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

You guys use this excuse all the time to justify it but if I had a kid who needed an operation and I was going to have friends help should I spend it on him or a party? I mean there is a moral obligation and an example to set too right?

 Reply

I can think of plenty of lefty bleeding-heart organizations that I would have preferred people give their money to.

I get why people wanted to celebrate but I also can think of a lot of good that could have been done with that money.

 Reply

Jeez. How do you even go outside with that kind of fear complex?

 Reply

This article (like others) has rose colored glasses on. OMG he saved us tax payers 50 million dollars! No he did not, that money has already been striped from tax payers pockets. It will be spent on "other necessities" I'm just sure.

Does this other Obama article mean anything to you?

[i.gizmodo.com] It's only a 3 million projector, but its cool, It's Obamatastic! If the economy spirals downward under Obama, he just needs one more term to fix it. If it's worse... Bush did it. I get it.

 Reply

And I'll agree with you on the inauguration, but crazily enough that was possible because even in this economy thousands and thousands of private citizens thought an inauguration was the best place to donate their money. And they did.

 Reply

Do as I say, not as I do.

 Reply

But think of how much fun it would be!

 Reply

It's a little slack on the "gizmo" side of things, but is not the worst offender on that front by far.

 Reply

It's pretty straight-forward.

 Reply

But forget the legitimate excess of our government, there's class envy to be had!

 Reply

Some of us have class envy, but others of us are simply class traitors.

 Reply

I really wonder why so many people expect Giz to be balanced, fair and non-opinionated. It's just a collection of people who enjoy writing about technology, and occasionally tossing their opinions into the ring. There is no promise of impartiality, fairness or even "nothing but gadgets, gadgets, gadgets!"

People need to pull their heads out of their asses, take the blinders off and stop bitching about the free articles they choose to read.

And, just to head you off at the pass, dear rebuttal writer: Sure, your entitled to your dumb opinion, but it's rather stupid to complain that a bunch of bloggers aren't being fair or living up to your expectations of a free service.

 Reply

This site is "The Gadget Blog." That's what the site is named. And that's why most people come here. Maybe a majority agree with the partisan slant of the contributors, but it's likely they get their political fix elsewhere.

The recent rash of political stories - wholly unrelated to gadgets - is going to result in some folks who don't agree with the slant (or simply want to read about gadgets without dealing with more political garbage - me) deciding they can get their gadget fix elsewhere. Engadget comes quickly to mind.

:shrug:

 Reply

If anyone feels slighted, insulted, disenchanted, jaded or otherwise discombobulated while reading my comments, then good. I'm not here to stroke egos or make sure everybody feels warm and fuzzy inside.

Gizmodo is not a respected news site staffed by respected journalists. While some have a journalistic background, that does not unequivocally make them "respected journalists" by any stretch of the imagination. By and large they are childish technology lovers who've made a bad name for themselves by acting irresponsibly, both in writing false articles and pulling childish (and potentially legally actionable) stunts at tradeshows.

Do I like the Giz? Sure, there's plenty to like. But does that mean I'm going to pull the blinders on and pretend they are ethical, unbiased, professional reporters? Absolutely not. The Giz makes money (as do all Gawker Media affiliates) based on click-throughs, hence it behooves them to makes catchy eyecandy headlines and generate as much troll-like buzz as possible. This, in and of itself, leads to unethical reporting.

They are not automatically worthy of respect after a number of stunts they've pulled, but overall I enjoy the atmosphere here which is, for the most part, better than other tech blogs. All the above does not automatically imply that I wouldn't think any of them isn't a fun, interesting and personable individual, either.

I can see how you got your star. You're an ass kisser who doesn't bother to question anything. Who the fuck are you, the Good Feeling Fairy?

 Reply

"The high-flying execs at Citigroup caved under pressure from President Obama and decided today to abandon plans for a luxurious new $50 million corporate jet from France. "

-ABC News

 Reply

a) The government has been telling me that I'm making too much money since I started making money.

b) When I asked my gramma for $5 to go buy her her denture-paste, and then my gramma gave me $5 to go buy her denture-paste, and then I ran off and used it to purchase Everlasting Gobstoppers, she had every right to tell me to take the Gobstoppers back and smack me on the wrist. Which she did.

 Reply

They claimed they were in such dire straits that they required billions of dollars. Is it really too much to ask that they don't go spending it on pimped out private jets? And, so far as I can see, he didn't force them not to buy it, he's simply suggesting, in rather firm tones, that they rethink their spending spree plans.

 Reply