3 ms·

Once again, it seems the issue is less about Google (or any company) restricting you having a personal opinion about issues that affect the bottom line at work,

Once again, it seems the issue is less about Google (or any company) restricting you having a personal opinion about issues that affect the bottom line at work, but instead is about the disingenuous pretense that they don't restrict you. Don't be evil. Unless it affects our bottom line. Think Different. Unless you're a monopoly, then think the same as every other monopoly has. Move fast and break things. Their things, not our things. Cut the shit "Make us money" is the corporate manifesto.

xiphias2 6y ago
This just means that companies are predictable. Google is at least thinking long term and takes on huge projects, unlike most non-tech companies. I love that they finally launched Waymo even if the scale is small right now. Tesla wants to make money just like Enron, but their strategies are quite different.
aunty_helen 6y ago
Don't forget the startups: We'll do the right thing, unless times are tough
- Shish2k 6y ago
  I worked for a startup that did the right thing even when times were tough… alas, that’s not good for business, and so the company no longer exists :(
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Ding. The first software startup I worked for absolutely did not have all of its software licenses arranged properly. Seats were passed around, and unlicensed cracked software was used to create public facing product. Officially? None of this was recorded. Unofficially, the stance was quite clear: worrying about licensing is something companies that have more to lose than two sticks and a rock can afford to do.
colinmhayes 6y ago
Obviously make us money is their motto. The only reason public companies exist is to make money. They can still have marketing campaigns.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
yunruse 6y ago
This is why it's important to consider realpolitik when thinking of company ethics or morals. Companies have people who will want profit before all else, and they will have people who truly want to value certain user values. The interaction between people is far too difficult to model as a consumer, so it's better to consider the business model, or, more weakly, how a decision affects social capital, thereby affecting this model. This helps create "trustless" scenarios, in which the "morals v profit" quandary is meaningless because both align to some degree. For example, take Apple and Google. Google profits heavily from adverts, so it is not only sensible but natural that Apple, as a strong rival in the OS field who have no business incentive to do so, should lean heavily into this, exploiting and actualising this gap in business-model-incentive. Likewise, Apple profits heavily from phone hardware: it is sensible and natural that Google, who somewhat rival Apple in this field, should desire somewhat to try and present their phones as being less overpriced. This is far harder glean information from, of course, and PR can be as genuine as it can be deceiving. But it's a useful tool in a savvy consumer's arsenal, methinks, especially for large decisions or with companies whose practises and profits are well-known (as opposed to, say, a brand of toothpaste).
ericzawo 6y ago
Bravo and 100% true.

xiphias2 6y ago

This just means that companies are predictable. Google is at least thinking long term and takes on huge projects, unlike most non-tech companies. I love that they finally launched Waymo even if the scale is small right now. Tesla wants to make money just like Enron, but their strategies are quite different.

aunty_helen 6y ago

Don't forget the startups: We'll do the right thing, unless times are tough

Shish2k 6y ago
I worked for a startup that did the right thing even when times were tough… alas, that’s not good for business, and so the company no longer exists :(
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Ding. The first software startup I worked for absolutely did not have all of its software licenses arranged properly. Seats were passed around, and unlicensed cracked software was used to create public facing product. Officially? None of this was recorded. Unofficially, the stance was quite clear: worrying about licensing is something companies that have more to lose than two sticks and a rock can afford to do.

colinmhayes 6y ago

Obviously make us money is their motto. The only reason public companies exist is to make money. They can still have marketing campaigns.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

yunruse 6y ago

This is why it's important to consider realpolitik when thinking of company ethics or morals. Companies have people who will want profit before all else, and they will have people who truly want to value certain user values. The interaction between people is far too difficult to model as a consumer, so it's better to consider the business model, or, more weakly, how a decision affects social capital, thereby affecting this model. This helps create "trustless" scenarios, in which the "morals v profit" quandary is meaningless because both align to some degree. For example, take Apple and Google. Google profits heavily from adverts, so it is not only sensible but natural that Apple, as a strong rival in the OS field who have no business incentive to do so, should lean heavily into this, exploiting and actualising this gap in business-model-incentive. Likewise, Apple profits heavily from phone hardware: it is sensible and natural that Google, who somewhat rival Apple in this field, should desire somewhat to try and present their phones as being less overpriced. This is far harder glean information from, of course, and PR can be as genuine as it can be deceiving. But it's a useful tool in a savvy consumer's arsenal, methinks, especially for large decisions or with companies whose practises and profits are well-known (as opposed to, say, a brand of toothpaste).

ericzawo 6y ago

Bravo and 100% true.