3 ms·

"Worse" doesn't just mean "worse for the companies involved", it can also mean "worse for society". The net result of Google continually buying startups and sh

• hammock 6y ago
  And they paid a lot of money to do that (as much as it was worth, at least), which was parent company's point. Whereas Amazon did not- they made only a partial investment in order the kill the entire thing. That full Google money (fairly, it could be argued) compensates the destruction you describe and allows the recipient of the money to do something else productive.
• Axsuul 6y ago
  It's still too early to say and we don't have enough visibility. Pairing North's tech with Google's distribution would expand the reach and potential of this type of product. North could've been running out of money before the acquisition so Google swooping in ensured the tech lived on. These are all plausible outcomes that would end up being "better for society"
• spaetzleesser 6y ago
  That seems to be the problem with increasingly bigger and dominant companies. They kill or buy new competitors before they can get traction. In the end society as a whole loses big time because a lot of innovation gets lost. I really hope there will be a trend where companies beyond a certain size get viewed as a negative and discouraged.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• Nasrudith 6y ago
  How so? The company was already dying on its own, Google only vultured and bailed them out from bankruptcy. The product was a "mutant" trying new things that wasn't viable in the end.