Google Leaves China

[Marx Chaotix]

The only reason I haven't until just now posted this topic up was because I thought that this was already on the forums until just now. This is somewhat old news but still relatively new and is probably still making it's away around the nets. *ehem* As I'm sure a great majority of you have known by now Google has officially left China all together.
http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/feeli ... aves-china
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/2 ... 08639.html

As stunned as I am, I can't help but question Google's motives for leaving China for good. You'd think that they'd want to stay considering the fact that China is more than likely funding Google's censorship on all Chinese servers. What's their motives for leaving China out of the blue like this? Do they just think they're just to good for them? lol I dunno but either way I found this to be somewhat of a shocker. (But yet again China had it coming) I am well aware that these articles post personal reasons for doing so but, you still have to remember that though the administrators are the head of Google's that it's entire embodiment still functions as a business should and that is to generate profit regardless. Bah, I dunno. I just don't see that as reason enough to leave China regardless of political reasons. Just seems to fishy to me.

[avansc]

a day after they pulled out(thats what she said), i got my gmail account hacked from a dude in china.
thats whats fishy, and thats what she said.

[EccentricDuck]

I applaud their decision, pulling out from "Big Brother China". If they weren't forced to be involved with censorship and reinforcing their totalitarian system and strong history of human rights abuse, then I may agree with you. As it stands, Google is forced to abide by their controlling and corrupt laws, and I support their decision in backing away from that. Direct profit, as a sole motivator behind a company's decisions, never seemed like a great way to govern a company to me.

In many ways, focusing less on specific profits and more on innovation and people has been a big part of why they've done so well. Their corporate environment is a shining example. They treat their employees great, give them nap rooms, exercise rooms, fairly open schedules, time to work on projects of their interest... and from it they get what they currently have - and profit results from it. Was it risky, sure, but it worked well. I think that attitude and care for people and innovation plays a big role in this decision too.

[Falco Girgis]

Good for them. Fuck China. I think this should have happened sooner.

[programmerinprogress]

I just feel sorry for the people of china, who DO want open access to the internet, and DO want to exercise their right to democracy, but are hindered by the heavy filtering and censorship by their government, but I agree, google did the right thing, they clearly felt it was against their morals to censor their search engine, and it makes a big statement to any oppressors of free thinking

[Marx Chaotix]

I applaud their decision, pulling out from "Big Brother China". If they weren't forced to be involved with censorship and reinforcing their totalitarian system and strong history of human rights abuse, then I may agree with you. As it stands, Google is forced to abide by their controlling and corrupt laws, and I support their decision in backing away from that. Direct profit, as a sole motivator behind a company's decisions, never seemed like a great way to govern a company to me.

In many ways, focusing less on specific profits and more on innovation and people has been a big part of why they've done so well. Their corporate environment is a shining example. They treat their employees great, give them nap rooms, exercise rooms, fairly open schedules, time to work on projects of their interest... and from it they get what they currently have - and profit results from it. Was it risky, sure, but it worked well. I think that attitude and care for people and innovation plays a big role in this decision too.

I can't possibly find myself agreeing with you any more than I am now. I agree and I am glad that Google sees more in it than simply profits. I am glad to see Google being the bigger man than China and leaving. It's just rare to see a company that cares and sees more than profit in their corporal decisions and that I guess was why I was confused.

[avansc]

Google might be nice and all, but trust me, for a buck they'll piss on your face. They have an oblation to the share holders.

also, China is huge, most of the people there live much much much happier lives than the "free" people in america, which coincidentally is also NOT a democracy.

[Marx Chaotix]

Google might be nice and all, but trust me, for a buck they'll piss on your face. They have an oblation to the share holders.

also, China is huge, most of the people there live much much much happier lives than the "free" people in america, which coincidentally is also NOT a democracy.

Of course not. It's a Republic. lol

[avansc]

You would be surprised how many people think america is a democracy. id be willing to wager that 9 out of 10 people on the steer that actually knew at least one political system would say democracy.

[Ginto8]

You would be surprised how many people think america is a democracy. id be willing to wager that 9 out of 10 people on the steer that actually knew at least one political system would say democracy.

Well technically a republic is just a democracy with a level of abstraction provided. So you COULD argue that a republic and democracy are fundamentally the same, but it must be noted that our republic is just a great big pile of corruption for the most part.

