3 ms·

If Google changes leadership to a sensible business person, I'll put serious money into the stock. Google is a megacorporation with powerful IP and virtually u

If Google changes leadership to a sensible business person, I'll put serious money into the stock. Google is a megacorporation with powerful IP and virtually unlimited resources. It's time to stop the small start-up mentality of chucking things at the wall to see what sticks. Unify your products/services, assign staff to manage it, commit to your decisions. Offer paid services with support and no user hostile privacy bs. I'm at the point where I just feel this latent contempt when using google products now. I went from a fanboy darling to someone who actively dissuades people from using anything from the company.

compiler-guy 3y ago
GOOG is approaching its all-time highs today, and up well over 100% over the past five years. In a similar time frame the S&P 500 is up about 50% or so. I hate Google's tendency to cancel products as much as anyone, but as investments go, that tendency doesn't seem to hurt it.
- eschneider 3y ago
  There's a bit of a tipping point to things like this. It doesn't hurt them until it DOES, and at that point, it's almost impossible for a company to gain trust back.
willsmith72 3y ago
if that means turning into microsoft, then no thanks
feoren 3y ago
There is literally no incentive for a giant corporation to put anyone competent at the helm. That's a backward understanding of the situation. CEOs don't exist to enrich corporations; corporations exist to enrich CEOs. Anyone who had the power to appoint someone competent has no motivation to do so: they can also appoint their buddies, who can continue to parasitize the effectiveness of the company for their own gain. Why would they make some rando CEO? They literally do not care about the long-term success of the company as a whole, they only care about the portion of it that they can drain of blood in the short-term. Any company with any level of "excess competence" is immediately swarmed by Business Caste parasites (via a takeover or several other means) and that excess competence is drained off into their pockets. In fact laying off support departments and canceling products and reneging on promises is one of the easiest ways to suck out value from the company into the C-layer in the short term. Who cares if the company flounders and fails? They just spread their locust wings and find a new host.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
Google should change because its traditional primary revenue stream and profit center (i.e., search + ads) runs the risk of being disrupted (into the ground) by AI and chatbots. Why search of for an answer when ChatGPT can give it to you directly, without the overhead? I tend to stick with the Thiel inspired lens. That is, Google has (had?) a monopoly on search and ads, just about everything is smoke & mirrors to hide that fact. "Look, business is hard. The market for any given product is very competitive. Look at how many business and products bombed for us..." This interpretation makes sense because Google's best & brightest has to know how these sunset episodes upset customers, undermine trust, etc. and yet they continue. Either Google wants it this way, or they're too thick to change. It's not the latter, is it.
capableweb 3y ago
> If Google changes leadership to a sensible business person, I'll put serious money into the stock. That's funny because that's usually when I sell my stocks in a company, as it usually signals (to me) that enshittification is about to begin and they'll start loosing customers quickly, at least if the company was engineering/R&D focused before.
- ragebol 3y ago
  Ancestor comments think it's already pretty shit. Google's stuff could be more shit, but also a lot less.
  - capableweb 3y ago
    Well, parent seems to consider the stock price and according to it, Google doesn't suck for investing in the stock.
sylens 3y ago
I do wonder what it would take to get Sundar Pichai out of the CEO spot. The board must like him, but my usage and faith in Google products has never been lower.
tracker1 3y ago
Chucking to see what sticks is fine... it's dropping anything that isn't massively successful, even if it's profitable that I have issue with. Not every idea needs to generate billions in revenue, and with appropriate structure/substructure many of these projects can be kept. Domains is a perfect example of this. The issue you mention though is huge though, they incentivize "new" over enhancement or better integration. Google hangouts is a perfect example of this... great all in one messaging app, Google Voice, SMS, etc. And they bork it and replace it with, what 3 different chat/voice/video apps so far? It's stupid to say the least.

compiler-guy 3y ago

GOOG is approaching its all-time highs today, and up well over 100% over the past five years. In a similar time frame the S&P 500 is up about 50% or so. I hate Google's tendency to cancel products as much as anyone, but as investments go, that tendency doesn't seem to hurt it.

eschneider 3y ago
There's a bit of a tipping point to things like this. It doesn't hurt them until it DOES, and at that point, it's almost impossible for a company to gain trust back.

willsmith72 3y ago

if that means turning into microsoft, then no thanks

feoren 3y ago

There is literally no incentive for a giant corporation to put anyone competent at the helm. That's a backward understanding of the situation. CEOs don't exist to enrich corporations; corporations exist to enrich CEOs. Anyone who had the power to appoint someone competent has no motivation to do so: they can also appoint their buddies, who can continue to parasitize the effectiveness of the company for their own gain. Why would they make some rando CEO? They literally do not care about the long-term success of the company as a whole, they only care about the portion of it that they can drain of blood in the short-term. Any company with any level of "excess competence" is immediately swarmed by Business Caste parasites (via a takeover or several other means) and that excess competence is drained off into their pockets. In fact laying off support departments and canceling products and reneging on promises is one of the easiest ways to suck out value from the company into the C-layer in the short term. Who cares if the company flounders and fails? They just spread their locust wings and find a new host.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

Google should change because its traditional primary revenue stream and profit center (i.e., search + ads) runs the risk of being disrupted (into the ground) by AI and chatbots. Why search of for an answer when ChatGPT can give it to you directly, without the overhead? I tend to stick with the Thiel inspired lens. That is, Google has (had?) a monopoly on search and ads, just about everything is smoke & mirrors to hide that fact. "Look, business is hard. The market for any given product is very competitive. Look at how many business and products bombed for us..." This interpretation makes sense because Google's best & brightest has to know how these sunset episodes upset customers, undermine trust, etc. and yet they continue. Either Google wants it this way, or they're too thick to change. It's not the latter, is it.

capableweb 3y ago

> If Google changes leadership to a sensible business person, I'll put serious money into the stock. That's funny because that's usually when I sell my stocks in a company, as it usually signals (to me) that enshittification is about to begin and they'll start loosing customers quickly, at least if the company was engineering/R&D focused before.

ragebol 3y ago
Ancestor comments think it's already pretty shit. Google's stuff could be more shit, but also a lot less.
- capableweb 3y ago
  Well, parent seems to consider the stock price and according to it, Google doesn't suck for investing in the stock.

sylens 3y ago

I do wonder what it would take to get Sundar Pichai out of the CEO spot. The board must like him, but my usage and faith in Google products has never been lower.

tracker1 3y ago

Chucking to see what sticks is fine... it's dropping anything that isn't massively successful, even if it's profitable that I have issue with. Not every idea needs to generate billions in revenue, and with appropriate structure/substructure many of these projects can be kept. Domains is a perfect example of this. The issue you mention though is huge though, they incentivize "new" over enhancement or better integration. Google hangouts is a perfect example of this... great all in one messaging app, Google Voice, SMS, etc. And they bork it and replace it with, what 3 different chat/voice/video apps so far? It's stupid to say the least.