Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Microsoft

Some Developers Leaving Google For Microsoft 685

Posted by kdawson
from the turning-tide-or-momentary-reversal dept.
recoiledsnake writes "We have heard about lots of talented developers jumping ship from Microsoft to Google, but is the trend beginning to turn? Dare Obasanjo (a Microsoft employee) writes about a few high-profile people picking Microsoft over Google — either making the jump directly, or choosing Microsoft after receiving offers at both. Sergey Solyanik is back to Microsoft and he primarily gripes about the culture and lack of career development at Google. He writes, 'Everything is pretty much run by [engineering] — PMs and testers are conspicuously absent from the process. Google as an organization is not geared — culturally — to delivering enterprise class reliability to its user applications.' Danny Thorpe, who was the key architect of Google Gears, is back at Microsoft for his second stint working on developer technologies related to Windows Live."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Some Developers Leaving Google For Microsoft

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30, 2008 @06:48PM (#24008685)
    Observers report large numbers of chairs flying out the windows of Google headquarters. More at 11.
  • Is that so? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Monday June 30, 2008 @06:49PM (#24008707) Homepage Journal

    "Everything is pretty much run by [engineering] -- PMs and testers are conspicuously absent from the process."

    Oh what a fucking nightmare!

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30, 2008 @06:59PM (#24008873)

      Yeah! They should be run by marketing and management people, just like at Microsoft! Everyone knows that engineers can't be relied upon to produce enterprise quality software without marketing's careful guidance and input.

    • by Penguinisto (415985) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:10PM (#24009019) Journal

      Wow. Where is this alleged paradise where Program Managers STFU and pay attention to the coders? Where testers don't get to touch it until it's ready for testing?

      ...do they have unicorns there too?

      /P

      • Re:Is that so? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by spydabyte (1032538) on Monday June 30, 2008 @08:27PM (#24009843)
        Look at Google's process. Simply speaking from an outside perspective, they have very little designated process. They use an extremely agile processes of basically "just code the shit" and it works for them. As far as testing goes, if they're working with some kind of eXtreme Programming, then hopefully they're writing their test cases first.
        Look at Microsoft on the other hand, they're extremely nested in processes and cannot get out.

        As for the article, I'd say there's so much more to look at. Housing, as already mentioned, is only part of the picture. What about salaries and work environments (some people do like process more than working anarchy)? I for one understand the argument of being a god among insects.
        No knowledge or real research done here, just thinking "outside the box". I hear Microsoft likes that.
      • Re:Is that so? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Merusdraconis (730732) on Monday June 30, 2008 @11:36PM (#24011377) Homepage

        It's the same place where nothing ever gets to ship because the coders won't let it go until it's perfect. Witness Gmail, being in beta for years as a perfectly fine 1.0.

      • Re:Is that so? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Alphager (957739) <florian.haas@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @03:48AM (#24012841) Homepage Journal

        Where testers don't get to touch it until it's ready for testing?

        The later a bug is found the costlier it is to fix it. And if your projects run late (who are we kidding: WHEN your projects run late) the first two things to be cut down are documentation and testing. Do daily automated testing and you find many errors before they become critical.

    • Re:Is that so? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mpapet (761907) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:13PM (#24009057) Homepage

      The problem really is when either function gets too much control. Marketing tends to get capricious about features and blows huge sums on "research" and end up with a Ford Fiero.

      Engineering, well... I've seen low-level greatness that couldn't translate elegantly into customer-level value. I've seen projects never finish too.

      The problem is probably management-level. *Someone* needs to crack a few heads together to get people back into reality. A good anecdote about the organizational problem was on /. a couple of days ago when the mighty Bill Gates was supposedly pissed about some feature/application/thing. He cracked heads near his level. One level below it turned into a managerial quagmire.

    • Re:Is that so? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Austerity Empowers (669817) on Monday June 30, 2008 @08:19PM (#24009773)

      I so want to work there. I've seen both sides of this, run by engineering is 100000x better, if you're an engineer.

