I'm puzzled at Google's continued success---not at their success in business...but at their success in hiring talented people and in attracting same.

See, it seems to me that a lot of their attraction comes from the "you can play foosball all day" blather.  And that's a bit of a moral hazard, eh?  I mean, the people who you attract with that approach aren't exactly who you want to hire.
(I also think that Amazon's Omakase ads, or whatever they're called---contextually-relevant purchasing opportunities...I think they have a chance to put a chink in Adwords/Adsense armor, if their matching and display is broad enough.) That said, I got a kick out of reading this.

See, I interviewed at G a bit ago.  (I have a few friends there, and they assured me I'd enjoy it, fit in well, be successful, etc.)  And while the folks that interviewed me seemed, to a person, very bright and knowledgeable (in a cross-disciplinary way), there was also an....arrogance, a lack of recognition when (at least one guy) was wrong, and a subtle misunderstanding that "cool = profitable".

[That's not to say you shouldn't develop cool things.  On the contrary, that is one of Google's strengths.  And it has led to success.  But I was specifically asked a question about how to improve on the design of a current business...I answered with things that would either make customers more happy, or increase sales, and which would encourage repeat business.  The fellow interviewing me wanted to put something cool in, which would have a one-time bump in attractiveness at the business.  And he didn't seem to understand that I was answering the question he asked, not the question he wanted to.]

Of course, this recently came to mind, as another friend (the nth one) is interviewing at Google, and asked me what I thought.