Ex-Googler and AppSheet founder says Google has "ceased to function"

[Alfonso Maruccia]

Facepalm: Praveen Seshadri, founder of the "no-code development platform" AppSheet, has left Google at the end of a three-year mandatory retention period after his company was acquired by the Mountain View-based giant. The reason, Seshadri explains, is that Google doesn't seem to serve any reason or purpose beyond profit at all.

In a post published on Medium, Seshadri said that he joined Google just before the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, when the internet giant purchased his AppSheet company to build the Google AppSheet service. The AppSheet team joined Google "with great enthusiasm," Seshadri said, but now that enthusiasm is no more because the company has "slowly ceased to function."

In his damning opinion piece, Seshadri revealed how Google is essentially paying some pretty pennies to more than 175,000 "capable" employees, which in turn are getting very little done "quarter over quarter, year over year." They are trapped like mice in a maze, the entrepreneur stated, and the maze is made up of approvals, launch processes, legal reviews, performance reviews, exec reviews, documents, meetings, reorgs, (H1) plans and even more (H2) plans.

Google has turned into a monolithic system, Seshadri said, a bureaucratic moloch designed to train employees so that they would quell their "inappropriate" desires to innovate, get personal (and professional) satisfaction or feel like their work is making some impact. Google's bureaucratic machine makes employees feel what being "Googley" means, I.e., "don't rock the boat" and just work for promotion or money compensation. The mouse isn't in the maze anymore, Seshadri stated, but the maze is in the mouse.

Seshadri said that Google now has four core cultural problems, as a company with "no mission, no urgency, delusions of exceptionalism, mismanagement." The botched launch of the Bard AI chatbot is just the last straw in a long line of failures and haphazard choices, as Google is still fundamentally a "money-printing" machine thanks to its historical advertising business that has kept growing every year, "hiding all other sins" at the company.

As long as the ads are printing money and the stock is going up, no one will care about the cultural problems identified by Seshadri. Before founding AppSheet, the entrepreneur spent more than a decade (from 1999 to 2011) at Microsoft, so he says this isn't his first experience with the slow crumbling of a "dominant empire" in the digital world.

"Very few Googlers come into work thinking they serve a customer or user," Seshadri said, as they just focus on their "closed world" (I.e., the maze) where everyone is "working only for other Googlers." The caustic post of the AppSheet founder is just the latest criticism from a long list of disgruntled ex-Googlers, which in recent years confirmed that Google has no passion, mission or innovation drive anymore. The only thing that seems to run "not like Google" inside the company is Android, which according to Steve Yegge runs "more or less autonomously" as it feels like the most productive and reliable part of the advertising-based empire.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/97646-ex-googler-appsheet-founder-google-has-ceased-function.html

 

[RandomWAN]

This is amusing given the 'Don't be evil' motto that was proposed by Paul Buchheit who felt that Google's competitors were exploiting users to some extent or another (but not Google). Seshadri is just confirming what anyone with functioning brain already knew through observation.

 

[n0f8r]

Interesting to hear that Android is the exception inside Google - given that it's the part of the company that has serious competition.

If microsoft gets it's act together and builds serious search competition - will that give the world an innovative google again?

 

[wiyosaya]

I was unaware that Google was ever functional at all.

 

[Uncle Al]

Now is the time for Google to bring in a corporate reviewer with full authority to eliminate departments, functions, and redundancy. This is often done by large companies to trim back unnecessary bureaucracy that occurs when there are too many "convenient hires" to inflate importance and justify larger salaries, benefits, etc, etc .....

 

[brucek]

Yeah yeah, I'm sure there's plenty of grains of truth, but also you could hear similar complaints from basically anyone who has ever worked for any corporation in any industry since the day the first manager hired the first employee.

Or - take any one of those elements away - and you would get the flip side complaint that there's no process, management, review, etc so everything is too disorganized.

re legal review specifically - given some of the AG investigations currently underway - maybe there's not enough of those after all...

 

[maxxcool7421]

Now is the time for Google to bring in a corporate reviewer with full authority to eliminate departments, functions, and redundancy. This is often done by large companies to trim back unnecessary bureaucracy that occurs when there are too many "convenient hires" to inflate importance and justify larger salaries, benefits, etc, etc .....

Have a talk with the Bob's ...

https://brobible.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/office-space.jpg

 

[psycros]

"Very few Googlers come into work thinking they serve a customer or user," Seshadri said

IBM, Microsoft, literally every other tech monolith: "First time?"

