Working at Netflix 2017(brendangregg.com)
brendangregg.com
Working at Netflix 2017
http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2017-05-16/working-at-netflix-2017.html
161 comments
The norm in SV (from visits to other companies) seems to be open office layout -- desks everywhere without walls or dividers. Ours is more private, I think it's called "semi-open", and out of shot behind me is a carpet-wall-thing that's about 5.5 feet high. So I'd say Netflix is a bit more private than the norm.
I don't know what happened to private offices in SV. Sun Microsystems had a private office for every engineer, but Facebook tore them down when they took over. (I gave a talk at Facebook and included a floor plan from the Sun days: https://www.slideshare.net/brendangregg/linux-bpf-superpower... )
I don't know what happened to private offices in SV. Sun Microsystems had a private office for every engineer, but Facebook tore them down when they took over. (I gave a talk at Facebook and included a floor plan from the Sun days: https://www.slideshare.net/brendangregg/linux-bpf-superpower... )
It's not a high-traffic area at all (I'm at the other end of his row, and I've got a high-traffic seat w/ high walls to block visual "noise").
While I would prefer an office (solo or shared with a few), we're given enough options that in general, it's not bad at all.
> We don't do anything shady, and we're proud of that. We're an honest company.
Maybe not shady, but surely controversial.
[0]: https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/
[1]: https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/18/drm-for-the-web-is-a-bad...
[2]: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/drm-in-web-standards
Maybe not shady, but surely controversial.
[0]: https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/
[1]: https://blog.archive.org/2017/04/18/drm-for-the-web-is-a-bad...
[2]: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/drm-in-web-standards
Yeah, being limited to 720p because you run a free software operating system is not my idea of 'not shady' (Netflix is keeping their streams on Firefox and Chrome on 720p as a matter of policy, 1080p requires IE11, Edge, or Safari on a non-free operating system, or their proprietary app on an approved operating system).
The only way this makes sense is if the purpose of this blockade is to push people towards devices and operating systems that are completely locked down with DRM, from the software to the hardware. I can't think of any other reason — if Netflix does serve me 1080p and 4K streams, would that cause a sudden increase in the amount of pirated releases available?
I can already get everything on Netflix, in 1080p, if I really want just by visiting the usual pirate haunts! So what exactly is gained by degrading my viewing experience by only allowing me 720p as long as I choose to run a free operating system instead of a fully locked down platform?
I wish Netflix would give an honest answer on their DRM strategy, because it is driving me away.
I could understand if this was done because of licensing issues, but Netflix has decided on a blanket ban of 1080p and higher for their customers on free operating systems and anyone else who wants to use Chrome or Firefox.
The only way this makes sense is if the purpose of this blockade is to push people towards devices and operating systems that are completely locked down with DRM, from the software to the hardware. I can't think of any other reason — if Netflix does serve me 1080p and 4K streams, would that cause a sudden increase in the amount of pirated releases available?
I can already get everything on Netflix, in 1080p, if I really want just by visiting the usual pirate haunts! So what exactly is gained by degrading my viewing experience by only allowing me 720p as long as I choose to run a free operating system instead of a fully locked down platform?
I wish Netflix would give an honest answer on their DRM strategy, because it is driving me away.
I could understand if this was done because of licensing issues, but Netflix has decided on a blanket ban of 1080p and higher for their customers on free operating systems and anyone else who wants to use Chrome or Firefox.
You know that. I know that. Netflix engineering knows that. Hollywood content czars deep in their conservative DRM orthodoxy are having nightmares about it.
According to Wikipedia, Netflix had about 3500 employees in 2015. That's a pretty large company, and I assure you, the content producers pushing Netflix originals are going to a) have been hired out of that conservative Hollywood culture, b) be laterally very far away from the enlightened engineers in the Netflix corporate structure. Also c), the upper management above the engineers and the content producers who could resolve this kind of dispute, probably don't have enough exposure to an issue (1080p and 4k streams of Netflix Originals content to Linux-only customers) which affects a small minority of their customers.
According to Wikipedia, Netflix had about 3500 employees in 2015. That's a pretty large company, and I assure you, the content producers pushing Netflix originals are going to a) have been hired out of that conservative Hollywood culture, b) be laterally very far away from the enlightened engineers in the Netflix corporate structure. Also c), the upper management above the engineers and the content producers who could resolve this kind of dispute, probably don't have enough exposure to an issue (1080p and 4k streams of Netflix Originals content to Linux-only customers) which affects a small minority of their customers.
If it was licensing issues, it'd at least be nice if Netflix only lowered quality where required instead of across the board. For crying out loud, why can't I get 1080p streams of Netflix originals on Linux - I've got the stupid Widevine CDM installed, what's the problem?
Would be nice, but at the same time it's a lot simpler to just do it once.
> Yeah, being limited to 720p because you run a free software operating system is not my idea of 'not shady' (Netflix is keeping their streams on Firefox and Chrome on 720p as a matter of policy, 1080p requires IE11, Edge, or Safari on a non-free operating system, or their proprietary app on an approved operating system)
Wait, really? I did not know that. I'm watching Netflix with Chrome on mac OS and always assumed that they use a poor bitrate for what I thought was 1080p content. This explains a lot. Any workaround on mac other than using Safari?
Wait, really? I did not know that. I'm watching Netflix with Chrome on mac OS and always assumed that they use a poor bitrate for what I thought was 1080p content. This explains a lot. Any workaround on mac other than using Safari?
> Any workaround on mac other than using Safari?
Yes, The Pirate Bay. If users don't vote with their money nothing will ever change.
Yes, The Pirate Bay. If users don't vote with their money nothing will ever change.
After 18 months of Netflix membership, I happened to watch it on another computer. I didn't realize that not everyone had crappy resolution.
Speaking about quality on Netflix in general, I find it super annoying that they don't encode content that isn't available in DVD quality. They seem to have bitrates associated with resolutions, and the bitrate for 480p is pretty low. I wish they had another high-bitrate tier for 480p if the source is not available in HD.
Have both Amazon Prime and NetFlix. Still fetch torrents, so I can control playback speed (watch faster).
You can control play speed for both in your web browser.
