"Google could easily serve the needs of users much better than it does, even if it can't do it perfectly. But it won't because it's not in the business of servi

"Google could easily serve the needs of users much better than it does, even if it can't do it perfectly. But it won't because it's not in the business of serving user needs, it's in the business of serving advertiser needs, and serving users is just a by-product." This is such a uncharitable assumption i don't even know where to begin. Nobody can serve everyone well. Trying is a quick ticket to failure. The choice not to serve certain people is clearly the correct one, even if one could theoretically do more than you do now. Why isn't the simpler, more charitable answer that they are just serving the majority of their large userbase, or whoever in that user base they care about? Why is it everyone who feels like they aren't served has to decide the reason is because someone is doing the wrong thing, rather than "guess i'm not the user they are looking for". As for whether you can do more - Good strategy (and product choices) are framed as mutually exclusive choices: https://hbr.org/2012/09/bringing-science-to-the-art-of-strategy https://hbr.org/2012/09/bringing-science-to-the-art-of-strat... That is always going to make someone upset, because yes, you could do something more than you do for them. That doesn't make that path make any sense. Trying to do more of everything for everyone is pretending that you don't need to make choices, and that those choices don't have consequences (for example, what users you will retain or not). That is, as i said, a quick ticket to failure.