With New Comforts, Growing Complacent

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/disruptions-with-new-comforts-growing-complacent/

by nickbilton • 14 years ago

24 25 14 years ago

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Google and Facebook are being left behind in the shift toward mobile, and the amenities available to their employees might offer some explanation for a slow transition.

kposehn3• 14 years ago

I'm really getting tired of these articles bemoaning perks in larger companies.

Who cares that they have a shuttle bus with wi-fi? Why would it actually matter to the author that there is free lunch and dinner? Since when does it mean they have lost their way?

Google+ is having trouble with reaching mobile users because the concept itself does not fit with mobile. This social layer of plus-related features does not translate easily onto a mobile platform (imho) and that is the cause of their ill - as opposed to office perks that make working there actually, you know, fun.

I do understand the argument of "if you want your company to act like a startup, you have to change things". However, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to take away what they've built up for employees.

In the end, I think the author just sounds jealous ( ~_~)-p

kaichanvong2• 14 years ago

Tend to think there is a greater problem with people talking about things they have no 1st hand experience with and coming up with hot air for their articles.

But we have to realise the aim of this is to get people to talk about it and question it. Sadly if people do not question the validity the origin of the question comes from then we're all just going to go around talking about what "we think/imagine".

The last point is the greatest danger to us - assumptions.

kposehn3• 14 years ago

Very well put!

j_baker4• 14 years ago

That's a very big assumption, wouldn't you agree?

I agree with what you're saying, but you have to be practical. Verifying things rather than just assuming things based on superficial observation is important. But we simply don't have time to verify everything, as your post demonstrates. So sure, encourage people to verify things instead of spouting off hot air. But realize that superficiality is a necessary evil. Sometimes, you just need to make an inference off of a few observations, and that's ok as long as you realize the inherent limitations of superficiality.

jerf• 14 years ago

This may be one case where "consider the source" is relevant. An author for the New York Times, working in an industry declining every year, working for a company declining every year [1], it isn't even remotely difficult to imagine some personal feelings getting into a story like this. I don't think the NYT is a happy place right now.

[1] https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:NYT , use the 10y view

gordianknot• 14 years ago

"Consider the source" is always relevant, and always a weak argument. Regardless of who wrote it, the main point of the article seems to be that hackers working in essentially utopian communities risk being out of touch with their users. It's basically Gibbons' thesis on Roman decline.

Becoming complacent is a risk. OTOH, most people are alienated, synchronous workers. They don't have control over the means of production, don't have equity or profit-sharing, and earn a wage for their time itself rather than their products. Many HN'ers are post-capitalists, and are naturally becoming more and more distant from that world. I know I am. I visit family, or go see old non-technical friends, and fuck, so much complaining about things they wish they could control, lusting for things they wish they could afford, and hyper-attachment to their existing life and possessions. I remember the onset of that feeling, when I had stayed to long at a non-software job after college.

I don't think working remotely and earning a decent salary makes me out of touch, just ahead of the curve. Same for Google and Facebook. We don't need to "get in touch with the common man"; it's like suggesting Rome should've reverted to a violent warrior culture to combat the tribes.

What Rome actually did is what Google is doing. Rome didn't fall; as they had gone from Kingdom to Republic to Empire, they continued evolving, into Church. The Roman Church was able to achieve way more than the Empire, since they got an information advantage over the tribes and could conduct invasions non-violently (and way more successfully) as "missionaries" instead of military. Christianity proved to be a cultural advantage over paganism.

In turn, Google is making self-driving cars. Your own traveling mini-Googleplex. They'll buy an airline in the next few years. Facebook will start building places for more people to get online, to breed new hackers. They're starting a HS internship program in Menlo Park. They'll realize, if they haven't already, that it's cheaper to make smart kids into engineers than hire them out of college. And so on.

As the merchants overthrew the nobility, we're watching the hackers overthrow the capitalists.

Aloisius• 14 years ago

In the end, I think the author just sounds jealous ( ~_~)-p

I've never been comfortable with accusing others of jealousy when they criticize behavior that potentially hits too close to home.

The author has a point. If you add enough perks that your employees never have to leave the office or worse, are only friends with other people at your company, it can create an insular environment which is not conducive to being responsive to changing behaviors and attitudes that happen outside your bubble.

Now, the creation of that bubble doesn't necessarily require perks and it won't necessarily form if there are a lot of perks, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking they don't exist and companies like Google, whose HQ is physically segmented from outside distractions (like a city) and whose employees' social circles seem to be heavily work-related, isn't in an insular bubble right now.

wickedchicken• 14 years ago

Oh man! A New York Times article about technology! Is it a pointless fluff piece or disconnected speculation? Let's find out...

EDIT: After reading the article, it's disconnected speculation.

j_baker4• 14 years ago

It's obvious that the author of this post didn't talk to any actual Googlers, and I would assume Facebookers (Facebookians? Facebookites?) as well. In fact, I do use my phone to find coffee as the coffee cart (which has better coffee than what's in the microkitchens) moves around every day. In fact, I happen to use my phone for finding coffee more than I did when I worked at a startup where I'd go to a brick and mortar coffee shop that was always in the same location every day. Not to mention that I also use it to hunt down cafes as well. Plus, there are plenty of short pithy updates on the internal Google+, location updates on Latitude, and take pictures of funny things we see to post on memegen.