      I agree if you're trying to get to management and NOT the alpha geek in the pack, then you are dicked. But then why are you in engineering at all? The hours are long, the people are socially clueless, failure to know some obscure piece of academia turd may brand you the retard of the group...why put up with that? You are GUARANTEED to get in to management (in the private sector) if you are even slightly responsible and care even a little bit about the company...outside of engineering. Inside engineering, you need to be in a Microsoft (or the N equivalents) that will dumb down engineering to level the playing field. A few companies can do that, but not many that are on track.

      All this is peaceful bliss compared to being an engineer in an a business-oriented company. It's illogical, insane, dubiously profitable, hard in all the wrong ways...but yeah I could climb ye ole ladder and make mom happy. Somehow culturally incompetant middle management >> clueful engineer in the bragometer. Eh, I'll trade them my senseless business-driven engineering job for their engineering-driven engineering job.

    • From Dare Obasanjo's excerpts of Sergey Solyanik's blog, about Google: "Everything is pretty much run by the engineering - PMs and testers are conspicuously absent from the process. While they do exist in theory, there are too few of them to matter."

      To me, the story lacks sufficient deep analysis to be sure we understand Mr. Solyanik's experiences.

      I doubt that very many people are moving from "Do no evil" to "Doing a lot of evil is the only way we know to make a living".

      What is Windows Vista but a rather unimportant update to Windows XP, that failed? Microsoft Word has new menus, but changing the menus also means that Microsoft now has two menu arrangement standards in use at the same time, and users must master them both. Internet Explorer version 7 has a third menu arrangement, further breaking the standard with which those who just want to use their computers are so familiar. TrueCrypt developers are talking about [truecrypt.org] suing Microsoft in European court because of anti-trust violations.

      Is that the direction successful people want to go?

      To understand this story, it's good to know more about Dare Obasanjo, in my opinion. He's intelligent, he's a good communicator, and he has a history of being very effective at promoting himself. To me, his story is just him being himself, and promoting himself to Microsoft. Maybe it is not very indicative of what is happening at Microsoft.

      Dare Obasanjo's excerpts of Sergey Solyanik's blog start with, "Last week I left Google to go back to Microsoft".

      In contrast, Sergey Solyanik says "There are many things that Google does really well, and I plan to advocate that some of these things be adopted at Microsoft."

      Mr. Solyanik went back to Microsoft because he didn't like the openness and lack of structure at Google. He wants more structure. He doesn't want to be a manager, and he doesn't want to decide himself the direction of what he is doing.

      Dare Obasanjo's excerpts are misleading, in my opinion. As I said, he seems to me to be promoting himself to Microsoft, rather than understanding anything about why a particular person would quit Google after only a year there and go back to Microsoft. Also, Mr. Solyanik may have been given a very sweet deal; that is not discussed.
  • Right.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Monday June 30, 2008 @06:50PM (#24008715)

    "Google as an organization is not geared - culturally - to delivering enterprise class reliability to its user applications."

    Whew, good thing Microsoft is.

    • by Red Flayer (890720) on Monday June 30, 2008 @06:55PM (#24008811) Journal
      Screw that. I want miranda-class [wikipedia.org] reliability. Just so I can scream "Khaaaaan!" everytime I have a Windows problem.

      And by the way, it's not enterprise-class, it's Constitution-class. Sheesh.
    • Re:Right.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by H0p313ss (811249) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:08PM (#24008985)

      Yeah... sounds funny from the perspective of those of us who have suffered through the microsoft monopoly. But given that most organizations can't tell their asses from their elbows they may well be right. Google seems to grow and progress by throwing lots of young smart people at the problem, but the problem seems to be a moving target from day to day. But microsoft has managed to hold down a monopoly for 20 years.

      Who are you going to take business process advice from? While microsoft's ethics are dubious at best it's very hard to argue with success.

      -- godwin filter removed reference to unethical but successful leader --

      • Re:Right.... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Penguinisto (415985) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:17PM (#24009087) Journal

        Who are you going to take business process advice from? While microsoft's ethics are dubious at best it's very hard to argue with success.


        But why latch onto the tail end of a 20-year-old monopoly who by all rights is beginning to falter, and seems to have no vision at all for the next 20?


        That's what would worry me more. It's not what a company has already done, but what they're wanting to do.

