35 AM, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
>>> Google is like Thunderdome, Two FoRKers join, one FoRKer leaves. I
>>> bet Apple could give Google a good run for its money if their stock
>>> wasn't in such poor shape.
>>> On 5/30/2013 6:01 PM, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
>>>> On 5/30/2013 10:14 AM, Stephen Williams wrote:
>>>> > The Bay Area FoRKers should be getting together periodically
>>>> already... But we (or at least I) don't.
>>>> It would be easier if all the few remaining non-Google Bay Area FoRKers
>>>> would just join Google. That way we could all just meet in the cafeteria
>>>> or something.
>>>> To that end, I've decided to join Google, starting on Monday.
>>>> - Joe
More information about the FoRK