Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Wave Creator Quits, Joins Facebook

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the well-there-aren't-that-many-choices dept.

Google 191

srimadman found an interview with Wave creator Lars Rasmussen where he talks about his recent decision to join Facebook, leaving Google behind. Apparently getting personally pitched by Zuckerberg helped. He says, "I've got a job description of 'come hang out with us for a while and we'll see what happens,' which is a pretty exciting thing." The article talks about Big vs Small companies, and notes that about 20% of Facebook's staff are former Googlers.

cancel ×

191 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

new boss, same as the old boss (3, Insightful)

sakura the mc (795726) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087690)

so he goes from a company that doesnt give a shit about user privacy to another that doesnt give a shit about user privacy.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34087700)

Are you kidding? User privacy (or the lack thereof) is their main revenue stream!

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (4, Insightful)

blahbooboo (839709) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087982)

Are you kidding? User privacy (or the lack thereof) is their main revenue stream!

I stopped putting anything of consequence on Facebook (including pictures) over a year ago. After seeing how much Facebook changed since I joined when Facebook was still a closed edu community (a LOT better back then too) and the endless crazy privacy settings I stopped using it. Privacy is now simple, there is absolutely nothing on facebook that I care about anymore. For example, if someone tags me in a photo, I immediately un-tag the photo.

By now, if you keep posting things about yourself on Facebook that you're concerned about it's you're own fault. Privacy is easy now for me on Facebook.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (4, Insightful)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088066)

If there was *ever* anything you cared about on facebook, then you still have something to worry about. You might not be able to see it any more, but it's still there.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (2, Informative)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088106)

I just use a pseudonym, based on a famous person with a similar name. People can tag me all they want. I also lock down the profile so that no applications can access my data, and I don't keep any personal data on there. I lastly have different privileges for different groups of people, some don't get access to any tagged photos, photos I upload, or wall posts. No one gets to see which friends I have, that they don't also have.

I just use it more as a way to keep in contact with certain friends.

There's ways of locking it down, and this helps.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088438)

There's still cross site cookies, and no setting in facebook or outside of will fix the fact that you're tracked via facebook off of facebook. So while you've done "what you can", it doesn't do quite as much as you'd hope it does.

I welcome a facebook replacement as long as it's something that doesn't make as much a mock of privacy as facebook.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (1)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088574)

Overall it reduces your exposure, and besides instances like that, it makes it so someone just researching you, will have trouble finding more information. Someone who is using sophisticated methods like you're mentioning, is either going to be a business working with them, and less nefarious than you'd think, or someone who really desperately wants your information. The latter, has many different options, Facebook being the easiest. Though, since you're not keeping any usable information in it, it's not a big worry, only links to other sources are.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (1)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088984)

What about using the "Private Browsing" mode of modern browsers? If you only do Facebook through that, no other sites should know about your facebook account, right?

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (1, Redundant)

devbox (1919724) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088124)

For example, if someone tags me in a photo, I immediately un-tag the photo.

By now, if you keep posting things about yourself on Facebook that you're concerned about it's you're own fault. Privacy is easy now for me on Facebook.

Yet you still have to work to keep your privacy. And even if you immediately un-tag, the data has been input there already. Do you really think Facebook actually deletes it instead of just disabling?

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088214)

I stopped putting anything of consequence on Facebook (including pictures) over a year ago.

Too late! I've seen the pictures. I don't know who I feel more sorry for, you, your sister, or the dog.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34088420)

A problem my wife (elem school teacher) ran into and she doesn't even have a facebook account, is people posting pics of her or that include her to their facebook pages. She nor I have any idea it is even out there since it isn't tagged and then all of a sudden someone will mention a picture they saw of her on fb. We then have to track down the person and ask them to remove the pic. Her school is crazy about any photos of the teachers online and a few have been fired for something as simple as a photo of the teacher *holding* a beer bottle in a pic. It's insane and while I don't agree with the school, what can you do?

It's a real mess.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088524)

Sounds like her workplace just wants her not to exist outside the school building. That’s completely reasonable... just get her one of those invisibility cloaks.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (1)

CrashandDie (1114135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088478)

Do you really believe untagging a picture results in a DELETE FROM... rather than a UPDATE TABLE ... SET public='false'?