        /P

        • Re:Right.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30, 2008 @10:08PM (#24010689)

          Falter may not apply here. Most people see the consumer end of the business. They see Google Search, and Apple Macs & ipods. MSFT keeps delivering what businesses want. So you & I may be perplexed at say, SHAREPOINT, but right now if you know SP you're employed- it's hot beyond comprehension. You got another version of server and sql server (sales up 30% qtr over qtr)... Get the idea. Profits are likely to go up, not down. Server rooms are getting more licenses not less.

          Google & Apple keep moving their targets and MS keeps moving theirs as well. They are just so huge that they touch everything. So they may not be the best at search or selling tunes, and that may make them look like they are faltering, but they have allot of other stuff to sell you that pulls you into the ecosystem.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by corbettw (214229)

        -- godwin filter removed reference to unethical but successful leader --

        Since when is FDR part of Godwin's Law?

    • You beat me to it (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30, 2008 @08:00PM (#24009605)

      Everything microsoft does is geared towards department level computing. Their entire AD implementation is right out of 1986; Netware had better enterprise features. And somebody better tell Microsoft that had they simply used LDAP, they wouldn't have to blow billions on AD. Provisioning and employee lifecycle? They're the only major software company in the world with no solution there.

      Their products ooze of something designed for a company with 100-1000 employees. Imagine that you have apps that when installed force servers to reboot. Imagine your major subsystems run as services so it becomes problematic when you what process level isolation of app server. Imagine to get an app server, you *must* install IIS. Imagine that when you want multiple versions of .NET, it's not as simple as just having multiple directories for each instance, you actually have to *install* it on the server with admin privileges.

      My MS rep called the other day, and I said not interested since they have no enterprise architecture tools. He tried to sell me Sourcesafe and MS's IDE because "it has architecture tools in it". I pointed out that software engineering is not equal to enterprise architecture except in a most tangential way. He had no idea what I was talking about except to ask what "my definition" of Enterprise Architecture is. When a salesman has to challenge his customer that they don't understand, he/she is clearly not atuned to what's happening in the IT industry.

      It goes on and on. It's like the entire thing at MS was designed by CompSci students who are killer coders, but don't have any idea of how to do things like master data management. They have no concept of a TDS versus an ODS. Everything at MS is a hodge-podge of cute little features that break down as soon as you try to do something more complex than "write a killer web page that pulls inventory in real time from a data base". Mind you, that's a great app for a small company, but stuff that you can do faster/cheaper with free solutions like linux/apache/mysql. I don't need to actually pay a large company for software licenses for crap like that.

      Ironically, the scientists at MS have some great ideas and understand these concepts really well. The products, however, reflect none of that work. They're too busy locking in the OS with products. Like they're afraid their stuff won't sell on it's own, so you've got to buy the whole kit and kaboodle

      I see MS as headed for a cliff as fast as their sales will take them. They're doomed in the same way IBM was doomed back in the late 80's.

      • by LaughingCoder (914424) on Monday June 30, 2008 @09:07PM (#24010201)

        They're doomed in the same way IBM was doomed back in the late 80's./blockquote> In the late 80's IBM stock was in the mid $20s. Now it is 6X higher at $120. As a Microsoft stockholder, I sure hope you are right!

        • Re:You beat me to it (Score:4, Interesting)

          by the_womble (580291) on Tuesday July 01, 2008 @01:14AM (#24012021) Homepage Journal

          They're doomed in the same way IBM was doomed back in the late 80's

          In the late 80's IBM stock was in the mid $20s. Now it is 6X higher at $120. As a Microsoft stockholder, I sure hope you are right!

          And how did IBM's price do from say May 1987 to August 1993? From a high of 41.9 to a low of 10.5.

          IBM then changed its business drastically, going heavily into services, getting out of a lot of businesses (I can think of printers and PCs off-hand, but there were more) and turned around.

          Even with the turnaround, IBM never really made up for the under performance. The price is up 685% since January 1980, but the S P 500 is up 1164% over the same period.

          You are not going to be a very happy MS shareholder if it follows that path, are you?

    • Re:Right.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30, 2008 @08:52PM (#24010075)

      The quote about Google being run by engineers immediately caught my eye too. I've been a Microsoft employee for 2 years after doing contract jobs there since 1990. My perspective is that it has shifted from a being highly dominated by engineers to one that is pretty much run by HR and PMs, in that order. There is more focus on career development than I've seen anywhere else. There is a highly detailed process of setting and evaluating commitments, which is designed to give the review process greater transparency, and I think also to make the system more objective and foolproof. But a lot of a person's review consequently hinges on skillfully setting commitments rather than being talented. Toward the end of the fiscal year when many projects are in a crunch, I hear people say things like, "I don't care, I've hit all my commitments."

