Google can't innovate anymore, exiting programmer laments Seven years ago, Google software engineer Steve Yegge, having failed to understand the risk that a private social media rant might become public, lambasted Google for its failure to understand software platforms, with Google+ serving as his whipping boy. Despite calling out Google's leaders by name and highlighting the …
Despite calling out Google's leaders by name and highlighting the Chocolate Factory's "short-term thinking," he did not get fired, as happened with a more recent memo penned by former Google engineer James Damore.
Damore also being targeted for a quite public "burning" due to egregious crimethink.
That's the difference between a disagreement on (tech) policy and a disagreement on (diversity) politics.
In the current year, the latter is utterly intolerable.
He explains this by arguing that Google, having become successful, has become focused on protecting its business rather than pushing boundaries. He contends the company is mired in politics and is arrogant.
The first sentence leads to the second, which leads to burning money. See Xerox, Kodak, Motorola Semiconductor, Compaq, etc.
Well, it's a strategy that worked pretty well for Microsoft before phones - it just depends on how good you are at beating/buying the competition because "me too" isn't the outcome you're looking for, it's "just me".
The difference between Google and Amazon it would appear to me (and I have worked for neither) is that Google puts its tech staff in fancy offices, feeds them fancy food and gives them time to work on their pet projects in the hope that they might happen upon a lucrative product. Amazon, on the other hand, knows what it's trying to achieve and just expects the staff to get on with their work.
Former Amazon people seem to be a lot less vocal - which should tell us something.
meetoo works.
What you do is present a free alternative to your competitor, and burn money.
As you have a position of power, you have lots of money. Your competitor doesnt have that much, therefor both "lose" in the market: but as you are the one with deeper pockets, you end uo winning.
Warm Braw,
What it tells you is that Amazon people have learnt that 'Mouthing off' gets you nothing and sets you up to be 'Downsized' at the next reorg or at least to not get on the next 'Big' Project. :)
Whereas Google people 'forget' in the 'real world' your opinion is not needed unless asked for, by your Employer, and the 'parting shot' is only of value to their own ego.
Being treated as 'Special' may be a useful trechnique for Google to get 110% from everyone but it makes many of their employees get a little too carried away by their own importance.
Unless you are lucky enough to be taken on at another company that is prepared to 'stroke your ego' daily to get a return on your pay I am sure many ex-Google people have a very rude awakening when they come back to 'Planet Earth' where the rest of us work.
Jealous, quite possibly but I know not to burn my bridges because I think I am God !!!
I know that 'Reality' is waiting just around the corner to remind you, when your head just won't fit through that doorway, how 'important and indispensable' you really are. <Grin>
I think you pretty much summed up the unwritten rules for gainful employment. I suspect that many people either never learned this or feel they are special enough to ignore it. I hope you get a thousand upvotes just for the sage wisdom.
OpenStreetMap has much more detailed maps.
OpenStreetMap may have more detailed information than Google, depending on where you're looking. It can also be rather sparse.
Also OSM's maps are not really intended for the general public but as an aid to mappers. The general public are meant to use offerings provided by others which are based upon OSM data. OSM itself has nothing comparable to Street View. Yes, you might be lucky to get a few snaps from Mapillary or OpenStreetCam but you probably won't be that lucky.
I'm not knocking OSM. But the only reason OSM gives a lot of detail around where I live is because I've slowly been adding it myself (and there's still a lot left to do). Some parts of the UK have many more active mappers, others have nobody. OSM is not (yet) a complete replacement for Google maps.
> OpenStreetMap may have more detailed information than Google, depending on where you're looking. It can also be rather sparse.
Cut the hand waving and show us a few different places where Google has more detailed (and ideally, accurate) mapping information than OSM.
> OSM is not (yet) a complete replacement for Google maps.
You have said it yourself: OSM is the map, Google maps is an integrated product. It includes mapping data, presentation, and a number of other features such as business listings and so on. As a global product it is still pretty decent but it has been getting worse in terms of speed, usability and memory consumption. And increasingly, it feels more of a fancy business directory than an actual map.
