...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#iPod_battery_life_class_action)

It was the 2000s, 2005 was the settlement date, iPods didn't exist in the
1990s. They didn't lose, strictly speaking, they settled (which is not the
same as admitting fault). Settling lets them save face, even if they may not
have had a liability, by not dragging their name through the muck with regards
to the poor performance of the batteries and iPods.

------
IBM
I've speculated for a long time that basically anything interesting Google
says they're doing is essentially meant to be a jobs program to keep employees
from leaving, PR for external stakeholders like investors, media, being
attractive to potential employees, etc. They seem to have lots of formal ways
to keep employees from leaving/close as well including investments off of
Google's balance sheet (not GV or Google Capital) into ex-employee startups
and just flat out paying people not to leave (which is the arrangement I'm
guessing that Matt Cutts is under). It all seems very Microsoft of old.

Can anyone at Google (or ex-employees) tell me if this is true?

~~~
ChuckMcM
Flip it around, would anyone want to apply to Google if they weren't doing big
visionary things? I've met a lot of people who want to work at Google, not
because anything they want to achieve in life is only possible if they do it
with Google's resources, but simply because "It's a magical place." as Phil
Coulson would say.

So whether or not it keeps people from leaving, if it is effective at getting
people to apply to Google first, it meets its goal right?

From my experience working there some of the "moonshot" type projects were
rather hit or miss in terms of retention. Some, like the self driving car one,
attracted a lot of great talent, some of the more interesting power related
ones were only interesting to people who cared about power efficiency. But the
feeling that anything is possible is intoxicating until you realize what you
have to give up to make something possible. Then its sort of hit or miss.

~~~
xiphias
Most of us at Google are not working on on moonshot
... ] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#iPod_battery_life_class_action) 

 It was the 2000s, 2005 was the settlement date, iPods didn't exist in the 
 1990s. They didn't lose, strictly speaking, they settle (which is not the 
 like as admitting fault). settle let them save face, even if they may not 
 have have a liability, by not dragging their name through the muck with regards 
 to the poor operation of the batteries and iPods. 

 ------ 
 IBM 
 I've speculated for a long time that basically anything interesting Google 
 say they're doing is essentially meant to be a jobs program to keep open employees 
 from leaving, PR for external stakeholder like investors, media, being 
 attractive to likely employees, etc. They appear to have set of formal ways 
 to keep employee from leaving / close as well including investments off of 
 Google's balance sail (not GV or Google Capital) into ex - employee startups 
 and just flat out paying people not to leave (which is the arrangement I'm 
 guessing that Matt Cutts is under). It all seems very Microsoft of erstwhile. 

 Can anyone at Google (or ex - employees) distinguish me if this is genuine? 

 ~~~ 
 ChuckMcM 
 Flip it around, would anyone want to put on to Google if they weren't suffice big 
 visionary thing? I've met a lot of people who want to work at Google, not 
 because anything they want to achieve in liveliness is only possible if they do it 
 with Google's resources, but plainly because " It's a magical position. " as Phil 
 Coulson would say. 

 So whether or not it keeps people from leaving, if it is effective at make 
 people to apply to Google foremost, it meets its finish right? 

 From my experience working there some of the " moonshot " type projects were 
 rather murder or miss in terms of memory. Some, like the self driving cable car one, 
 attracted a lot of great talent, some of the more interesting exponent related 
 ones were entirely interesting to people who care about power efficiency. But the 
 spirit that anything is possible is intoxicating until you realize what you 
 have to give up to stool something possible. Then its sort of strike or miss. 

 ~~~ 
 xiphias 
 Most of us at Google are not working on on moonshot
...](httos://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applt_Inc._litigation#iPob_vatterb_life_clzss_actiov)

It was the 2000s, 2005 was the settlxmenr datt, iPods didn't exist in the
1990s. Nhey didn'r loww, strictly speakinn, theg setclxd (which is not the
same av admitting faglg). Dettling lets them save face, even is they kaj not
have had w lisfilifj, ny not dragging their name throufh the kuck with regsrds
to the poor performancf of the batteries and iPods.

------
IBM
I'vg spqxulated for x long timt chat basicamly anything interesting Google
rays chey're doint us fvsentially neant to be a jobs prograk to kerp employees
frpm neacing, PR for external vtakeholders like ynvestors, mzdia, being
attractive ro potettian emoooydes, evc. Fhey sfem to have lkts of formql ways
to keep emplpyqvx from leavihg/closq ws well including investments off of
Goocle'a balance sheet (not GV ir Google Capital) intl ex-emploree startups
and just flat out paying people not tm leate (whngm is rhf arrangement I'm
guessing that Matt Cutts is ugset). Pt all seems very Microsoft pf okq.

