Google vs. Evil
from the so-tricky dept
For a long time now, I've been impressed at what a good job Google has done doing the "right" thing. Whether its avoiding pop ups, or just improving their technology, they seem to consistently do a good job. There are some concerns, certainly, and at last week's Supernova conference a lot of people were wondering about the "great power" of the Google monopoly. Sergey Brin spoke at the conference and pointed out that, Google just wanted to provide the best search possible. Now, Wired Magazine has an article looking at the challenges that Brin, specifically, faces in keeping Google on the "good" side. The author suggests that the bigger Google gets, the more difficult it is for them to remain good. First, there's the general distrust of anything that gets too "big" in the techie world (as evidenced by the fear of monopoly power). Second, there's economic pressures. The author of the article suggests that when the inevitable IPO comes for Google, shareholders will force the company to change its policies. While there is certainly a threat that pressure could change Google's course, I think Brin (along with Larry Page and Eric Schmidt) realize this would be a dangerous course to take. They've worked so hard to keep the company doing "good", and that's not an accident. Hopefully, they'll be able to convince shareholders that their strategy is the proper one.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why would a company really need to go IPO?
One of the tech companies I worked for had the opportunity to go IPO when the market was great, and one of the smartest things they had ever done was NOT to do it. Now they are still around, unlike other companies.
The whole IPO thing is very silly in my opinion; the whole stock market is a silly concept. Once you go IPO, your company is taken out of your control, and is driven by nothing but short-term profit targets.
If there was a publicly funded loan system this would be a much better idea. A company offers people to invest into it through a public loan, which has a start period and a payback (end) period. The company uses the money in the middle and based on the company performance the loan pays out at the end, with possible growth if the company did well. Then the whole thing starts all over if the company feels it needs more money. That to me seems more sane then this never ending stock concept.
But I’m just a coder, what do I know about financial markets. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why would a company really need to go IPO?
Most companies believe that in order to grow at the best rate, at some point they need to go public in order to have access to public capital markets. That isn't always true, of course...
There certainly are bond markets as well, which let people do something similar to what you're talking about. However, your plan would still require the same sorts of public disclosure that drive short term thinking.
Of course, in reality, it seems that IPOs have taken on a slightly different purpose than they were really intended to: and that's that they let early investors "cash out". I agree that companies that are public are forced to have a view that is extremely short term (and in many cases, dangerous).
I also agree that not all companies should go public, but the pressure from early investors often make it so that companies have no choice. This is one of the reasons why I don't think our current VC system is the greatest for building some types of companies.
There are examples of large companies that have stayed private (such as SC Johnson, the consumer products company), but they are few and far between.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why would a company really need to go IPO?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why would a company really need to go IPO?
In regards specifically to Google, while I don't envy all of the difficult decisions they have and will continue to make to not be evil, the fact that they've held out this long is a great sign. I really can't see how going public would not ultimately hurt the things that I love about it. The interests of shareholders will ultimately be counter to those of the users and a publicly traded Google would have to answer to it's shareholders first. But the thing to keep in mind is that Google wasn't always on top--it came from some really smart people who saw an opportunity. And there are competitors who are working really hard as well. While I've been a very loyal user from the very beginning, it's only for selfish reasons--the minute Google's results aren't as good as Teoma's or any of their other competitors just itching to knock them off, I'm gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]