In terms of mapping details and accuracy, Google Maps is pretty abysmal as soon as you leave high-income areas:
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.98457/2.81570
* https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.9847325,2.8154127,19z
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/34.6422/50.8787
* https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@34.6408157,50.8746301,16z
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/12.1179/15.0414
* https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@12.1202806,15.0430937,15z
*And* this is taking another consideration into account: I have been privately told and shown evidence that Google takes data from OSM without acknowledgement (taking data is the whole point of OSM, but you do have to give credit). OSM, like any other map, also contains traps (in very subtle ways which do not detract from the quality of the map), which consistently and inexplicably pop up in Google's own maps. Look in particular at places where Google does not credit the map to any third parties (like the examples I gave above). Quite why they would do that I really do not understand though. All they have to do is add "OSM contributors" to their legend, it's not like anybody is asking them for money or anything.
@AC
In places, one of us is having difficulty comprehending the other.
> OpenStreetMap may have more detailed information than Google, depending on where you're looking. It can also be rather sparse.
Cut the hand waving and show us a few different places where Google has more detailed (and ideally, accurate) mapping information than OSM.
You ask for clarification of something I did not say. OSM can have more detailed info than Google but OSM doesn't necessarily have any detail at all. I know this from where I live. Before I started mapping it had far fewer businesses marked than Google and there was less detail (they were marked as nodes, not outlines). Now there are more businesses mapped than Google and they are mapped in greater detail than Google.
If you want to check this, find a rural area and look for buildings (farmhouses/barns/whatever) At high zoom with Google you'll at least see a (faint) box which is a very crude approximation to the building ouline (taken from whatever out-of-copyright map Google used to bootstrap their maps). Do the same thing on OSM and there may be no sign of a building at all.
Yes, OSM has the capability to hold more detail about an object but it doesn't mean that such detail has been added or that the object is even in the database at all. OSM has the potential to be better than Google, and often is, but often is not.
As for intentional copyright theft by Google, that depends. Maybe you have seen enough evidence to be sure, I haven't (but I wasn't looking for it). I don't doubt cross-fertilization (both directions) occurs, but I don't know the extent or the intent.
OSM newbies sometimes use Google and/or Ordnance Survey maps to get details for armchair mapping, although they shouldn't. Similarly, anyone can submit suggestions and edits to Google, so that could be one way OSM data gets into Google, if somebody sees something on OSM and adds it to Google. Wrong, whichever direction it transfers, but not sanctioned by either organization and probably not wide-scale.
How about if one of Google's local "guides" (people who submit changes and vet changes submitted by others) occasionally looks at OSM and if he/she notices a change makes an effort to go and check it for himself/herself? Not technically wrong (as I understand the legal issues, which is to say not much) but might give the appearance of copyright violation.
How about if Google processes OSM changesets and send out "suggestions" to local "guides" that they ought to go out and survey certain things? Still not technically wrong (same proviso) but would be much more likely to look like widespread copyright violation.
You seem to be suggesting that Google is processing OSM changesets and simply adding them to their maps. Maybe they are. In which case they're being very naughty. Or maybe it's one of the other scenarios I outlined, and they're not being naughty at all. Maybe the evidence you've seen (which, technically, is hearsay) allows you to be sure.
> In places, one of us is having difficulty comprehending the other.
Please note that there might be more than one AC posting, which may account for a degree of confusion. Sometimes I end up replying to what in the end turns out to be an earlier post of mine, usually disagreeing.
> You ask for clarification of something I did not say
What you did say has been quoted. In any event, it can't be too difficult to link to actual examples to illustrate what one may or may not be discussing.
OpenStreetMap might work for you perhaps. I've just taken a look in my local area and much of the "detail" from OpenStreetMap is wrong (offset) when compared to both my local knowledge and the Ordnance Survey. This is a huge issue to me as I have no way to determine where their mapping is fantastic and where (like local to me) it is badly wrong, so I can't trust any of it.
@AC
This is a huge issue to me as I have no way to determine where their mapping is fantastic and where (like local to me) it is badly wrong, so I can't trust any of it.
