If everyone on the team has a 2 hour commute, that is a guarantee that there will be less time available to the individual and thus the team. Commutes are a big problem aside from the communication.
I have also found that companies that do remote or allow it, just communicate better, to all parties, even clients or stakeholders. They are more external focused companies without internal blinders, they take an external view of the company instead of internal. Lots of employees time is commuting and dealing with office politics which become a bigger part of your job than working at some places.
Personally I think companies that are remote or allow remote are much better at communication overall and have a saner external view of themselves coupled with the internal view, rather than just an internal view of what matters. I have seen this across many companies I have worked for or with. Some internal places I have worked that didn't allow remote made it very hard to get information because they expect people to barge into offices to ask.
Overall I feel remote companies have the benefit here and make for more robust teams if they do it right, not to mention the benefit of attracting great developers all over the country or world.
Today, virtual communication is how we communicate to most of our clients, customers and stakeholders. Companies that allow remote just do this better because they also communicate that way. Remote companies value external views of the company and communication much higher than non remote capable companies.
Two more benefits of remote capable: When you setup another office upon growth the new office will not have the virtual communication problem (office to office within the same company is typically virtual communication and non remote companies do this badly), also remote companies root out non-contributors more quickly as you can't just hide behind being there physically as work you must contribute and build.
VCs are so against remote that it seems like they almost have some tax hookups and own lots of real estate in SF as some of the logic makes no sense, ultimately labor costs would be cheaper and the companies would be more robust to changes.
I am willing to sacrifice 2-4 hours of personal time per day commuting => I am willing to sacrifice myself to the company's wishes => I am a 'good employee'
A portion of the advantage of office work comes down to employer control of employee. The differing communication systems with clients, customers and stakeholders illustrate the different balances of power accurately.
As such, I agree that remote companies make for more robust teams if they do it right - but it's much harder to do it right.
Remote companies lose some advantage of easy communication (in order to survive as a remote, you have to be better at communication), and you lose some advantage of having a clearly indicated power structure.