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (1)

diskofish (1037768) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088530)

No, but the data is no longer public.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (1)

necode (1860700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088134)

Eventually trickle-up lack of privacy will catch up with these companies and they will suffer. And those who hang with Facebook (and Google) will have severe hangover. It's Moby Dick all over again, with Eric Schmidt (the "creep") - the new captain Ahab.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (4, Insightful)

OpenGLFan (56206) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088634)

Eventually trickle-up lack of privacy will catch up with these companies and they will suffer. And those who hang with Facebook (and Google) will have severe hangover. It's Moby Dick all over again, with Eric Schmidt (the "creep") - the new captain Ahab.

Privacy is not, and has never been, a killer app. We still don't regularly encrypt email; we send it plaintext and leave it on google servers. NSA's pressure on Zimmerman didn't kill PGP email, apathy did.

People don't want privacy. People want Farmville.

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (5, Insightful)

trickyD1ck (1313117) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087796)

And why would these companies care, when users themselves don't?

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088012)

Care or no care, it's not like you have a choice anymore. All you need is some friend who joins the "hand over your privacy" club and you're in too!

Re:new boss, same as the old boss (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088024)

They don't give a shit about the privacy of users who consider their personal information so private they plaster it all over the Internet.

Come see what happens... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34087694)

Just pray Fuckerberg uses Vaseline!

You got Google Wave on my Facebook! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34087736)

You got Facebook on my Google Wave!

Two suck tastes, taste suck together.

Google's better off.

Re:You got Google Wave on my Facebook! (4, Informative)

Game_Ender (815505) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087760)

This is the guy that made google-maps as well, it is quite a loss.

Re:You got Google Wave on my Facebook! (5, Interesting)

entotre (1929174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087910)

His brother (the other guy who made google maps) will stay with google. So it seems that relations between the two internet companies, at least at the top, are not as hostile as they often are portrayed.

Re:You got Google Wave on my Facebook! (0, Troll)

ztransform (929641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088458)

Just look at the dominant languages in Google: not C++ or C. Not serious languages.

Facebook is an extremely poorly written web application - extremely poorly written. From a chat client that has barely worked to privacy settings that don't work; where different views reveal information that has been explicitly marked as "private".

If you've ever tried to configure a "Google Web Appliance" targeted for the enterprise you'll appreciate just what a dodgy crowd Google are, too.

All in all, Google and Facebook are great bedfellows.

Re:You got Google Wave on my Facebook! (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34089112)

Not serious languages ... extremely poorly written ... barely worked ... dodgy crowd

Oh, sure... why don’t you try to design a website that’s used by millions of people every day? You make it sound like it’s easy or something.

Re:You got Google Wave on my Facebook! (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088730)

Yes, quite. If Google and Facebook are both going to allow this guy to keep his brother, they really must not be at each other's throats when it comes to competition in the market.

Re:You got Google Wave on my Facebook! (1)

entotre (1929174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088788)

It was not implied that the two are anti-competitive.

Re:You got Google Wave on my Facebook! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34088038)

So he took an idea that was already out there and made it more appealing to the young bourgeois? Sounds like he'll fit in quite well at Facebook.

Google What Now? (4, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087756)

Seriously, can anyone explain to me in words of two syllables or fewer what Google Wave is/was (other than a Firefly reference) or why I should have bothered to find out for myself?

Re:Google What Now? (2, Informative)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087770)

Google's version of Facebook - only they put a "business" spin on it.

Re:Google What Now? (1)

bhartman34 (886109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088726)

I don't think there was much similar to Facebook in Google Wave.

Wave was interesting (to me, at least) because it offered collaboration and sharing in real-time, in a way that would've been much more powerful than what I've seen in current collaboration tools (e.g., SharePoint) -- if it had worked well as advertised. The problem I always saw with Wave was that the damn thing was slow. I mean, dear God was it slow, sometimes! If you can type faster than the text can be rendered in an application (by several seconds), there's a serious problem.

I'm sort of surprised the summary leads with Google Wave as Rasmussen's claim to fame. Maps was less ambitious, perhaps, but it was much more successful.

Re:Google What Now? (1)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088784)

Not really. It's more like what you get when you put email, wikis, and IM in a blender and set it to puree.

