3 ms·

The goal is to capture as much revenue as possible. A company would never intentionally limit their revenue intake unless it was absolutely detrimental to the b

The goal is to capture as much revenue as possible. A company would never intentionally limit their revenue intake unless it was absolutely detrimental to the business. Inconveniencing the few customers who use these cards most likely doesn't show up on their radar.

ospzfmbbzr 4y ago
> The goal is to capture as much revenue as possible. A company would never intentionally limit their revenue intake unless it was absolutely detrimental to the business. Yes they would. Their goal is POWER and NOT dollars, which are worth less and less every day. Just like corporate controlled mass media, the goal is POWER and NOT dollars. Dollars are the plausible deniability -- "it's just for the money!" is a mis-direction. Using a privacy card is not an acceptable indicator of fraud or anything in a country with due process and a supposed presumption of innocence. This is about enforcing approved behaviors in the Corporate Nanny state.
- dimitrios1 4y ago
  Money equals power in our society, so your theory is not cogent.
  - astrange 4y ago
    Google is constantly politically defeated by random old people in Mountain View with lots of free time. There is no amount of money you can spent to build an apartment building that might cast a shadow on their house one day a year.
    - someguydave 4y ago
      Yes but in that situation Google must act transparently in an open political forum rather than backstab people behind closed doors.
      - astrange 4y ago
        That would be a surprise to the old people, who think anyone who disagrees with them is a developer shill.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Money is tradeable for power and vice versa. The exchange rate depends on power and lack of ethics. Power is the goal.
fauigerzigerk 4y ago
Whether or not they lose revenue by doing this is hard to measure though. They're not just losing the business of the people they ban. They also lose the business of people who consider Google to be unreliable and risky. In areas where they benefit from their monopoly, such as search advertising, it may not matter much in the short term, because people don't have a choice. But in areas where people do have a choice, such as cloud services or Workspace, it does matter. It seems like a risky strategy to keep damaging your own brand while relying on monopoly rent to cover up any short term financial impact.

ospzfmbbzr 4y ago

> The goal is to capture as much revenue as possible. A company would never intentionally limit their revenue intake unless it was absolutely detrimental to the business. Yes they would. Their goal is POWER and NOT dollars, which are worth less and less every day. Just like corporate controlled mass media, the goal is POWER and NOT dollars. Dollars are the plausible deniability -- "it's just for the money!" is a mis-direction. Using a privacy card is not an acceptable indicator of fraud or anything in a country with due process and a supposed presumption of innocence. This is about enforcing approved behaviors in the Corporate Nanny state.

dimitrios1 4y ago
Money equals power in our society, so your theory is not cogent.
- astrange 4y ago
  Google is constantly politically defeated by random old people in Mountain View with lots of free time. There is no amount of money you can spent to build an apartment building that might cast a shadow on their house one day a year.
  - someguydave 4y ago
    Yes but in that situation Google must act transparently in an open political forum rather than backstab people behind closed doors.
    - astrange 4y ago
      That would be a surprise to the old people, who think anyone who disagrees with them is a developer shill.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Money is tradeable for power and vice versa. The exchange rate depends on power and lack of ethics. Power is the goal.

fauigerzigerk 4y ago

Whether or not they lose revenue by doing this is hard to measure though. They're not just losing the business of the people they ban. They also lose the business of people who consider Google to be unreliable and risky. In areas where they benefit from their monopoly, such as search advertising, it may not matter much in the short term, because people don't have a choice. But in areas where people do have a choice, such as cloud services or Workspace, it does matter. It seems like a risky strategy to keep damaging your own brand while relying on monopoly rent to cover up any short term financial impact.