This can have numerous causes. The offset you mention could be due to your own GPS (cheap units can take a minute or two of being stationary to settle) or the mapper's GPS or the parallax of the aerial imagery used, or the supplier of aerial imagery got the offset wrong (mappers can compensate for offset errors in aerial imagery if it's obvious). The essential topology ought to be reasonably good even where the absolute co-ordinates are offset.
Where OSM can beat Google (if a mapper puts in the effort) is greater detail. In my area there are streets where one side has numbered houses and the other side has named houses (no number ever assigned). One street has this arrangement except when it turns a corner the sides swap between names and numbers. Google is no help if you're given the name of a house that's on a long street, and often the house numbers are wrong (sometimes wildly wrong). Google occasionally gets the extent of streets wrong when two individually-named streets join to form one longer street. Google even gets street names completely wrong, occasionally.
If your local area is wrong, there's something you could do to fix it. That may not benefit you much, but it may benefit others and they, in their turn, may improve the mapping in an area you want to explore one day. That's one of the fundamental properties of Open Source: you can contribute and you gain from the contributions of others.
BTW, Ordnance Survey occasionally gets it wrong, too. They're smart enough to claim their errors are actually protection of copyright, so if they see those errors on somebody else's mapping they can assert copyright violation. A very smart way of covering up your errors. :)
> This can have numerous causes.
More to the point, every map has an inherent scale, even digital ones. In this case, it depends on a number of factors which include as you point out acquisition and digitisation errors (in the sense of precision / tolerance, not in the sense of blunders). These may be different for different areas of the map, or even for different elements in the same area; take for example a coastline and the outlines of houses next to it (such as this place), where the coastline may have an inherent scale (roughly, the scale at which the smallest bit of detail can be resolved) of say 1:50,000 whereas the houses show detail to 1:5000 or more.
This in itself does not mean that a map is wrong, it is all down to the use that one makes of it. As Suárez Miranda observed, exact maps are not popular.
Yes I could correct the local bit around me that I can see is wrong. I could do that by memory or by slavishly copying the Ordnance survey map that I have observed to be correct. But in doing so I stll would have zero trust in OpenStreetMap for anywhere else. Fortunately I don't need too. I can use Google Maps for getting from A to B and Ordnance Survey where I need more detail both of which I trust. This leaves no place where OpenStreetMap has value to me and as such it is not a project that I wll support.
> by slavishly copying the Ordnance survey map
Anyone thinking of doing that should first check that he is in fact allowed to do so.
> that I have observed to be correct.
And anyone thinking along those lines should satisfy himself that he is actually qualified to assess the correctness of a map. It is not as obvious as it may seem.
> This leaves no place where OpenStreetMap has value to me
Anyone making a decision based on selfish considerations is invited to ponder whether benefit may be obtained by others.
> and as such it is not a project that I wll support.
Anyone deciding not to support a given project is quite welcome to abide by his decision.
This leaves no place where OpenStreetMap has value to me
It's a good job you have no desire to visit my neck of the woods. There are streets around here where one side of the street has house numbers (some houses may also have names) and the other side has house names with no numbers (as far as I can tell, numbers have never been assigned). Which is a bit of a problem with Google Maps, which only has numbers (and sometimes gets those completely wrong). Also a problem with OS (but a lesser problem) which has some (but not all) official house names and doesn't map unofficial house names (which the owner may have put up without registering it and then uses the name rather than the number to refer to the house). If a mapper has put the effort in, OSM will display whatever house name is visible from the street, be it an official, registered name or an unofficial, unregistered one.
OS doesn't show most types of shop or office (pubs and banks are some of the few exceptions). Google Maps, like OSM, shows shops and offices that people have bothered to map. Around my area, Google Maps is far less complete than OSM with regard to shops and offices (a year ago, before I started mapping, the situation was reversed).
OS doesn't show opening hours, telephone numbers or URLs of businesses. Google Maps and OSM can show these things, but only if some mapper has added the info.
OS and Google Maps don't show listed buildings or scheduled monuments. OSM can show these if a mapper has added them.
OS and Google Maps can't show hygiene certificate ratings, or types of beer sold, OSM can (if somebody has bothered to map them).