Really, the Firefly reference was intentional, and similar to their goal -- a combined communications "thing" that's kinda like e-mail, but multimedia and capable of being real-time.

It seems like everyone calls everything Google has done recently their "version of Facebook." Wave was, profiles were, even Buzz is, apparently. =p

Re:Google What Now? (1)

bhartman34 (886109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088948)

It seems like everyone calls everything Google has done recently their "version of Facebook."

This has become a tech media plague, really. Just because Facebook is wildly popular doesn't mean that any site that aspires to have more than 2 members that can talk to each other is a "version of Facebook".

Re:Google What Now? (4, Funny)

aicrules (819392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087784)

beta

Re:Google What Now? (3, Funny)

markhb (11721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087804)

It was the missing link between "Steal underpants" and "PROFIT!!!"

Re:Google What Now? (4, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087820)

Email + IM/Chat + Wiki Functionality all rolled into one.

Re:Google What Now? (3, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087976)

Wow. The people on it must have gotten nothing done.

Re:Google What Now? (3, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088176)

Supposedly Google used it internally for meetings.

Someone would create a wave of the meeting agenda and invite the people who were going to attend.

As the meeting went along, everyone could edit the wave in realtime collobaterion. The agenda evolved into the meeting notes.

And if you missed the meeting, you can re-play the wave and see the steps of every comment and note as it went along.

The failure of wave as I see it isn't that it couldn't provide killer new features, or a failure to boost productivity.

The problem was that if I want to email or IM someone, I can do so through Gmail and every contact I need is there. With Wave, only so many people had it, so I couldn't colloberate with the people I needed to.

Re:Google What Now? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34089104)

The other problem with Wave is that they released it at the same time as Buzz, and gave Buzz all the attention. I thought Wave was spectacular, but apparently I was the only one.

Re:Google What Now? (0, Flamebait)

sitarlo (792966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088032)

WOW, that's amazing! Oh boy those Google people are sooooo brilliant and creative! Really, who cares about Wave? It's just another hack "product" from a company of hacks.

Re:Google What Now? (2, Insightful)

jitterman (987991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088178)

To be fair, they ARE brilliant, but even brilliance doesn't always result in "wow, awesome!" A case in point, Wayne Cherry designed both the 1970 Vauxhall SRV [blogspot.com] and the Pontiac Aztec. [insideline.com]

It's true that Wave made almost no ripples (sorry, bad pun), but I very much doubt "hacks" defines the vast majority of Google's workforce.

Re:Google What Now? (1)

sitarlo (792966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088492)

Search -> Yahoo
Android -> Apple
Maps -> MapQuest
Mail -> HotMail
Chrome -> Apple, Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera

Yes, Google has improved on some of these things (except smartphones), but they seem to fail to bring anything entirely new and revolutionary to the market. Apple has released more innovative stuff this last year than Google has in a decade. Even their top "research" phd-holding peeps don't come up with much these days. The researchers at Microsoft are winning awards for all kinds of cool stuff while Google is getting left behind. Those little text ads are really the only thing they have going for them. I maintain my assertion that Google is a hack company based on web advertising, existing behind a veil of academic, elitist, technobull. Right now they are scrambling to buy companies because they know they don't have anything to bring to the market. Top employees are jumping ship. I give them 5 years before their stock is down 75%+.

Re:Google What Now? (1)

oiron (697563) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088702)

So apparently, every idea that anyone ever comes up with should be absolutely unique and have no predecessors in your view?

To take just one thing, I don't know if you remember web search before Google - there's a reason that "to Google" is a verb these days... Of course they've taken existing ideas and improved on them - that really is the basis of innovation. You can keep going back further and further to prove that nothing in that little list of yours is really "new" (Android -> Apple -> Palm -> Newton -> ... -> PADD from Star Trek -> ... -> A pocket notebook -> ... -> a bunch of palm leaves or papyrus and so on).

As to the rest, I think we can summarize it thus: "Google is dying - Netcraft confirms it"

Re:Google What Now? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34089012)

To take just one thing, I don't know if you remember web search before Google - there's a reason that "to Google" is a verb these days... Of course they've taken existing ideas and improved on them - that really is the basis of innovation. You can keep going back further and further to prove that nothing in that little list of yours is really "new" (Android -> Apple -> Palm -> Newton -> ... -> PADD from Star Trek -> ... -> A pocket notebook -> ... -> a bunch of palm leaves or papyrus and so on).

