

With New Comforts, Growing Complacent - nickbilton
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/disruptions-with-new-comforts-growing-complacent/
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.
======
kposehn
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

~~~
kaichanvong
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.

~~~
j_baker
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.

~~~
kposehn
I do agree that we cannot _always_ challenge the validity of all information
we are exposed to. However, in this article I think it is clear the author
didn't really do anything to validate his assumptions either, sadly.

------
wickedchicken
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_baker
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
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_baker
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.

------
jedberg
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
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.

~~~
jedberg
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.

------
JohnnyFlash
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
"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
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.

------
Kylekramer
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.

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

------
redwood
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_baker
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.

~~~
redwood
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.

