Comparison of Working at the 3 Big Search Giants 179
castironwok writes "Finally, everything you've ever wanted to know about being an employee at Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. Tastyresearch describes his (or her) past few years interning and working at the three companies. Things I didn't know from before: Bill Gates wears old shoes, Google's internal security watches you like a hawk, the office styles of each company, and how to fill your suitcase with Google T-shirts. He calls the few select companies the 'prestigious internship circle', noting 'once you have worked at one, it's a lot easier to get into another'."
big three? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:big three? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the breakdown:
Google - 43.7%
Yahoo - 28.8%
MSN - 12.8%
http://seo.zunch.com/search_engine_usage_statisti
While MSN trails Yahoo and Google, it's still in the top three. Other websites rank the engines in the same order, but the percentages slightly vary.
Re:big three? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
what goes up like a rocket can come down like a rocket.
Re:big three? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:big three? (Score:5, Interesting)
Google has $10 billion in assets, $6 billion in revenues and 10,000 employees. Yahoo! has $10 billion in assets, $5 billion in revenues and 11,000 employees. Microsoft, on the other hand, has $70 billion in assets, $44 billion in revenues, and 71,000 employees.
Google's market capitalization means that overall, the market has spent $144 billion in cash in order to own Google's $10 billion in assets. The market believes that somehow, it will make future profits with a current value over $134 billion.
To do this, Google would either have to start paying dividends within a few years, and pay out an amount well in excess of the company's total assets every year for 20+ years; or it would have to see revenue growth such that the company turns a profit 5 or 10 times better than the best Microsoft has ever done.
None of these scenarios are remotely plausible; the market has clearly overvalued Google. As such, the market cap figure is not very useful for valuation or market-strategic purposes.
-Graham
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I do tech support for these people. I have horror stories.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably just type yahoo.com )or maybe even just yahoo) which would also work. This may be quicker than bringing up a Favorites menu and clicking in there. It's a lot more convenient and what I do in Google with I Feel Lucky for ad hoc site visits.
rd
Re: (Score:2)
If I want to go to some site which is not in my bookmarks, story goes like this. I launch Firefox. I get Google page. Focus is already in the Google instead to be at URL field. If I type name there, I dont have to move to URL field and I can simply hit Enter. If I mistype the name, Google will correct me. If I decide to type in URL field, I would have to change the focus, if I miss the name I will have to try again etc... It's much simpler to let Google to take care of the correc
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time you watched what happens when you type just the hostname (sans `http://`) into IE6's address bar?
Re:big three? (Score:5, Funny)
Lincoln 6 Echo and Jordan 2 Delta in the movie "The Island". Oh, you meant REAL people? Sorry...
Re:big three? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:big three? (Score:5, Funny)
This is exactly like sitting in a Yugo as it is dropped straight down into a Mustang convertable, and then busting out the windshield of the Yugo so you can shift.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess.. he also says Nanoo nanoo? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Big, not popular! (Score:2)
The best line of the article (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently the answer to "Can you tell me what was the most difficult bug you faced while programming and what you did to resolve it?" isn't "My programs don't have bugs."
Too funny. I think I really started to mature as a programmer when I realized that I actually *don't* know all the answers, that *everyone* makes mistakes, and it's foolish to let pride get in the way of asking someone for help or admitting you had absolutely no clue about something (instead of trying to bluff your way through).
Re: (Score:2)
My worst bug comes, oddly enough, from the time I was still in university. I was writing a shell in my operating systems class using lex and yacc. For some cases, it would just completely crap out.
It should be noted that gdb did not play with yacc at all at the time (I don't know if it does now or not). I literally had to print out the source code and go down with a pencil line by line. Turns out that I made a typo. I accidently had a $2 where I should have had a $3 or th
Interesting random fact (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Interesting random fact (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting random fact (Score:4, Informative)
That is odd. At work we upgraded to dual 19" LCDs a few months ago and I can say there is a huge difference. I *feel* more productive because I spend less time bouncing between windows. I find it especially useful when coding, be it web or applications. You can have your code full on one screen, then the resulting webpage or documentation on the other. I think that a third monitor would be even better, having three full screens for different parts of a project. With one huge monitor you can't arrange windows as easily as you can with smaller monitors where you can just maximize the two or three windows you are working with. (An aside: if you have multiple monitors on Windows, you must try Ultramon [realtimesoft.com]. Worth every penny.)
I don't understand why anyone would want a 24" monitor for work. Watching movies maybe, but not the day-to-day stuff. Somebody who just started doing research at the university where I work got dual 24" LCDs with his new $8,000 workstation. For the cost of those two monitors he could have gotten three 20" LCDs, which would have given him more desktop space and (in my opinion) a much more useful setup. He just thought two 24" beasts sitting side by side would look frakking cool. He's right, but I still prefer multiple smaller monitors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Having two smaller desktops with windows maximized on each is better than trying to get 2 windows arranged efficiently on one big monitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
* If one fails, you still have the other in the meantime.
