4 ms·

Nothing is permanent. No company will stay the same 22 years later. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people working at Google who were born after Google was

by c3534l 7y ago

Nothing is permanent. No company will stay the same 22 years later. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people working at Google who were born after Google was founded. At some point, the feisty startup that wants to change the world will become the status quo. It's delusional to think otherwise.

ljm 7y ago
I'm growing to believe that the greatest folly of humankind is the idea of permanence. We love to cling on to what we have and fight against anything that might remove it from us. Even when we would benefit from the loss. So it is with companies. Just because Google was an amazing toddler doesn't mean it's an amazing grown-up. Plenty of our angelic youngsters turn out to be grade-A assholes or psychopaths a few years later on. Which is to say, the google that we knew back in the 90s and 2000s is dead, and has been for a long time.
- pharke 7y ago
  It would be interesting if we could institute a law that would in effect compel companies to open source their technology, patents, trade secrets, etc. after a certain amount of time to force competition and innovation. Wishful thinking I guess but I think we'd be better off if we could get there.
  - ljm 7y ago
    I would like to see a legally enforced compulsion to work for the public good and not the investor good.
    - mkolodny 7y ago
      That sounds a lot like a non-profit.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    I think this would work way better as a privately-led effort than a matter of law. Look for struggling companies with interesting "IP" assets that are currently heavily undervalued by the market (because it's hard for an individual, private buyer to make a profit on them). Buy the assets and open them up. Yes, it takes some money and resources - but how much, compared to re-developing those assets from scratch?
  - asher 7y ago
    Well, we do have that law for patents. They expire in 20 years. And the patent itself "open-sources" the process being patented.
- kempbellt 7y ago
  The Google we knew back in the 90s died the moment they added the "Sign in" option to Google.com. The purpose of Google shifted that day, from being a simple, and quick search engine, to being a data farmer - and later on, an advertising platform. Whether or not it was a good decision depends on who you ask. I've gotten a lot of utility out of Google's other services over the years (Gmail, Maps, Voice, Drive, Photos, etc, etc...), so I'm not going to completely deny the upsides, but lately I've been slowly migrating away from relying the Google ecosystem. It's too much control and power in the hands of one monolith. Most modern governments have checks and balances to power that the people (users) can weigh in on. Google is beholden to its stockholders only, and the primary visionaries have moved on. It's hard for me to continue backing the company vision at this point - since I don't know what it is any longer.
  - Buge 7y ago
    The text "sign in" seems to have appeared in 2005: https://youtu.be/LZ46uE267Nc?t=41 https://youtu.be/LZ46uE267Nc?t=41
alexandercrohde 7y ago
This is irrelevant all-or-nothing thinking. Of course all things change -- that doesn't mean something changing for the worse is therefore inevitable or less shameful

by c3534l 7y ago

ljm 7y ago

I'm growing to believe that the greatest folly of humankind is the idea of permanence. We love to cling on to what we have and fight against anything that might remove it from us. Even when we would benefit from the loss. So it is with companies. Just because Google was an amazing toddler doesn't mean it's an amazing grown-up. Plenty of our angelic youngsters turn out to be grade-A assholes or psychopaths a few years later on. Which is to say, the google that we knew back in the 90s and 2000s is dead, and has been for a long time.

pharke 7y ago
It would be interesting if we could institute a law that would in effect compel companies to open source their technology, patents, trade secrets, etc. after a certain amount of time to force competition and innovation. Wishful thinking I guess but I think we'd be better off if we could get there.
- ljm 7y ago
  I would like to see a legally enforced compulsion to work for the public good and not the investor good.
  - mkolodny 7y ago
    That sounds a lot like a non-profit.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  I think this would work way better as a privately-led effort than a matter of law. Look for struggling companies with interesting "IP" assets that are currently heavily undervalued by the market (because it's hard for an individual, private buyer to make a profit on them). Buy the assets and open them up. Yes, it takes some money and resources - but how much, compared to re-developing those assets from scratch?
- asher 7y ago
  Well, we do have that law for patents. They expire in 20 years. And the patent itself "open-sources" the process being patented.
kempbellt 7y ago
The Google we knew back in the 90s died the moment they added the "Sign in" option to Google.com. The purpose of Google shifted that day, from being a simple, and quick search engine, to being a data farmer - and later on, an advertising platform. Whether or not it was a good decision depends on who you ask. I've gotten a lot of utility out of Google's other services over the years (Gmail, Maps, Voice, Drive, Photos, etc, etc...), so I'm not going to completely deny the upsides, but lately I've been slowly migrating away from relying the Google ecosystem. It's too much control and power in the hands of one monolith. Most modern governments have checks and balances to power that the people (users) can weigh in on. Google is beholden to its stockholders only, and the primary visionaries have moved on. It's hard for me to continue backing the company vision at this point - since I don't know what it is any longer.
- Buge 7y ago
  The text "sign in" seems to have appeared in 2005: https://youtu.be/LZ46uE267Nc?t=41 https://youtu.be/LZ46uE267Nc?t=41

alexandercrohde 7y ago

This is irrelevant all-or-nothing thinking. Of course all things change -- that doesn't mean something changing for the worse is therefore inevitable or less shameful