      Microsoft is still a good company with lots of smart colleagues, a nice work environment and great benefits, but it's also a very large company that has reached the stage of having a hell of a lot of people who don't seem to do a lot and get paid a lot more than engineers. I had to chuckle when the blogger said he couldn't tell what Google managers did, because I often have that feeling at Microsoft.

  • by actionbastard (1206160) on Monday June 30, 2008 @06:50PM (#24008733)
    "Google as an organization is not geared -- culturally -- to delivering enterprise class reliability to its user applications."
    You don't have to be, when the entire on-line world is your beta test laboratory.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30, 2008 @06:55PM (#24008807)

      The difference between Microsoft and Google in this regard is that users pay to beta test Microsoft's sofwtare without being told it is, at best, in beta quality. Where as Google invites (initially selectively) people to try the product and provide feedback. They're in beta for a very long time because they want it to be stable before declaring version "1.0". Small contrast, but expectation goes a long way towards the perception of quality.

      If I'm paying money for retail software, I expect a rock solid product, not the buggy POS that I have to wait for the first Service Pack to use even the most basic functionality.
      Google is up front with the fact that their software is not necessarily ready for prime time and users can hedge their bets accordingly. That said, Google beta products are often many times better than the "final version" of software from other vendors.

      • by Wo1ke (1218100) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:12PM (#24009045)
        The problem is that beta products should eventually *leave* beta.
      • by chromatic (9471) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:13PM (#24009053) Homepage

        They're in beta for a very long time because they want it to be stable before declaring version "1.0".

        You'd think an 18,000 person company would be able to release a finished project once in a while.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DamnStupidElf (649844)

          You'd think an 18,000 person company would be able to release a finished project once in a while.

          How do you "finish" a web based project? "Well, that's done, no one will ever think of anything new to do with this software, or any way to make it easier or better!" "Gee, we've indexed the entire Internet this month, so I guess we're done!"

      • by Nefarious Wheel (628136) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:53PM (#24009511) Journal
        Just a little reminder, guys, from a very old programmer: Software is a machine with thousands of moving parts running on a machine with with several billion moving parts. Bugs are not put in there on purpose. The amount of work needed vs. the amount of time | money available in any development budget does not always correspond.

        I'm not trying to make an argument in defense of slipshod work, but rather point out that any piece of software of any scope is hard work and in many cases the result of heroic individual efforts. Just offering a bit of perspective from a point of view people sometimes forget. Not asking for gratitude, here, just a little respect for the efforts of people often demeaned as code monkeys and asking for a bit of appreciation for those allowing the mostly free and unobstructed flow of information at a scale unprecedented in history. It doesn't matter which company is wrapping the output, this still holds true. Cool?

  • Money talks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 192939495969798999 (58312) <info@@@devinmoore...com> on Monday June 30, 2008 @06:51PM (#24008747) Homepage Journal

    When I hear "...is not geared - culturally - to delivering enterprise class reliability to its user applications" as a reason to leave a company that's NOT microsoft to go work FOR microsoft, I have to wonder exactly how large the dump truck full of money was.

    • by MMC Monster (602931) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:02PM (#24008917)

      You are thinking small. Ask how many dump trucks full of money.

      Microsoft may consider it worthwhile to throw money at developers to keep them from working for google.

      Of course some people are going to choose Microsoft over Google. Just like there are some people that like wasabi flavored ice cream. There are freaks everywhere.