* You can upgrade them separately
* If you ever need another monitor for another machine, you have it
* You can turn one off if you're doing light work
* Smaller flat-panels are probably cheaper per square inch, because of a lower defect rate and higher demand (more volume of product)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*You can have one be a CRT and other be an LCD and get the best of both worlds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A Yahoo! employee explains the single 24" monitor (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, last I checked, all Google engineers used dual 24" monitors.
True, mostly. Most of us have dual 24" monitors. (I just switched mine into portrait orientation because I was getting neck strain from my desktop being so wide. :-) I keep my IDE on one monitor and everything else on the other one. But I know some people who prefer to use just one, some who have three 20" monitors and so on. They'll give us anything we ask for, within reason. It's very nice, after working at companies that were either too cheap or too bureaucratic to give engineers the tools they n
bet your resolution is lower ... (Score:2)
I've worked at all three... here's my take (Score:5, Funny)
When I worked a Microsoft, I had to wear a suit, but the suit was in camoflage colours. My supervisor (I never did find out his name, I only knew him as "XZ95") was in charge of BTLIME.DLL, the subroutine that made sure that the system clock didn't accidentally exceed the number "6"...a big responsibility.
Finally, I got a job at Google... I don't know how it's going because I've spent all my time trying to win the "special day" competition to remake the "Google" web page logo on those "special days"
Thanks for listening
Maybe a tamed, blind hawk? (Score:5, Interesting)
Uhh...no. I walk around with my badge concealed, explicitly to see how much of a problem it causes, and I have been stopped less than a handful of times this year, and probably less than twenty last year. (Barring events that are explicitly high-security.)
Re:Maybe a tamed, blind hawk? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maybe a tamed, blind hawk? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Maybe a tamed, blind hawk? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Haha. I think it's hilarious that you think the biggest threat to your wallet, iPod, CDs, notebook, checkbook, whatever, at work is some random yahoo sneaking past reception/corporate security, through your cubicle area unchallenged, and just swiping stuff off your desk.
That's fantastic.
Hint: your coworkers can steal, too.
Pretty good actually (Score:5, Funny)
When I worked in the military everyone was supposed to have badge-on-display and everybody was supposed to look at badges all the time. The top security guy rigged a test: He had an arbitrary soldier replace his picture with one of a baboon. He walked past security points at least 6 times a day and was only discovered after 6 months when he dropped his card and people had a really close look at it.
Re:Pretty good actually (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the interns (red badge, meant less than 5 years senority back in the 1990's) thought they probably weren't even doing that. So he taped the front of a small box of Sun-Maid [sun-maid.com] raisins over his badge. And used it like that for six months. Was only caught because we were laughing so hard about it at lunch one day while his boss was walking by, and the cat was out of the bag. The security office actually got in trouble, not the intern, and I don't think they use the visual inspection stations any more.
Regards,
Ross
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Feh, that's nothing. I made a counterfeit badge for myself, changing the 'Mitel Networks' (i.e. my employer's) logo to 'Myhell Networks'. Not only did I never get caught, but I never even got disciplined for having the same image flapping merrily in the OpenGL breeze as my screen-saver.
Did I mention that my unit had absolutely fantastic management? They invested trust in us, and relied on every
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Pretty good actually (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so you are saying you are stopped every other week for being a horse's ass?
AMD (Score:2)
But if you want a really really cool software job you should come work at a hardware company. Thats where the men get separated from the boys. To be able to send of emails to Linus saying please change this piece of code on the next kernel because it will work better this way due to the new features our
Re: (Score:2)
See all those Ford Escapes cruising campuses? Here's a hint, there's a reason why they have "Security" printed on the side.
Only for Interns (Score:5, Interesting)
This is intersting information for someone who is looking to be an intern, but that's about it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, I actually met Sam Walton a few times back in the 80s while working for him. He drove an old beat up 50s vintage Ford pickup, and he dressed in overalls and a plain white t-shirt. He was frugal even for being the richest man in the world at the time. Also, while working for Ross Perot at EDS, I had to follow a very strict dress code; no hair below the collar, no beards, plain c
all great places (Score:3)
Re:all great places (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm one of the first on my team (at MSFT) in the morning, between 9 and 9.30. Most people cruise in 10, 10.30, even 11. I leave between 4 and 5 each day. Most of the rest leave around 6-7. My early leaving is noticed, but not a negative, because people know I'm in earlier.
I'll bet! (Score:4, Insightful)
This doesn't surprise me at all -- I'm sure you're seen as not only good enough to have worked at the other ones, but as a possible wealth of information about the workings of the others. And you're cheaper and lower-profile than hiring away the competition's bigger fish.
Re:I'll bet! (Score:5, Insightful)
- The competitive advantage of knowing about other companies' proprietary information is dwarfed by the liability of acquiring that information. Especially given that you'd be acquiring them through someone who had proven they could not be trusted to keep a secret.
- At least Google has the (mostly deserved) hubris to assume that their own solutions to problems will tend to be as good as or better than other companies' solutions. So while other solutions may be academically interesting, they generally won't be useful.
