[keyboardP]

>Maybe, but where the idealism gone? Both on HN, in tech circles, and, yes, at Google, there was some healthy dose of idealism. You know, this thing that make people do thing for something else than money, for the better good of humanity for example.

The people who brought Linux, Vim etc.. had a different motive from the outset. A public company spending millions, if not billions, on a project needs to see return on that investment. I'm not saying that the people involved were not doing it for the sake of improving technology for humanity, and they certainly have, but when you're accountable to shareholders profits often take higher priority.

[UweSchmidt]

It's a truism that a company will try to make more money. I often find people in comments lecturing this basic in a way that feels a bit repetitive and sometimes condescending. It's not your comment, but it adds up so finally I took to replying.

Too often in these kinds of threads people start with something like "Google should have..." or Apple should..." and arguing from the position of those companies. People play armchair manager and identify fully with a multi billion dollar corporation.

I don't mind studying a business case for education, but I can't cheer on every silly action that a company ends up doing, intentionally or not.

The accountability to shareholders also seems a little like a strawman at times. With regards to Android, a few years ago you could have convincingly argued different product/marketing strategies.

Denying every single "good" action in our professional lifes because it could cheat a shareholder somewhere ... that would definitively be a strawman.

[keyboardP]

That's a fair comment but stating what makes sense from a business perspective isn't the same as saying you support the actions. Far from it, but when you discuss the actions of companies, you have to see it from their point of view. That doesn't mean you agree with that they're doing but it helps explain the reasoning and rationale behind it.

What's right for consumers may not be, and often isn't, right for the business so it's not a case of "right" or "wrong" (because that can vary depending on who's point of view you're looking from) but a case of explaining why the strategy was taken.

>Denying every single "good" action in our professional lifes because it could cheat a shareholder somewhere ... that would definitively be a strawman.

No one said every single good action can be denied and, in fact, I explicitly said that I don't believe the people involved didn't have good intentions. However, if there was a choice to be made between increasing profits or "being good", a public company would often choose the profit route.

I understand what you mean regarding the accountability to the shareholders but I think it's used more as a euphemism to say that they are required to make a profit. They're more than welcome to have a philanthropic branch to their company but if you're investing millions of investor funds without financial gain, questions will be asked; that's the reality.