Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. Have you noticed that all the buttons you click most frequently to invoke routine, useful function in your device have been moved, and their former place is now taken up by a curiously butthole-esque icon that summons an unwanted AI?

Have you noticed that all the buttons you click most frequently to invoke routine, useful function in your device have been moved, and their former place is now taken up by a curiously butthole-esque icon that summons an unwanted AI?

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
13 Indlæg 2 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

    Growth is a heady advantage for tech companies, and not because of an ideological commitment to "growth at all costs," but because companies with growth stocks enjoy substantial, material benefits. A growth stock trades at a higher "price to earnings ratio" ("P:E") than a "mature" stock. Because of this, there are a *lot* of actors in the economy who will accept shares in a growing company as though they were cash (indeed, some might *prefer* shares to cash).

    3/

    pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
    pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
    pluralistic@mamot.fr
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #4

    This means that a growing company can outbid their rivals when acquiring other companies and/or hiring key personnel, because they can bid with shares (which they get by typing zeroes into a spreadsheet), while their rivals need cash (which they can only get by selling things or borrowing money).

    The problem is that all growth ends. Google has a 90% share of the search market.

    4/

    pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

      This means that a growing company can outbid their rivals when acquiring other companies and/or hiring key personnel, because they can bid with shares (which they get by typing zeroes into a spreadsheet), while their rivals need cash (which they can only get by selling things or borrowing money).

      The problem is that all growth ends. Google has a 90% share of the search market.

      4/

      pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
      pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
      pluralistic@mamot.fr
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #5

      Google isn't going to appreciably increase the number of searchers, short of desperate gambits like raising a billion new humans to maturity and convincing them to become Google users (this is the strategy behind Google Classroom, of course). To continue posting growth, Google needs *gimmicks*.

      5/

      pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

        Google isn't going to appreciably increase the number of searchers, short of desperate gambits like raising a billion new humans to maturity and convincing them to become Google users (this is the strategy behind Google Classroom, of course). To continue posting growth, Google needs *gimmicks*.

        5/

        pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
        pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
        pluralistic@mamot.fr
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #6

        For example, in 2019, Google intentionally made Search less accurate so that users would have to run multiple queries (and see multiple rounds of ads) to find the answers to their questions:

        https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/

        Thanks to Google's monopoly, worsening search perversely resulted in increased earnings, and Wall Street rewarded Google by continuing to trade its stock with that prized high P:E.

        6/

        pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

          For example, in 2019, Google intentionally made Search less accurate so that users would have to run multiple queries (and see multiple rounds of ads) to find the answers to their questions:

          https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/

          Thanks to Google's monopoly, worsening search perversely resulted in increased earnings, and Wall Street rewarded Google by continuing to trade its stock with that prized high P:E.

          6/

          pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
          pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
          pluralistic@mamot.fr
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #7

          But for Google - and other tech giants - the most enduring and convincing growth stories comes from moving into adjacent lines of business, which is why we've lived through so many hype bubbles: metaverse, web3, cryptocurrency, and now, of course, AI.

          7/

          pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

            But for Google - and other tech giants - the most enduring and convincing growth stories comes from moving into adjacent lines of business, which is why we've lived through so many hype bubbles: metaverse, web3, cryptocurrency, and now, of course, AI.

            7/

            pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
            pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
            pluralistic@mamot.fr
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #8

            For a company like Google, the promise of these bubbles is that it will be able to double or triple in size, by dominating an entirely new sector. With that promise comes peril: growth must eventually stop ("anything that can't go on forever eventually stops"). When that happens, the company's stock instantaneously goes from being a "growth stock" to being a "mature stock" which means that its P:E is way too high.

            8/

            pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

              For a company like Google, the promise of these bubbles is that it will be able to double or triple in size, by dominating an entirely new sector. With that promise comes peril: growth must eventually stop ("anything that can't go on forever eventually stops"). When that happens, the company's stock instantaneously goes from being a "growth stock" to being a "mature stock" which means that its P:E is way too high.

              8/

              pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
              pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
              pluralistic@mamot.fr
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #9

              Anyone holding growth stock knows that there will come a day when those stocks will transition, in an eyeblink, from being undervalued to being grossly *overvalued*, and that when that day comes, there will be a mass sell-off. If you're still holding the stock when that happens, you stand to lose bigtime:

              https://pluralistic.net/2025/03/06/privacy-last/#exceptionally-american

              So everyone holding a growth stock sleeps with one eye open and their fists poised over the "sell" button.

              9/

              pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                Anyone holding growth stock knows that there will come a day when those stocks will transition, in an eyeblink, from being undervalued to being grossly *overvalued*, and that when that day comes, there will be a mass sell-off. If you're still holding the stock when that happens, you stand to lose bigtime:

                https://pluralistic.net/2025/03/06/privacy-last/#exceptionally-american

                So everyone holding a growth stock sleeps with one eye open and their fists poised over the "sell" button.

                9/

                pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                pluralistic@mamot.fr
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #10

                Managers of growth companies know how jittery their investors are, and they do everything they can to keep the growth story alive, as a matter of life and death.

                But mass sell-offs aren't just bad for the company - it's also *very* bad for the company's key employees, that is, anyone who's been given stock in addition to their salary.

                10/

                pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                  Managers of growth companies know how jittery their investors are, and they do everything they can to keep the growth story alive, as a matter of life and death.

                  But mass sell-offs aren't just bad for the company - it's also *very* bad for the company's key employees, that is, anyone who's been given stock in addition to their salary.

                  10/

                  pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                  pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                  pluralistic@mamot.fr
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #11

                  Those people's portfolios are extremely heavy on their employer's shares, and they stand to disproportionately lose in the event of a selloff. So they are *personally* motivated to keep the growth story alive.

                  That's where these growth-at-all-stakes maneuvers bent on capturing an adjacent sector come from.

                  11/

                  pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                    Those people's portfolios are extremely heavy on their employer's shares, and they stand to disproportionately lose in the event of a selloff. So they are *personally* motivated to keep the growth story alive.

                    That's where these growth-at-all-stakes maneuvers bent on capturing an adjacent sector come from.

                    11/

                    pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                    pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                    pluralistic@mamot.fr
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #12

                    If you remember the Google Plus days, you'll remember that every Google service you interacted with had some important functionality ripped out of it and replaced with a G+-based service. To make sure that happened, Google's bosses decreed that the company's bonuses would be tied to the amount of G+ activity each division generated. In companies where bonuses can amount to 90% of your annual salary or more, this was a powerful motivator.

                    12/

                    ? 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                      If you remember the Google Plus days, you'll remember that every Google service you interacted with had some important functionality ripped out of it and replaced with a G+-based service. To make sure that happened, Google's bosses decreed that the company's bonuses would be tied to the amount of G+ activity each division generated. In companies where bonuses can amount to 90% of your annual salary or more, this was a powerful motivator.

                      12/

                      ? Offline
                      ? Offline
                      Gæst
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #13

                      @pluralistic I can personally attest that this is the sole reason why YouTube's comment system was replaced by Google+, over the very loud objections of many YouTube employees. Then, Vic Gundotra bragged at TGIF that he'd "grown G+ to a billion weekly active users".

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • jeppe@uddannelse.socialJ jeppe@uddannelse.social shared this topic
                      Svar
                      • Svar som emne
                      Login for at svare
                      • Ældste til nyeste
                      • Nyeste til ældste
                      • Most Votes


                      • Log ind

                      • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                      • Login or register to search.
                      Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                      Graciously hosted by data.coop
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Hjem
                      • Seneste
                      • Etiketter
                      • Populære
                      • Verden
                      • Bruger
                      • Grupper