JOB REFERRALS
    ON THIS PAGE
    ARCHIVES
    CATEGORIES
    BLOGROLL
    LINKS
    SEARCH
    MY BOOKS
    DISCLAIMER
 
 Thursday, April 03, 2008
Developer paradise?

Check out this video. No, go on, watch it. The rest of this won't make much sense until you do.

Now that you've seen it, take a moment, do the "WOW" thing in your head, imagine how cool it would be to work there, all of it. Go on, I know you want to, I did too when I first saw it. Go ahead, take a moment; you'll be distracted until you do, and you'll miss the rest of the point of this blog entry, and then I'll be sad. Go on, now. Here, I'll do it with you, even.

Mmmmmm. Slide to lunch. Ahhhh. Massage chair in front of the fish tank. Wow, just think of how cool it must be to work at Google. I mean, they work hard and all, but still... now there's a company that knows how to take care of its engineers, right?

OK, daydreaming done? Let's think about this for a moment.

First, how can anybody get anything done with all that noise surrounding them? Oh, I don't mean actual audio noise, I know they've created quiet zones and all that, I mean the myriad distractions that float around that office building. I'll be honest--I find myself getting work done better in an environment without that additional stimulus and excitement (legacy of my ADD, I'm sure). Knowing that I could just nip on over to the video game room to spend some "thinking time" in front of an all-you-can-play Galaga machine would drive me batty.

Maybe that's just me, and others are just begging to be given the chance to prove me wrong, and if that's the case, then by all means, please feel free. But I've heard this same experience from lots of people doing the work-at-home thing, and I don't think the anecdotal evidence here is widely skewed. Sometimes you want work to be... just work. Vanilla, boring, and predictable.

Don't get me wrong--I don't exactly look forward to my next engagement that plops me down in the middle of the cube farm--there's a continuum here, and Google is clearly far on the opposite end of that spectrum from the Dilbert-esque cubicle prairie as anyone can get. But had I my personal preference here, it would be a desk, fairly plain, comfortable, yet focused more on the functional than the "fun".

But second, there's a deeper concern that I have, one which I worry a lot more about than just peoples' preference in work space.

When's the last time you saw this kind of extravagance being lavished on developers? For me, it was at a number of different Silicon Valley firms during the dot-com boom of the late 90's... and all of those firms are dessicated remains of what they once were, or else dried up completely into dust and have long since blown away with the coastal breeze. This was classic startup behavior: drop a ton of money

I'll call it: If Google sees nothing wrong with this kind of extravagance in setting up an office, then they have just done their first evil.

Pause for a moment to think about the costs involved in setting up that office. I submit to you, dear reader, that Google is being financially irresponsible with that office, all nice perks aside. Google's money machine isn't going to last forever--nobody's ever does--and the company (desperately, IMHO) needs to find something else to prove to Wall Street and Developer Street that they're still a company that knows how to write cool software and make money. (Plenty of companies write cool software, and close their doors a few years later, and plenty of companies know how to make money, but having a company who can do both is a real rarity.)

Look at Google's habits right now: they're pouring money out left and right in an effort to maintain or improve the Google "image"; tons of giveaways at conferences, tons of offices all across the world, incredible office spaces like the one in the video, and a ton of projects created by Google engineers just because said engineers think it's cool. While that's a developer's dream, it doesn't pay the rent. I want to work for a company that offers me a creative, productive work environment, true, but more than that, I want to work for a company that knows how to make sure my checks still cash. (Yes, I remember the late 90's well, and the collapse that followed.)

I'm worried about Google--they appear to be on a dangerous arc, spending in what would seem to be far greater excess of what they're taking in, and that's not even considering some of the companies they would be well-advised to consider buying in order to flush out more of their corporate profile (which is its own interesting discussion, one for a later day). What is Google's principal source of income right now? Near as I can tell, it's AdWords, and I just can't believe that the AdWords gravy train will run any longer than...

... well, than the DOS gravy train. Granted, that train ran for a long time, but eventually it ran out, and the company had to find alternative sources of income. Microsoft did, and now it's Google's turn to prove they can put money back into their corporate coffers.

The parallels between Google and Microsoft are staggering, IMHO.


Thursday, April 03, 2008 7:29:50 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)
They must have been influenced by Wallace & Gromit!! ;-)
Tasos Zervos
Thursday, April 03, 2008 10:35:53 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)
Well put Ted!

That video was eerily similar to a TV commercial from around 1999 or 2000 which depicted workers doing Yoga in the office, roller bladers whizzing by, ping pong, foosball and pool matches going in every corner of the office. The video then immediately cut to a guy on a phone listening to a recording saying "a customer service representative will be with you shortly, we appreciate your patience."

