Pretty much. The amount of discussion that goes on internally about the potential blow back on these services is very in depth and they are aware of their issue

Pretty much. The amount of discussion that goes on internally about the potential blow back on these services is very in depth and they are aware of their issues. These usually come from lower-mid level folks that can see the larger emergent picture of their actions. And then higher ups do the complete opposite and go ahead anyway because the business survival instinct kicks in and "if we don't do it, they will!". I cannot find them right now but I recall the emails at Apple between Steve/Phil/Scott etc. regarding the ability to use apps on the iPhone. Probably one of the few times where some of the folks at the top were thinking about these issues. Steve was against it because of the potential for their phone to become something entirely different than what they intended it to be AKA a highly focused easy to use phone, media system with a little web browsing. An Apple product, by Apple to be used the Apple way. But because of pressure from Android they opened up the App store because, essentially, "if we don't do it, they will be the only ones doing it.". While it worked wonders for their bottom line, you do have to wonder if long term it was the smartest move due to the blow back on it societal issues. But then, Android was already going this path so it was Apples game to lose to Google. This is one of the key features of technology, if someone else can do something to gain an advantage over their competitors, it is in the best interest for the original group to also adopt said technologies of be left behind. If they opt out, it most likely means they will not survive into the future. On a larger scale, this applies to not only those that make this tech but how people use it. You may be against smart phones for instance but if almost everyone else is using them, you are practically forced to use a smart phone because society will be shaped by them.