3 ms·

Who wouldn't be there if government market distortions didn't make it profitable or otherwise culturally unfit. If a corporation is a machine that purely maxim

by jbooth 16y ago

Who wouldn't be there if government market distortions didn't make it profitable or otherwise culturally unfit. If a corporation is a machine that purely maximizes income, disabled people are a tiny niche market for boutique shops.

btilly 16y ago
You are wrong to think that every large corporation is just a machine that purely maximizes income. That is very, very far from being an accurate description of Google. Over time Google may lose its current idealism. But as long as the founders have influence, I have faith that there will be an idealistic streak to the company. Secondly you underestimate Google's willingness to go after relative niche markets. For instance as of 2007, Google search was available in over 100 languages. (See http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/08/internationalization-and-google-search.html http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/08/internationalizatio... for verification.) Google translate serves over 50 different languages. (Go to http://translate.google.com/ http://translate.google.com/ and count them.) Many other Google products have been translated into dozens of languages. Lots of those have very few people. In the mid-90s 1.3 million people in the USA were legally blind. That's larger than the number of speakers of languages like Basque or Estonian. Furthermore people who speak such niche languages usually speak other languages as well. If you've put the work in to internationalize your application and go after those kinds of niches, why not go after blind people as well?
- jbooth 16y ago
  Actually, legally, theoretically and practically speaking, a corporation is and should be a machine to maximize income. Whoever downmodded me is a fucking jackass. That's the definition. Legally, they're obligated to protect shareholder value as obligations #1, 2 and 3. There is no reason that Google should behave any differently than Exxon Mobil or Phillip Morris or whatever corporation you want to call "less moral than google". Basing public policy on the expectation that corporations will be moral is the dumbest thing possible -- it's actually in their charter to be immoral.
  - starkfist 16y ago
    Legally, they're obligated to protect shareholder value People regurgitate this all the time, but there is no such "law."

by jbooth 16y ago

btilly 16y ago

You are wrong to think that every large corporation is just a machine that purely maximizes income. That is very, very far from being an accurate description of Google. Over time Google may lose its current idealism. But as long as the founders have influence, I have faith that there will be an idealistic streak to the company. Secondly you underestimate Google's willingness to go after relative niche markets. For instance as of 2007, Google search was available in over 100 languages. (See http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/08/internationalization-and-google-search.html http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/08/internationalizatio... for verification.) Google translate serves over 50 different languages. (Go to http://translate.google.com/ http://translate.google.com/ and count them.) Many other Google products have been translated into dozens of languages. Lots of those have very few people. In the mid-90s 1.3 million people in the USA were legally blind. That's larger than the number of speakers of languages like Basque or Estonian. Furthermore people who speak such niche languages usually speak other languages as well. If you've put the work in to internationalize your application and go after those kinds of niches, why not go after blind people as well?

jbooth 16y ago
Actually, legally, theoretically and practically speaking, a corporation is and should be a machine to maximize income. Whoever downmodded me is a fucking jackass. That's the definition. Legally, they're obligated to protect shareholder value as obligations #1, 2 and 3. There is no reason that Google should behave any differently than Exxon Mobil or Phillip Morris or whatever corporation you want to call "less moral than google". Basing public policy on the expectation that corporations will be moral is the dumbest thing possible -- it's actually in their charter to be immoral.
- starkfist 16y ago
  Legally, they're obligated to protect shareholder value People regurgitate this all the time, but there is no such "law."