4 ms·

Categorically denying any role for these statements (or rather what they represent) seems slightly silly. We all have values and goals besides money, and when t

Categorically denying any role for these statements (or rather what they represent) seems slightly silly. We all have values and goals besides money, and when they inevitably come into conflict, we make decisions. Google sees "organising information" as its mission. My desk would currently make an excellent opportunity to organise some information. Are they going to pay someone to sort all these papers? Probably not. Does that mean they have sold out their values? Unlikely... You're hiding some of that range in the phrase: > push comes to shove,.. ...which makes the idea rather meaningless. I've shown one side above, the other is equally trivial: When Google has few billion dollars it can invest either into wearable sensors for health tech, or opening a Pizza chain, they are more likely to go with the former, even if they have similar expected returns. If "push coming to shove" is intended to mean a situation where the very existence of Google is at stake, then they'll choose to live another day, even if they have to scale back their ambitions. I doubt anybody would expect them to behave differently. As for examples: it seems that Apple is forgoing some profits by not participating in the big data grab. Yes, it might also be a good business decision. But it takes some commitment to values to be motivated enough, and to have the courage, to make a decision so markedly different than what the competition does. Google leaving China is another example. Yes, they may soon return. But in the meantime they left a few billion on the table.

pessimizer 8y ago
> Categorically denying any role for these statements (or rather what they represent) seems slightly silly. We all have values and goals besides money, and when they inevitably come into conflict, we make decisions. Anthropomorphizing publicly held companies is quite a bit more silly. Just because I have values and goals besides money doesn't mean that companies do; I also go to the restroom and breathe oxygen. It's often impossible to say conclusively whether money is being left on the table in the cases that you've mentioned, because there's a PR hit taken when certain things are done that could ultimately reduce revenue. In the case of Apple, the fact that the flipside of fairly tyrannical possessiveness over their customers is a vigorous defense of their customers from outside entities makes the lock-in and intentional incompatibility and obfuscation seem almost like a hug. Without that defense, it would just feel like a snare - being known to give anyone access to anything willingly would definitely affect Apple's sales in a big way. Courage in that case would be to exploit that data, figure out a way to sell that idea to the users or to conceal it from the users, and risk a lot of users abandoning the platform. Also, Google doing what it takes to make it in China might endanger their increasing integration in the US government. The brave thing would be to try to work both at the same time.
coldtea 8y ago
>Categorically denying any role for these statements (or rather what they represent) seems slightly silly. We all have values and goals besides money, and when they inevitably come into conflict, we make decisions. That's because we are people, not organizations. >Google leaving China is another example. Yes, they may soon return. But in the meantime they left a few billion on the table. Just because of bad PR/backslash. They were perfectly OK to work there.

pessimizer 8y ago

> Categorically denying any role for these statements (or rather what they represent) seems slightly silly. We all have values and goals besides money, and when they inevitably come into conflict, we make decisions. Anthropomorphizing publicly held companies is quite a bit more silly. Just because I have values and goals besides money doesn't mean that companies do; I also go to the restroom and breathe oxygen. It's often impossible to say conclusively whether money is being left on the table in the cases that you've mentioned, because there's a PR hit taken when certain things are done that could ultimately reduce revenue. In the case of Apple, the fact that the flipside of fairly tyrannical possessiveness over their customers is a vigorous defense of their customers from outside entities makes the lock-in and intentional incompatibility and obfuscation seem almost like a hug. Without that defense, it would just feel like a snare - being known to give anyone access to anything willingly would definitely affect Apple's sales in a big way. Courage in that case would be to exploit that data, figure out a way to sell that idea to the users or to conceal it from the users, and risk a lot of users abandoning the platform. Also, Google doing what it takes to make it in China might endanger their increasing integration in the US government. The brave thing would be to try to work both at the same time.

coldtea 8y ago

>Categorically denying any role for these statements (or rather what they represent) seems slightly silly. We all have values and goals besides money, and when they inevitably come into conflict, we make decisions. That's because we are people, not organizations. >Google leaving China is another example. Yes, they may soon return. But in the meantime they left a few billion on the table. Just because of bad PR/backslash. They were perfectly OK to work there.