 

[kiwigraeme]

These golden egg companies - need some rethink - same with Epic and it's free game every week - do they actually make money on that platform - or is it just Fortnite ?

Google attracted so much talent - even there - the employment stories seemed weird - solve this esoteric mind F puzzle - never limit your employees on such a stupid basis.

 

[BadThad]

Classic big company with a lot of money, the employees lose all their passion. You get stuck into a tiny sandbox outputting the same crap day after day with no innovation or excitement. You come to work, do the minimum to keep your boss happy and go home enjoying being grossly overpaid to mostly twiddle your thumbs.

 

[OortCloud]

Google have been a one-trick pony for so long. The only products that ever work for them are ones that scrape your data and behaviour and feed it to their adwords backend to sell to the highest bidder. (So Search, Chrome and Android). The less informed they can make you of what they are doing the happier they are. Their whole business model is built on dishonesty - making free products that appears to do X so they can do Y.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Corporations are like people...the more power they accumulate, the more inevitable they will be corrupted. Taking a quote from The Dark Knight, You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

 

[Hodor]

This is not true.

Google has several more important roles aside from making money:

1. Misinformation. When you go to Google Search, the results are sorted in order that support a certain global agenda. Results that contradict the agenda are often not shown.

2. Spying. All the Google "free" services, such as Gmail, Android, Google Drive, YouTube, Google Maps, Translate, Chrome, etc. have just one purpose: spying on users. That's why they are free. Like a worm on the fishhook is free food.

3. Analyzing all data using AI and updating user's personal file, for every person on the planet that Google is aware of.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

This is not true.

Google has several more important roles aside from making money:

1. Misinformation. When you go to Google Search, the results are sorted in order that support a certain global agenda. Results that contradict the agenda are often not shown.

2. Spying. All the Google "free" services, such as Gmail, Android, Google Drive, YouTube, Google Maps, Translate, Chrome, etc. have just one purpose: spying on users. That's why they are free. Like a worm on the fishhook is free food.

3. Analyzing all data using AI and updating user's personal file, for every person on the planet that Google is aware of.

You've never heard of SEO or algorithms? Google's search results are based on programs - they are not manually set by people. That's why there is an entire industry out there to take advantage of Google search result formulas by using specific keywords in their website that people search for a lot and by using advertising money in Google ads.

The "agenda" is making money through advertising by tailoring stuff to what people search for. The results that contradict the so called agenda are usually stuff that few people search for, and/or are ideas from organizations that don't advertise their beliefs because they are penniless or because they are kinda kooky.

 

[Hodor]

You've never heard of SEO or algorithms? Google's search results are based on programs - they are not manually set by people. That's why there is an entire industry out there to take advantage of Google search result formulas by using specific keywords in their website that people search for a lot and by using advertising money in Google ads.

The "agenda" is making money through advertising by tailoring stuff to what people search for. The results that contradict the so called agenda are usually stuff that few people search for, and/or are ideas from organizations that don't advertise their beliefs because they are penniless or because they are kinda kooky.

Wrong. If they were after money they wouldn't have censored stuff that wasn't breaking any laws or rules (except their private undocumented political bias). Also, they would be suggesting content that users want, instead of that which is politically appropriate by their own undocumented merit.

So, their practice was often against earning money. Which shows it was political.

Same thing as with mass media. You'd think that 5 trains that derailed in USA within a period of last 2 weeks would be top news in the world. All of them loaded with toxic chemical. If the mass media was after money, then every medium on the planet would talk about that incredible coincidence. And every eco-freak would scream about the damage to the nature.

But guess what. In many countries those news didn't appear in top mainstream media (which is of course national TV). In fact, it didn't appear in most of the popular media. Somehow media aren't interested in sensations and money. Interesting, ha? When greedy bastards don't wanna money, then you know they are following orders from higher places.

And when you see that numerous times, you learn that money is not the top motivator. It's the politics and various agendas. If the whales beach and die, and the official narrative says: "We don't know why the whales stranded here", then that's exactly what the media will say. Regardless of a much bigger news (and sensation) which is that we know EXACTLY why they stranded. And no, it's not because the leading whale lost its compass.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

You've never heard of SEO or algorithms? Google's search results are based on programs - they are not manually set by people. That's why there is an entire industry out there to take advantage of Google search result formulas by using specific keywords in their website that people search for a lot and by using advertising money in Google ads.

