[chaostheory]

> The thing is that Google has absolutely gone down questionable path from their early days.

This is the price for being a public C-corp. There are very few people in history who can withstand the short term mob mentality of shareholders - in my mind only Jobs, Bezos, and Musk could do it... and survive. (imo Not even Bill Gates or Edison could do it) Maybe for other companies this can be mitigated by becoming a B-corp instead i.e public benefit company

[scott00]

Larry and Sergey own super-voting shares and can outvote all other shareholders combined.

[chaostheory]

Sure, but is Google's motto still "don't be evil"?

They may be able to potentially wield a big stick, but what's its use when they'll never use it and push back? they've been strong armed by Wall St to the point where they've kowtow enough to drastically change Google in not so great ways. In their defense, very few people can do better

[scott00]

Why do you think Wall Street strong armed them into dropping the motto? Isn't it more likely that the people in charge simply changed their minds about the best way to run the company? And, given the lack of formal control, what mechanism did Wall Street use?

[chaostheory]

Are most leaders of publicly traded companies immune from wall st analyst quarterly estimates and projections? Do they not greatly affect the company's share price?

[scott00]

The leaders of most public companies are indeed influenced by analysts and investors. The reason is because the leaders of most publicly traded companies can be fired by the board, and the board's perception of leader performance is influenced by analyst opinions and the opinions of large and/or influential shareholders. In Google's case, Larry and Sergey hire and fire the board, not the other way around. There is a meaningful difference between the corporate governance dynamics at Google and most other public companies.