*when he has stopped being financially reliant on it.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google, all had alternative paths where they make significantly less money but are much more of a positive influence on the internet and society at large. They chose money - and here we are. I struggle to think of a single organization (even Mozilla) in their class of company that did NOT choose the money. And it makes me think the financial structure of all these companies forces them from conception to use the money path.
It’s arguable whether apple would have made more money by reducing the price on their devices and maximizing ad revenue from customer behavior (ie android).
I kind of feel like they made their decisions based on Jobs’ hardware profit margins strategy that worked well before service or data profit margins.
Also, although not a company I feel like Apache has turned down multiple opportunities to sell out and kept to their principles.
He's not truly powerless though. He's got plenty of money that can be put to use by lobbying for anti-trust, pro-privacy legislation and stronger regulations on social media companies.
Sure. But he has been CEO of Twitter like three times. And yet Twitter is, well, Twitter. If he actually cared he could have done something. His words will always ring hollow because every time he is the guy to enact change he doubles down on… Twitter.
> It’s amazing how this guy only grows a conscience when he’s powerless to do anything about it.
When I talked with him about his founding of Twitter in 2006, I thought he had a conscience back then, and was one of the nicest people I’ve ever had the opportunity to meet. 99% of the criticism against him as a person is FUD from his competitors.