I'd update the GPs list a bit, but getting to the point:

You mentioned innovation, but the problem here is that every product that Google makes that is successful in any way, shape, or form is almost identical to something that someone has already done, but slightly improved.

At least RIM (notice I'm not mentioning Apple here) added applications... to a cellphone! No one had ever done that before! Android has added... spplications... to a cellphone. 12 years after RIM released the BlackBerry.

Web browser? 14 years after Netscape. For a browser that cherry-picked features that the other 4 browsers already had.

Web-based email? 8 years after Hotmail.

There's a certain form of irony that we're talking this in a thread about Google Wave. Wave was, in a way, an innovative product. It faced several major problems that it never surmounted:

  1. People already had email and IM clients.
  2. Closed Betas limit the number of people you can use it with.

Re:Google What Now? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088842)

Yahoo wasn't the first search engine. And Google is still the king of the hill in returning relevant results. They innovate all the time with things like instant search, image search, etc.

You're trying to criticise Google for piggybacking on the innovation of others, and you're going to credit Apple for inventing the smartphone? Wow.

And Android as a smartphone OS blows the competition out of the water.

Google Maps blew MapQuest out of the water with innovative features, such as dragging the route to re-route, street view, etc.

And you're not honestly comparing Hotmail with Gmail are you? Labels, threaded conversation, massive storage, search that works, etc.

And Chrome is more than a basic WebKit browser. They created the V8 Javascript engine, seperated each process, put plugins in a sandbox, improved garbage collection, and started the trend of cleaned browser UIs. You'll note every major browser on the market is copying from Chrome these days.

You're suggesting Google has never done anything revolutionary. Either you're a troll, or you really don't pay attention.

Re:Google What Now? (0, Troll)

sitarlo (792966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088946)

"And Android as a smartphone OS blows the competition out of the water."

I develop on both Android and iOS and I can tell you with 100% certainty that this is not true at all.

Re:Google What Now? (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088960)

The business definition for "innovation" is not "producing innovative things" but "making somehow innovative things to produce tons of cash". Yes, I know that's not what you mean by "innovation", but that's what business mean and related to business that's all that counts.

Now, recheck your list under the business "proper" meaning for innovation:
Search -> Google
Mobile -> Apple, Google
Maps -> Google
Mail -> Google
Browser -> Microsoft, Mozilla

That puts Google on 3.5 out of 5. So, yes, Google is a true innovative business from business point of view.

Re:Google What Now? (0, Troll)

sitarlo (792966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34089196)

Google stock has gone up 450% sing IPO. Apple's has gone up 1500% in the same amount of time. True innovation drives the market and Google is failing to bring anything compelling to the table. Your description of "business" innovation is spin bullshit. True innovation changes the way people work, play and live. Google has helped people slack at work and school by providing an extremely rich web search engine, but beyond that, their products haven't been the impetus for any paradigm shift. Apple, on the other hand, revolutionized computing decades ago and they are doing it again now with their devices and software. True innovation trumps "business" innovation.

Re:Google What Now? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34087850)

Loud, self-important ignorance is sexy as hell.

Re:Google What Now? (4, Informative)

hodet (620484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087886)

From the demo I saw (I never actually tried it), it looked to me like an online collaboration tool for groups. You could chat with the whole group, launch shared screens for collaboration etc etc. You could add and remove users from the wave as you go. It tried to blend all kinds of things into one platform hosted on a central server. Google were never really able to convince people why they need this tool (myself included). I remember after looking at the demo, thinking how painful it might have been to actually use in the real world.

Re:Google What Now? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088046)

google should have marketed it as an IM which had additional features, or as a facebook replacement with same. Instead they tried to advertise all it could do and confused people. I was only confused as to why I should use it when no one else would, and I was right.

Re:Google What Now? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088350)

Thing is, it wasn't an IM tool as such because you had to expressly set up a wave and invite people to join.

I looked into it myself - and while it was a very nifty bit of AJAX, I really thought it was a solution looking for a problem which didn't exist.

Re:Google What Now? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34088078)

It tried to blend all kinds of things into one platform hosted on a central server.