There are many shady tech company practices:
* Open sexual harassment culture
* Building spy software for the government
* Selling censorship tools to governments
* Selling your private data to advertisers
* Allowing advertisers to target a person's emotional state
* Profiting off of fake news and click bait
* Tracking people across the web
* Using monopolies to limit competition in other realms
* Strong arming third parties to keep them from using your competitors' products
Somehow, limiting streaming to 720p on non-supported platforms seems pretty benign.
Edit: Tried to separate list from closing comment.
* Open sexual harassment culture
* Building spy software for the government
* Selling censorship tools to governments
* Selling your private data to advertisers
* Allowing advertisers to target a person's emotional state
* Profiting off of fake news and click bait
* Tracking people across the web
* Using monopolies to limit competition in other realms
* Strong arming third parties to keep them from using your competitors' products
Somehow, limiting streaming to 720p on non-supported platforms seems pretty benign.
Edit: Tried to separate list from closing comment.
Could you re-phrase this somehow? I'm not sure if you are talking about companies in general or Netflix.
Edit: I rather ask than make an assumption. Thanks for the confirmation.
Edit: I rather ask than make an assumption. Thanks for the confirmation.
From the second to second-last line, they're referring to shady practices in general. In their last, they're arguing that delivering lower-quality streams to Linux-based user agents is comparatively benign.
Not sure I agree, FWIW.
Not sure I agree, FWIW.
Strongly assume parent was referring to all those things that are done at other companies... vs the 720p issue at Netflix.
On the other hand, if Netflix has managed to reimplement the NSA's dragnet internally, I'm going to be really impressed by their engineers' productivity.
On the other hand, if Netflix has managed to reimplement the NSA's dragnet internally, I'm going to be really impressed by their engineers' productivity.
His last sentence should make it clear that he wasnt talking about netflix, shouldnt it?
You have sources for these?
I totally understand the need for sources in informed discussions, but I also feel like these topics have been so well documented that they have reached a point where asking someone for a source every time they throw out the fact that companies are "Tracking people across the web" is a contrived roadblock at best, and purposely stifling to discussion at worst.
With that said, I don't want to just single you out since this is a common practice, so I went ahead and found sources for you:
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace... [1]https://theintercept.com/2017/02/22/how-peter-thiels-palanti... [2]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/selling-china-surveill... [3]https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/for-sale-your-pr... [4]http://mashable.com/2017/04/30/facebook-leaked-report-advert... [5]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11... [6]https://www.technologyreview.com/s/530741/the-murky-world-of... [7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... [8]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160920/07021035568/hp-la...
With that said, I don't want to just single you out since this is a common practice, so I went ahead and found sources for you:
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace... [1]https://theintercept.com/2017/02/22/how-peter-thiels-palanti... [2]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/selling-china-surveill... [3]https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/for-sale-your-pr... [4]http://mashable.com/2017/04/30/facebook-leaked-report-advert... [5]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11... [6]https://www.technologyreview.com/s/530741/the-murky-world-of... [7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... [8]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160920/07021035568/hp-la...
I somewhat agree, however in I don't think the parent should have been down voted. If someone doesn't regularly follow tech news then it is completely reasonable for them to have never heard of any of these incidents. In addition, the original comment was ambiguously worded as to whether he/she was talking about Netflix or acts done at other companies.
True, but in this case you could type "tech {text of bullet point}" into google and in every single instance save one, the first link returned would've been a source of the info.
Asking for a source makes sense for controversial, or hard to find information. Not when it's so commonly reported that it's the first link on google on every single topic.
Asking for a source makes sense for controversial, or hard to find information. Not when it's so commonly reported that it's the first link on google on every single topic.
I don't see anything controversial about encrypting media you rent. The whole canard about DRM is that you don't own the media. You're not paying for ownership of Netflix videos. You're paying for access.
I've always thought that streaming services' main goal should be to be more convenient than digital piracy. That's when they win- when the service provides such a clear advantage over piracy that people are happy to pay money for it. At the moment, aside from ethical qualms, it is often more convenient for Linux, FF, and Chrome users to pirate Netflix's content.
DRM, ironically, promotes piracy.
DRM, ironically, promotes piracy.
It's not more convenient for Linux/FF/Chrome users to pirate. It can be a "better" option for those users to pirate if they absolutely need higher quality, but that's in no way more convenient than using Netflix.
Personally, I would rank convenience in this descending order: 720p Netflix on Chrome (my browser of choice); 1080p Netflix on a supported browser; piracy.
Maybe for the HN power user demographic the current DRM methodology is pushing users away, but for average joe (many of whom don't even know this is a thing) will happily plug along using Netflix.
Personally, I would rank convenience in this descending order: 720p Netflix on Chrome (my browser of choice); 1080p Netflix on a supported browser; piracy.
Maybe for the HN power user demographic the current DRM methodology is pushing users away, but for average joe (many of whom don't even know this is a thing) will happily plug along using Netflix.
> streaming services' main goal should be to be more convenient than digital piracy
That's a sensible goal. But Netflix is more convenient and has DRM.
They aren't mutually exclusive. They probably are for purchases of media (in fact... I'd say certainly are) but for streaming it's not.
The big thing with streaming is speed of access to the content and Netflix/et al are much better than piracy at that (it's instant vs waiting, even a short while, for a BT download... once you find it).
Streaming services main downside vs piracy is the catalog - piracy wins there, but by less in practical terms than you might expect.
That's a sensible goal. But Netflix is more convenient and has DRM.
They aren't mutually exclusive. They probably are for purchases of media (in fact... I'd say certainly are) but for streaming it's not.
The big thing with streaming is speed of access to the content and Netflix/et al are much better than piracy at that (it's instant vs waiting, even a short while, for a BT download... once you find it).
Streaming services main downside vs piracy is the catalog - piracy wins there, but by less in practical terms than you might expect.
Also, Netflix's library is incredibly small compared to the amount of shows people actually watch. Netflix now blocks rooted Android devices. Netflix's originals are mostly terrible. So piracy vs $10/month for so much less is just painful. They don't allow anything more than 720p on chrome quite ironic considering the widevine deal.
So yes, it seems Netflix is much more inconvenient than piracy.
