Postmortem of my 9 year journey at Google

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

A former Google SRE’s nine‑year retrospective prompts mixed reactions: some appreciate the concise, money‑focused account of rapid promotions and lucrative stock, while others criticize it as shallow and unrepresentative of the technical depth they expect from ex‑Googler write‑ups. Commenters broaden the conversation to compare Google’s culture, talent, bureaucracy, and leveling to other big tech firms, debating whether Google is still “special” or now just another large ad‑driven corporation. The thread also surfaces strong views on SRE as a stressful, often undervalued career path, the trade‑offs of chasing FAANG compensation, and how large organizations’ processes can both enable massive scale and stifle meaningful innovation.

Overall reaction to the postmortem

  • Mixed reception: some found it relatable and concise; others criticized it as shallow and overly focused on compensation.
  • Several commenters felt the “I made a lot of money” framing dominated, underplaying technical depth and personal reflection.
  • Others defended short, bullet‑style posts as more readable than long, exhaustive memoirs.

Money, stock, and career strategy

  • Many comments focus on equity:
    • Some sold Google stock early and “lost” millions in hindsight; others diversified and feel that was still the right risk decision.
    • Consensus that past Google equity performance was exceptional and not a generalizable expectation.
  • Debate over what “set for life” means: some think 7‑figure net worth + high ongoing earning power qualifies; others say cost of living and career risk make that optimistic.
  • Regret is common from older engineers who did not “chase money” earlier.

Google vs other big tech & historical arc

  • Some argue Google is now “just another big tech company” like Microsoft/IBM; others insist it remains top‑tier in talent and engineering rigor.
  • Multiple comparisons of interview difficulty and talent bar vs Microsoft/Amazon; mixed but generally claim Google/Meta keep a higher centralized bar.
  • Sense that early Google was wilder and more fun; modern Google is more bureaucratic, optimized, and risk‑averse.

Levels, promotions, and IC vs management

  • Rapid promotion (L3→L4 in months, L6 in ~9 years) triggers debate: uncommon but not unheard‑of.
  • L5 is widely described as a “sweet spot” with strong pay, interesting work, and less stress; some intentionally avoid L6+ due to quality‑of‑life tradeoffs.
  • View that leaving and re‑entering is often the easiest way to level up.

SRE vs SWE

  • Strong thread: SRE is often described as stressful, interrupt‑driven, and under‑rewarded relative to SWE, despite high skill demands.
  • Others counter that in well‑run orgs SRE can be rewarding, promotion‑friendly, and rich in complex engineering (automation, capacity planning, large migrations).
  • Broader argument about specialization: some think QA/SRE/DBA should be fully embedded in dev teams; others say splitting roles is necessary at scale but incentives are misaligned.

Google’s internal tooling and engineering culture

  • Recent tools (Boq/Pod, P2020, Rollouts, automated capacity, BCID) are praised for standardization: easier onboarding, safer rollouts, strong security and compliance.
  • Some mourn the loss of “wild west” experimentation and argue heavy process/freezing of infrastructure slows innovation.
  • There is frustration over executive decisions like cutting core tools (e.g., Code Search) to “save money” despite broad productivity impact.

Ethics, ads, and “evil Google”

  • Several commenters criticize Google as fundamentally an ad and surveillance business, misaligned with sustainability and user interests.
  • Others argue that many companies behave similarly and that Google still often pushes for strong internal security and user privacy.
  • Manifest V3 and ad‑blocking restrictions are cited as emblematic of tension between security claims and ad‑business incentives.

Culture, geography, and work–life balance

  • Repeated reports of US‑centric decision‑making; non‑US offices can feel sidelined or stuck with awkward meeting times.
  • Some praise flexible arrangements (60–80% workload) as life‑changing; others note many companies refuse part‑time even when employees are willing to trade pay.
  • Complaints about middle‑management bloat, meeting overload, and shifting priorities undermining sense of impact.

Privacy and trust in Google products

  • Some engineers say working at Google increased their trust in its data security and privacy controls.
  • Others point to incidents like high‑profile cloud data loss and government surveillance concerns, questioning how “safe” data really is.