Granted, a fair amount of what was posted could be construed as sour grapes. There were people complaining about low pay relative to what they made at other companies; people who didn't feel the perks were sufficient compensation for the lower pay; people who complained about mismanagement. One exchange in the comments I think is worth mentioning is between a Googler and a guy who'd worked with a top researcher who'd been rejected by Google despite having a stellar track record in computational linguistics. The Googler claimed that people such as the researcher had been rejected because (presumably) they were not the type of person who could "turn brilliant ideas into code." A notable point by the researcher's colleague was that much of Google's innovations (that we hear about) came from acquisitions, not from internal R&D. He gave examples of Google technology that had originated years before in several noted research labs. In fact, the guy argued that Google was a victim of the "Innovator's Dilemma", which is ironic, because it is used to defend Google's great growth.
Another point made in the comments was that VCs forced the Google founders to introduce sponsored links on search results pages. I don't know if there is any truth to this, but it (re)raises some questions about how click fraud was handled very early in the company's history. It would be very serious if there was some actual knowledge about the risks of click fraud within the company, but VCs insisted that the sponsored search go forward regardless.