5 ms·

I've seen DHH's twitter posts on this, and they're amusing, but I also feel like it misses the point. Microsoft isn't advocating that you should work 24/7/365,

by bmelton 13y ago

I've seen DHH's twitter posts on this, and they're amusing, but I also feel like it misses the point. Microsoft isn't advocating that you should work 24/7/365, rather, that you can work 24/7/365. It's a pretty big distinction, and frankly, despite being the average marketing rhetoric, not a bad one. I would posit that DHH's message and Microsoft's are in total agreement. If you can work whenever, then sure, that means you can work more, but it also means that you can work more flexibly. The implication strikes me as one in which I can pause work to go to my daughter's piano recital, then resume work later -- not one in which I have to work from my daughter's recital.

jumby 13y ago
So then Microsoft should embrace full-time telecommuting for it's workers, right?
- runjake 13y ago
  They do in some cases. Scott Hanselman is a full-time telecommuter for Microsoft: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/WorkingRemotelyConsideredDystopian.aspx http://www.hanselman.com/blog/WorkingRemotelyConsideredDysto...
thrillgore 13y ago
Regardless of however Microsoft intended its vague marketing, all this is, is 37signals being smug. Just deal with it, and enjoy the tweets.
runjake 13y ago
> but I also feel like it misses the point. I think you're missing their point. Their point is that it isn't okay to be on the phone blabbing away about business during your kid's soccer game. It isn't okay to be on your laptop editing work spreadsheets during family movie night, and so on. Ads are used to shift perceptions to control an audience. In this case, the message is that you should be working more and that it's ok to integrate work into family/personal time. It just isn't okay. At least in the world I do live and want to live in.
- bmelton 13y ago
  I can see that as a viable interpretation, but I don't see that as the interpretation. For a fact, there are times when it is better to listen in on a meeting from your kid's soccer game, if the alternative is missing it altogether. For sure, a day working from the park is better than working from the office. For as much as the negative interpretation could be true, in that Microsoft seeks to engage in wage slavery whereupon all its workers are attached to the company with Office 365 as the tether, it speaks equally to the notion that those decisions don't need to be as hard any more, and that you're now free to work an appropriate amount of time from a now increased bevy of places. Is it poorly delivered? Yes. Is Microsoft really advocating slavery through software? I think most reasonable people should be able to agree that they aren't. Is it perhaps pandering to the Type A workaholics that would rather miss their kid's soccer game than an important meeting? Yeah, I think that it is. I also don't think that's evil.
- bguthrie 13y ago
  And in the world I live in, I sometimes have to make choices between attending social events and having some work availability. More mobile access means not having to make that choice as often. That's the point that Microsoft is trying to make (poorly). The ads are ridiculous because no one wants to have to work at their kid's soccer game. But there are, I'd suggest, a fair number of people who'd like to attend the game but don't have that choice. Framed that way, remote work is freeing. The trouble with the ads is that they frame that work as some kind of virtuous shackle-extension rather than an arguably-necessary evil. That's a frame well worth pushing back on.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    > But there are, I'd suggest, a fair number of people who'd like to attend the game but don't have that choice. Even more nefariously, I've worked (mostly in DC) with a large swath of people who would prioritize a work meeting over their kid's soccer game. Something like this allows them to add in some work-life balance to their (ahem) lives without forcing them to miss a business opportunity unnecessarily.
  - pekk 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by bmelton 13y ago

jumby 13y ago

So then Microsoft should embrace full-time telecommuting for it's workers, right?

runjake 13y ago
They do in some cases. Scott Hanselman is a full-time telecommuter for Microsoft: http://www.hanselman.com/blog/WorkingRemotelyConsideredDystopian.aspx http://www.hanselman.com/blog/WorkingRemotelyConsideredDysto...

thrillgore 13y ago

Regardless of however Microsoft intended its vague marketing, all this is, is 37signals being smug. Just deal with it, and enjoy the tweets.

runjake 13y ago

> but I also feel like it misses the point. I think you're missing their point. Their point is that it isn't okay to be on the phone blabbing away about business during your kid's soccer game. It isn't okay to be on your laptop editing work spreadsheets during family movie night, and so on. Ads are used to shift perceptions to control an audience. In this case, the message is that you should be working more and that it's ok to integrate work into family/personal time. It just isn't okay. At least in the world I do live and want to live in.

bmelton 13y ago
I can see that as a viable interpretation, but I don't see that as the interpretation. For a fact, there are times when it is better to listen in on a meeting from your kid's soccer game, if the alternative is missing it altogether. For sure, a day working from the park is better than working from the office. For as much as the negative interpretation could be true, in that Microsoft seeks to engage in wage slavery whereupon all its workers are attached to the company with Office 365 as the tether, it speaks equally to the notion that those decisions don't need to be as hard any more, and that you're now free to work an appropriate amount of time from a now increased bevy of places. Is it poorly delivered? Yes. Is Microsoft really advocating slavery through software? I think most reasonable people should be able to agree that they aren't. Is it perhaps pandering to the Type A workaholics that would rather miss their kid's soccer game than an important meeting? Yeah, I think that it is. I also don't think that's evil.
bguthrie 13y ago
And in the world I live in, I sometimes have to make choices between attending social events and having some work availability. More mobile access means not having to make that choice as often. That's the point that Microsoft is trying to make (poorly). The ads are ridiculous because no one wants to have to work at their kid's soccer game. But there are, I'd suggest, a fair number of people who'd like to attend the game but don't have that choice. Framed that way, remote work is freeing. The trouble with the ads is that they frame that work as some kind of virtuous shackle-extension rather than an arguably-necessary evil. That's a frame well worth pushing back on.
- bmelton 13y ago
  > But there are, I'd suggest, a fair number of people who'd like to attend the game but don't have that choice. Even more nefariously, I've worked (mostly in DC) with a large swath of people who would prioritize a work meeting over their kid's soccer game. Something like this allows them to add in some work-life balance to their (ahem) lives without forcing them to miss a business opportunity unnecessarily.
- pekk 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]