Netflix's originals are mostly terrible.
http://fortune.com/2016/09/16/emmys-preview-netflix/
http://fortune.com/2016/09/16/emmys-preview-netflix/
While I also strongly disagree that Netflix's originals are "mostly terrible", I also think that awards shows are not as objective a judge of quality as I (and I imagine many others) would like.
What would you suggest as a more objective judge of quality?
That's really the hard part, isn't it? Reputable known reviewers identified at personal discretion? My problems with most award shows is that nominations are essentially purchased.
> originals are mostly terrible.
... are you from some kind of parallel universe? They're incredibly successful from an awards and audience perspective.
... are you from some kind of parallel universe? They're incredibly successful from an awards and audience perspective.
Awards shows are not real and are ridiculous. I don't like any of them, but the only ones people I know like are the Orange show and the Cards show. And now they are going to make a Death Note movie...
Wow.. really? There are many that are insanely popular.
House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black, as you mentioned but I'm not sure how you've missed their others like...
A Series of Unfortunate Events, Narcos, The Crown, Stranger Things, The OA, Sense8, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, Grace and Frankie, Santa Clarita Diet, BoJack Horseman...
.. and that's without mentioning their extremely successful original kids programming or co-productions (like Lillyhammer, or the new Degrassi, or Dirk Gently) and of course their continuations (Fuller House, Arrested Development, Trailer Park Boys, Black Mirror.. etc).
I mean.. just look at that line up.
House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black, as you mentioned but I'm not sure how you've missed their others like...
A Series of Unfortunate Events, Narcos, The Crown, Stranger Things, The OA, Sense8, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, Grace and Frankie, Santa Clarita Diet, BoJack Horseman...
.. and that's without mentioning their extremely successful original kids programming or co-productions (like Lillyhammer, or the new Degrassi, or Dirk Gently) and of course their continuations (Fuller House, Arrested Development, Trailer Park Boys, Black Mirror.. etc).
I mean.. just look at that line up.
To be fair, the Trailer Park Boys reboot was unnecessary and absolutely terrible. It was a thoroughly great series before they touched it.
Eh, it did well enough viewership wise. It's had 3 extra seasons and looks like it'll get a 4th.
That's a solid response.
That's a solid response.
Realistically, what's their option here? Take a stance on an issue not everyone agrees upon (and which most people don't care about) which could potentially shut them down in the long run?
It's totally in Netflix's interest to keep DRM and make it harder and more complicated to implement. It creates a huge barrier to entry and keeps the labels and people thinking this is "ok" or even "needed".
What could they do? They could not laud DRM on their blog. They could say they are reluctantly adding it. They could probably have pushed for 1080p in Chrome, etc. They could make their own stuff DRM free and publish piracy/subscription stats to show how much DRM helps.
Their choices aren't just "fully embrace it" or "go out of business".
What could they do? They could not laud DRM on their blog. They could say they are reluctantly adding it. They could probably have pushed for 1080p in Chrome, etc. They could make their own stuff DRM free and publish piracy/subscription stats to show how much DRM helps.
Their choices aren't just "fully embrace it" or "go out of business".
> which could potentially shut them down in the long run
Yes, if we ever possessed the technology to pirate movies, everyone would watch them and the industry couldn't survive.
Yes, if we ever possessed the technology to pirate movies, everyone would watch them and the industry couldn't survive.
Right, so we'll make it stupid simple for people to do. A giant, unencrypted library of movies, that can be saved and redistributed. Pirating exists, but if I asked most people how to do it, they still wouldn't know how to download a torrent client, find the torrent, unpack the movie, get a movie player, etc.. You know how locks on your front door keeps the honest thieves out? Same idea. I've never understood the complaints over DRM. At what point in your lives does it provide some type of hindrance? I load up Netflix, I start playing a movie until it's done. I don't give a shit if it was encrypted before I viewed it. All I care about is that I can watch it. What's the issue here?
The point where things break because of it.
It hasn't happened with Netflix on any large scale, yet. But it has happened in the past. There are videos games that are single player and can't be played without an active connection back to the publisher. What happens when the publisher doesn't like you or mislabels you as a pirate? What if you just want to play the video game you bought and payed fro without an Internet connection?
There were music stores that only played music through special software after getting decryption keys from an active connection to the Internet, and some of those stores shut down. What happened with the millions of dollars paid into those stores? What about the songs? Did you know that decrypting a song you bought and paid for is a crime?
Consider: https://xkcd.com/488/
I would rather get out in front of this entirely artificial problem before I have to support my friends and family who don't understand the nature of this problem.
It hasn't happened with Netflix on any large scale, yet. But it has happened in the past. There are videos games that are single player and can't be played without an active connection back to the publisher. What happens when the publisher doesn't like you or mislabels you as a pirate? What if you just want to play the video game you bought and payed fro without an Internet connection?
There were music stores that only played music through special software after getting decryption keys from an active connection to the Internet, and some of those stores shut down. What happened with the millions of dollars paid into those stores? What about the songs? Did you know that decrypting a song you bought and paid for is a crime?
Consider: https://xkcd.com/488/
I would rather get out in front of this entirely artificial problem before I have to support my friends and family who don't understand the nature of this problem.
You're comparing a subscription service to a game that you purchased a license for. The former you're not entitled to a copy of, the latter you are. With or without DRM, companies are also entitled to revoke your licenses regardless. You don't own any of it. DRM would also not exist, if it wasn't for everyone stealing the stuff. Do you really think companies want to pour all of the money and resources into this, if they didn't have to? Should games even have keys without DRM? What if I lose the key, and the company folded years ago. Now I can't play the game because they dared to require a key to play. Is your solution making everything openly available to download, and just relying on the goodness of the human heart to pay for it? Good luck.
We could call it "shareware"
I must have missed the part of Netflix ToS that gives me ownership of all their content for $9.99 a month.
I do agree with you for purchases that have DRM, but this is a subscription service - you watch when you pay, not when you don't.
I do agree with you for purchases that have DRM, but this is a subscription service - you watch when you pay, not when you don't.
I was answering in the general sense about what was wrong with DRM not anything specifically about Netflix, I even prefaced my comment with "It hasn't happened with Netflix on any large scale, yet".
But why can't I use their service on a device of my choosing at a resolution of my choice? Why is my perfectly capable Ubuntu machine limited to 720p and a windows machine isn't?