    • Re:Money talks (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AxelTorvalds (544851) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:22PM (#24009143)
      I've worked at a handful of large companies and a handful of startups. In retrospect, every single startup was clearly, if not doomed then pretty bad off from the start... but I still believed the hype and hopped on board. Hoping for untold riches (I actually got a couple good payouts.. but I still have to work.) I've been there, I've heard the yarn the boys at MS can weave trying to hire you. A place like MS actually has a lot going for it, they're selling products, they've got a lot of cash reserve, they've got some loyalty from both employees and customers, nobody thinks they're going to go away. After another bomb or two like Vista, the expectations will be low enough that they'll get a deadcat bounce in the stock. It stands to be a bloody stable and predictable job. On the other hand, I don't know too many people that are expecting to be wowed by MS again anytime soon, the most dramatic product they've put out recently is the Xbox360 and it's being blown out by the Wii and doing everything it can to fend off Sony. If you're okay being average or ordinary you might be happy there.
  • by subl33t (739983) on Monday June 30, 2008 @06:54PM (#24008783)

    "Google as an organization is not geared -- culturally -- to delivering enterprise class reliability to its user applications." - Sergey Solyanik

    As opposed to Microsoft, which seems to be not geared - professionally - to delivering enterprise class reliability to its user applications.

  • by Punto (100573) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (botnup)> on Monday June 30, 2008 @06:57PM (#24008827) Homepage
    but they better STFU while the engineers are talking.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Red Flayer (890720)
      Complicated projects require both good engineers and good project managers. Even if you call your project manager "Head Engineer of ProjectX", both are required.

      And while a good PM listens to (&understands) the engineers on the project, a good PM is also good at herding cats... and let's be honest here, not all engineers play well with others.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by naoursla (99850)

      PM = Project Manager. It is an engineer whose job is to understand what customers need and write the product specifications to meet those needs. But they don't have anymore authority than the SDE's (software development engineers). There is back and forth communication between PM's and SDE's (software development engineers) on the specification.

  • by Locke2005 (849178) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:00PM (#24008889)
    Everything is pretty much run by [engineering] -- PMs and testers are conspicuously absent from the process. Google as an organization is not geared -- culturally -- to delivering enterprise class reliability to its user applications. At Microsoft, everything is pretty much run by Marketing. Anybody who uses the marketing-speak phrase "delivering enterprise class reliability to its user applications" obviously has more of a marketing mindset than an Engineering mindset, and thus would be better off at Microsoft. If we are indeed seeing a migration of hard-core engineers from Microsoft to Google and of Marketing droids from Google to Microsoft, well than, I'd say the movement in both directions benefits Google! (I've seen many extremely talented software engineers go to work for Microsoft over the years, so if their software sucks, it's certainly not for lack of creative talent.)
  • by MavEtJu (241979) <slashdot AT mavetju DOT org> on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:00PM (#24008893) Homepage

    but most of them primarily help people waste time online (blogger, youtube, orkut, etc)

    No, these are things to sell eyeballs for advertisers. That's what Google is about, making money with selling ads around easy to use and "fun" tools.

  • by jdelator (1131933) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:03PM (#24008933)
    I love how there is an article that has first hand accounts of why actual people are leaving Google to work at Microsoft and there still seems to be argument against Microsoft. The Rush Limbaugh's of the tech world. We always get emails on our team about people that used to work at Microsoft then go to another (Valve, google, etc..) and then come back after a couple of months of or a year complaining how the other engineering systems just suck. Microsoft does deliver world class products if you are willing to look past non SP1 Vista.
  • by FlyingBishop (1293238) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:05PM (#24008957)

    I'd have figured that they were just leaving Google so they'd actually have something interesting to do. At Microsoft, there's still loads of core functionality missing from their software.

    The myriad possibilities for improvement simply boggle the mind.

  • by pete-wilko (628329) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:09PM (#24008997)
    I havn't RTFA's in a long time here, but wow, that second article is such a reminder in !RTFA = less desire to punch monitor. Wtf seriously, guy seems to be motivated only if people are buying the product as a measure of usefulness?? I dunno, maybe having 20 million people using some software you built might also be an indication of that? ;)
  • by Eudial (590661) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:10PM (#24009021)

    Hopefully some of the google brass will have the humor to upload a video of themselves throwing a chair on youtube^Hgoogle video.

  • I've worked at both (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:21PM (#24009127)

    I've worked at both. In terms of working environment, I found them both to be good, though in different ways (better food, more excitement at Google; private office at Microsoft). In terms of quality of life, I prefer Seattle, but in terms of jobs and networking, the Bay Area wins. In terms of software development processes, Microsoft's may look better on paper, but Google's seems to be better at actually delivering. In terms of management... Ballmer makes me wince. So, so far, it's a toss up.