All three have good points and bad points. I see them as complimentary not competitors. In some situtations one is preferable to the others; in some situations it may be worthwhile consulting all three. There is a place for all three. Writing off OSM seems somewhat short-sighted.
"the real issue is Google is too US-focussed"
The rest of the world should count themselves lucky for that.
^^^
So agree, there are sometimes real advantages to NOT being the US of A.
Not having Trump is one although we do have May / Corbyn and the BREXIT Saga which should be enough for anyone !!!
It depresses me how Canada is always an after thought. Canada is *literally* attached to the USA, with 90% of the population living within 100 miles of the borders, speaking the exact same language in an almost identical accent (and some frenchies, but we won't talk about those sexy folks). Would it honestly be that hard to role out the same services at the same time? Sorry.
"speaking the exact same language in an almost identical accent"
A remarkable achievement, considering that people in the US don't share the same accent. The regional differences are sometimes so severe that people from different parts of the US can seriously struggle to understand each other's speech.
Or even...imagine a world where BlockChain isn't a license to print money or pivots into something else entirely and he needs to leave this hallowed job he has found, or maybe they just don't like him and get him out...
Well then a simple Google search (ouchy!) will turn up him slating people by name and the company, not once but twice!...I don't think I would want him on my team
The Hatchet job is not really the issue, it is the fact that obviously he stopped being part of the Google Team at some point to have all these issues.
Do you think he was giving his all for the company at that point for his Salary & Benefits ?
Obviously not as he has found another job and jumped ship.
At what point are you going to be the next Company to Fail to meet his criteria for success and he jumps again ?
Most employers are after someone long term, he has already planted the seed, in my mind, that he is not neccessarily someone to stick things out and will jump as soon as he does not get what he wants.
The old saying 'No one is indispensable" is true based on every company I have worked for and the experience of how even the very best employees are able to be 'canned' if the circumstances are right.
Not that I agree with this but that I have not found any company that has been unable to get rid of someone because they were 'too good to lose'. We the workers at the coal face MAY have thought that but I have never found a manager yet who has balked at getting rid of someone no matter their skills.
> If you were a hiring manager and he applied for a job, would you take the risk of a similar hatchet job when he left?
Absolutely. I do need people to speak out with total frankness when they see something is wrong, regardless of rank. Our mistakes cost lives. There is no room for egos or sensitive souls at my company.
This is just another step in the lifecycle of the IT mega-corporation: they've hit the stage where they are now driven by greed as opposed to any desire to innovate, and projects that are not making money are sidelined or dropped. At the same time, it becomes harder and harder to kick off anything new or innovative because the board/shareholders need proof that the new project is going to be profitable to a desired level within a given timeframe.
Next up will be that opportunities get missed, simply because they are perceived as "not profitable enough" (Ballmer and the internet, anyone?), and someone else will get the landgrab. And round we'll go again.
Oh, I've been watching the corporate lifecycle milestones for a while now. What I find fascinating is that *before* it reaches them everyone says they've reached them. Reality is irrelevant. Belief is truth. People deliberately create that which they fear by denying it in any other form.
They still aren't where everyone says they are, but the entropy is beginning to exceed the pumps capacity. The temperature will rise, and systems will begin going into local-survival mode to cut down on the exposure and preserve remaining local internal order. After that, hot potato games start as they try and pump disorder onto each other in order to save themselves, and the gestalt starts breaking down. The aboves recognise the problem and try to cool the system by forcing order down from above, which never really works, as you can't cool things from the inside. The rest everyone knows.
Organising humans is a fascinating science that it appears nobody *actually* studies as a science, and certainly nobody implements - everyone just has opinions. The same opinions, rehashed, for the last hundred years..
Now, maybe if you had a machine agent personalised for each employee arbitrating the inevitable information overload on their behalf using their own personal values...
where they are now driven by greed
Nope - driven by greed works, it's what starts companies
They are now driven by fear and self interest - protecting your own dept/budget/bonus at the expense of the company.
Concentrating on keeping competitors out to protect margins rather than looking for new businesses while lobbying for tweaks to tax codes.
It's the traditional first steps down the MSFT->IBM->Kodak pipeline
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