- Lastly and most significantly, it's unethical. And yes, every person with whom I've worked at either company would find this alone to be reason enough to refrain, even if it did grant a competitive advantage.
Really, everyone would rather just hire competent, trustworthy people who will do their actual job well and with appropriate discretion. No one is looking for a stool pigeon.
Re: (Score:2)
MSN Search is terrible. (Score:5, Informative)
Sometimes the site wouldn't even load, sometimes clicking on search results would fail (because the click-tracking would fail), sometimes the main MSN site would show an server error. Each of these things were rare, but given how many things have to happen to complete a search task, overall I would estimate a 10% failure rate, to get any results at all.
Meanwhile, Google ALWAYS works. I have never once seen Google fail to load, or produce proper results. If Google doesn't load, I know it's my local network that's the problem.
Maybe it's the Parallel nature of Google's configuration vs. the apperently Serial setup of MSN. If a machine at Google fails, it dosn't affect much else, while one failure at MSN breaks the chain.
how fast things change (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say a lot of people would still love to get the Red Hat job!
Sounds Terrible (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider that they provide all of these resources to keep you on their campus as long as possible. Their entire goal is to squeeze as much work out of you they can while prolonging the time it will take you to burn out. They create their own small community you're expected to be a part of at almost all times.
Maybe I'm in the minority but my work isn't my life. I enjoy what I do but I don't stay at the office any long than I have to. I have friends to see, places to go and personal endeavors to get to that don't involve my company. I don't want my recreational activities to be sponsored by or provided by my company. I'm not sure I want to work in a place that "optionally" provides these facilities as they become expectations of the employees and those that shun them become outcast by their coworkers.
It's like if you don't participate in as many work related activities as possible, you'll alienate yourself and not be part of the brainwashed masses at your company of choice.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I get to the office, I do my job and after about 8 hours or so I go on my way and do whatever I want to do. I get lunch with some friends at places of our choice. I'll even participate in work related and non-work related recreational activities with people. But it's not a way of life.
I don't know, something about working for a company that has created facilities and devices to keep you occupied under their roof for as long as possible seems a little fishy. I don't trust companies like this. They don't have your best interest's in mind, like most companies, but try and create diversions from this. Many young geeks end up wasting their youth in this corporate socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The perks are to attract and retain the best employees for those 8 hours or so.
rd
Re: (Score:2)
I have a hard time believing that. Video games, toys, free foods (which might actually help their health care plans really) and other recreational activities are just there for fun? To create a diversion for a hard worker?
It seems like the common goal of each of these devices is to keep a person on the corporate campus for as much of their time as possible. This way, the company becomes their life and they feel more of an attachment to the company than a typical 9-5er. It's t
Re: (Score:2)
The coolness factor to hire in the best minds far outweigh the hive stuff. People can log in from home when a crunch is on, they don't need to be in the hive to work long hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that places like MS and Google don't have some great employees (most successful businesses do), but lets kill the corporate tag line here used to convince their workers they are somehow lucky to be employed. The company I work for claims to hire "great employees" but it's clearly a lie. And any company I've walked into usually has about 10% great employees and the rest are easily replaceable. From what I've read
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with this. And also that those great minds will become entrepreneurs sooner rather than later. It sounded like Google was trying to incubate that kind of initiative in house though. But everyone with a great idea should take their shot.
rd
Re: (Score:2)
When there's a crunch, rightly or wrongly (and I think it's far from clear cut), most managers are going to want you "in the hive". You're accessible to your team members, for collaboration/idea sharing/review/meetings and such. Of course you can still 'participate' via telecommuting, but it's not comparable to the real thing. My team at MSFT has fifteen minute catchup meetings in stairwells every morning, etc, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The use of the words corporate campus are often an attempt to make people forget they are at work. If they call it a campus, they can trick people into working an insane schedule like half of us did in college.
It's never a corporate office or corporate compound. It's always a campus.
It's an interesting psychological ploy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can imagine it's the kind of place where every time you answer a question about yourself, you're then told of the "Company X" way.
Maybe we're too cynical but i don't think
Wish I had this problem (Score:2)
These kinds of perks are not evil underhanded attempts to suck t
Re: (Score:2)
I've had interviews at places where the directors who were talking to me were highlighting that so many of their people were there until the wee hours of the morning. They were proud of this and trying to make it sound like the norm instead of the rare crunch time exception.
To me, that's not something to be proud of. It screams that they push their people to early burn out a
I'm in the elitist outer ring (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The information given was incorrect. The blog says he (it sounded like a he) was an intern at Microsoft in 2004, 10 years later.
rd
Re: (Score:2)
Europe 1984 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like software dev, but I also value my life. This is coming from a 20-something who has already done the startup thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with him/her mainly. I personally don't care about these "perks". I get the impressions they are tools to keep workers working longer and more often.
I don't care about the social structure a company would try and provide for me. They can't possibly create a social atmosphere beyond work that is even close to my life.
However, I assume there is corporate politics and backstabbing at every company.
But I don't need toys (why waste time at work? Why stay longer than I have to?) or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)