He was involved in the design, planning, and future-proofing one of the major redesigns of Google's data center fabric. Google, AFAIK still uses a derivative of the fabric today.
CarPlay and Android Auto only really started seeing adoption in post 2017 Model Year vehicles.
Anyone I know that has one, will immediately either plugin or connect whenever they go live.
There's other benefits like (in the aforementioned article), CarPlay Ultra being able to send data to multiple screens like the front dash. Where having my directions right next to me speed means I don't have to check two screens.
Oh, that's really cool. For about two years the car I drove and the phone I had lined up such that I could kind of wedge it in the front dash next to the speedometer, and that was for sure a better location than the dash mount I have now. I'd forgotten about that.
You're conflating two things, magnitude and intensity.
This earthquake was measured as a 6.9 moment magnitude, sometimes referred to incorrectly as the "Richter" scale.
The Shindo intensity system is measured without decimal places. In this particular case, the intensity was a 6+. Which isn't the highest, but is still quite severe.
Former Googler here, and one that has open-sourced projects while working in Cloud.
This is certainly not the case in other product areas and for specifically for something that uses the Google name.
If I was expected to go through a full IARC committee in order to get my little Discord bot open sourced under my own account, something that uses the Google name would likely have to get IARC + Legal approvals, along with a proper launch/privacy review.
The OP also notes that they had a competing product in the process of development when they "launched" theirs, likely leading to significant internal confusion, and is something that would've been caught during a review.
I'm gunna be real, this whole thing smells of "I'm purposely bit telling the whole truth" and looks like clout chasing.
Google contains multitudes. I don't doubt that your personal experience was the opposite end of the spectrum from mine.
I maintain that firing is an extreme resolution here (taking the claims at face value of course). Surely this employee has demonstrated the capacity to deliver impact and could be redirected if properly incentivized.
As a Xoogler you should know that the "impact" they want is, making leadership look good, what you shipped or even whether or not you shipped is nigh irrelevant.
I don't see anything about the product that made Google leadership look bad? I don't see that anyone else external to Google thought so either, before they fired him? Firing him makes them look bad, however.
So it was done on the clock as a project at Developer Relations team, I don't know if that should be called a personal project or not, maybe, it does seem Developer Relations projects could be one person's idea and execution, but just to be clear on what happened.
It was released 2 and a half months before Google IO.
The way I read this, they decided to announce it at Google IO because of the attention the project released by the Developer Relations team got. No one with inside knowledge has said the "official tool" (not from Dev Relations) was already planned when it was released. Maybe it was. Maybe a guy on the Dev Relations team would or should have known it was if it was. Easy for me to believe it was not however.
Create a product that people loved? This could have been redirected to make leadership look good. This event demonstrates that impactful products can be extremely polarizing - you could become the hero or the villain or a bit of both. You can no longer be a quiet contributor.
It does not contain people who flout Google's privacy, security, or intellectual property policies. Those people are, quite rightfully, un-contained from Google with speed they can't muster for anything else in the company.
It's weird that he even had the ability to create public repos inside the official Google Workspace org then. That said, I agree that some information seems to be missing. Like, why not instead fire the guy who announced the project on X and who I presume is his manager? Confusing.
Interesting. I did a bit of digging and the disclaimer about not being an officially supported Google product was there from the start. There was briefly a logo that used Google colors[0] but it seems extreme to fire someone over such a small misstep. I'd say either HR gave him a bogus reason like you said or he's not telling the whole story.
> This is certainly not the case in other product areas and for specifically for something that uses the Google name.
Sure, but it's a slap on the wrists. It seems like an extreme reaction.
> The OP also notes that they had a competing product in the process of development when they "launched" theirs, likely leading to significant internal confusion, and is something that would've been caught during a review.
Again, they could have just asked them to retire theirs in favour of the official one. Rather than be a problem, it could have been an opportunity.
Some weird data quality issues. Says my /24 is registered and announced in X, but in reality it's only announced in X, and registered in Y. Which would be obvious if you pulled the ARIN whois records.
You can still use the infotainment without signing into a Google Account. The only thing that's locked out is the Play Store and 3rd party apps (which you need the play store to download).
Can you use android auto? For the normal person your phone is a better place to get all that anyway. The few people driving as a full time job will find the cars built in stuff better but for most your phone had everything the rest of the time so you want to use that.
I ask because my GM doesn't despite having android automotive. I have to give GM a don't buy unless you drive as a job because of this, even though the car is nice otherwise.
reply