[eatcomics]

Amen ginto

[EccentricDuck]

Google might be nice and all, but trust me, for a buck they'll piss on your face. They have an oblation to the share holders.

Frankly I have to say that you're wrong. I'm not naive enough to think that profits aren't a huge motivator, but many intelligently managed and successful companies look beyond the bottom line to the additional ramifications of their actions (at least some of them). I'd wager that, given your example, Google would tend to shy away from having an employee to walk up and "piss on my face for a buck" given that it doesn't align with the values they support (and they are one of those companies that actually has a tendency of following those values) and that the potential for negative kickback wouldn't be worth it. I'm not going to pretend they're some shining utopia, but they've done a pretty good job holding themselves to a degree of integrity - and as I said before they have a hugely innovative, productive, and motivated team as well as an incredibly successful business model.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that innovation and integrity are completely separate. There's a lot to be said for positive thinking and actions. Besides, karma can be a bitch

[avansc]

First of all, don't think someone, even google, doing something "nice" for you or anyone, is because they do it just to be nice.
google has NO interest in appeasing your personal wants, if they can do that in the process of making money, great, but in no way is that their or any other business' priority.

Yes, google has a way of doing things very smartly business wise. and they tend to find that place where they can do things that on the surface seem like a gift to "us", but thats a by-product of their innovation, not the other way around.

innovation and integrity do not stem from each other, they dont have anything to do with each other.
you can keep integrity while being innovative, but it guarantees no better innovation than when you dont try to keep integrity incorporated.

in anyways, integrity is completely subjective, and can not be measured by any universal means.
"There's a lot to be said for positive thinking and actions. Besides, karma can be a bitch."
Well what about the cute little anecdote, "nice guys finish last"....

ps:"I'd wager that, given your example, Google would tend to shy away from having an employee to walk up and "piss on my face for a buck" given that it doesn't align with the values they support"

i was obviously not being literal in the action or the amount, i was just trying to say that they have no allegiance to you, they only have that to money.

[EccentricDuck]

in anyways, integrity is completely subjective, and can not be measured by any universal means.
"There's a lot to be said for positive thinking and actions. Besides, karma can be a bitch."
Well what about the cute little anecdote, "nice guys finish last"....

Integrity may be subjective to a degree, but it's meaning is solid enough to be definable. It refers to a sense of consistency with regard to values (those values are the subjective part). In an engineering sense it's similar but instead of values it refers to physical structural integrity (is it strong enough across the whole body to withstand such and such). It's been said that the foundations of countries lie in consistent legal systems and government structures because it provides the stability/predictability for focusing on other things (like building roads, schools, etc). I'd also agree that a company that is consistent in its actions is more likely to attract investment (risk-assessment is all about predictability), top notch employees (who trust the reputation), and consistency in the quality of products that they deliver (Google's done a pretty good job of this). On top of that, for all of those things to be consistent you've got to be doing the same thing that you say you'll be doing. I've heard several people bitch about their company's "values" or poke fun at them since they really don't mean anything - and it shows (I definitely noticed it at a few of the places I've worked, and I never stuck around those places for long).

Part of the uncertainty in this whole Google in China thing was that there wasn't really a predictable message - but now they've finally confirmed which way they're going.

Now on the other part, I honestly believe more in my quote than yours, but hey, if "nice guys finish last" is what you want to live by then go for it. I just probably won't want to work with you.

[avansc]

i know what integrity means, i didnt need a definition, certainly not the one relating to structural integrity thats not even germane to the topic.
anyways, not to interested in discussing this further since its completely subjective. and i have nothing against google, you can read other post on here where i defend them. and i do love what they do, but i have no misconceptions that they are doing them for us to keep us happy, us being happy is just a very nice by-product.

also, the nice guys comment was not to be literal, i dont believe that, just as much as i dont believe in karma being a bitch, or in karma for that matter.

ps: you so wanna talk about google and their "values". well i dont think google has any values in a traditional sense. they just like stickin it to the MAN, just like when they told the US govt to go take a shit when they wanted ip's of people who searched for child pornography... now as much as i respect privacy, i think you should ask people with small children if they care if google released the IP's of potential sex predators targeting children... i consider my self to be a person with at least some modicum of integrity(altho some might disagree), but but i'll give that person up to the authorities in a heart beat... and im sure you or anyone else on this forum would too..