6 ms·

consider that your perspective might be biased by your temporal affiliation. for anyone paying even a modicum of attention, the direction google was headed was

consider that your perspective might be biased by your temporal affiliation. for anyone paying even a modicum of attention, the direction google was headed was plainly evident by 2004 (when it went public and gmail launched). google clearly saw the web as both a threat and an opportunity (much like microsoft before it), and deigned to control it, not cultivate it as a public good. google never "pushed the web forward" magnanimously, even if the leadership "liked" it at some point. the strategy was always to dominate the web (search itself was the kernel from which this strategy took shape), and "don't be evil" was merely cover for that, right from the start.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
I would never deny a bias. But an organization like google doesn't have a singular mind or objective. it's full of a bunch of contradictory tendencies and opinions and motivations. And market forces aside, I think the bulk of the pre-Ruth/pre-Sundar leadership had a very pro "open web" opinion at least. And I'd say that even post-IPO they were able to mostly keep their mission statement (“organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”) compatible with their advertising revenue stream and market forces as a whole. I just think that became untenable with the rise of Facebook and the rise of mobile. Or rather, they could not maintain the growth rate and long term security that investors demanded of them and at the same time do what they were doing. So they did what the market "demanded". I think they're kind of lost now, though. I think we saw "peak Google" a few years ago.
- clairity 4y ago
  > "...investors demanded... So they did what the market 'demanded'." to be clear, the founders still had majority control, and so this was a proactive decision the leadership made to grow at all costs, to dominate the web. they weren't forced by investors or the market to do so, no matter the pressures surrounding them.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

I would never deny a bias. But an organization like google doesn't have a singular mind or objective. it's full of a bunch of contradictory tendencies and opinions and motivations. And market forces aside, I think the bulk of the pre-Ruth/pre-Sundar leadership had a very pro "open web" opinion at least. And I'd say that even post-IPO they were able to mostly keep their mission statement (“organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”) compatible with their advertising revenue stream and market forces as a whole. I just think that became untenable with the rise of Facebook and the rise of mobile. Or rather, they could not maintain the growth rate and long term security that investors demanded of them and at the same time do what they were doing. So they did what the market "demanded". I think they're kind of lost now, though. I think we saw "peak Google" a few years ago.

clairity 4y ago
> "...investors demanded... So they did what the market 'demanded'." to be clear, the founders still had majority control, and so this was a proactive decision the leadership made to grow at all costs, to dominate the web. they weren't forced by investors or the market to do so, no matter the pressures surrounding them.