3 ms·
From what it sounds like, Larry and Sergey are more or less full blown academics and therefore idealistic. Problem is, they aren't the parents of a Stanford pro
by gruseom 16y ago
From what it sounds like, Larry and Sergey are more or less full blown academics and therefore idealistic. Problem is, they aren't the parents of a Stanford project anymore but instead a multi-billion, multi-national corporation
Patronizing comments about "academics" and "idealism" ought typically to be delivered before the target's company has attained megasuccess. Larry and Sergey's competency to lead a multibillion-dollar corporation has been proven for many years. More to the point, so has their ability to do it in a less evil way, a way that raised the bar for everyone. The issue is not whether it's possible for Google to be Google; we have an existence proof for that. The issue is whether Google is breaking its own values, and if so what the consequences will be.
Would it have been good business? Most assuredly not.
This wretched argument, so sure of its own hard-nosed realistic businessism, is just what people were saying 10 years ago to prove that Google should sell banner ads. Oh sure, that home page was cute. But look at all the money they were leaving on the table! Well let's just remember how things turned out: by sticking to their guns, rejecting that thinking, and putting users first, Google made orders of magnitude more money than they would have had they followed that path. (How do we know this? Because countless counterexamples ended up in the dotcom garbage bin.) Oh yeah, and they changed the world and the industry forever.
So what was really good for business?
- bryanh 16y agoI definitely believe the agreement is necessary for Google to have regular access to its current channels looking forward (both across the net and especially with Android through Verizon). Yes, it is good for business. There may be a huge outrage over it, but I tend to doubt it. Furthermore, the anecdote "Sergey Brin did not want to cave to any of the Chinese demands to operate inside of mainland China, but Eric Schmidt talked him into it", if true, is pretty good evidence that the founders are more idealistic. I don't think that is patronizing.
- Ardit20 16y agoI think reputation matters a lot. If you rubbish your customers and only look at your bottom line, they will slowly start leaving.
- phjohnst 16y agoI think this is spot on. The problem here isnt that Google did what it did, it's that they shouted about it for the other side for so long, and then switched teams. The same thing with China. If you're going to take a hard stance on something, then do it and people will respect it for you. But Google is turning into all talk and no walk, and walking straight into the next Microsoft. If they had just said from the beginning that they were out for their own interest (just like everyone else), and not tried to play the good guy even when it would hurt them, then nobody would be surprised by this.
- bryanh 16y agoTrue, the old switcheroo is definitely bad business. A little more transparency would have negated this whole thing.