crote 8 hours ago

It isn't exactly news, though. This isn't a Forbes issue, or a Google issue. Pretty much every single large company is actively being ruined by parasites. We're dealing with a generation of CEOs / CFOs who were taught to care about nothing except short-term shareholder value. Quality and reputation doesn't matter anymore, so you replace your products with cheap garbage and hope nobody notices. When that inevitably fails, every single part of the company including its name is being torn apart and sold piece by piece, until nothing is left but an empty shell with a lot of debt.

We're intentionally ruining our economies and praising the people doing it. If the "Western" world gets economically steamrolled by Asia in the next couple of decades, we've got nobody to blame for it but ourselves.

  • akira2501 8 hours ago

    > It isn't exactly news, though.

    It's exactly news. It spots the issue, dives into it, exposes the source of it, and details the structure of how it came into existence. That's what news is. That you're not surprised by it is not material.

    > we've got nobody to blame for it but ourselves.

    Ironically you are the one who characterized this article as "not news."

  • cruffle_duffle 7 hours ago

    > If the "Western" world gets economically steamrolled by Asia in the next couple of decades, we've got nobody to blame for it but ourselves.

    Implicit in that statement is that only the "Western world" has that "short erm shareholder value" ethos. I'd say that is quite debatable.

  • bsder 5 hours ago

    > This isn't a Forbes issue, or a Google issue.

    That's wrong. This is very much a Google monopoly issue.

    Google has zero incentive to improve search for users since there is no competition. Google has every incentive to maximize the amount of money that search makes them.

    Simply busting up companies with monopolies would fix 80%+ of the problems.

    • stonogo 2 hours ago

      > Google has zero incentive to improve search for users since there is no competition.

      Not sure I buy this. People will overwhemingly choose 'cheap' over all other qualities. Anyone providing the sort of competition to Google will have to 1) do it for free, 2) be better enough to displace users, and 3) stay in business long enough to matter. Even if you broke Google up, who would be in a position to compete with their search platform?

  • Dalewyn 8 hours ago

    >We're dealing with a generation of CEOs / CFOs who were taught to care about nothing except short-term shareholder value. Quality and reputation doesn't matter anymore, so you replace your products with cheap garbage and hope nobody notices.

    There is a line where you really do need to compromise on quality and even reputation to keep costs down, though. If you can't or refuse to do that, you end up stagnant and irrelevant like Japan.

    Customers ultimately don't care how much sincerity and effort was infused into a product as long as it's past a certain "good enough" threshold.

    • ghaff 5 hours ago

      Yes, there's a lot of crap out there but I also don't want to pay a huge premium for everything so that it lasts a lifetime (and will probably be outdated or out of fashion long before that).

charlie0 9 hours ago

Yes, this is a big deal, but most of us have simply stopped using Google and moved on to other tools.