• EnderMB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly, this is just big tech all over. I don’t think there are many people that work at FAANG companies any more that feel things are better than they were even 3-4 years ago. They are no longer idealised, and CEO’s have decided to take company failures out on employees instead of their inability to target long-term success. I’ve friends at Amazon, Google, and Apple - all say that their “culture” is basically dead.

    IMO, we’ve reached a point where all of the big names in tech are now out of ideas. None of them have innovated in recent years, outside of (maybe) AI, and the culture of supporting moonshot ideas (where someone can work on something new/exciting and not be personally liable if it doesn’t work out) is now dead with layoffs in these divisions. The only incentive that big tech has any more is pay, and with no long-term stability and pay decreasing over time, I think we’ll see a shift away from FAANG and towards the new breed of tech. FAANG will become the IBM and Oracle’s of tech, and things will move on.

    • FishFace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Notable exception which must be mentioned is Facebook/Meta: their AR/VR plan is one gigantic moonshot. Whether it will pay off remains to be seen, and if it doesn’t then obviously the thousands of people employed in that division won’t be able to find a home in WhatsApp or whatever.

      • lloram239@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        Crux is that Facebook/Meta has now been almost a decade in the VR space and they still have no idea what to do with it. They are just stumbling in the dark wasting tens of billions of dollar with little to show for. They sure have the money and will to build the next big thing, but only a very vague idea of what that thing might even be to begin with. It doesn’t help that they basically fired everybody of the original Oculus crew that got the VR space up and running again in the first place. Even their Metaverse that they spend so much effort hyping up is a complete nothingburger, it’s not just that nobody cares, it’s that they haven’t even managed to build anything worth calling that, they are still playing catch up with features from PlayStationHome 15 years ago (or Habitat from over 37 years ago).

        • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          And the most successful company with VR, Valve, pretty much had its day with it and have moved on to other, profitable ventures. It’s too expensive to own, even moreso to develop for, and offers nothing fascinating in terms of experience that other multimedia does.

      • EnderMB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I know they don’t do bootcamp any more, but Facebook were perfectly set up to move people between divisions by not hiring for specific roles, and doing team matching over orientation. It was a system that worked well, and being able to switch teams easily meant that people could jump from WhatsApp to Instagram to Ads with minimal friction.

        In terms of numbers, definitely, but a phased rollout could work if it meant keeping services in KTLO, and moving people out gradually as you slow down internal hiring. Sadly, companies find it easier to just sack everyone, and then hire again in a few months.

        • FishFace@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          The hiring process for their AR/VR division is also different than it is for the rest of the company - even when the general rule was to hire without a specific role in mind, that was not the case at Reality Labs. But yeah, the big issue is that you can’t absorb 10,000 people into the larger organisation that easily even if they were all generalists.

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      They aren’t even out if ideas, it’s management which demands safe ideas only with huge returns, so they block common sense shit because it doesn’t boost the quarterly results

      • Case@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a symptom of capitalism as a whole.

        The whole perpetual growth, and being legally bound to try to provide that to shareholders, means only “safe” ideas are given any traction.

        The only time any “innovative” comes out is when billionaires have a pipe dream.

        However, they lack the skills or expertise (or even common sense) to execute them.

        Musk had ideas, bought his way into leadership, and essentially had to be corralled by handlers while other people did the actual hard work.

        Then, at the platform formally known as Twitter, with no handlers… Well, the world has seen how an unleashed Musk handles that. Spoiler: not well.

    • gian @lemmy.grys.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They are no longer idealised, and CEO’s have decided to take company failures out on employees instead of their inability to target long-term success.

      It is not CEO’s inability (or at least not always). You cannot think long term when the only thing that matter is the next quarter result.

    • Balinares@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Big missing piece there: cloud.

      In the first half of the 2010s, there was a study from Gartner or another such company, that forecast that the cloud service market would amount to 1 trillion USD/year by 2030 or so, and since then the big players have been racing to try and carve as much as possible of the future juicy pie from Amazon’s hands.

      Google completely missed the boat at first then pivoted hard. MS leveraged its deep enterprise presence as hard as it could to get existing customers into its cloud offering; that’s why your MS consumer products (Office, OneDrive, etc) are tied at the hip with cloud these days. Not for consumers, for the business market.

      It’s business to business, however, so the generak public doesn’t hear about it a lot. It’s also largely non-sexy, and therefore not headline-worthy, with a few exceptions. The whole AI thing, for instance. But even there, consumers are not the target market. Cloud customers are.

      In that sense Google, MS and Amazon absolutely already are the new IBM and Oracle.

      Meanwhile, as far as I can tell, Meta is still trying to execute on its mission to connect people while still headed by people who have no idea how people connect. Apple is Apple, keeps just making oodles of money off the kind of people who buy Apple products.