Having some kind of standardized access where I didn't have to put up with their BS would go a long way towards making that easier for me to deal with.
But why can't I use their service on a device of my choosing at a resolution of my choice? Why is my perfectly capable Ubuntu machine limited to 720p and a windows machine isn't?
Having some kind of standardized access where I didn't have to put up with their BS would go a long way towards making that easier for me to deal with.
That's not what I meant. I meant that content owners simply won't deal with Netflix without DRM in place. Whether or not that's a rational approach is irrelevant; it's their stance on the matter.
I think he meant hollywood could withhold license to big name movies.
They already do. Netflix's streaming library is garbage filled with direct-to-DVD dreck.
Blocking virtually all VPNs and VPS IP ranges is not the most pleasant practice. I realize this is likely a Hollywood demand, but absent any kind of other information from them, it sure appears that they are complicit in it.
Further, they make it essentially impossible to to create a local routing rule to bypass the VPN for them alone. You're stuck whitelisting the whole of AWS.
Further, they make it essentially impossible to to create a local routing rule to bypass the VPN for them alone. You're stuck whitelisting the whole of AWS.
It's also a government demand: ratings, amount of locally produced content, taxes, etc.
Blocking VPNs is a government demand? I'm highly skeptical of this.
Shady and controversial are two very different things.
Another example to add for "shady", for a long time Netflix used to push shows you'd watched to the end in your "continue watching" show to prompt you to watch them again, which could easily be mistaken for "the show actually has new episodes".
They did fix that though, i think.
They did fix that though, i think.
House of Cards has a plot very shady to me. A lot of hidden agendas or bias if you prefer to take it easy.
Are they still proud of high turn-over rate and the "culture of fear"?
What makes you think the Netflix turnover rate is high?
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I have not personally experienced it. I've been at Netflix for a little less than 2 years. We've had zero turnover in my immediate group (the team that runs the OS used on the OpenConnect Appliance), and very little turnover in adjacent teams. I experienced far more turnover at Google.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I have not personally experienced it. I've been at Netflix for a little less than 2 years. We've had zero turnover in my immediate group (the team that runs the OS used on the OpenConnect Appliance), and very little turnover in adjacent teams. I experienced far more turnover at Google.
Our TPM worked at Netflix for 2 years and she said that she personally saw about 20 people let go during her time.
I think part of it depends on what you call "personally saw". I've been here 4 years, and I can name a lot of people that were let go. But it's a biggish company and there are just lots of people you know "of" without really working with that closely. In Silicon Valley 4 years is about how long it usually takes for complete turnover at a company, when you look around and there's nobody left that was there when you started. It's nothing like that for me, though, I'd say about half the people I interact with typically have been around about as long or longer than I have.
I could understand this if interviews were broken (in a different way) at Netflix - is this the case? i.e. is it ridiculously easy to get a job there?
I wouldn't say it's easy to get a job here. I've been working here for nearly 2 years now.
The interview process is as challenging as it needs to be to find the right people for the job. This varies from team to team. We don't follow a corporate set of rules to hire engineers.
This company is more adamant about letting folks go whom don't get the work done or aren't able to perform.
They want good engineers to solve challenging problems. The teams are fairly lean so you can't really float by doing the bare minimum.
The interview process is as challenging as it needs to be to find the right people for the job. This varies from team to team. We don't follow a corporate set of rules to hire engineers.
This company is more adamant about letting folks go whom don't get the work done or aren't able to perform.
They want good engineers to solve challenging problems. The teams are fairly lean so you can't really float by doing the bare minimum.
> They want good engineers to solve challenging problems.
Serve bits. Suggest movies based on coarse signals. Is there much left?
Netflix is not SpaceX nor Tesla; its an online Blockbuster Video. Serving video in 2017 is not complicated.
Serve bits. Suggest movies based on coarse signals. Is there much left?
Netflix is not SpaceX nor Tesla; its an online Blockbuster Video. Serving video in 2017 is not complicated.
> Serve bits. Suggest movies based on coarse signals. Is there much left?
I didn't want to answer your question right away since it felt like you were trolling at first. But here's my answer. There's indeed, quite a bit more than just serving bits and title suggestions.
The "left over" portion includes things such as getting those bits to move effortlessly to the multitude of TV's, set-top boxes, and streaming sticks, not to mention the effort and engineering to get those movies and shows streaming effortlessly to your mobile devices.
We attempt to optimize every part of the user experience so you can get to watching your shows immediately regardless of what device you choose to pick up.
I didn't want to answer your question right away since it felt like you were trolling at first. But here's my answer. There's indeed, quite a bit more than just serving bits and title suggestions.
The "left over" portion includes things such as getting those bits to move effortlessly to the multitude of TV's, set-top boxes, and streaming sticks, not to mention the effort and engineering to get those movies and shows streaming effortlessly to your mobile devices.
We attempt to optimize every part of the user experience so you can get to watching your shows immediately regardless of what device you choose to pick up.
You could say the same thing about chat apps (What's App) and picture sharing (Instagram)...
>Is there much left?
You might want to look at the Netflix tech blog - lots of interesting posts covering all kinds of topics.
>Is there much left?
You might want to look at the Netflix tech blog - lots of interesting posts covering all kinds of topics.
Supplying sufficient video to be responsible for 25% of consumer internet bandwidth is a different story.
Can you be more specific? Do you mean producing their original content? Or rendering renditions for each bitrate, and then pushing those renditions out to their custom CDN appliances? (OpenConnect)
I can most definitely get behind original content production being hard. But pushing a couple hundred TB (or even low double digit PB) of data out to CDNs doesn't require a fleet of devs.
I can most definitely get behind original content production being hard. But pushing a couple hundred TB (or even low double digit PB) of data out to CDNs doesn't require a fleet of devs.
Total content is likely closer to 100 PB. The "25% of consumer bandwidth" is a proxy for how heavily Netflix is used.
Take a look at some of their open source projects and their tech blog to get a feel for the problems they solve at their scale.
https://netflix.github.io/ https://medium.com/netflix-techblog
Some things I find personally interesting:
They run a 5000 node Cassandra cluster.
They can failover an entire datacenter in 27 minutes.
Take a look at some of their open source projects and their tech blog to get a feel for the problems they solve at their scale.
https://netflix.github.io/ https://medium.com/netflix-techblog
Some things I find personally interesting:
They run a 5000 node Cassandra cluster.
