←back to thread

617 points jbegley | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
a_shovel ◴[] No.42938313[source]
I initially thought that this was an announcement for a new pledge and thought, "they're going to forget about this the moment it's convenient." Then I read the article and realized, "Oh, it's already convenient."

Google is a megacorp, and while megacorps aren't fundamentally "evil" (for some definitions of evil), they are fundamentally unconcerned with goodness or morality, and any appearance that they are is purely a marketing exercise.

replies(26): >>42938388 #>>42938489 #>>42938510 #>>42938591 #>>42938601 #>>42938609 #>>42938748 #>>42938837 #>>42938863 #>>42938964 #>>42939027 #>>42940197 #>>42940547 #>>42942188 #>>42943178 #>>42944331 #>>42945189 #>>42945931 #>>42949501 #>>42950344 #>>42950383 #>>42951161 #>>42954362 #>>42958988 #>>42960021 #>>42991061 #
Retric ◴[] No.42938601[source]
> while megacorps aren't fundamentally "evil" (for some definitions of evil),

I think megacorps being evil is universal. It tends to be corrupt cop evil vs serial killer evil, but being willing to do anything for money has historically been categorized as evil behavior.

That doesn’t mean society would be better or worse off without them, but it would be interesting to see a world where companies pay vastly higher taxes as they grow.

replies(8): >>42938707 #>>42938723 #>>42938754 #>>42940638 #>>42942404 #>>42942918 #>>42947224 #>>42957518 #
zelon88 ◴[] No.42938707[source]
You're taking about pre-Clinton consumerism. That system is dead. It used to dictate that the company who could offer the best value deserved to take over most of the market.

That's old thinking. Now we have servitization. Now the business who can most efficiently offer value deserves the entire market.

Basically, iterate until you're the only one left standing and then never "sell" anything but licenses ever again.

replies(5): >>42938789 #>>42939148 #>>42939461 #>>42941704 #>>42947981 #
Ekaros ◴[] No.42938789[source]
The bait-and-switch model is absolutely amazing as well. Start by offering a service covered with ads. Then add paid tier to get rid of ads. Next add tier with payment and ads. And finally add ads back to every possible tier. Not to forget about keeping them in content all the time.
replies(4): >>42940278 #>>42941049 #>>42942412 #>>42946956 #
1. CrimsonCape ◴[] No.42940278[source]
If you have ever seen the prank interview between Elijah Wood and Dominic Monaghan, "Do you wear wigs? Have you worn wigs? Will you wear wigs?" and Elijah breaks down laughing in total shock at how hilariously bad the interview is...

...I just picture a similar conversation with a CEO going: "Sir, shareholders want to see more improvement this quarter." CEO: "Do we run ads? Have we run ads? Will we run ads this time?" (The answer is inevitably yes to all of these)

replies(2): >>42941040 #>>42943469 #
2. ◴[] No.42941040[source]
3. smgit ◴[] No.42943469[source]
Some one has to pay for those Ads.

That creates limits to growth of an Ad based ecosystem.

So the thing to pay attention too is not Revenue growth or Profit growth of a Platform but Price of an Ad, Price to increase reach, price to Pay to Boost your post, price of a presidential campaign etc etc. These prices cant grow forever just like with housing prices or we get the equivalent of a Housing Bubble.

Want to destabilize the whole system pump up ad prices.

replies(1): >>42945079 #
4. the_other ◴[] No.42945079[source]
This doesn’t make sense to me. Ads on the main networks are sold by auction. Price pumping is built into the system.