If they were soliciting work from complete unknowns, that would make sense, but they are trying this on experienced artists who've done global campaigns for major multinational corporations. It's insulting, and shows how ignorant Google can be when it comes to anything other than coding.

I think everyone missed the point of the article.

 Reply

This shit reeks of the same slimy strong-arming tactic used by unions to destroy GM. If a company isn't allowed to stay competitive and is forced to become an open wallet for "the people" then only destruction waits for it. This is a fucking slippery slope people. The only ones being greedy here are the artists because they want there cake and they feel it's only right to get it for free as well as eating it too.

 Reply

It's insulting and does speak to Google's lack of understanding of good design and art, and how to properly deal with creative people and the public, effectively. I like Google products, but as tech companies go, they have Asperger's.

 Reply

Sure, they could go to the little guy and actually get paid, but the model and precedent would be set and it would make it more acceptable to pay worthy bag boys less or nothing based on the same reasoning that the world´s largest company feels the work they do is not worth paying for.

Once enough people get paid nothing, their worth is exactly that. Have you ever put on your resume how much you got paid on your last job? The reason why is because your personal worth is metered by you. If the last job you had was a CEO, then why do you want minimum wage all of a sudden?

The up-and-comer is also hurt by this sort of behavior, because if they are ¨getting paid¨ in notoriety, not only are they taking a non-paying job, now, it makes it ok next time to ¨farm talent.¨ When will they get paid for their work and make it a viable career? What happens to the career artists that never got a job that was taken for free? Does this all become a hobby?

Google is a user in this case. This is the reason for labor laws. Minimum wage is there because your work isn´t worth money to certain people, and everyone deserves to get paid for a job that they do.

Also, internet money never paid bills. So what if you made the skin on my browser? Do I know who designed all of my icons, wallpaper, anything? No. Glad someone did. It was a job well done, and I´m glad they got paid for it. If I could get paid for what I liked doing, it would be a wonderful day in my life. I would never want to force the person who has acheived that to have to take a 9-5er like mine. (especially if the reason was not for a lack of jobs, but for a lack of respect and pay.)

//end rant.// sorry.

 Reply

What you are saying is that Google should charitably contribute to up and coming artists. While this would be laudable, it does not mean that Google should be required to do so. Google is a for-profit business, and should rationally only pay for services whose costs are less than or equal to their marginal benefits. This is the basis of our entire economic system, in addition to Google's operations.

 Reply

;P

 Reply

@joelydanger: It's not like Google's products are ugly right now. I don't cringe at the sight of GMail - in fact, I think that Google has some of the best user interfaces on the internet. Obviously, Google does not have a problem competing with other big companies. I really don't see how not investing in art that it doesn't need will affect its competitiveness.

@CYST!: Are you really comparing this to slavery? There is no longer any point to talking to you...

 Reply

If it didn't need the art then it wouldn't be asking designers to do it. They just don't value the visual aspect as much as functionality. Its sad really, because the two go hand in hand. But they're too OCD to relax and take a daring design decision. Imagine if they did.

 Reply

What you're discussing is Google's design standards. I believe they're fine, but I could probably be persuaded to think they need to do more, and that "more" will cost money. Doesn't matter; that's a completely separate issue from what this article is discussing.

 Reply

Yes other people will think its fair and will take what they can get, but they're only undermining themselves by supporting a dangerous habit that google can make of this. I'm not saying they're being evil at all, but in my opinion when this stuff is being used for the face of chrome, they should pay these people.

 Reply

However, when it comes to business, I don't feel comfortable making normative statements (with words like "should") where two parties have come to a mutual agreement.

 Reply

And you're right, I shouldn't use the word "should". They have come to a mutual agreement and its wrong to break it. I guess there is a certain amount expected from such a company to put forth in the terms beforehand.

 Reply

@tenazrael: You too.

 Reply