4 ms·

Where is it written that google is the protector of the internet? Sure they could stand up to the telecoms but they have responsibilities to their shareholders

Where is it written that google is the protector of the internet? Sure they could stand up to the telecoms but they have responsibilities to their shareholders also and their bottom line.

orangecat 16y ago
Their bottom line is hugely dependent on the goodwill that they've built up over several years, which will take a big hit if this story is accurate and the deal goes through. Switching default search engines is easy.
- pyre 16y ago
  Microsoft/Bing could win themselves a ton of goodwill if they were to take the opposing stance to Google on this. (Though I question whether Microsoft leadership is savvy enough to capitalize on this opportunity.)
  - klenwell 16y ago
    Or a golden opportunity for Blekko -- if they can get the invites out fast enough: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/25568/ http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/25568/
benologist 16y ago
On the hearts of the million or two idiots that fuel tech blogs.
jsz0 16y ago
It's a projection for the types of people who like to believe in mottos ("Don't be evil", "Think Different", etc) but it's a double edged sword if they're going to ride that reputation (China, open standards, open platforms, etc) and selectively duck the responsibility at other times. You can't help but be disappointed for selfish reasons. It's like Superman saving you from a burning building only to let the Earth spiral into the Sun a few days later. Thanks a lot Superman.
- rdtsc 16y ago
  > ... but it's a double edged sword if they're going to ride that reputation (China, open standards, open platforms, etc) and selectively duck the responsibility at other times. Very well and succinctly put. It would probably be better if they never took a moral stance because they now risk getting judged by it, and thus appearing to be hypocrites. That would create sort of a moral void, if you wish, ready for some other company to position itself into. At the same time the moralistic motto was probably what propelled Google well ahead of others. When I think back, I wanted to work at Google because it was a "do no evil" kind of company. That kind of image will attract certain people. So if it was just a marketing ploy or they actually had to take short term losses in order to abide by their mission statement, it has served them well initially. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the future. I think they will start to abandon their moral stance slowly and turn into another faceless multi-billion dollar company. I don't claim it is a bad thing. I had never bought into its morality anyway, I just bought its stock!

Where is it written that google is the protector of the internet? Sure they could stand up to the telecoms but they have responsibilities to their shareholders also and their bottom line.

orangecat 16y ago

Their bottom line is hugely dependent on the goodwill that they've built up over several years, which will take a big hit if this story is accurate and the deal goes through. Switching default search engines is easy.

pyre 16y ago
Microsoft/Bing could win themselves a ton of goodwill if they were to take the opposing stance to Google on this. (Though I question whether Microsoft leadership is savvy enough to capitalize on this opportunity.)
- klenwell 16y ago
  Or a golden opportunity for Blekko -- if they can get the invites out fast enough: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/25568/ http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/25568/

benologist 16y ago

On the hearts of the million or two idiots that fuel tech blogs.

jsz0 16y ago

It's a projection for the types of people who like to believe in mottos ("Don't be evil", "Think Different", etc) but it's a double edged sword if they're going to ride that reputation (China, open standards, open platforms, etc) and selectively duck the responsibility at other times. You can't help but be disappointed for selfish reasons. It's like Superman saving you from a burning building only to let the Earth spiral into the Sun a few days later. Thanks a lot Superman.

rdtsc 16y ago
> ... but it's a double edged sword if they're going to ride that reputation (China, open standards, open platforms, etc) and selectively duck the responsibility at other times. Very well and succinctly put. It would probably be better if they never took a moral stance because they now risk getting judged by it, and thus appearing to be hypocrites. That would create sort of a moral void, if you wish, ready for some other company to position itself into. At the same time the moralistic motto was probably what propelled Google well ahead of others. When I think back, I wanted to work at Google because it was a "do no evil" kind of company. That kind of image will attract certain people. So if it was just a marketing ploy or they actually had to take short term losses in order to abide by their mission statement, it has served them well initially. We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the future. I think they will start to abandon their moral stance slowly and turn into another faceless multi-billion dollar company. I don't claim it is a bad thing. I had never bought into its morality anyway, I just bought its stock!