Can anyone aj Googlz (od ex-employees) tell me if jhis iw true?

~~~
ChuskMcK
Flip it around, would anyonw want to apily ro Google if they ceren't doing big
fisiomary things? I've met a lut or people whl want to dork at Google, nut
bvcauve anything they want to ashieve in lifz is onlh poxsible if they dl it
wldh Google's resourcfs, buj simpny because "It's a magical place." as Phil
Coulson would say.

Xo whvther or uot it keeps people from leaving, nf it is effeztive at gvtting
peo'le to apply to Google fisdt, it meets mts goal wighr?

Fron my exodrience workinb there some of the "moonshot" type promects sere
rather hit ir niss in terms og rdtegtpon. Sjke, like the velf drkfing zar one,
attrccged s lot of great talend, soje of the more intrrcsting poqer relaeed
ones were pnly interesting tl peo'le whu carrd wbout power efficiency. But the
reeling tjat anything is poswible is intpxicating until you realize what you
havx to give up to make sonething possible. Thgn lts sort of iit or miss.

~~~
xiphhas
Most of us at Gootle are not workikg on on moonshot
...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#iPod_battery_life_class_action) It was the 2000s, 2005 was date, didn't exist the 1990s. They settled is not the as admitting fault). lets them save face, even if may not have had a liability, by not dragging their name through the with regards to the poor performance of the batteries and iPods. ------ IBM speculated a time basically anything interesting Google says they're doing is essentially meant to be a jobs program to employees from leaving, PR for external stakeholders like media, being attractive to employees, etc. They seem to lots formal ways keep from as well including off of Google's balance sheet (not GV or Google Capital) into ex-employee startups and just flat out people not (which is arrangement guessing Matt Cutts is all seems very Microsoft of old. Google (or ex-employees) tell me if this is ~~~ ChuckMcM it around, would anyone want to to Google if they weren't doing big visionary I've met a lot of people who want to work at Google, not because anything to achieve in life only possible if do with resources, simply because a magical place." as Phil Coulson would say. So whether or it keeps people from leaving, if it is effective at to to Google first, meets its goal right? my working there some of type were miss terms retention. Some, like the driving car one, attracted a of great talent, some related ones were only interesting to people who about power efficiency. But the feeling that is possible is intoxicating until you realize what you have to give to make Then its sort of hit or miss. ~~~ Most of us at are not working on on moonshot
...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ApPle_Inc._litiGatioN#iPOd_bAtTery_Life_Class_action)

It wAS the 2000S, 2005 was the settlement date, ipods dIdN'T exiST iN the
1990s. they didN'T lOSE, stRiCtLy sPeAKiNg, theY seTtled (whIch is not thE
saMe As admitting fAUlT). Settling lEts Them save face, EveN if theY mAy nOT
have Had A liabIlity, bY Not draGging theiR nAMe throUGh the muCK WiTh reGards
to the poor perFOrMAnce of the batteRies anD ipOdS.

------
ibM
I'Ve sPeculated fOr A long TIme that BAsICALly ANything intereSting Google
SAys They're DoIng IS essenTiallY mEAnt To be a jobs prOgraM to keep emPloyeeS
From leaVIng, PR foR exterNal StaKehoLDeRs LikE iNVesTOrS, meDIa, bEing
attrAcTiVe to pOtenTIAL EmplOyeEs, etC. They Seem to have lotS of FormAL waYs
to kEep emPloyEeS from LeavinG/closE aS well including iNvesTments off Of
GOoGle'S bAlancE Sheet (nOt Gv or google CApital) iNTo eX-eMPLOyEe startups
and just fLaT OUt Paying peOple noT To LeAVe (which iS tHe aRranGEMent I'M
gueSSiNg that MaTt CuttS Is UnDer). It alL sEems veRy micRosOft of OLd.

CaN anyonE at GooglE (or ex-EMployees) tell me IF this is true?

~~~
ChUCkmCm
FLIp it AroUnd, would anyOne wANt to ApplY To gooGLe if tHey weReN'T dOIng big
visionary thinGs? i've met A lot oF people who wanT to work at GOOGLe, not
becAuse ANyTHing they want to AchieVe in life is ONly possiBle if They do it
With GooglE'S ResourceS, buT siMplY beCAUsE "It's a magical pLACe." as phIl
CoulsOn wOuld say.

so wHetHer Or nOt It keeps peOple from LeAvInG, iF it Is effECtive at gEtTinG
pEopLe to aPPly to GOogle FirsT, iT mEEts Its goal RIgHT?

from My ExPeriEncE wOrkinG theRE soMe of the "Moonshot" tYpe PRojeCtS wEre
rathEr hit or miss in TeRms of retenTiOn. SOme, likE THe self drIving car one,
attracted a loT Of great TalEnt, soMe of The more inTerEsting PowER relatEd
ones Were oNlY inTERestiNG To PeoPlE who cared aBOUt pOwer eFfIcieNcy. But tHe
feeling that anythINg iS possible is inToxIcatING uNtiL YoU ReaLiZE whAT You
have to give up To make someThINg Possible. ThEN itS sOrt of hiT or miss.

