3 ms·

Create a massively adopted product -> Start breaking your product to milk profitability -> Ignore user input and feedback, override their stated preferences wi

by spupe 5y ago

Create a massively adopted product -> Start breaking your product to milk profitability -> Ignore user input and feedback, override their stated preferences with yours The Microsoft playbook, currently in play at Google.

blunte 5y ago
This is the "big laggard capitalist corporation" playbook.
- blunte 5y ago
  People want to disagree, that's fine. But it's such a common pattern of behavior in less regulated environments. There are many variants, but the common one is this: 1. upstart innovator, filling a need; scrappy, hungry, motivated. 2. reaching the market, making waves, building a base. still same mood as #1. 3. "sudden wealth". ICO, big investment, buyout, f-u money, whatever. some people leave, some stay and lose their hunger, and some people ascend into management and play the long (money) game. 4. quarterly earnings per share concerns top all others; executives know their pay is based on board considerations and appearing to keep shareholders happy. innovation takes a deep sideline as short-term and protectionist approaches prevail. 5. other companies like this one when it was on steps 1-2 appear; threats are real, but board and shareholders are slow to catch on; company is large, and it has lobbyists. monopolistic behaviors are the easiest route to maintaining dominance. stamp out competition before it hits the public radar. keep the quarterly EPS on target. keep the bonuses. 6. predictably this cannot continue, and the company falters. it is embarrassed by a hungrier company. execs leave and upgrade their positions in other similar companies. sharholders "suffer" with stagnant share prices. 7. maybe. company pivots, reinvents itself actually or in appearance. cycle either starts anew-ish, or a publicity campaign convinces the public investors that it has (and new investment should arrive). This is the state of American capitalist corporate behavior. Downvotes are fine; they simply indicate how ignorant (unfortunately) the latest generation of HN readers are. I'm near the point of not caring. The world can burn, the ignorant masses can be under the boot of corrupt people, and anyone remaining can die with far less than they hoped they would have. I would like to help prevent that, but celebration of ignorance has become so great that there may be no recovery.
giancarlostoro 5y ago
I've said it many times... Google's policy is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Look at Android, what's supposed to be a Linux Distribution, feels nothing as such. It definitely destroyed Microsoft's attempts, Ubuntu's attempts and Firefox's attempts, whether deliberately or not it definitely did. Then you have gmail, no official client or nothing, at least Microsoft gives us Outlook which is insanely powerful. Google also owns your browser engine, which does who knows what level of telemetry? It was with Chrome that I was put off by Google back in the late 2000s.
- wccrawford 5y ago
  They're certainly trying, but they aren't as good at it as MS was. Linux still exists, and Android hasn't harmed it at all. No extinguish here at all. GMail is definitely making all other email providers and clients look bad. It's basically done as much extinguishing as it can, though. People have reasons not to use it, and I don't see them overcoming them now. And it's a miracle that other browsers still exist. Sheer tenacity keeps Firefox alive at this point, yet somehow they're making it work. And Safari only exists because of an OS-monopoly.
  - cube00 5y ago
    It'll probably need to be a generational thing to overcome Google's tentacles. My parents are stuck on their ISP's email, I was stuck on GMail (but fighting to get out). Anyone I warn about Google's lockout horror stories think it won't happen to them because they're playing by the terms of service. The next generation will hopefully be on their own personal domains as we should have been from the beginning. I'll admit I used think, "I'm saving $10 a year not paying for a domain, I'm a thrift genius!"
    - Gareth321 5y ago
      >My parents are stuck on their ISP's email, I was stuck on GMail (but fighting to get out). Anyone I warn about Google's lockout horror stories think it won't happen to them because they're playing by the terms of service. I regale everyone I know with Google lockout horror stories in the vain hope that they will switch. No one ever does. I've spent the last year migrating services from my Gmail account to my personal domain, but it's a huge PITA, and I feel like I'm only 30% there. The only thing which keeps me going is the sinking feeling in my stomach I get when I imagine how fucked I would be if I lost access to my email address. It's still not turnkey enough to buy a domain and use an email provider. There are multiple gates to climb through and they are often technical in nature. Just trying to understand how a domain works, where to buy it, how to host it, and how to plug that into an email provider is beyond 95% of the public. There needs to be some better vertical integration, but as it stands, the best domain marketplaces and hosts are not the best email providers, and vice versa.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by spupe 5y ago

blunte 5y ago

This is the "big laggard capitalist corporation" playbook.