To be completely honest, I found the whole tone of this article to be condescending. But most posts that bemoan some segment of the population as "not average people like the rest of us" are.

sbisker• 14 years ago

If anything, that describes a bias in the other direction though - a case where your Google perk (the coffee cart) is overemphasizing the importance of technology in your life than that of the average person.

Yes, it's silly to think that somehow Google's mobile strategy is inherently hindered because of corporate culture - but there's no question that the value of creating a suite of services and perks for your employees to live in has different consequences depending on what sort of products you're shipping. It's hardly noticable when you're making B2B software, or an atomic bomb - but as you start building things that creep into the fabric of everyday life, empathy instead of sympathy takes a greater role in product design.

j_baker4• 14 years ago

I think that's a much more valid argument than the one the author makes. In fact, Google definitely uses technology more extensively than any other company I've worked at. I suppose that probably wouldn't come as a shock to you though.

redwood2• 14 years ago

Exact same thing explains Google's failure with cloud books (Chrome OS)... Inside of the mothership (and to a lesser extent the shuttles) you have a seamless ultra-fast internet connection. This makes a cloud OS without significant client-side caching a promising concept.

However in the real world, when your internet craps out for a few seconds, you go through a tunnel, whatever... or if you live in a developing country with spottier internet access, and you're trying to write a great idea down but can't input text because the connection's dead... well you quit the product.

Hubris.

j_baker4• 14 years ago

Describing the internet connection on a shuttle as "seamless ultra-fast" (even if to a lesser extent) is laughable. The shuttles use much the same connection as your cell phone uses, which means the connections do crap out for a few seconds or when you go through a tunnel. Plus, if there are too many people using bandwidth-heavy apps, the connection seriously degrades.

redwood2• 14 years ago

But consider the near-seamless switch from shuttle to mothership wifi. And do remember most people don't have internet on their commuting option at all. This fuels the point that it's difficult to build a successful cloud book if you're essentially optimizing it for your own employees when they're very different from most.

JohnnyFlash• 14 years ago

In my social circle of non-tech people everyone uses their phones for texting and calls. Thats about it. Most have smart phones, a few play games or use their phone as an mp3 player. That really is about it.

I only use texting, calls and google maps for when i am lost. Tablets i understand but this "mobile revolution" I don't understand. I find using the web / webby apps is painful on mobiles due to poor internet speeds.

Many of my friends still don't get twitter, let alone checking in at various locations.

I would agree that Google and Facebook need to get on top of mobile but from where i am at least there isn't a massive hurry.

keithpeter• 14 years ago

"In my social circle of non-tech people everyone uses their phones for texting and calls. Thats about it. Most have smart phones, a few play games or use their phone as an mp3 player. That really is about it."

Most people in my social circle, and the students I teach, are now using their mobile phone as their preferred Web access device. I just noticed this coming in over the last 18 months or so.

I gave out the wolfram alpha web address last week when teaching basic algebra and graph work to some teenagers. Out came the mobiles, and we had graphs being drawn with different parameters and compared.

On the train on the way into College in the mornings, I'm usually the only one with a netbook or notebook (paper). Most of the others have their phones out.

I think the change is happening, but, as you say, not immediately.

mr1976• 14 years ago

Likewise, I've seen similar in my environment. I think the difference is that mobile will enlarge the market, not displace full function devices - it's not CD killing the cassette tape (as the original article author seems to imply). Systems catering for mobile consumption will see increased use, but that doesn't mean decreased use for those not.

The change is presenting as a line continuing to blur between computing devices (laptop/tablets/phones/etc)... and that isn't taking much time at all.

pg• 14 years ago

Occam's razor says it's bigness not breakfasts.

Kylekramer• 14 years ago

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I hardly think companies like Instagram and OMGPOP were full of average people seeking out a nice cheap coffee place that really get the common man anymore than Facebookers or Googlers. Both had significant VC investments. I doubt they were hacking in Starbucks on Craiglist bought 2006 Macbooks. We are in a hit based industry now, and hits are often just a set of circumstances coming together that you can't manufacture. Luck, really, as much we don't like to say it is. Truth is you need the perks to get the top talent. If Google doesn't offer it (and they already been dinged for cutbacks), Facebook will. Or even a startup will.

The real difference is the kind of people drawn to the different risk/reward situations at small startups and large companies.

jedberg2• 14 years ago

I think the perks are fine and all, but it is clear to me that Google at least needs to keep some 15in monitors around for testing or something.

The new gmail interface is a perfect example -- all that whitespace is great when you have a 30in monitor with thousands of pixels in each direction. Clearly it was never testing at 1024x768 at 15inches though, like my mother-in-law has on her desk at home.

joezydeco• 14 years ago

Another example: Chrome page pre-loading from links on a page. Great if you have 100Mbit at your desk, sucky if you share a DSL in your office with 10 other people.

jedberg2• 14 years ago

Yes! Web companies need to spend more time testing on small monitors with slow data links. The world doesn't all have huge screens and fat pipes.

snowwrestler• 14 years ago

I find the "compact" setting helps a lot on smaller screens.

With New Comforts, Growing Complacent

Related Stories