I used to work at Cisco where every meeting was delayed as every participant would set up their laptop and then proceed to type, surf, "do email" etc. during the meeting. Crazy. I work at a big bank now where the laptop in meetings thing is frowned upon. The meetings generally start on time, are shorter and people generally respect meeting start and finish times.
I'm very surprised to hear about people bringing laptops to meetings. I've never seen this happen (where I live). It seems to be disrespectful and contraproductive. You're there to talk and think right?
At the fairly large (2000+ employees) software company I currently work for, we use the laptops to drill down bug defect lists, customer/partner requests, look at waterfall development schedules and gantt charts, random email responses, wiki pages with specs and reqs, and use collaborative notepad to write up status updates.
Some people are working (coding, testing, answering customers, etc.) while others are surfing/facebooking/tweeting; but the latter doesn't really last at this company. They flail pretty quickly, likely prior to their first major product release.
For efficiency's sake, I love the idea of directing managers to keep emails under 60 words. As David Allen described in Getting Things Done, if it takes you more than two minutes to address a note, put it off. Every email should be addressable as they come through.
Also think the no-laptop rule during meetings is important for a company like Google that has so many defections. I've experienced for myself how much of a distraction open laptops can be. Need everybody to think creatively.
IMHO, Google's biggest problem is people who think Google has loads of problems.
For example, when Google releases a product that's certainly not perfect but at least as good as that of its concurrents (Buzz for example), it doesn't take off when people keep bashing it.
Is that any different from an unknown web startup?
Typically, you can't be "at least as good as a competitor" if you want adoption, you need to be 10x as good. I guess the difference is that with Google, people will pay attention to it but bash it, while at a startup, they'll just ignore it. Personally, I think Google gets the better end of the deal.
A bit off topic: while I am confident that Page will do a great job in his role, I think that if Eric Schmidt really does take on just a minor role at Google then that will hurt the company.
1) all memos through Twitter "@google plz blklst @expertsexchange"
2)no laptops on premesis, typing must be done after hours.
3) hire expensify CEO as director of HR and "chief alienation officer"
The notion of Larry Page becoming the President's "Commerce secretary" scares me. The last thing we need is our google-cars, google-os computers, android-phones, basically every aspect of our lives controlled by one company which then hands over control to a government that is moving towards socialism.
The moment Google shows any sign of linking up and synchronizing/cooperating with the government, that is the moment google becomes my enemy. On the plus side, if the president does start changing how things are done at Google, then it won't be long before Google dies and some other better company comes to provide a superior service.
Unrealistic. Obama has enough on his plate with Obamacare and deciding the US role in Libya. Nor is their any reason to think that Obama will secretly control Google via Eric Schmidt.
A more realistic outcome is that Eric Schmidt will find his job is to get tech companies to donate. T.J. Rogers a silicon valley CEO tells how the relationship between the valley and Washington was during Clintons time (http://secure.cypress.com/?rID=34975):
"Even though Clinton wooed Silicon Valley by telling us he supported litigation reform, he had also taken political contributions from plaintiff lawyers. He chose them over us and vetoed our litigation reform bill. Fortunately for us, the SLRA was so well crafted that a Democratic Congress overrode Clinton’s veto. Shortly after that fiasco, Clinton returned to Silicon Valley for some more public relations and to raise money at a prominent CEO’s house at a $50,000-perplate dinner. One dinner topic was litigation reform. Clinton then accepted several hundred thousand dollars to perform a back flip."