Wrong. If they were after money they wouldn't have censored stuff that wasn't breaking any laws or rules (except their private undocumented political bias). Also, they would be suggesting content that users want, instead of that which is politically appropriate by their own undocumented merit.

So, their practice was often against earning money. Which shows it was political.

Same thing as with mass media. You'd think that 5 trains that derailed in USA within a period of last 2 weeks would be top news in the world. All of them loaded with toxic chemical. If the mass media was after money, then every medium on the planet would talk about that incredible coincidence. And every eco-freak would scream about the damage to the nature.

But guess what. In many countries those news didn't appear in top mainstream media (which is of course national TV). In fact, it didn't appear in most of the popular media. Somehow media aren't interested in sensations and money. Interesting, ha? When greedy bastards don't wanna money, then you know they are following orders from higher places.

And when you see that numerous times, you learn that money is not the top motivator. It's the politics and various agendas. If the whales beach and die, and the official narrative says: "We don't know why the whales stranded here", then that's exactly what the media will say. Regardless of a much bigger news (and sensation) which is that we know EXACTLY why they stranded. And no, it's not because the leading whale lost its compass.

Wrong. Google News literally tailors news based on what their users want - it creates an insulated bubble that suggests content based on what their users want. Google News tailor what they show according to what you click and the news settings in your profie. Your own insulated bubble created by your personal news preferences is the reason why you don't get news about the train derailment.

Your claim that Google News is censoring the train derailment in Ohio is completely FALSE. It literally shows up TWICE on the first page of Google News Feed based on my own news selections. If it doesn't show up on your Google News feed, that is because you have completely different news selections/preferences for your own Google profile where your own actions/preferences have selectively filtered out this type of reporting.

Here are screenshots of my Google News Feed from today - you can see the Ohio train derailment show up TWICE in my top news feed:

https://imgur.com/VmaLJWH

https://imgur.com/6m9yhcV

 

[Hodor]

I didn't say Google News censored that news. Never even mentioned Google News. I said that major media in almost every country on the planet was told to avoid showing that news. And in most of countries they followed the "recommendation". Which is a clear case of censorship.

Smaller news outlets did show the news, but that's only because they aren't so popular. They can't influence enough audience to matter. Google News is hardly a major player in the news business.

But Google is excellent at censoring other things. Not just in Google Search results but especially on YouTube. I'm glad that Susan Wojcicki was finally fired. Or she stepped down, whatever the excuse is. Tho it probably won't change the hardcore censorship policy of YouTube.

I mean, there are millions of user comments shadow-ghosted on YouTube. Which is a particularly nasty way of censorship, because the user don't even know his comment is invisible. Dirty censorship. Usually for no good reason, except hidden ideological set of rules based on the hidden political agenda. Completely invisible to users. Not documented, not covered in any EULA. Because it's illegal.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

I didn't say Google News censored that news. Never even mentioned Google News. I said that major media in almost every country on the planet was told to avoid showing that news. And in most of countries they followed the "recommendation". Which is a clear case of censorship.

Smaller news outlets did show the news, but that's only because they aren't so popular. They can't influence enough audience to matter. Google News is hardly a major player in the news business.

But Google is excellent in censoring other things. Not just in Google Search results but especially on YouTube. I'm glad that Susan Wojcicki was finally fired. Or she stepped down, whatever the excuse is. Tho it probably won't change the hardcore censorship policy of YouTube.

I mean, there are millions of user comments shadow-ghosted on YouTube. Which is a particularly nasty way of censorship, because the user don't even know his comment is invisible. Dirty censorship. Usually for no good reason, except hidden ideological set of rules based on the hidden political agenda. Completely invisible to users. Not documented, not covered in any EULA. Because it's illegal.

You were talking about Google "censorship" and mass media not covering the train derailments. But now it's suddenly not about Google News anymore when I showed that Google News isn't censoring that event?

Now you claim "Major media in almost every country on the planet was told to avoid showing that news"? And how did you come up with that conclusion? Have you even been to other countries?

And in one of my Google News feeds (from the screenshot above) talking about the train derailment is from the BBC - which is the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation - which is a UK news agency literally in another country. Other European new agencies also covered the train derailments in their English and non-English language publications.