It wasn't meant to be hosted on one central server. Google released a federation protocol that was going to be used to allow Wave platforms on other servers to intercommunicate just like email. It just never got that far because it was chock full of bugs and forced users to learn an entirely new system to do the same things they were already doing.

In my personal opinion, Wave had a lot of potential. It's great for collaboration (when it's not freaking out from all the bugs). I think one of the main problems is that Google just tried to roll too much into it. It was email + social networking + collaboration tools + IM --- all updated live. If they would have dialed back a few features, didn't hype it so much, and worked out more bugs before they released it, I think it would have done a lot better.

Re:Google What Now? (1)

PGillingwater (72739) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088242)

Real world experience? I found this tool was excellent as a collaboration tool for software development and project management. It's great for tracking changes, and documenting implementation details.

I for one, and many of my colleagues will be sad to see Google Wave pass on.

Re:Google What Now? (5, Informative)

tapo (855172) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087924)

"Real-time message board for projects."

A few friends of mine have been using Wave for developing a game and game toolset, and its a weird mixture of wiki, message board, and group whiteboard, they usually discuss the latest project milestone on Skype while having running meeting minutes in a Wave. If someone can't make the meeting, they come along later and comment. There's long waves about everything from programming standards, to models and art assets, to release notes.

It's been so damn useful for project development that Google is planning to ship "Wave in a Box" so small teams like ours can deploy it on our own server, even after Google kills official support. And we will, we can't go back to wiki, it seems so damn archaic at this point.

Re:Google What Now? (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088052)

it was slow, deathly slow. and a resource hog. with public waves Google Chrome would eat up over 500MB of RAM.

it was like email, IM, internet forums, newsgroups all rolled into one and google would keep track of typos so they would know everything you did

Re:Google What Now? (1)

jon3k (691256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088218)

Sure, I can try anyway -- it's a communication tool that attempts to combine the best of IRC, instant messaging, e-mail and web forums into one streamlined interface.

Personally I think it failed because it was overly ambitious and was overly compromised. It was too clunky for real time communication and didn't offer enough new features for it to supplant e-mail. It was a _very_ interesting exercise and something that needs to happen. I don't know about you, but I spend all day logged into IRC (and IM via bitlbee, gtalk and AIM) as well as sending e-mails and browsing the occasionally message board. I think the next "big things" will be merging all these disparate communication mediums.

Re:Google What Now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34088348)

It's a fancy collaboration tool to create wiki-like documents with both real-time editing and continuous tracking of document history. If you can't deal with many-syllabic words, you don't need to know.

Re:Google What Now? (1)

gratuitous_arp (1650741) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088356)

It's funny how everyone who uses Wave on a team can't live without it, and everyone who has never tried it can't see the point in it. Directed at the replies to the OP.

Re:Google What Now? (1)

hyperizer (123449) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088398)

canceled

Re:Google What Now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34088462)

We are a small theater company with important staff spread over a large region who can't often meet together.
We use Wave to modify our mission statement, edit job descriptions of potential new hires (resumes are shared via email) and integrated with google calendar plan our season.
We have also had members 'phone into' a meeting via the live typing option.
It's been pretty great for us.

Re:Google What Now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34088756)

It was kind of like a persistent chat room / IM program. Threads could be watched in real time, and you could reply to someone's message to start a subthread, but it was also persistent.
It was pretty cool, but incredibly slow, and the scrollbars sucked.

What's the attraction (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34087762)

Seriously, what's the attraction of working at Facebook? Is it just the money?

Re:What's the attraction (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34087888)

What, you think being a prostitute is popular because these women like to have sex?

Re:What's the attraction (2, Insightful)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088166)

Company paid trips to SpringBreak^W marketing opportunities with Hot Young College Girls^W^W^W^W Facebook's target market.

Re:What's the attraction (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34088264)

There's also a lot of coke, if you get to hang out with the Zuckerberg like this guy.

Should have seen this coming... (1, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087768)

"I think if you were to ask me two or three years ago if Facebook was going to be this big, I wouldn't have picked it. And I have a great deal to learn there from Mark and his team," he said.
And a great deal of cash to earn, hey Mark is a 24-year old billionaire and they need me.
WAVEs goodbye...

