Google got its start by walking into an existing (and frankly much more mature) market for search and competing with the existing players "without reason". Likewise advertising was pretty well served before they showed up. And I'm pretty sure email predates their dominant platform there, too. I'm not sure what's "Microsoftian" about this in particular, but it's certainly "Googly".
Honestly, this (and a lot of the other posts here) sounds more like sports cheering to me than analysis. Dropbox is part of the "YC team", so their competitors are the bad guys?
> Honestly, this (and a lot of the other posts here) sounds more like sports cheering to me than analysis. Dropbox is part of the "YC team", so their competitors are the bad guys?
Holy crap. I finally understand why Hacker News users hate Google.
I neither own Dropbox stock nor know anyone employed by them, so the poisoning the well wasn't necessary.
I'm talking strictly about Google. It's not 2004, Google is sitting at enough poker tables right now, they don't need to join another unless there is a very good reason to do so (a hole in their ecosystem, for one).
I have no financial stake in the New England Patriots, nor do I know anyone employed by them. I still hate Peyton Manning (OK, poor analogy this season, but still).
The final sentence seems ridiculous on its face. Read simply, it sounds like you think Google shouldn't be doing product development at all. There's a word for tech companies that stop "joining new tables": "stagnant".
Honestly, this (and a lot of the other posts here) sounds more like sports cheering to me than analysis. Dropbox is part of the "YC team", so their competitors are the bad guys?