This is all true, but at the end of the day, the shareholders care about return on value, and they get that from selling ads. All this amazing tech doesn't generate any revenue.
People said the same thing about Bell Labs and they were profoundly wrong.
There is nuance. Saying A about B and being wrong does not imply saying A about C means you're wrong. It is indeed possible to lose focus on revenue and die. But it is also possible to focus too much on revenue and die. It is unclear if Google will achieve anything from it's "pure research" investments, but certainly they have room to try, and I personally am glad they are doing so.
> People said the same thing about Bell Labs and they were profoundly wrong.
They were profoundly wrong, but not about Bell Labs' ability to create value from their research. That, they were absolutely dead-on about. AT&T and Bell Labs were absolutely awful at reading the room about what their technology could do and how it could be monetized.
Some of that was just packaging things the right way, and some of it - like charging absolutely insane license fees for UNIX in the 80s and 90s during the beginnings of the personal computing revolution - was because of lazy execs who didn't want to really put in any effort. Either way, I'm not using a Bell Labs LabsBook Pro to write code for a UNIX OS, and I'm not using Bellgle to search for information. AT&T ultimately thought the best way to create value from Bell Labs was to sell that division.
We're in a long, hot AI summer, but we've had winters too. Who knows which hemisphere they're in at Google right now.