They can failover an entire datacenter in 27 minutes.
Akamai can do that for you just fine.
Apparently, Akamai does about 30 Terabits/s[0]. Netflix does "tens of terabits per second"[1].
Essentially, Netflix is about as big as Akamai when it comes to content delivery.
[0] https://www.akamai.com/us/en/about/facts-figures.jsp
[1] https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/how-netflix-works-...
Essentially, Netflix is about as big as Akamai when it comes to content delivery.
[0] https://www.akamai.com/us/en/about/facts-figures.jsp
[1] https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/how-netflix-works-...
I just read through the OP's other post about PMCs, and I would beg to differ: http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2017-05-04/the-pmcs-of-ec2....
I work on "serving bits". It is not quite a simple as it sounds at our scale. I've specifically worked on optimizing our FreeBSD kernel, along with several other engineers on my team. We're at point where we can serve over 90Gb/s of TLS encrypted traffic (many tens of thousands of TCP streams) from a single-socket 16 core Xeon, without any crypto offloads.
There are a lot of challenging problems in any industry once you dig deep enough. There are tons of brilliant people around me, doing super cool things that I can barely fathom (like the recommendation system). Any one of those things can be trivialized, but each is somebody's pride and joy, and a marvel of design and engineering.
There are a lot of challenging problems in any industry once you dig deep enough. There are tons of brilliant people around me, doing super cool things that I can barely fathom (like the recommendation system). Any one of those things can be trivialized, but each is somebody's pride and joy, and a marvel of design and engineering.
Definitely appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comment. Netflix makes it look easy, so from my outside perspective, its easy to dismiss the problems as "solved".
This is such a naive, ignorant statement that no wonder you would never get a job at Netflix.
[deleted]
Don't forget that "turnover" includes people who aren't engineers, as well.
There are plenty of highly capable people who are quite unproductive once settled in to a job.
Thanks for replying. Those of us on the outside only have sensationalized news articles to go by, and journalists love to push the "Cutthroat Netflix Culture" narrative.
Those stories get clicks and sell ads, but they aren't really true.
Yes, it is easier to fire someone at Netflix than elsewhere, but it doesn't happen all that more often than anywhere else, and it's also easier to hire, promote and give raises to them. So it all balances out.
Yes, it is easier to fire someone at Netflix than elsewhere, but it doesn't happen all that more often than anywhere else, and it's also easier to hire, promote and give raises to them. So it all balances out.
[deleted]
A colleague already commented, but I too haven't personally experienced a high turn-over rate or a culture of fear. The culture is really great. On my team we're mostly the same as we were when I joined 3 years ago. We've added a few, and lost one. There is a turn-over rate, but what does one mean by high?
By "culture of fear," do you mean the way they stated their willingness to let anyone go if doing so better meets the company's needs than retaining them? That's just what all large companies do; they're just making it explicit.
Nope: some companies, such as Chase, have programs to retain employees and find them other roles within the company when there are layoffs. Chase specifically gives their employees 6 months notice before eliminating the position to give people time to move around.
Netflix's culture involved letting people go when they were away on short-term disability: that's not business as usual, that's a particularly harsh and unforgiving culture.
Netflix's culture involved letting people go when they were away on short-term disability: that's not business as usual, that's a particularly harsh and unforgiving culture.
those programs are just a justification to fire people more easily most of the time.
Have you got a different first hand experience in the company that you mentioned?
Do you know that or are you just being cynical?
Chase's program saves them money that would have been spent on on boarding and off boarding employees. I also know people who have gotten new internal jobs via Wells Fargo's program.
These are real programs that result in retaining people.
It is a world of difference between this model of 6 months notice and the chance for a new role and Netflix's we'll fire you if you're sick or away from the office for too long.
Chase's program saves them money that would have been spent on on boarding and off boarding employees. I also know people who have gotten new internal jobs via Wells Fargo's program.
These are real programs that result in retaining people.
It is a world of difference between this model of 6 months notice and the chance for a new role and Netflix's we'll fire you if you're sick or away from the office for too long.
As humans we do all sorts of things that it would be monstrous to state as explicit policy. Be careful with this justification.
I'm pretty sure I've had few recruiters tell me, poaching from Netflix is almost impossible because of their ridiculously high salaries.
Maybe we should stop thinking they're so ridiculous.
When you factor in stocks, bonuses, healthcare and benefits the pay is same as in any other big N companies. Add family-friendliness, job stability to the list and you have much more than Netflix offers.
I would venture to say that our family-friendliness, stability, and benefits are on par (if not better) than other large companies.
Everyone takes whatever time off they need. There's no guilt associated - we always shun folks that check email and chat channels when they take vacation.
I personally appreciate cash directly in my pocket versus a gym, yoga rooms, and toys scattered about in the office.
I come to the office to work, not play. I don't need nor want the company buying things that don't help me get my work done effectively.
I also appreciate the sense of mobility in my career. I don't have to wait four+ years for stock options to vest. Four years is a very long time in any tech company. I also don't want my compensation tied to stock performance.
Everyone takes whatever time off they need. There's no guilt associated - we always shun folks that check email and chat channels when they take vacation.
I personally appreciate cash directly in my pocket versus a gym, yoga rooms, and toys scattered about in the office.
I come to the office to work, not play. I don't need nor want the company buying things that don't help me get my work done effectively.
I also appreciate the sense of mobility in my career. I don't have to wait four+ years for stock options to vest. Four years is a very long time in any tech company. I also don't want my compensation tied to stock performance.
> I also appreciate the sense of mobility in my career. I don't have to wait four+ years for stock options to vest. Four years is a very long time in any tech company.
On the flip side, you also don't want to be faced with a massive drop in your take-home pay after the 4th year (once salary+RSU becomes just salary), forcing you to jump ship. I've been to a few "vesting parties" for co-workers where they quit after exactly 4 years to the day. I'm told some companies are known to do "evergreen grants" to help mitigate this effect.
On the flip side, you also don't want to be faced with a massive drop in your take-home pay after the 4th year (once salary+RSU becomes just salary), forcing you to jump ship. I've been to a few "vesting parties" for co-workers where they quit after exactly 4 years to the day. I'm told some companies are known to do "evergreen grants" to help mitigate this effect.
