Google, Apple, and perhaps 2-3 other companies, have the weird characteristic that they are unimaginably enormous, AND the vast majority of their value is actually goodwill.
It's true that Apple makes good devices and Google does good search, but their competitors are good enough.
What distinguishes Apple and Google from their competitors is that we like them more.
Not "we" the technical literati, but "we" billions of users.
As a result, they are SO careful about maintaining that goodwill. But is this careful as in afraid, or careful as in focused?
Google spent time building it, but now seems to want only not to screw up.
Apple is still building. It's always trying to build it, probably because it spent its 1990's adolescence as an outcast.
Twitter and Facebook are similarly large and had similar initial stories, but of late have induced massive distrust. People are there only because they have to be, and they're struggling.
Apple and Google see Twitter and Facebook as examples of what NOT to do with your goodwill.
Apple's growth and technical chops keeps investors at bay. But Alphabet's sprawling failures have heightened criticism, as Google-X and other nice-to-have's haven't turned out any measurable benefit (and measurement is how Sundar justifies his strategies).
So fingers-crossed that Google's quiet retrenchment doesn't result in a Twitter explosion. I'm not confident that switching out Sundar would help more than it hurts (which is the FUD that he lives by).
More importantly, the industry-wide refocusing on AI produces lots of demo-ware, but no business on a scale that could grow Google or Microsoft. That coming implosion worries me.
What's lost in the rush to AI is the question of bureaucracy: how to keep these massive organizations from being self-serving, particularly to the extent they engage with the outsourcing and consultancy that drive financialization.
WFH likely increases bureaucracy by privileging process and work-product over brainstorming and risk-taking, so my bet is still on Apple weathering the storm better than the others.
Apple sells several devices that are absolutely unique on the market. Not saying they are better, but if that's what users want (and many users do want that), they are not replaceable by something else.
Yes. Apple is built different. No other major tech company has the intense user focus that Apple does, and Apple users repay Apple's regard for them with good will -- buying and evangelizing their products, etc. Many of us know at least one "Apple person" who stays within the Apple ecosystem to the extent possible -- and loves it. I know several.
People don't really have the same good will for Google though. It's an ad company. They simply tolerate it.
It's true that Apple makes good devices and Google does good search, but their competitors are good enough.
What distinguishes Apple and Google from their competitors is that we like them more.
Not "we" the technical literati, but "we" billions of users.
As a result, they are SO careful about maintaining that goodwill. But is this careful as in afraid, or careful as in focused?
Google spent time building it, but now seems to want only not to screw up.
Apple is still building. It's always trying to build it, probably because it spent its 1990's adolescence as an outcast.
Twitter and Facebook are similarly large and had similar initial stories, but of late have induced massive distrust. People are there only because they have to be, and they're struggling.
Apple and Google see Twitter and Facebook as examples of what NOT to do with your goodwill.
Apple's growth and technical chops keeps investors at bay. But Alphabet's sprawling failures have heightened criticism, as Google-X and other nice-to-have's haven't turned out any measurable benefit (and measurement is how Sundar justifies his strategies).
So fingers-crossed that Google's quiet retrenchment doesn't result in a Twitter explosion. I'm not confident that switching out Sundar would help more than it hurts (which is the FUD that he lives by).
More importantly, the industry-wide refocusing on AI produces lots of demo-ware, but no business on a scale that could grow Google or Microsoft. That coming implosion worries me.
What's lost in the rush to AI is the question of bureaucracy: how to keep these massive organizations from being self-serving, particularly to the extent they engage with the outsourcing and consultancy that drive financialization.
WFH likely increases bureaucracy by privileging process and work-product over brainstorming and risk-taking, so my bet is still on Apple weathering the storm better than the others.