[eropple]

There is a difference between "making money" and "capturing the entire thing because our growth-addled brains cannot conceive of not allocating all of the money to us".

If you fire on the ecosystem, sometimes (not often enough, but sometimes) the ecosystem fires back.

[robertlagrant]

All of the money? They've given it away for years, and they're just losing too much money.

Now one or two other companies can take all that, pay for one or two engineers and look like the good guys.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> There is a difference between "making money" and "capturing the entire thing because our growth-addled brains cannot conceive of not allocating all of the money to us".

Trying to capture the entire thing, in a way that backfires and gets them a smaller piece of the pie. Which is, incidentally, and answer to the question: A business might be obligated to act in its own interest, but this is the kind of thing that can result in worse financial outcomes, not better.

[alex_lav]

> There is a difference between "making money" and "capturing the entire thing because our growth-addled brains cannot conceive of not allocating all of the money to us".

I feel like this post suggests a misunderstanding about how publicly traded, for profit companies work. Because it is literally their job to capture the entire thing and whatever else they can capture. That's why going public is not awesome for FOSS-oriented companies. We've been here before.

[eropple]

I mean, I understand it quite well. Through this understanding I am able to come to the conclusion that it bad.

Like, the very concept of a corporation is ordained by a society to provide benefit to the society, not (just) to the shareholders--otherwise there's no reason to enable its creation. Did Hashicorp's action better the society that granted its charter, or attempt to (and hopefully fail to) better its P&L?

I feel it is not unreasonable to simultaneously think that making some money in a sustainable fashion is a good thing--and at the same time also think that there is real value in expecting a functional moralism out of what are legally persons. I do realize that that is out of step with current (American) jurisprudence, but I also don't much care about that.

[alex_lav]

> Through this understanding I am able to come to the conclusion that it bad.

I've not commented on whether it's good or bad. I'm commenting about the apparent surprise at their behavior.

> Did Hashicorp's action better the society that granted its charter, or attempt to (and hopefully fail to) better its P&L?

The latter, as is their job.

[eropple]

> I've not commented on whether it's good or bad. I'm commenting about the apparent surprise at their behavior.

I assure you that I am not surprised.

I am angry, though.

[overtowed]

> it is literally their job to capture the entire thing and whatever else they can capture

Their job is to maximize shareholder value, and if attempting to capture the entire thing reduces shareholder value, which may occur in this case, they're not doing their job well.