I am surprised to hear there is any company that just quits you on stock cold turkey.
The expectation everywhere I have been is that you will get refresher grants not just at the end of year four but earlier than that. Anywhere from 6 months to 2 years.
Either way I don't care what they do. If my compensation changes for the worse for the worse (knock on wood has never happened) or my stock isn't performing then I deal with it then.
I value options from every company that gave me them at zero and 2/2 I was right. Hell they had negative value at one since I exercised and I really think I will be lucky if I even get that money back. Getting crammed at every financing event sucks. Live and learn I guess.
The expectation everywhere I have been is that you will get refresher grants not just at the end of year four but earlier than that. Anywhere from 6 months to 2 years.
Either way I don't care what they do. If my compensation changes for the worse for the worse (knock on wood has never happened) or my stock isn't performing then I deal with it then.
I value options from every company that gave me them at zero and 2/2 I was right. Hell they had negative value at one since I exercised and I really think I will be lucky if I even get that money back. Getting crammed at every financing event sucks. Live and learn I guess.
450k/yr cash for senior software engineers. No bonus, no RSUs, I think maybe 5% of that is in stock. Nothing else though, which would be fine by me.
Source? Glassdoor shows 200k
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Netflix-Senior-Software-Eng...
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Netflix-Senior-Software-Eng...
Glassdoor would be completely wrong.
H1b visa for next flix doesnt show almost* anything above 200k either. Biased sample, but still. Im sure some make that amount, but i gotta wonder about how many.
Ah! Seems i overtrusted the sorting on the page. You are correct, there are definitely multiple 300k+ items!
H1B is biased against high salaries. Immigrants are not aware of local salaries and can't change companies.
You can change companies, and the hiring tech companies are willing to do the paper work. Small startups might not be willing due to $$$, but they won't pay well if they don't want to do that.
Source?
LOL, you won't find one, because if true that's got to be an outlier by several standard deviations. Whenever a salary discussion comes up on HN, someone always comes out of the woodwork to let us all know that his brother's niece's room-mate's boyfriend makes $300K+ at BIG_TECH_CO, so therefore that must be what tech companies pay.
I don't know why people are so adamant about this being an outlier. Yes, not all tech companies pay $300k+ for senior engineers. But Netflix/Google/Facebook do. I don't know why that should be a problem for people. Denying it, and mocking anyone who brings it up, just depresses wages for engineers across the board.
People are adamant about it because in all cases, those claiming these salaries are common provide no evidence to back up their claims. It's always "I know this guy who..." or "It just is, I'm telling you!"
You can argue that glassdoor and other online surveys are self-selecting and suffer from this or that bias, but at least they (presumably) are trying to back their results up with data. Multiple online sites agree that a median & average Senior Software Engineer BASE salary in the Bay area is between $130K and $140K [1] [2]. If you want to say this is wrong, fine, come in with some other actual data rather than just hearsay and doubt casting. If you want to say "but that's just base salary" also fine, but show some total comp data with a sample size greater than N=1.
1: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-senior-soft...
2: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Senior_Software_Engi...
You can argue that glassdoor and other online surveys are self-selecting and suffer from this or that bias, but at least they (presumably) are trying to back their results up with data. Multiple online sites agree that a median & average Senior Software Engineer BASE salary in the Bay area is between $130K and $140K [1] [2]. If you want to say this is wrong, fine, come in with some other actual data rather than just hearsay and doubt casting. If you want to say "but that's just base salary" also fine, but show some total comp data with a sample size greater than N=1.
1: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/san-francisco-senior-soft...
2: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Senior_Software_Engi...
Can you tell me your companies name, your full name, and share proof of salaries for engineers at your company (merely to settle an argument on HN)?
No?
That is why it's not commonly shared and proven like you are asking for. Try putting yourself in the other person's shoes.
No?
That is why it's not commonly shared and proven like you are asking for. Try putting yourself in the other person's shoes.
Typical HN comment making bullshit assertions without any evidence. Look at the links I posted.
Netflix has an employee stock purchase program that let's them purchase stock at a discount. Netflix's stock went from 80 to 160 in the last year, so I think it's not too far fetched to assume some of the less risk averse Netflix employees did fantastic in the last couple years.
He's referring to base salary, not including the automatic 5% stock grant.
Am I crazy or does it look like you're not sitting in a open-plan office/farm? And you have your own lounge chair by the window?
That called my attention as well, but I figured they would be in semi-open-space: some privacy provided by the shell to the left of the chair and maybe one behind the chair, but open to the front and to the right of the chair.
As in, maybe there's another workstation to the right of the chair positioned in symmetry (open to the left and shelf to the right).
The chair by the window looks like belonging to the hallway in front of the pictured workstation.
Just speculating though.
As in, maybe there's another workstation to the right of the chair positioned in symmetry (open to the left and shelf to the right).
The chair by the window looks like belonging to the hallway in front of the pictured workstation.
Just speculating though.
I've always wondered why they don't hire remote.
@brendangregg
You mentioned FreeBSD; what are your thoughts on the state of DTrace on Linux vs FreeBSD?
ps: I love your DTrace book! It's sitting on my desk now.
You mentioned FreeBSD; what are your thoughts on the state of DTrace on Linux vs FreeBSD?
ps: I love your DTrace book! It's sitting on my desk now.
Linux caught up last year: http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2016-10-27/dtrace-for-linux...
Thanks for getting the book! DTrace is invaluable for solving a set of needs, and we're using it on our FreeBSD CDN. Over time, Linux has been adding capabilities that can solve the same set of needs, although using different technologies.
Right now, the Linux kernel (4.9+) can do the same things as DTrace, but the interface we're using (bcc/BPF) is currently 10+ times more verbose and much more difficult to use. Who does that hurt the most? At Netflix, me, as it's my job to add advanced observability to our analysis GUIs, and actually write the bcc/BPF.
So far I've given conference talks on bcc/BPF at Performance@Scale, USENIX LISA, linux.conf.au, BSidesSF, and SCALE. Next is Velocity Conf.
Thanks for getting the book! DTrace is invaluable for solving a set of needs, and we're using it on our FreeBSD CDN. Over time, Linux has been adding capabilities that can solve the same set of needs, although using different technologies.