Re:Should have seen this coming... (3, Insightful)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087986)

Wow, you found out that a top Google programmer is being hired by another company for money. Oh, and he agreed to switch companies because he is being paid big bucks. Yep, you sure deserve the Insightful mod.

Most people here dream about doing a good enough job to be hired by one of the top companies and being paid big bucks for it, but when we see someone with a proven track record getting paid for it: Sellout!

Re:Should have seen this coming... (4, Interesting)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087992)

Mark is a 24-year old billionaire...

If he invented some incredible green energy break through, I'd be thinking way to go!
If he found a way to eliminate much of the poverty and sickness in the Third World, I'd say way to go kid! You deserve every penny!
If he came up with some sort of medical breakthrough that eliminate breast and ovarian or prostate cancer, I'd be really happy for him.

No, he didn't.

He became an instant billionaire by selling what is basically personal web pages that broadcast updates automatically.

Tesla did more for humanity and he died penniless.

Excuse me, I'm having an attack of mumbling "Bullshit!"

Re:Should have seen this coming... (2, Interesting)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088114)

That website helped me connect and stay in touch with people that I normally would not contact as I'm not a 'phone' person and they are not 'letter' people.

It's been of use to me. If you can create something which becomes useful to millions of people, you don't see THAT as being worth some money?

Granted, I think people are insane in setting the potential value so high, but it's certainly worth several million. (In general, I think that advertising expendatures have become a self fulfilling prophecy. Just because it is/was self fulfilling doesn't mean that it isn't now the reality)

Re:Should have seen this coming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34088442)

Don't let his anger hide his jealousy from you.

From TFS (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34087792)

notes that about 20% of Facebook's staff are former Googlers.

Wow, 80 % of facebook's employees have never googled anything?

Money is nice (5, Funny)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087846)

Google has the company policy where 10% of every employee's hours are to be spent on projects of their choosing. They're known for providing their employees tons of flexibility to explore new ideas.

Lars is suggesting he is jumping ship to Facebook so he can have the freedom to see what happens. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with money.

Re:Money is nice (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088020)

And if in addition to the great opportunity he gets money for it, what's the problem?
He is a good programmer and Facebook thinks he is worth the amount they pay him. He, OTOH, gets a good salary (I presume it is more than what he got at Google) and an interesting job - seems like a Win-Win situation.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is not such a rare occasion that programmers move from one company to another in the IT business.

Re:Money is nice (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088230)

I'm not faulting or judging him. I'm just saying that money probably played a larger factor for his leaving than the story he gave.

Re:Money is nice (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088092)

Not money yet.
Google already gone public Lars probably got a bunch of stock options from Google but those are going to get harder to come by now.
Facebook has yet to go public. Lars is getting a bunch of stock options and when Facebook goes public $$$$$.
I wonder if anybody has gone from Yahoo to Google to Facebook. If so they are probably well past set for life at this point in time.

Re:Money is nice (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088202)

Except if it is proven that Paul Ceglia owns 84% of Facebook. Zuckerberg is handing out stock after a judge said he couldn't distribute or sell company assets. What if a judge rules the stock Zuckerberg gave you, he didn't have a right to hand out?

Re:Money is nice (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088460)

too many interests to lose facebook. and Paul may have screwed himself by waiting so long to collect on such a small debt. he may walk away with nothing just because he waited so long.

Re:Money is nice (3, Interesting)

Macka (9388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088406)

A colleague of mine used to work at Google and told me there is considerable pressure put on you to come up with something concrete and constructive from that 10%. It's not a free time to just dick about with whatever takes your fancy, it has to be for the betterment of Google.

Re:Money is nice (1)

Woogiemonger (628172) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088538)

It's 20%, not 10%.

Re:Money is nice (2, Interesting)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088570)

You make it sound if the money part is a bad thing.
What if this is not OR/OR but AND/AND? AND he can work on a project that he is passionate about AND he earns more money.

Re:Money is nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34088628)

Google has the company policy where 10% of every employee's hours are to be spent on projects of their choosing. They're known for providing their employees tons of flexibility to explore new ideas.

Lars is suggesting he is jumping ship to Facebook so he can have the freedom to see what happens. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with money.

