Search is to Google what Windows was/is to Microsoft then, their core business, but all other efforts/products/services seemed fringy.
Some basic rules for when it's acceptable to read/interpret data that passes through a company's systems need to be codified into law.
Or just update privacy laws in the US for the computer age.
You can extend that to non-profits, or governments. Even individuals change with time and circumstances. We shouldn't DEPEND on anyone or any systems to "not be evil". We need rule of law instead.
How did the rest of the story go, though? Microsoft now has a growing suite of great products that are no longer "fringe".
There's some middle ground between practices like this article and preventing companies from innovating in spaces outside their core business.
I guess if you have nothing really valuable to say, resort to name calling though am I right?
So, what are you upset about? Because I used his commonly understood nick name to say it?
That's what somebody in his position would claim. A more objective statement would be: "The company profits doubled during his tenure".
Besides, we have no idea what would have happened if a Pichai-style leader professing love for open source and sound understanding of the role of the Internet appeared instead.
Sounds like it helps if your monopolist tactics get stopped, the company has incentive to actually offer valuable products and innovate and voila, stuff happens.