3 ms·

To extend that metaphor, I'd say google needs to start stuffing more rabbits into hats, because if nobody stuffs those hats, we're all going to run out of rabbi

To extend that metaphor, I'd say google needs to start stuffing more rabbits into hats, because if nobody stuffs those hats, we're all going to run out of rabbits. To do that, it means spinning off companies to go public that create wealth across a broader base of investors and innovators, instead of presuming the hive-mind monoculture of their organization can keep producing things people want. There is an inflection point the OP makes about resource cursed economies, which is that when you have money coming out of the ground, you don't need to provide anything to your citizens in exchange for their tax base, and you get tyranny, because you don't need to pay anyone except the army to keep you in power. By extension, Google could just flip the EVIL switch that they so strenuously tried to protect, and it would have zero negative effect on their bottom line. They don't have to produce anything else to maintain their dominant position, and this is the danger the OP I think has illustrated.

mindslight 6y ago
I don't disagree, but you didn't really engage with what I said - it is not in Google's interest to pivot their institutional position to being boring. Their entire brand to employees, investors, and data subjects is that they do cool new things. That brand keeps interest in and softens the reality of their core surveillance business. It's akin to how I've heard VFX houses operate - the side of the business doing commercials makes the profit, while the movies side of the business loses money but brings the notoriety.
- motohagiography 6y ago
  Ah, the implication of my point was their power doesn't come from their brand anymore, it's from their data, and I think producing loss leaders into the market is a form of dumping that wrecks the markets. (haute couture houses in conglomerates that sell smelly water are another example of that VFX pattern) Their brand could be equifax or the SEC at this point and it wouldn't matter (imo), because they have ensconced, established power. The FAANGs become pernicious, and I don't see them all being around in a decade.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Google's business model requires evergreen data though. They can't just take their current trove of data and turn into an Equifax that knows things like you searched for bread recipes in 2020. So they require continuing buy in from their data subjects. Their power also comes from employees that can do intelligent (albeit evil) things with that data. Nobody thinks it's hip to go work at IBM. Microsoft had a bit of a mindshare resurgence because they pivoted from their Big Evil brand into more of an open company, but that's in spite of being a boring company rather than because of it. Eventually when the shine wears off, big tech will be forced to give up the pretenses. But I think it has to happen memetically first, rather than vice versa. > I think producing loss leaders into the market is a form of dumping that wrecks the markets You'll get no argument from me about this. I'd state it a bit differently, being more concerned about Free/Secure options, rather than a "market" of competing centralized (inherently surveillance-based) products. But I do agree, and I'm really just trying to explore what's keeping them in their current state.

mindslight 6y ago

I don't disagree, but you didn't really engage with what I said - it is not in Google's interest to pivot their institutional position to being boring. Their entire brand to employees, investors, and data subjects is that they do cool new things. That brand keeps interest in and softens the reality of their core surveillance business. It's akin to how I've heard VFX houses operate - the side of the business doing commercials makes the profit, while the movies side of the business loses money but brings the notoriety.

motohagiography 6y ago
Ah, the implication of my point was their power doesn't come from their brand anymore, it's from their data, and I think producing loss leaders into the market is a form of dumping that wrecks the markets. (haute couture houses in conglomerates that sell smelly water are another example of that VFX pattern) Their brand could be equifax or the SEC at this point and it wouldn't matter (imo), because they have ensconced, established power. The FAANGs become pernicious, and I don't see them all being around in a decade.
- mindslight 6y ago
  Google's business model requires evergreen data though. They can't just take their current trove of data and turn into an Equifax that knows things like you searched for bread recipes in 2020. So they require continuing buy in from their data subjects. Their power also comes from employees that can do intelligent (albeit evil) things with that data. Nobody thinks it's hip to go work at IBM. Microsoft had a bit of a mindshare resurgence because they pivoted from their Big Evil brand into more of an open company, but that's in spite of being a boring company rather than because of it. Eventually when the shine wears off, big tech will be forced to give up the pretenses. But I think it has to happen memetically first, rather than vice versa. > I think producing loss leaders into the market is a form of dumping that wrecks the markets You'll get no argument from me about this. I'd state it a bit differently, being more concerned about Free/Secure options, rather than a "market" of competing centralized (inherently surveillance-based) products. But I do agree, and I'm really just trying to explore what's keeping them in their current state.