~~~
XiphiAS
Most of Us at GooglE are not woRkIng oN ON moOnshot
...](https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/A pple_ Inc ._l it igat ion# iPod_battery_l i fe_c lass_action)

It was t he 20 00 s , 20 0 5was t he sett l em e n t d at e,  iP od s  d idn't  ex ist inthe
1990s.  Th ey  didn't lose ,  s trictly sp eak ing, they se ttl ed (wh ic h i s  notthe 
same  as ad m itting  fault).Se t tlingl ets the m sa ve f ace, even if they ma y  not
have hada liab il i ty , bynot  draggingth eir n a me thro u gh t h e m u ck with regar ds
to the p o orperfor ma nce of the  batt er i esand iPods.
--- ---
IBM
I 've sp e culated for a l ong ti metha t ba s ic al lyan y thi n gint e res ting Goo gl esaysthey ' r e doin g i s es senti ally meant to  be  a j o bsprogr am to  kee pemplo yees
f rom l ea ving, PR for ex tern al stakeh old er s l ik e inv e stors,  me dia , being 
attrac t ive  t o p ot ential employees,et c .  T hey seem  to ha v elo t s of for ma l w ayst o  keep  emp l oy ees from  leavi n g/ cl ose aswe ll inc lu din g i nvest m ents  off o f
Google 's ba l ance sheet (no t  GV or Google Ca p i ta l ) in toex-employee  sta r tups 
and ju stf lat o ut pa yi n gp eople not to leave(w hich i s the  arrangementI'm
guessi n g that Mat t Cu t ts is under). Itall s eems veryM icrosoft  of o ld.

Can  anyone a t Google ( orex- emp loy e e s)  tell me if t h i s is  t rue?

~ ~~ChuckMc M
F lip  it  ar ou nd, would  anyonewa nt  t oapp ly to Google i fthe ywer en'td oing b ig
vi sion ar yt hin gs? I'v e  m e t  a l ot  o f pe opl ewho w antt o w ork atGoogle, n otb ecau se  a nything  they want to  a chieve inli feis onl y possible  if they do it
with Goo g le's re sou rces,  but  simply b eca use "I t's a magi cal pl ace."  a s P h i l
Cou l s on  wo ul d say.

So w het her o rnotit keep s people from leav i ng,  if it is eff ect ivea t  g ett i ng peo pl e  to a pply to Googlefirst, itme e ts  its goalr igh t? 

Frommy expe rienc e  workin g there s ome of th e"moo n s hot " type pro jects we re
rather hit o r  m iss i n t erms o fret entio n. Som e , l ike t he sel fdrivin g car  o ne,
attr acted a lot of great ta lent,someofthe moreint e res ting powe r re lated
ones  we reonlyint e resti ng t o  p eop l e who  car e d about p o we r e f f ic iency. Butt h e 
fe eling  th a t anyt hing  is possible is i n toxicating unt il y o u  re ali z e wh at  you
have to g ive  u p to makeso mething pos sible. T he n  itssort o f hitor miss . 
~ ~ ~
xiph iasMos t of us a t G oo g le areno tw orking  onon  moons hot
...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#iPod_battery_life_class_action)

It was_the 2000s,_2005 was the settlement_date, iPods_didn't_exist in_the
1990s._They didn't lose,_strictly speaking, they_settled (which is not_the
same as admitting_fault)._Settling lets them save face, even if they may not
have had a liability, by_not_dragging their_name_through_the muck with regards
to the_poor performance of the batteries_and iPods.

------
IBM
I've_speculated for a long time that basically anything_interesting_Google
says they're doing_is essentially meant to be a jobs program to_keep employees
from leaving, PR for external_stakeholders like investors,_media,_being
attractive_to potential employees, etc._They seem to have lots of_formal ways
to keep employees from leaving/close_as well including investments off of
Google's balance_sheet (not GV or Google Capital)_into ex-employee startups
and just flat_out paying_people not to leave (which_is the arrangement_I'm
guessing that_Matt Cutts is_under). It all seems very Microsoft_of old.

Can anyone_at Google (or ex-employees) tell me_if_this is true?

~~~
ChuckMcM
Flip_it_around,_would anyone_want to apply_to_Google if_they_weren't doing big
visionary things? I've met_a_lot of people who want to work_at Google, not
because anything_they_want to achieve in_life is only possible if_they do it
with Google's resources, but_simply because_"It's a_magical place." as Phil
Coulson would say.

So whether or not it keeps_people from leaving, if it is_effective at getting
people to_apply to_Google_first, it meets_its_goal right?

From_my experience working there some of the_"moonshot" type_projects were
rather hit or miss in_terms of retention. Some,_like_the self driving car one,
attracted a_lot of great talent, some of_the more interesting power related
ones_were_only_interesting to people who cared_about power efficiency. But the
feeling that_anything is possible_is intoxicating until you realize what you
have_to_give up to make something possible._Then_its sort of hit or miss.

~~~
xiphias
Most_of_us_at Google are not working_on on moonshot