[somedude895]

Meta and Google both are companies that got lucky and managed to carve out a quasi-Monopoly in their space. Sure, they did a lot of things right at first and provided a popular product, but for the past years/decades they've been using their money to buy other companies, adding a veneer of "innovation" to their image, constantly coming up with "cool stuff" that they're unable to market successfully, but ultimately they're just milking their insanely profitable core product they came up with 20 or so years ago, like any legacy corp. I have no respect for either of those companies having to work with them in my day job, knowing how lazy and incompetent they are with the services that actually make them money.

[vovavili]

That's the unfortunate outcome of running a business at scale.

[boelboel]

Google has bad governance, same with many other big businesses in the tech related sector partially because of the extremely generous position founders were in during the 00s and interest rates. In industries with lower margins like chemical/material industry you don't get away with this because managers in these industries are way better at telling value from non-value. There's been activist investors ( e.g. Christopher Hohn) who tried getting Google to run a tighter ship but with the dual stock setup there's not much which can be done.

[majani]

The 2000s were a startup winter after the dotcom bubble burst. In those days you were extremely lucky if you could raise over $100k in funding and in revenue $100m was the ultimate fantasy. ZIRP was the 2010s

[boelboel]

You're right, what did happen around that time is that founders would be kept in charge of their companies instead of being replaced by CEOs (e.g. Founders Fund). The combination of the founders staying in power facilitated with dual class shares/ZIRP in 2010s (Google had their 2004 IPO) would be more correct.

[Schlagbohrer]

So in other words, "Thanks Obama"