Residents near toxic US train derailment told water 'safe' to drink

The governor of Ohio told residents living near the site of a toxic train derailment that it was "safe" to drink the water, as authorities investigate potential environmental fallout from the accident…

www.france24.com

Hell, even Chinese mass media is covering the Ohio train derailment. Even Chinese politicans were using the event to make fun of the USA on Twitter and and widely talking about the Ohio train derailments to use it as propaganda to make the US look bad.

Rail firm warned over Ohio train derailment

www.chinadaily.com.cn

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1625931992087789593

The claim that mass media in other countries were told to avoid covering that news, or even that other foreign media aren't covering the train derailment is completely false....because it is being covered widely by mass media in both inside the USA and outside the USA.

 

[Hodor]

You were talking about Google "censorship" and mass media not covering the train derailments. But now it's suddenly not about Google News anymore when I showed that Google News isn't censoring that event?

Yes, because Google News is not really mass media. How many people are getting their news from that source? What percent of the global population? What's the demographics of that portal?

How many times were those news repeated to the audience? Because you, just like most of people, don't understand how propaganda works. If you mention any news just once, it's almost as you didn't mention it. Only rare people will pay attention to it. The rest of the audience needs more convincing. News must be repeated several times to them, and it has to be commented by some kind of "authority", so that audience is convinced it's an important topic. This is why TV networks are still kings of media (and propaganda), despite millions of web portals in the wild.

Now you claim "Major media in almost every country on the planet was told to avoid showing that news"? And how did you come up with that conclusion? Have you even been to other countries?

I don't need to go. I talked to people from other countries. Who watch their local news. And there are also sources which watch news in other countries.

And in one of my Google News feeds (from the screenshot above) talking about the train derailment is from the BBC - which is the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation - which is a UK news agency literally in another country. Other European new agencies also covered the train derailments in their English and non-English language publications.

Yes, British media is pretty liberal when it comes to news. They've also said that COVID vaccine is crap (not in those words) a lot before other media in the world.

But still, you're mixing TV and web portals. TV has a lot stronger influence on the population. Now, someone should check whether the BBC TV aired the news. And whether they did it a few times. A few days in a row. And pointed out the ecological side of the problem. And pointed out that several large derailments (at least 5) happened within 20 days. Did they call an expert to estimate whether it's possible those were just accidents? Maybe those were sabotages. If they were, who did them?

In other words, did they cover it the way it deserves? Did they spend the same amount of time on it as if it happened, say, in Iran?

Hell, even Chinese mass media is covering the Ohio train derailment. Even Chinese politicans were using the event to make fun of the USA on Twitter and and widely talking about the Ohio train derailments to use it as propaganda to make the US look bad.

Of course. As you just explained, Chinese are using it to make the US look bad. That's exactly my point. Countries friendly with the US are hiding or downplaying the news. While those who don't like US are, naturally, showing it. In other words, less democratic countries have a better coverage of those news than those which are (allegedly) democratic.

The claim that mass media in other countries were told to avoid covering that news, or even that other foreign media aren't covering the train derailment is completely false....because it is being covered widely by mass media in both inside the USA and outside the USA.

Nope. What you call "mass media" is not really mass media. And what you call "coverage" is not really coverage. Imagine if aliens from another planet landed on Earth, and this amazing news appeared in one major news network, scrolling in the news bar, just once, just one day, and never again. And most of other news ignored it. Would that be "coverage"? I mean, coverage that such an event deserves?

Remember when some people who were gay weren't served in some pub in Texas? Global news outlets and TV networks were repeating it for like 10 days in a row. If not more. All the global media services were repeating the relatively irrelevant news for days. That's what you call coverage. Totally overexaggerated coverage that such news didn't really deserve.

Now, the accidents in Ohio, they didn't get 10% of that coverage. A much bigger and more important event didn't get even 10% of that. That's downplay. Basically censorship. They've simply covered that news with "Chinese balloons" and similar crap.

 

[mailpup]

Back on topic please. Thank you.

 

[rsmith222]

This is amusing given the 'Don't be evil' motto that was proposed by Paul Buchheit who felt that Google's competitors were exploiting users to some extent or another (but not Google). Seshadri is just confirming what anyone with functioning brain already knew through observation.

Steve Schmidt said it was the stupidest thing he'd heard of and then asked how a person can even know what evil is.

One might guess that Google's downfall began to speed up with the jettisoning of at least lip service to altruism.