[usrusr]

> How do we deserve Valve?

Simple, private ownership structure stemming from bootstrapping. Any presence of external equity or (worse) publicly traded shares would make it impossible to ever consider the money printing machine that the steam store is "good enough" for now and focus on long term strategy instead. Perhaps even allowing certain forms of "benevolence". Companies with private, noninstitutional owners can be infinitely greedy as well, but they don't have to be. Contrast this with publicly traded: there, if there is any reason to believe that more could be earned, someone ruthless/optimistic enough to believe this will bid more for ownership than those who don't and eventually the company is forced to go the ruthless path due to it's ownership structure.

If there were shares traded of a goose that lays golden eggs, the shares would inevitably end up being owned by those who believe that cutting it open yields more than waiting for the next egg. Apparently Newell isn't prone to cutting up the goose.

[amadeuspagel]

There are plenty of public companies, such as intel and google, that manage to pursue a long term strategy, to commodotize their complement: https://www.gwern.net/Complement

[HideousKojima]

Google's habit of killing any product that isn't search or Gmail suggests otherwise

[the_lucifer]

Yes and Intel's example is also not good either.