91–100 of 122 posts
"Sharing is not broken" "Share this on Facebook, Twitter, Digg, Delicious, Reddit, LinkedIn, SlashDot, Myspace, Technorati, Friendfeed, Messenger, or Stumbleupon."
They seem to be pretty consistent: "sharing is not broken - here are some the places that people are already sharing stuff without Google's involvement".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issues around "Why I left A_PUBLIC_COMPANY" are really important. The question go beyond Google(s), it forces us to think if there are alternatives to growing or being public without doing a deal with the "devil". I don't think so, the definition of a public company implies that. Can private companies with less capital win this game and stay relevant in the long term?
There are plenty of massive, dominant private companies. Koch, SC Johnson, the list goes on ... The nature of VC or anyone investing OPM requires a short horizon. When it's your own money you don't ever have to cash out.
I was reading about Ford Thunderbird recently - the car that "created the market niche", was a huge success, rose Ford brand to a new level etc., and oops, the project was closed by board and reopened only after huge fight by Henry Ford II.
"Why I left Google" - said no Guido ever.
So he leaves Google because of steps they are taking to protect and enhance their revenue stream, and joins Microsoft? As a former Microsoftie, all I can say is that is like going from the kettle to the fire and doesn't make sense.
I've worked for neither company but my thought was the same as yours. Anyone who licenses software from Microsoft knows that lately their most important objective is increasing licensing revenues. Changing products to increase licensing or changing them to enhance a different revenue stream is six of one, half a dozen of the other for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends solely on the focus. If the focus is 'push limits of human knowledge', then Google is going to be fine. If the focus is 'Increase marketshare in industries [X] by [Y%]', then it is too short-sighted and sooner or later, will catch up.
More than 97% of Google's revenues have always come from advertising (give or take a few percentage points). This goes back to the pre-IPO days. It's all well and good to say that Google is about "pushing the limits of human knowledge," but when you're a public company with a responsibility to generate return on capital, you need to protect and grow the golden goose. Now, it's perfectly valid -- maybe even necessary…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends solely on the focus. If the focus is 'push limits of human knowledge', then Google is going to be fine. If the focus is 'Increase marketshare in industries [X] by [Y%]', then it is too short-sighted and sooner or later, will catch up.
More than 97% of Google's revenues have always come from advertising (give or take a few percentage points). This goes back to the pre-IPO days. It's all well and good to say that Google is about "pushing the limits of human knowledge," but when you're a public company with a responsibility to generate return on capital, you need to protect and grow the golden goose. Now, it's perfectly valid -- maybe even necessary…
In fact, if you're looking for hindsight vs reality, I don't think Google and Facebook really were competitors -- until Google decided to build a copy of Facebook's product. So what if both sites were monetized with ads, whoop-dee-doo. The overlap in their product functionality and expertise was basically zero. There's a very abstract connection that comes out of Google's central dogma: We are how people find things on the Internet. We are how they discover links. We're their homepage. What if Facebook takes all of that away? We have to eat their lunch.
Google acted out of some combination of fear, insecurity, and pressure from Wall Street, along with some grandiose thinking about their role in the universe and the threat of Facebook. I believe the changes inside Google are significant, and also not inevitable or "what anyone would have done at the time." We'll see how the effects play out.
I lost all interest in reading the article after looking at the msdn.com domain. EDIT: Downvoters, I don't see how this is wrong. Microsoft has a long history of spreading FUD about competitors (Florian Mueller/FOSSPatents, http://www.scroogled.com/ [when their own practices are very much the same], sponsoring fake studies that show that the TCO of Linux is much greater than that of Windows, and so on.) I certainly w…
Scroogled isn't FUD. It might be (well, certainly is) tasteless negative marketing, but factually it's dead-on. Just like this particular post, which regardless of the author's ulterior motives is factually accurate.