    The question to me is where each company is going. When Google release a new product, there is buzz and excitement, and usually something expensive and complicated gets cheaper and simpler. When Microsoft releases a new product, people either shrug or shudder and hold on to their wallets. Microsoft keeps trying to change things (Zune, Live, whatever), they keep buying companies (Danger, whatever), and it just doesn't seem to be working for them. Given the choice, I'd probably choose to work for Google; I just don't see Microsoft going anywhere.

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:23PM (#24009163) Homepage

    ...several sales associates left Walmart for Target.

  • by EjectButton (618561) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:32PM (#24009251)
    Ok so we have one guy who starts his essay with "Google sux!" and never actually worked for the company, only interviewed with them. Then we have two people who worked at Microsoft, then worked at Google and got hired back at Microsoft, and are now praising their current employer. How is this newsworthy?

    Also someone who complains when "Everything is pretty much run by the engineering" and who uses phrases like "delivering enterprise class reliability to its user applications" is a marketing droid and should not be trusted. As a sidenote I find it funny that he criticizes Google's offerings with the statement "most of them primarily help people waste time online" listing Blogger as his first example, on Blogger itself.
  • Microsoft PR (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jimmyhat3939 (931746) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:43PM (#24009385) Homepage
    This article is basically Microsoft PR. Yeah yeah I recognize that you're dealing with a person or persons who did this of their own volition, but I'm sure there's more to the story than that. If I were a manager at Microsoft I'd try to get articles like this out there as well.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Furthermore, I don't think that its targeted at external developers. They can parade it around Microsoft and make their employees who believe they make enterprise class software feel better (If your job is to push a button every 108 minutes to save the world, eventually, you'll start believing it) . They can also show it to customers and claim that it proves they are a better company to work with than Google.
  • Here's why (Score:5, Interesting)

    by melted (227442) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:51PM (#24009497) Homepage

    There's a system of levels at Microsoft, and the "interestingness" of work, range of influence and pay depend on the levels (within limits predetermined for each level).

    It's a well known fact that the easiest way to get a level increase at the higher levels is to leave Microsoft and then come back. Some folks jump over two levels after just two years outside the mothership - this is simply not achievable if you're L63-64. Sergey returned as (at least) L65. Good for him. Skipping his blog drivel, let's not assume that he did it for anything but a bag of cash and a large signing stock grant.

    That said, Microsoft _is_ a great place to work, if you can ignore the bureaucracy. The pay is good, the benefits are second to none (no free lunches, tho), you get your own office (most of the time, anyway), and if you have a family, there's simply no better large tech company to work for.

  • by Vexorian (959249) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:54PM (#24009535)
    Guy moves to microsoft, article explains how this manages to be the ultimate proof Microsoft is better than google. I guess it qualifies as stuff that matters...
  • by v(*_*)vvvv (233078) on Monday June 30, 2008 @07:56PM (#24009561)

    They are both huge huge corporations.

    They both have a ton of acquired businesses, products, and services that are buried in their rubble of bloat.

    And they both, to this day, only make money from selling what got them into the business in the first place. For google that would be Adsense, and for MS, Windows and Office.

    So whichever company you choose, you probably won't make a difference, just like all the failed developers before you.

  • Huh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by lewp (95638) on Monday June 30, 2008 @08:15PM (#24009743) Journal

    Google as an organization is not geared -- culturally -- to delivering enterprise class reliability to its user applications.

    So Google isn't "geared... culturally" to deliver enterprise class reliability.

    What's Microsoft's excuse?

  • by PPH (736903) on Monday June 30, 2008 @09:07PM (#24010203)

    I've worked at a number of big, slow, sclerotic corporations. Each time I've left, I've been told stories about how tough the world is on the outside and how others who have attempted to make a go of it have returned. When I look at the people who returned, it became clear that the big, cruel world is an excellent filter for the sorts of people who can take risks and produce results. Those who can't will return to the womb. These people returning make the 'mommy company' all that much slower and bloated.

    I've been approached to return, but if the company couldn't make it worth my while to get me to stick around, things have only gotten worse since I've left.

"Floggings will continue until morale improves." -- anonymous flyer being distributed at Exxon USA

Working...