
Capitalism the Apple way vs. capitalism the Google way - cdvonstinkpot
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/apple-google-capitalism/532995/?single_page=true
======
restalis
_" Rather than spending money on failed products (remember Google Plus?) or
managers’ pet projects, Apple has to face the disciplining force of large
investors."_

So how would a large company stay innovative without testing ideas with "pet
projects"? One may suggest letting the startups do the experimenting and buy
only the results, which is not a bad strategy but that limits your options,
especially if you have ideas of your own. Google Plus was that kind of
experiment that, after Facebook, had low chances of succeeding unless it was
backed by a big name. Having being tried by Google directly, instead of by
some inexperienced entrepreneur in a start-up or in some Google incubator,
actually conferred it a higher chance of success. If that wasn't enough - too
bad, but at least it was tried. And considering the stakes of succeeding in
social networks, taking the risk of developing Google Plus was justified.
Bashing now the Google founders for that decision is just mean.

~~~
majewsky
Yeah. Huge hindsight bias at work.

I bet that investors would have shot down both the iPod and iPhone development
if they had had a say in it.

------
raleighm
Describing Apple's situation as its "vision" or "strategy" is misleading.
Apple required significant prodding to get to the point described in the
article. A public company without a dual ​voting ​structure can only resist
shareholders so much. ​It's hard to imagine that if Apple were incorporated
today that the founders wouldn't have wanted to retain significant control.
​In any case, even with a dual structure, founders owe fiduciary duties to
other shareholders​; they ​can't do whatever they want.

Also, these are not ​"​alternative models of capitalism​". These are
alternative models of public company corporate finance - a much narrower
discussion.

------
mjevans
I'd like Google to use some of that money to try raising up (taking over) a
small town and turning it in to a haven for those who want science, facts, and
logic to be the focus. Where decisions affecting the community will be studied
by experts, reflected upon, and the best overall course of action taken;
instead of allowing lobbying and other traditional politics to dictate a
solution that awards only a few.

I think /that/ is how you create opportunities for all, including affordable
places for workers to have a high quality life, and companies able to afford
offices near their workers.

~~~
didgeoridoo
Seems like you're describing Scientific Socialism. Its track record in the
20th century was... not great, if you don't like mass starvation and death
camps.