Right now, the Linux kernel (4.9+) can do the same things as DTrace, but the interface we're using (bcc/BPF) is currently 10+ times more verbose and much more difficult to use. Who does that hurt the most? At Netflix, me, as it's my job to add advanced observability to our analysis GUIs, and actually write the bcc/BPF.
So far I've given conference talks on bcc/BPF at Performance@Scale, USENIX LISA, linux.conf.au, BSidesSF, and SCALE. Next is Velocity Conf.
Brendan
Love your work on DTrace.
Have you seen / configured a system that keep the FTRACE/DTRACE log data in memory during a crash/ reboot cycle for postmortem kernel crash type analysis?
If so, love the see any reference to how to setup something like that for typical x86 Linux.
Did that long time (10+years) ago on MIPS+vxwork/Linux with someother trace log type system. Miss that capability.....
Thanks
Love your work on DTrace.
Have you seen / configured a system that keep the FTRACE/DTRACE log data in memory during a crash/ reboot cycle for postmortem kernel crash type analysis?
If so, love the see any reference to how to setup something like that for typical x86 Linux.
Did that long time (10+years) ago on MIPS+vxwork/Linux with someother trace log type system. Miss that capability.....
Thanks
Question to OP: How many people were fired or let go during your 3 years? And did they let go of people that you felt was a mistake?
[deleted]
I somehow picked up "Australian vibes" from this article, without any proof in the article that Brendan is Aussie.
The cricket ball on the desk then helped, with the "G'day" on the front page of his site proving it. :)
The cricket ball on the desk then helped, with the "G'day" on the front page of his site proving it. :)
[deleted]
The Netflix iOS app is terrible though. Multiple crashes a day. What's up with that?
Is that a C64 boot screen mousemat? Cool.
link isn't working..
Still down. Probably zapped his monthly bandwidth in an hour.
Netflix's culture deck is one of the most horrific things in the tech industry I've ever seen. It's so ruthlessly mercenary, I have a hard time understanding how why people put up with them.
As someone who works in the totally opposite situation (government job, permanent, no one gets fired for performance), I respect that Netflix publishes this deck. I would much much much rather have a company publish a clear set of expectations, pre-interview, than have those expectations be "read between the lines" or find out the hard way.
I try to be equally clear when I'm hiring. I make it clear to the candidates that this is not a place for individualism, not a place for innovation, not a place for cutting edge tech. We are heavily team oriented, process oriented, CRUD application maintaining, older stable tech platforms with interchangable teams. I want to make that clear, not because I want to "horrify" candidates (though no doubt many on HN are horrified) but so that people who want the exciting startup lifestyle aren't bamboozled by some swarmy HR position description that tries to sell something that isn't.
I respect that Netflix is willing to step up and make their expectations clear as well!
I try to be equally clear when I'm hiring. I make it clear to the candidates that this is not a place for individualism, not a place for innovation, not a place for cutting edge tech. We are heavily team oriented, process oriented, CRUD application maintaining, older stable tech platforms with interchangable teams. I want to make that clear, not because I want to "horrify" candidates (though no doubt many on HN are horrified) but so that people who want the exciting startup lifestyle aren't bamboozled by some swarmy HR position description that tries to sell something that isn't.
I respect that Netflix is willing to step up and make their expectations clear as well!
I try to be equally clear when I'm hiring. I make it clear to the candidates that this is not a place for individualism, not a place for innovation, not a place for cutting edge tech. We are heavily team oriented, process oriented, CRUD application maintaining, older stable tech platforms with interchangable teams. I want to make that clear, not because I want to "horrify" candidates (though no doubt many on HN are horrified) but so that people who want the exciting startup lifestyle aren't bamboozled by some swarmy HR position description that tries to sell something that isn't.
Thanks for making this stuff clear. While it's disappointing to me that so much of the field has gone down this kind of path, it's good to know up front.
Thanks for making this stuff clear. While it's disappointing to me that so much of the field has gone down this kind of path, it's good to know up front.
I actually found the culture deck refreshing and attractive and a big part of why I joined Netflix. There's nothing ruthless about getting rid of people who aren't doing their jobs.
I have had to work with willfully incompetent people who could not be fired. I will not do it again. I have been contracting the past decade and it lets me fire the company when I am done.
Neither nor the company have any illusions this is anything other than business relationship: I make code I get money, done.
I don't want to fail because I need to drag dead weight around.
Neither nor the company have any illusions this is anything other than business relationship: I make code I get money, done.
I don't want to fail because I need to drag dead weight around.
Really unhelpful, you provide zero details whatsoever to explain this rather alarmist interpretation.
How is their culture deck one of the most horrific things you have ever seen in the tech industry?
I found it very appealing. I loved the bit that was something like: we're professionals working together, a sports team, not a family.
The culture isn't for everyone, and that's ok. But I'd personally call horrific the kinds of things that the culture deck prevents happening at Netflix. No brilliant jerks. No deadwood staff who after years of second chances still can't do their jobs, but can't ever be let go. No abusive office politics. etc.
Extremely high salaries. Lot better than amazon that pays people badly and is ruthlessly mercenary.
Primarily concerned with making money at the expense of ethics? Can you elaborate more?
Page 61 says dishonesty and harassment are intolerable.
Page 61 says dishonesty and harassment are intolerable.
When did you work there (like what range of dates)?
you don't need to work there to see it.
Here https://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664
Here https://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664
Netflix recruiter forced me to read all 200 pages of it and asked me pop quiz on it during the subsequent call. No Joke. During the interview interviewer constantly referred to "Netflix culture" as if they were in some sort of cult.
Why does a corporate company need to invent some ridiculous "culture" is beyond me. You pay me I do work, thats all the culture I need.
>>Then while working here, staff cite the culture deck in meetings for decision making advice.
These meetings sound like fun.
Why does a corporate company need to invent some ridiculous "culture" is beyond me. You pay me I do work, thats all the culture I need.
>>Then while working here, staff cite the culture deck in meetings for decision making advice.
These meetings sound like fun.
I don't know how close the thing you read is to what's on slideshare, but the public version has a slide which explicitly addresses the "this is not for everyone" issue, and says they're trying to filter out the people who won't like it. I suspect questions about the culture deck are more about making sure you're coming in with open eyes than about ensuring you've memorised every last phrase.
