Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Don't be evil
Interesting.
To borrow from Rym, where is Google going right now? The past is immutable, but I want to know if their trendline is going up or down.
We are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.I assume shutting down Google China would cost them a fair amount of money, but it seems they think it is worth it. It's good to see some not-evil after that "If you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it" business a while back.
To borrow from Rym, where is Google going right now? The past is immutable, but I want to know if their trendline is going up or down.
Comments
If everyone refuses to cooperate with China, the few who buck the trend and do cooperate stand to make a lot of money because they will have little competition.
If everyone cooperates with China, those few who buck the trend will make the majority look like bad guys, and will gain substantially from the good will they receive for being the good guys.
Up until now every business, including Google, has taken the stance of "it's not our job to fix China." They're just picking orange while everyone else continues to pick apple.
1. Does this affect the business side of Google (stock price, profitability, industry perception, etc...)?
2. Does this matter to Google's business philosophy ("Do no evil")?
Google made this decision due to one or more of these two factors. There really isn't anything else to be considered.
This is clearly a boon to item #2. It's unclear if it's a boon or a detriment to item #1.
The same logic applies to all other multinational corporations that do business with China. Most companies ignore item #2 and decide based on item #1. For all we know, Google did this as well. We can't know, and it doesn't matter. Google's motivation may be altruistic, or it may be entirely profit-driven, or some combination of the two.
What matters is how the rest of the industry reacts. Google has put the spotlight on Microsoft and Yahoo in a big way. They have to react to this. Google is either going to stand alone as a defector to the standard industry practice, or they are going to be the bellweather of a massive shift.
Scott's assessment is pretty accurate, I'd say.
EDIT: What constitutes evil from Google's perspective? Is it more or less evil to comply with censorship but at the same time attempt to push back against that censorship by pushing boundaries and toeing the line (as they have done in the past) in order to provide a service that will be provided by another company that may not push the envelope?
How will each decision effect public image? How does each decision help or hurt the Chinese people? How does each decision help or hurt the Chinese government? How does this cultural and financial campaign help or hinder any movements toward freedom within China? Will this in any way change Google's policy with India? What other company would step up to fill the void? Are Google's shareholders more interested in investing a company whose profits may be tempered by a corporate conscience or are they more interested in sheer profit regardless of any appearance of or demonstration of corporate conscience? Would appearing to back down on their "Don't Be Evil" slogan hurt their public image and profit margins and create room for other companies to take over some of their markets? Etc.
And so forth.
All of these points are interesting and warrant discussion. But, from a business perspective, it's just a matter of what effect this has on the business itself. Regardless of why Google is doing this, and what effects it will have, the core analysis at Google comes down to a business decision.
The decision itself was a very simple one. Defect or don't defect. I don't know why you disagreed with this and tried to argue that it wasn't so simple when it clearly is. The decision itself was to either defect or not. Every other company is playing China's game. Google was too, but they were pushing the boundaries. They have now defected.
We should discuss the points you raised. Google most definitely considered them. But the action they took was one of only two possible options, as they have defected from the third (their previous course).
Your attack on Scott's point was entirely unnecessary, and Scott was 100% correct. Everything you brought up was nothing more than one factor to consider in making the actual, simple decision. The complexity of the evidence does not alter the complexity of the decision, it only increases the complexity of the decision-making process. Conflating the two only hinders analysis.
EDIT: Also, the simple options of "defect or don't defect" ignore other possible negotiated outcomes, loopholes, dummy companies, etc.