3 ms·

It’s too bad they couldn’t get Buchheit to take it with him when he left to found FriendFeed. Arrington is either a brilliant troll or an incredible asshole.

by apathy 19y ago

It’s too bad they couldn’t get Buchheit to take it with him when he left to found FriendFeed. Arrington is either a brilliant troll or an incredible asshole. Mayer was effectively pointing out that moral relativity gives even SEO spammers an excuse to claim that Google is "evil" in whatever way they frame it, and it falls to the GOOG to fight this perception. So Arrington (tongue-in-cheek, I hope?) apparently decides it would have been better if one of the more demanding corporate mottos ever embraced were to have left with Buchheit. Regardless of whether Google would have been better off (doubt it), the rest of the world would likely be poorer for it, since many painful decisions would be a lot easier to justify on the basis of profit-and-loss than right-and-wrong. I'll bet you that motto (and its consequences, and the perception boost from trying to follow it publicly) is worth far more than even Google's PR folks calculate, over the long haul.

pchristensen 19y ago
But since they went public, they do have a responsibility to justify on the basis of profit-and-loss. Granted, they make so much $$$ that they have room to consider right and wrong, but I'm sure "Do No Evil" has cost them and Google shareholders some opportunities. But that's just me playing Devil's Advocate. I wish they would continue to Do No Evil, and I'm glad for what they've done so far.
- apathy 19y ago
  But since they went public, they do have a responsibility to justify on the basis of profit-and-loss. Sort of. Have you looked at the manner in which GOOG's shares are structured? Their responsibility is actually much greater to internal shareholders. (I view this as another plus.) Most companies have CEOs who could be fired for doing the right thing. Google has insulated itself from this a little, although a profit must be turned each quarter. The voting weights of their shares are a very concrete implementation of their bias towards long-term strategies, rather than the Street's manic focus on quarterly growth.

by apathy 19y ago

pchristensen 19y ago

But since they went public, they do have a responsibility to justify on the basis of profit-and-loss. Granted, they make so much $$$ that they have room to consider right and wrong, but I'm sure "Do No Evil" has cost them and Google shareholders some opportunities. But that's just me playing Devil's Advocate. I wish they would continue to Do No Evil, and I'm glad for what they've done so far.

apathy 19y ago
But since they went public, they do have a responsibility to justify on the basis of profit-and-loss. Sort of. Have you looked at the manner in which GOOG's shares are structured? Their responsibility is actually much greater to internal shareholders. (I view this as another plus.) Most companies have CEOs who could be fired for doing the right thing. Google has insulated itself from this a little, although a profit must be turned each quarter. The voting weights of their shares are a very concrete implementation of their bias towards long-term strategies, rather than the Street's manic focus on quarterly growth.