> Larry Page worshiped Steve Jobs, who gave him a bunch of bad advice centered around maximizing profit.
What is so bad about maximizing profit? If you make a profit, it means people are willingly giving you money for the service you provide. You make more profit when people feel they benefit more from your service. People can complain about Google until the end of time, but as long as the cash keeps flowing then Google is getting the signal that everything they are doing is in the interest of the consumer.
Now, I don't know if the "decline" of Google, as asserted by the OP, has actually affected their bottom line, because I'm not on the board at Google. I just think it's silly to throw around the word "profit" as if it's some sort of evil goal. Profit is the foundation of a monetary-based economy, and therefore modern human civilization. There is no signal available that is as efficient as profit as a proxy for the wants of the consumer, and how to most efficiently allocate scarce resources.
>You make more profit when people feel they benefit more from your service. //
That's clearly not the only way to make more profit. If for example one has entrenched users and cuts the level of service markedly, or increases the cost, then profit increases. There is no need for anyone to benefit more other than the shareholders.
You can also improve a service without charging more. Again profit and benefit will not be directly correlated.
For me Google's search has been doing down-hill for a year or so, to my recollection. I've been using them for about 15 years. It's my primary point of contact despite using webmaster tools and a couple of other offerings.
Usually I try alternate SE about once every year to see if I can find something that works better for me. I just changed my primary SE to duckduckgo. Being so used to Google's interface it's proving hard but not impossible (as it was a last year for me); still not sure I'll settle on it but continually convinced Google isn't working any more.
"You can also improve a service without charging more. Again profit and benefit will not be directly correlated."
In your example, profit and benefit would in fact be directly correlated.
If you improve your service, without charging more, then more customers will want your product accordingly, and you will earn more profit all things being equal. In fact, this is one the most basic of all methods of earning more profit from an existing service or product: give customers a better service or product without raising prices, increasing the value proposition of your offering.
In the phrase "profit and benefit" it is implicit that the benefit is per customer. In your addendum it is profit and customer base that is correlated. As you imply, increased benefit (per customer) is also likely to lead to more customers, but not necessarily.
> What is so bad about maximizing profit? If you make a profit, it means people are willingly giving you money for the service you provide.
Fantastic point. Forking over money (or not) to a company is how we as consumers signal companies what we want. It is far, far more potent than firing out a tweet or posting on HN.
So if you truly hate what Google is doing, I sure hope that you aren't using Gmail, Android, Adwords, Hangouts, etc, etc. Otherwise your complaining here sends a small signal in the negative, but your actions send a bigger signal affirming Google's actions.
First off, I'm can't speak to Google's "maximizing profit" or what is wrong with Google doing it. I don't know anything about Google outside of what I read on the internet.
I can speak firsthand to seeing what happens when a company tries to maximize profit -- actually two companies.
One was a life insurance company with about 1,300 employees; another a tech company with around 500. The life insurance company was bought out by a large conglomerate and then a "management consulting / efficiency" company was brought in to "help". What really happened was the consulting company decided who was going to get laid off and who wasn't. While there was some dead weight in the company, many of the people laid off were not the dead weight - not sure how they really decided, but the outcome was not good from a personnel standpoint - it might have been from a profit standpoint initially. After that, morale was destroyed as well as the management culture becoming poisonous. Example: IT director charging departments for new computers and then keeping them for his area and giving the other departments his old ones. Basically it became a dog-eat-dog company that was eventually purchased by AIG - and most of us can remember what happened to that company.
The other company was a software and consulting company that was run by one of the founders until he decided to step back from the day to day operations (after he made a boatload of money) and have his accountant friend run the company. Prior to this, the company was one of the best to work for in the area. Its consultants were considered top-notch and the benefits were incredible. Since the accountant took over, morale is horrible and benefits are way down. I could go into detail, but you can find examples of bad cost cutting and morale busting decisions all over the internet - it seemed like this company did a lot of them.
The point is, maximizing profit often comes at the expense of the people who work for the company; and isn't good in the long run for the people or the company.
You're talking about short-term, temporary gains. There are two types of maximizing of profit: long term, and short term. The strategies required to execute them are polar opposites.
If the insurance company laid off productive workers that significantly contributed to their ability to earn a profit, then what you describe is the opposite of maximizing profit for the long haul. What it sounds like, is the insurance company got swallowed up by a vampire looking to suck the life out of it for a short term gain.
What is so bad about maximizing profit? If you make a profit, it means people are willingly giving you money for the service you provide. You make more profit when people feel they benefit more from your service. People can complain about Google until the end of time, but as long as the cash keeps flowing then Google is getting the signal that everything they are doing is in the interest of the consumer.
Now, I don't know if the "decline" of Google, as asserted by the OP, has actually affected their bottom line, because I'm not on the board at Google. I just think it's silly to throw around the word "profit" as if it's some sort of evil goal. Profit is the foundation of a monetary-based economy, and therefore modern human civilization. There is no signal available that is as efficient as profit as a proxy for the wants of the consumer, and how to most efficiently allocate scarce resources.