3 ms·

These shutdowns are a calculated cover for the day the DOJ shows up and slaps them with a monopoly tag for their dominant (and money printing) products. "Monop

These shutdowns are a calculated cover for the day the DOJ shows up and slaps them with a monopoly tag for their dominant (and money printing) products. "Monopoly? Us? Look how many times we've failed. Any dominant marketshare we have could easily disappear. Look how many times we've failed..." Put another way, certainly Google is aware of the perception impact of these shutdowns. And yet, like clockwork, they persist. It's either intentional, or they're devoid of data about perceptions of the brand. It can't be the latter, can it?

Our_Benefactors 4y ago
Yes, google plans projects, spins them up spending millions or billions in dev costs over multiple years, then executes the final phase of the plan and kills them. All so their hypothetical attorneys can make a hypothetical point in a hypothetical court case. Really???
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  Yup. Is that not what happens? Consistently?? As for the hypothetical court case. Again, there's history for that as well. What's your explanation then? The mighty Google with some of the best and brightest minds in the world...is consistently incompetent? That it goes into markets outside its core competence, dumps a ton of resources, and then again and again surrenders prematurely? Really? Seems that your theory sounds more ridiculous than mine (which btw is inpired by Thiel and Zero to One).
  - Our_Benefactors 4y ago
    My explanation is that they want to make money on these projects and immediately cancel them when they fail to meet some lofty goals. Not that these projects are from-inception used as pawns in some abstract legal posturing.
    - chiefalchemist 4y ago
      I agree with you. That is what is happening. Where we part ways is why. The fact that it happens over, over, and over again, then for a company of that status, that's strategy. It's intentional. Else, we're suggesting that Google cannot learn from previous mistakes. That simply doesn't hold water. Again, see Thiel for more details.

Our_Benefactors 4y ago

Yes, google plans projects, spins them up spending millions or billions in dev costs over multiple years, then executes the final phase of the plan and kills them. All so their hypothetical attorneys can make a hypothetical point in a hypothetical court case. Really???

chiefalchemist 4y ago
Yup. Is that not what happens? Consistently?? As for the hypothetical court case. Again, there's history for that as well. What's your explanation then? The mighty Google with some of the best and brightest minds in the world...is consistently incompetent? That it goes into markets outside its core competence, dumps a ton of resources, and then again and again surrenders prematurely? Really? Seems that your theory sounds more ridiculous than mine (which btw is inpired by Thiel and Zero to One).
- Our_Benefactors 4y ago
  My explanation is that they want to make money on these projects and immediately cancel them when they fail to meet some lofty goals. Not that these projects are from-inception used as pawns in some abstract legal posturing.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    I agree with you. That is what is happening. Where we part ways is why. The fact that it happens over, over, and over again, then for a company of that status, that's strategy. It's intentional. Else, we're suggesting that Google cannot learn from previous mistakes. That simply doesn't hold water. Again, see Thiel for more details.