by DannyBee | 2025-04-14 15:54:00+00:00
"because with monopoly services they can hire 3x the number of developers at 3x the rate of other firms and shackle them with tools and processes that make them 1/3x as productive and survive"

So, this i'd take issue with. I agree on the overall attitude for sure.

But some of the data here is just very wrong.

Google can't hire 3x the number of developers at 3x the rate. It hasn't been able to in probably a decade. At least in established markets. It's true that in new markets it can come in and often hire very quickly, but so can lots of others. I say this all as someone who has:

1. Established multiple mid/large developer sites for Google a number of times over ~2 decades, so saw how it changed.

2. Watched my counterparts at other companies try to do it as well.

...

So i have a bunch of direct experience in knowing how fast it can hire and how many it can hire :)

It's also no longer willing to pay what it would take to get 3x developers 3x as fast but that's orthogonal to whether it could - i've watched it try and fail at getting 2x developers 2x as fast in many markets. It used to be able to, but now the only trick up its sleeve is money, sometimes freedom. That doesn't go as far as one would think.

As for 1/3rd productive due to tools and processes - most companies have near zero telemetry on their developer productivity, or very basic telemetry (build times, bug times, etc), while google has an amazing amount.

I don't even think most companies have enough telemetry to be able to quantify their productivity for real to even say it's 3x google's.

For example, most companies could not tell me how long it takes to get a feature from idea to production, what parts of the process take up what time, and how all that has changed over time and breaks down among their various developer populations. Let alone provide real insight into it.

(Feel free to pick your alternative measure, I would still bet most of the time the telemetry isn't captured)

Most seem to drive productivity based on very small parts of their chain (build times, etc) and the rest on sentiment.

That may actually be the right level of telemetry for them, and the right thing to do, depending on what they are trying to do, but it makes it very hard to say they are actually more productive or not.

There are many complaints you could make about Google, but the productivity of tools is not one of them. Sure, some people love them, some people hate them, like anything, but that is orthogonal. I've certainly seen the "i like x better" or "i am much more productive in x" complaints. But by any objective measure, the tools make Google's developers wildly productive, and are one of the reasons they are able to overcome so much more process.

The process part i agree with, like any other large company, google is smothered in process these days.

I remember having the following discussion with a 5000 person org about their launch bits:

Them: We've done some data and tracking and discovered we think only the following kinds of launches are actually really risky for us, so we want to make them blocking on the following launch bits.

Me: Great, does that mean the other launches aren't risky and you don't really care about the launch bits you have to approve for them?

Them: Yes

Me: Are you going to remove the launch bits from them so it stops slowing them down and you don't think they are risky at all?

Them: No.