10% isn't a lot. In my engineering job in a giant corporation, my peers and I allocate 50% of our time to developing our own ideas, and from what I've seen that's the norm. Maybe the notable part of Google's 10% is that it applies to non-PhDs?

The best part of being at Facebook? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34087858)

We get to do evil now! Yeah!

Re:The best part of being at Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34087926)

and i'll be damned if the darkside doesn't have cookies.

Facebook doesn't have all those restrictions (2, Interesting)

milonssecretsn (1392667) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087900)

Yeah, sweet gig. He doesn't have to be tied down by all of google's restrictive rules like "not being evil".
He won't have those problems at facebook.

Seriously though, it is pretty sad to see him go. Bright mind.

Zuckerberg? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34087934)

Zuckerberg - isn't he the thieving jew that stole facebook off of it's rightful creator?

Re:Zuckerberg? (-1, Offtopic)

freeshoes (826204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34087996)

Great artist steal.

I'm surprised they killed Wave (1)

No. 24601 (657888) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088064)

I'm surprised Google killed Wave when they haven't killed many other long-standing projects they have going that are much less popular with users and, as a result, much less lucrative. I think it was a clash of heads between Rasmussen and the top over what his priorities should be. They probably wanted something that would be as instantly popular as Maps. Wave did have potential especially if they marketed it alongside Google Apps for Business, but it's definitely not going to drive the kind people who use Facebook to start switching in droves to using Wave instead -- that's a bit unrealistic. If that's what Lars was looking for, everyone's probably better off with him at Facebook.

Re:I'm surprised they killed Wave (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088382)

Wave did have potential especially if they marketed it alongside Google Apps for Business, but it's definitely not going to drive the kind people who use Facebook to start switching in droves to using Wave instead -- that's a bit unrealistic. If that's what Lars was looking for, everyone's probably better off with him at Facebook.

They did. You could enable Wave for your domain quite easily.

We tried it and rapidly concluded it was a lookgran product.

Ok, I'll be the dumb one. (1)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088674)

What's a lookgran product?

Re:Ok, I'll be the dumb one. (2, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088926)

"Look at what I can do, Gran!"

"That's nice, dear".

Tail end of one wave to tail end of another? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34088128)

"It feels to me that Facebook may be a sort of once-in-a-decade type of company," Rasmussen said.

Unfortunately, that decade was the previous one.

20% of Facebook's staff are former Googlers (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088554)

If you notice Google becoming less evil in the coming months, this will be why--they're all going to facebook. :-)

Loyalty (2, Insightful)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088600)

The value of loyalty is completely gone in today's organizations. No loyalty to the company; No loyalty to the employees, and no loyalty between employees. I'm not advocating blind loyalty, but when people change companies every couple of years for a slight bump in salary, or a shinier title, or just so they don't appear "stagnant", it's a problem. And it's a problem first and foremost for the employees themselves.

Re:Loyalty (5, Insightful)

Chowderbags (847952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34089232)

What do you expect when businesses stopped being loyal to their employees? There used to be things like pension plans and long term job security. Now companies might match some portion of your 401k and at a slight downturn in the economy they might lay off hundreds or thousands so that their numbers look a little bit better. If they're willing to toss workers overboard for slight profit, workers are well within reason to toss their company overboard for their own slight profit. Give people a good reason to stay and you'll get loyal employees, otherwise you get what coming to you.

A small bet (2, Interesting)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088638)

I will bet anyone an imaginary nickel that he's there for just about exactly one year.

Homepage: Facebook (1)

ovette_pta (1930698) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088676)

Well, around here you dont see much people who are online that doesn't have a window or a tab reserved for Facebook. Even on most internet cafe's Facebook has become the homepage and for most pc/laptop owners too. I guess for Lars jumping in just added up more reason for facebook fans to watchout for whats coming.

We help Americans find jobs and prosperity in Asia. Visit http://www.pathtoasia.com/employment [pathtoasia.com] for details.

Dark Side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34088732)

So it sounds like Zuck basically said, "Lars, come to the dark(er) side and we'll rule the galaxy as founder and Rasmussen".

Sneaky Google.... (1)

balaband (1286038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34088758)

They probably sent this guy on purpose to doom the Facebook with new wave-like interface.

I can almost hear diabolical laughter from Google offices....
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>