Thats nice. Play nasty games with people trying to find a job and put food on the table.
What is wrong with these people.
What is wrong with these people.
I don't get this at all.
Wouldn't the "nasty game" be to hire them then fire them after a few weeks because they don't bring the level of intrinsic motivation that the environment requires?
Or are you saying that no employer should be able to demand this level of motivation, even if they're totally up-front about it?
Wouldn't the "nasty game" be to hire them then fire them after a few weeks because they don't bring the level of intrinsic motivation that the environment requires?
Or are you saying that no employer should be able to demand this level of motivation, even if they're totally up-front about it?
The recruiter encouraged me to read it to (which I've been mentioning in these posts), but when it came to the interview they seemed to be checking that yes, I really had read it, and yes, I still liked the idea. Rather than seeing if I could memorize it all. That was just my experience.
Companies have culture, but it's learned through word of mouth or trial and error. Writing it down and sharing it in public before you join the company is really beneficial.
Companies have culture, but it's learned through word of mouth or trial and error. Writing it down and sharing it in public before you join the company is really beneficial.
Answer me this: Why does the interface suck so bad? How are pissing off 100 million subscribers good business?
I apologize for not expanding my view with a detailed analysis, but damn.
The update you guys promoted like half a year in advance made it even worse.
I apologize for not expanding my view with a detailed analysis, but damn.
The update you guys promoted like half a year in advance made it even worse.
The interface is the result of tens of thousands of A/B tests. Every change is tested and produces greater general happiness.
There is a probably a bimodal distribution on happiness, but they only optimize for the bigger curve instead of both, to reduce complexity. So while you, and an advanced user, might want a lot of advanced features, those same features scare away the majority of casual users. So it's a business decision to cater to the majority at the expense of the minority to reduce overall development cost.
There is a probably a bimodal distribution on happiness, but they only optimize for the bigger curve instead of both, to reduce complexity. So while you, and an advanced user, might want a lot of advanced features, those same features scare away the majority of casual users. So it's a business decision to cater to the majority at the expense of the minority to reduce overall development cost.
I'm not talking about advanced features here, but stuff like that annoying zoom on hover and not remembering my sort preference and such. Just bad design!
The most annoying thing maybe is that I can't hide stuff from the lists. Like when I watch 2 minutes of something and decides that I will never ever watch that crap again - that piece of crap will forever haunt my interface.
The most annoying thing maybe is that I can't hide stuff from the lists. Like when I watch 2 minutes of something and decides that I will never ever watch that crap again - that piece of crap will forever haunt my interface.
Hulu did the same thing (with their Xbox app at least) recently and it really got me thinking.
After a while I started to think maybe they aren't optimizing for what we might expect.
By providing a UI that makes it slightly harder to find shows, displays as few shows at a time as possible and one that lures you into watching whatever is on the screen at the moment (even if just for a minute) they are effectively increasing the value of each piece of content and increasing the odds that you will watch whatever is on the screen while at the same time decreasing the odds that you will fall into choice paralysis.
This also might make it seem like they have more new/relevant content than they really do.
I'm not really well versed in this area, but I'd love to see an analysis of this hypothesis by someone who is more competent in this kind of design.
After a while I started to think maybe they aren't optimizing for what we might expect.
By providing a UI that makes it slightly harder to find shows, displays as few shows at a time as possible and one that lures you into watching whatever is on the screen at the moment (even if just for a minute) they are effectively increasing the value of each piece of content and increasing the odds that you will watch whatever is on the screen while at the same time decreasing the odds that you will fall into choice paralysis.
This also might make it seem like they have more new/relevant content than they really do.
I'm not really well versed in this area, but I'd love to see an analysis of this hypothesis by someone who is more competent in this kind of design.
I never understood Hulu. 1) it costs money AND shows adverts. 2) owned by cable company 3) still can't get all the content owned by said cable company and 4) this horrific anecdote:
Was in the car with my fitness obsessed gf, she'd never heard of pizza rolls. I said "Tontinos pizza rolls" near the device (potentially googled it but I doubt it) on her iPhone 6. Hulu from the device when we got back from car ride. First advert, Tontinos...
Despicable.
Was in the car with my fitness obsessed gf, she'd never heard of pizza rolls. I said "Tontinos pizza rolls" near the device (potentially googled it but I doubt it) on her iPhone 6. Hulu from the device when we got back from car ride. First advert, Tontinos...
Despicable.
Author works on performance, so he's probably not the person to ask...
Good point %]
I'd like to follow up with this, why can I tap scroll fast forward/backward on amazon prime but not netflix? Patent protection?
It's a pretty awesome feature.
It's a pretty awesome feature.
Netflix has a 3.4 rating on Glassdoor. Yikes. I wouldn't consider working at a company unless it had 4 or more.
I would never use Glassdoor for evaluating a company. It skews towards people who are upset, they don't verify that you actually worked there, and they combine hourly workers with salary workers, which could be two very different experiences.
Not to mention that most of the experiences are team-based. In any medium/large size company, you can end up in a terrible team and your view of the company is very negative. You can end up with a brilliant manager and great team, and you love the company.
I used to work for a company that struck a deal to include Glassdoor data on some pages we made. Then that company soon became one of Glassdoor's "best companies to work for". Which was, I'm sure, a total coincidence.
There's a lot of customer service reps in that rating. I have no idea what it's actually like over there in customer service, but over in engineering a lot of us are loving our jobs and can't imagine wanting to leave.
I actually brought this up in my interview, and asked extra questions because of it to be thorough. It's a really great company to work for, so I would say that Glassdoor's rating doesn't reflect what I've seen.
If you filter for "Software Engineers", it goes up to a 4.1, FYI.
Why does the author only have a pretty small desk directly at a (what I assume) small recreational area? Is this considered a normal desk at a top SV tech firm? I'd probably go nuts after a few days because people are constantly passing by and are talking while I want to concentrate on work.
I'm from Germany where more and more companies try to implement the same open-office plans. Everybody I know that works in such an environment considers them as hostile to productivity. Somebody is constantly talking about useless stuff and disturbs others by that and using headphones is deemed as rude and anti-social.