blunte 5y ago
People want to disagree, that's fine. But it's such a common pattern of behavior in less regulated environments. There are many variants, but the common one is this: 1. upstart innovator, filling a need; scrappy, hungry, motivated. 2. reaching the market, making waves, building a base. still same mood as #1. 3. "sudden wealth". ICO, big investment, buyout, f-u money, whatever. some people leave, some stay and lose their hunger, and some people ascend into management and play the long (money) game. 4. quarterly earnings per share concerns top all others; executives know their pay is based on board considerations and appearing to keep shareholders happy. innovation takes a deep sideline as short-term and protectionist approaches prevail. 5. other companies like this one when it was on steps 1-2 appear; threats are real, but board and shareholders are slow to catch on; company is large, and it has lobbyists. monopolistic behaviors are the easiest route to maintaining dominance. stamp out competition before it hits the public radar. keep the quarterly EPS on target. keep the bonuses. 6. predictably this cannot continue, and the company falters. it is embarrassed by a hungrier company. execs leave and upgrade their positions in other similar companies. sharholders "suffer" with stagnant share prices. 7. maybe. company pivots, reinvents itself actually or in appearance. cycle either starts anew-ish, or a publicity campaign convinces the public investors that it has (and new investment should arrive). This is the state of American capitalist corporate behavior. Downvotes are fine; they simply indicate how ignorant (unfortunately) the latest generation of HN readers are. I'm near the point of not caring. The world can burn, the ignorant masses can be under the boot of corrupt people, and anyone remaining can die with far less than they hoped they would have. I would like to help prevent that, but celebration of ignorance has become so great that there may be no recovery.

giancarlostoro 5y ago

I've said it many times... Google's policy is Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Look at Android, what's supposed to be a Linux Distribution, feels nothing as such. It definitely destroyed Microsoft's attempts, Ubuntu's attempts and Firefox's attempts, whether deliberately or not it definitely did. Then you have gmail, no official client or nothing, at least Microsoft gives us Outlook which is insanely powerful. Google also owns your browser engine, which does who knows what level of telemetry? It was with Chrome that I was put off by Google back in the late 2000s.

wccrawford 5y ago
They're certainly trying, but they aren't as good at it as MS was. Linux still exists, and Android hasn't harmed it at all. No extinguish here at all. GMail is definitely making all other email providers and clients look bad. It's basically done as much extinguishing as it can, though. People have reasons not to use it, and I don't see them overcoming them now. And it's a miracle that other browsers still exist. Sheer tenacity keeps Firefox alive at this point, yet somehow they're making it work. And Safari only exists because of an OS-monopoly.
- cube00 5y ago
  It'll probably need to be a generational thing to overcome Google's tentacles. My parents are stuck on their ISP's email, I was stuck on GMail (but fighting to get out). Anyone I warn about Google's lockout horror stories think it won't happen to them because they're playing by the terms of service. The next generation will hopefully be on their own personal domains as we should have been from the beginning. I'll admit I used think, "I'm saving $10 a year not paying for a domain, I'm a thrift genius!"
  - Gareth321 5y ago
    >My parents are stuck on their ISP's email, I was stuck on GMail (but fighting to get out). Anyone I warn about Google's lockout horror stories think it won't happen to them because they're playing by the terms of service. I regale everyone I know with Google lockout horror stories in the vain hope that they will switch. No one ever does. I've spent the last year migrating services from my Gmail account to my personal domain, but it's a huge PITA, and I feel like I'm only 30% there. The only thing which keeps me going is the sinking feeling in my stomach I get when I imagine how fucked I would be if I lost access to my email address. It's still not turnkey enough to buy a domain and use an email provider. There are multiple gates to climb through and they are often technical in nature. Just trying to understand how a domain works, where to buy it, how to host it, and how to plug that into an email provider is beyond 95% of the public. There needs to be some better vertical integration, but as it stands, the best domain marketplaces and hosts are not the best email providers, and vice versa.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]