How the fuck are you supposed to enter the market of some expensive complicated field (like smartphones, cars, image search, or some other advanced tech field) if you can't rely on existing funds and profit?
I get what you mean. On the whole, the U.S. is still the "wild west" of regulation, meaning that there really isn't any. As such, we've incentivized development of tech in the private sector; for medicine, space travel, software, etc. There are various repercussions resulting from all of this, but whatever. Google is one of the few private entities that does funnel profits back into basic R&D, where there isn't necessarily a guaranteed product. But they know how many spiders you've swallowed during each phase of your sleep cycle. When I weigh the pros and cons, it's not an easy decision.
I always thought that the "funnel profits back into R&D where there's not necessarily a guaranteed product" is a good thing. Since not everything that's needed is profitable. And a lot of things have significant startup costs. Look at space travel. No guaranteed returns, no guaranteed timeline, massive startup costs, etc. But it's going to be needed in the future, and no one's working on it except a few groups with burnable cash.
I agree, but you've got shareholders looking for the 10% annual growth. You can run an analysis and say "If we just curtail profits only slightly for the time being, we can invest in new sectors that will guarantee explosive future growth", and it's not a guaranteed sell. There are subsidies to develop tech that Musk has taken full advantage of, and why shouldn't he? I think everyone can agree that both federal and state subsidy systems could use major reform, but they do help drive some developments that keep our businesses globally competitive. But burnable cash always helps, that's a fact.
And how Google failed to calculate the anti-trust climate difference in the EU vs. at home in Silikhan Valley. Remember when the US was seriously considering the merger of Time Warner and Comcast? That kind of deal would've never passed initial inspection in any EU country. Pile on Snowden's stuff and foreign (US) dominance of "big" internet software, and this headline was just about inevitable. Honestly, I'm neutral on the whole affair, because Google does kinda scare me a bit. It's an incredible toolbox of applications at this point, and has attracted some of the brightest minds in software for employees. But yeah, Skynet and shit. That kind of sentiment isn't invalid to me. It was an interesting article on how events and settings interplay to influence future influences. It's recursive and fractal and weird and stuff.
James Bamford has made the point in three different books that the majority function of the NSA and CIA are actually industrial espionage for American companies. Shadow Factory outlines several of the dust-ups that the CIA has caused in order to further American business interests [(Toshiba scandal, anyone?)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba-Kongsberg_scandal). He even points out that the NSA, Google and Microsoft have colocated server farms in Utah. Don't see "Big Brother." See "American Military-Industrial Complex" and you're closer to the truth. There's always a profit motive behind any business venture, and any large defense organization within a capitalist country is a business venture. Frankly? If you're the EU you stomp on Google just to give Airbus a leg up.
Growing up means understanding all of these puzzle pieces better with time, I think. I'm tryna make bebe steps. The "deep state" hypothesis is still one of the most interesting formulations of a modern and evolving superstructure across the West. It's fun trying to imagine how countries' natural survival instincts (as featured by the Bloomberg piece) play into everything. What a spectacle, though, the world stage.
The first time I heard the phrase "The Great Game" I was like "oh."