3 ms·

i feel sometimes it's best for the company to stay private

• MountDoom 1y ago
  The founders of the company still have a controlling stake in the business. External shareholders have little leverage. Going public gave Google a lot of nearly-free money to grow, and it's how you've gotten both Gmail and Google+. But more importantly, it allowed them to offer much higher total comp packages by issuing more stock on the go. I think they're prisoners of the stock market only insofar that if the stock stops going up, they're gonna have a harder time hiring and retaining talent. In a way, it's the employees holding the company hostage. They're simultaneously complaining about innocence lost and stating their implicit preference for this outcome by demanding top-of-the-line comp. If you want to be paid the same as at Microsoft or Facebook, you become Microsoft or Facebook.
  • stevage 1y ago
    >Going public gave Google a lot of nearly-free money to grow, and it's how you've gotten both Gmail Gmail launched in April 2004, and the company went public in August 2004, so what you said is not literally true. > and Google+ Thanks for the chuckle.
    • eru 1y ago
      If they only had successful products, that would be a sign that they didn't innovate enough. If you innovate manically, you get Google Wave and Google+ amongst good products. (However, this doesn't work in the other direction: having a few duds doesn't prove that you are innovative.)
  • int_19h 1y ago
    > Going public gave Google a lot of nearly-free money to grow, and it's how you've gotten ... Gmail And in retrospect, was that really a good thing? Short-term, yes - I remember how much better it was than the alternatives. Long-term, we ended up in a situation where email = GMail for most users, and this in turn gives Google undue leverage and strangles competition.
• DecentShoes 1y ago
  Case in point: Valve