4 ms·

Google is a corporation, the only goal of corporation is to make money. So yes, that is the biggest reason - their business objective. It just happened that it

Google is a corporation, the only goal of corporation is to make money. So yes, that is the biggest reason - their business objective. It just happened that it also did something good for everyone.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
> only goal of corporation is to make money A corporation can set any goal the founders please. Making money need not be the dominant one. Obviously making enough to stay solvent helps with longevity.
- leesalminen 8y ago
  Alphabet is a publicly traded company and the officers have a fiduciary duty to do what’s best for their shareholders. This normally means maximizing profits. A corporate officer could make a case to shareholders that not maximizing profits in X area could have Y long term benefit, but that’s not very common these days.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Maximising shareholder value is very often not what's best for shareholders. The current popular myth that it is somehow mandatory has been coincident with a definite change for the worse. Hasn't Amazon been notable for actively avoiding profit through much of its existence? https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/04/27/harvard-business-review-the-pernicious-nonsense-of-maximizing-shareholder-value/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/04/27/harvard... https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
    - anoncake 8y ago
      They reinvested their profits in themselves. That's not really avoiding profit (and I think there is a definition of profit that includes the company gaining value)
  - newscracker 8y ago
    Of course, the officers of public companies try to do what’s best for shareholders. But here’s a different take on it by Tim Cook five years ago [1] (interpret it however you’d like): > "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader. > … > He didn't stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock." [1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/03/at-apple-shareholders-meeting-tim-cook-tells-off-climate-change-deniers/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/03/at-apple-shareholder...
- krageon 8y ago
  Have you worked in one (or more than one) and observed it's high-level decision making? It's about money and nothing else. This is not unique or special and the only way you'll ever truly believe it is any different is if you make the grandly naive mistake of listening to the marketing department (either internal or external).

Google is a corporation, the only goal of corporation is to make money. So yes, that is the biggest reason - their business objective. It just happened that it also did something good for everyone.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

> only goal of corporation is to make money A corporation can set any goal the founders please. Making money need not be the dominant one. Obviously making enough to stay solvent helps with longevity.

leesalminen 8y ago
Alphabet is a publicly traded company and the officers have a fiduciary duty to do what’s best for their shareholders. This normally means maximizing profits. A corporate officer could make a case to shareholders that not maximizing profits in X area could have Y long term benefit, but that’s not very common these days.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Maximising shareholder value is very often not what's best for shareholders. The current popular myth that it is somehow mandatory has been coincident with a definite change for the worse. Hasn't Amazon been notable for actively avoiding profit through much of its existence? https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/04/27/harvard-business-review-the-pernicious-nonsense-of-maximizing-shareholder-value/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/04/27/harvard... https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-co...
  - anoncake 8y ago
    They reinvested their profits in themselves. That's not really avoiding profit (and I think there is a definition of profit that includes the company gaining value)
- newscracker 8y ago
  Of course, the officers of public companies try to do what’s best for shareholders. But here’s a different take on it by Tim Cook five years ago [1] (interpret it however you’d like): > "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader. > … > He didn't stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock." [1]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/03/at-apple-shareholders-meeting-tim-cook-tells-off-climate-change-deniers/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/03/at-apple-shareholder...
krageon 8y ago
Have you worked in one (or more than one) and observed it's high-level decision making? It's about money and nothing else. This is not unique or special and the only way you'll ever truly believe it is any different is if you make the grandly naive mistake of listening to the marketing department (either internal or external).