This probably explains why live maps is so much better than google maps. :)


(my apologies if this comment was posted twice)
Thursday, April 03, 2008 10:38:59 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)
+1 for evil
Matt
Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:25:08 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)
Once again, you are showing a wisdom beyond your years, but let me take a shot at another view: Perhaps someone at Google has calculated the cost of securing top notch developers ( I just can't make myself use the term engineer ) and has determined that the level of spending necessary to make Google the place that every developer wants to work for is warranted. Then let's also assume that they have set some sort of target staff level and that they have not yet reached that level. Could it be that once they reach that level they might begin to gradually taper off the extravagance? Maybe as their developer "baby boom" begins to mature they will shift more towards employee retention than attraction. All of this also assumes that they have done their market research and determined that more of the developers that they are after are not quite as mature and / or clear thinking as you are. Now, I could be attributing too much foresight for an organization of this size, but they're not government so I hold out hope.
Dave Klein
Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:59:20 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)
I'm not that greedy when it comes such extravagant perks. As long as my Programmer Bill of Rights have been met, I'm good to go.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000666.html
Thursday, April 03, 2008 10:16:41 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)
Think with me: A superstar engineer is so much more productive than a ton of trainees. A lot of superstar engineer really wants to work for Google. This is not extravagance. This is a way to attract and retain the best brains around the world.

Kind Regards
Friday, April 04, 2008 12:30:32 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)
@Marcos:


Think with me: A superstar engineer is so much more productive than a ton of trainees. A lot of superstar engineer really wants to work for Google. This is not extravagance. This is a way to attract and retain the best brains around the world.


You almost make my point for me: lots of San Jose-based companies did this in the late 90's. Many of them found themselves a few years later wishing they'd attracted the top talent without breaking the bank.

Quite honestly, if you're one of those top superstar engineers, maybe you're more focused on the code and getting things done, rather than having a "uber-cool" workspace around you. It doesn't require a whole lot of "bling" to create a quiet room, for example--certainly not a wall of fishtanks and purple neon--just find an empty room, designate it the quiet room, put some beanbags or other comfy chairs in there, and you're done.

Frugal doesn't mean hideous, and that frugality today can make a lot of difference later.
Friday, April 04, 2008 7:00:03 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)
Ted,
This entry sent me on a flashback to the late 90s where I left a boring IBM to the 'bright lights' of a cool new software company. They were growing by leaps and bounds. Customers were signing on by the dozens. Our motto was the typical "work hard play hard" type. The technical status meetings for our project were a series of acronym laden monologs to make sure we followed the strict new OO rules set by the CTO. We then went to the game room to decompress for awhile then all of us went for lunch so we could dive into this project fresh and eager.
I then started to notice that while we had tons of people here all claiming to be the rock-stars of C++ (I guess I thought I was one as well) and UNIX (I was the lone Win NT 3.5 guy), nothing was really getting delivered to the customer. The projects never seemed to have an end-date becuase of refactoring to make it technically elegant and stuff that we finally produced were technically brilliant but the customers hated: The application required a sun workstation because Windows workstations were on the out according to our leaders.
Anyway the customers left, the money left and in 3 months the 250 employees were either laid off or left. It seems that the customers really just wanted something to get their work done and we did not deliver that expectation.

Thanks for this entry, it reminded me of many lessons learned back then.
Friday, April 04, 2008 1:35:33 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)
As long as they keep producing, I don't really see a problem here. If this environment is too much of a distraction, then yes, they should fix it. Keep in mind that some google employees work massive hours (I don't know if that's true for the Zurich folks) so a nice environment is critical for those people. If I had to work 12s in a typical cubical farm, I would prefer to just off myself.
Sam
Sunday, April 06, 2008 2:51:37 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)
No amount of fishtanks and stripper, erm, firemen's polls can beat working from your own home in your scrubs.

If I am going to focus and work 14 hours straight, the last thing I do is go to the office.
Evan
Monday, April 07, 2008 2:13:01 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)
I completely appreciated where your coming from regarding the perks.

I read a book on Google a while back, which greatly dampened my enthusiasm for the corporate culture. Some time after reading the book, I had a friend who was going to hire on, but they drug out the interview for weeks (over a month actually - maybe even six weeks) because they couldn't get the right folks to schedule time to talk to him. He went to MS to work on their Live Meeting product. From what I read, they had a policy where Page/Brin and interview every new hire (am not sure they still do this now). Seriously, wtf?

Regardless, they are definately their own breed of cat, which I suppose is good and bad.

It probably is to draw talent, but really the best folks out there probably want good pay and really interesting work above all else. It really strikes me as superficial fluff.

That said, Google in a position that no other company is in right now, if they can maintain their innovative lead. This was prolly the first blog I ran across which really opened my eyes to what it takes to drive a commercial web search engine.

http://blog.topix.com/archives/000016.html

It is and it isn't about search. There is so much really fascinating infrastructure required to provide what they do that isn't directly tied to search. There are so many market spaces which haven't benefited from the advances made in web search (the recent medical online beta being a prime example). This is still a young market. A company without the infrastructure and ability support these many unique domains cant compete. Google, if they play their cards right, could own advertising in the future in a lot of specialized search markets.

Pulling some "could be's" out of a hat ...

There are so many new possible new markets its mind boggling. The trick is bridging the search profile of an individual to an advertising space, such as a custom TV commercial, an LCD display in an elevator, or whatever. Consider maybe if your filling up your car and you get one of those new phones on the open wireless band. That phone identifies you, you have a search profile (your a .NET geek and you frequent dating sites), so the LCD at the pump lets you know there is a swank club for 30 somethings three blocks up the street. I have also seen blogs along the same line with TV over the internet.

The trick is innovation, they need to continuously put out new products and services, which will be the base of any long term success.

Or, in the long term, maybe its bigger than that...

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive//6.01/hillis.html?person=danny_hillis&topic_set=wiredpeople

Crazy Cooter
Crazy Cooter
Comments are closed.