So I should take away from this post that Oracle has given you more than Google did?
Because that's what it sounds like to me. Personally I admire companies that are giving me value.
> yet they back off that principle when it's inconvenient
Regarding both net neutrality and Chinese censorship, Google did what nobody else did.
So I really don't get this line of reasoning.
Personally I take away from this that my company shouldn't give a crap about anything other than money, because all you're achievements don't mean squat in the end apparently.
So I should take away from this post that Oracle has given you more than Google did?
Neither has given me anything that I didn't pay for, either directly or indirectly.
Regarding both net neutrality and Chinese censorship, Google did what nobody else did.
Which is what, exactly?
When push came to shove, they acted no differently than any other large corporation.
Personally I take away from this that my company shouldn't give a crap about anything other than money, because all you're [sic] achievements don't mean squat in the end apparently.
I don't understand your emotional attachment to Google.
mechanical_fish said it better than I could, so I'll just quote part of his reply here:
It would be refreshing if people stopped pretending that these inter-corporate battles had anything to do with either morality or the public good.
Neither has given me anything that I didn't pay for, either directly or indirectly.
That's not strictly true. I would argue that Google provides a greater amount of consumer surplus than Oracle. Consumer surplus pretty much amounts to value you obtain from a product or service that the producer can't capture in the price.
Comments
So I should take away from this post that Oracle has given you more than Google did?
Because that's what it sounds like to me. Personally I admire companies that are giving me value.
> yet they back off that principle when it's inconvenient
Regarding both net neutrality and Chinese censorship, Google did what nobody else did.
So I really don't get this line of reasoning.
Personally I take away from this that my company shouldn't give a crap about anything other than money, because all you're achievements don't mean squat in the end apparently.
So I should take away from this post that Oracle has given you more than Google did?
Neither has given me anything that I didn't pay for, either directly or indirectly.
Regarding both net neutrality and Chinese censorship, Google did what nobody else did.
Which is what, exactly?
When push came to shove, they acted no differently than any other large corporation.
Personally I take away from this that my company shouldn't give a crap about anything other than money, because all you're [sic] achievements don't mean squat in the end apparently.
I don't understand your emotional attachment to Google.
mechanical_fish said it better than I could, so I'll just quote part of his reply here:
It would be refreshing if people stopped pretending that these inter-corporate battles had anything to do with either morality or the public good.
Neither has given me anything that I didn't pay for, either directly or indirectly.
That's not strictly true. I would argue that Google provides a greater amount of consumer surplus than Oracle. Consumer surplus pretty much amounts to value you obtain from a product or service that the producer can't capture in the price.