Any company that becomes publicly traded gets turned to the dark side. That’s the factor that does it because they have a legal requirement to do everything they can to maximize profits.
Trying to sustain perpetual growth will always lead to companies fucking over their customers and employees.
I live Valve, but there’s always that nagging bit in the back of my mind reminding me that they can always turn evil in the span of a few years. And the recent debacle with Dolphin doesn’t help
No, Dolphin was their fault. Valve reached out to Nintendo before Dolphin was added to the store. If Valve hadn’t asked Nintendo for permission first, Nintendo probably would have said nothing
It makes sense though. People can already install Dolphin wherever they want, including the Steam Deck. But Valve probably thinks they can get Nintendo to publish on Steam. It wasn’t so long ago that Sony and Microsoft maintained exclusivility on their platforms. Valve doesn’t win anything allowing Dolphin on Steam, but it can potentially anger Nintendo.
No. That is not at all what happened. No DMCA takedown notice was ever sent in this.
What happened is that Dolphin applied to go on Steam and announced that. Then Valve emailed Nintendo asking for permission. Nintendo said they didn’t want it on the store, pointed to parts of the DMCA which were not actually valid for a theoretical case, and Valve blocked Dolphin from going on Steam
Valve is already evil: they locked down their steam client (unacceptable in the times of GOG, and Epic Games) and allow developers to put DRM in their games. Outside of that they were the pioneers of digital gambling with CS:GO and TF2 and using anti-features as a way to entice people to purchase micro-transactions.
There is also the B Corp designation (short for Public Benefit Corporation) which allows a company to balance its responsibility towards the share holders with some other benefit it aims to provide where the share holders aren’t the (only) beneficiaries.
It’s why I think worker-owned coops should be more common. Research shows that they’re a more resilient business model than hierarchical businesses. I think it’s because they can largely avoid the principle-agent problem, wherein executives and investors act on behalf of the company, but their personal incentives do not necessarily align with the company’s. For example, a CEO has a vested interest in pumping up profitability in the short term, even if it’s by slashing R&D funding and alienating customers long-term, so they can get nice numbers to pad their resumé. Likewise, investors just want their investment back.
With a coop, overall control of the company’s decisions is guided more by the long-term health of the company, as that’s what is best for the workers. It aligns incentives, avoiding the perverse incentives that cause hierarchical businesses to make unsustainable, short-term business decisions.
Google also had, realistically, no competition in the online ads business for most of that time. Microsoft tried so hard but never broke into that market. No other online ad company could even come close to google 2000-2010 in terms of scale, technical chops, etc.
It’s easy to have principals, it’s hard to live up to them. The first real competitor to Google’s online ads dominance was Facebook and has caused Google to completely shit the bed (from practices and policy, they’re obviously doing well money wise)
A company that survives long enough eventually gets turned to the dark $ide. Greedy asshats will always ruin a good thing for their own benefit
Any company that becomes publicly traded gets turned to the dark side. That’s the factor that does it because they have a legal requirement to do everything they can to maximize profits.
Trying to sustain perpetual growth will always lead to companies fucking over their customers and employees.
While I feel this is true there are so few privately owned companies that prove this as fact. Holds breath that steam never fucks over its customers
I live Valve, but there’s always that nagging bit in the back of my mind reminding me that they can always turn evil in the span of a few years. And the recent debacle with Dolphin doesn’t help
deleted by creator
No, Dolphin was their fault. Valve reached out to Nintendo before Dolphin was added to the store. If Valve hadn’t asked Nintendo for permission first, Nintendo probably would have said nothing
Nintendo is required by law to do something or else they run the risk of losing their trademarks.
It makes sense though. People can already install Dolphin wherever they want, including the Steam Deck. But Valve probably thinks they can get Nintendo to publish on Steam. It wasn’t so long ago that Sony and Microsoft maintained exclusivility on their platforms. Valve doesn’t win anything allowing Dolphin on Steam, but it can potentially anger Nintendo.
Nintendo sent them a DMCA takedown request for the Dolphin Steam page. So I don’t think we can blame Steam for wanting to stay out of legal trouble
No. That is not at all what happened. No DMCA takedown notice was ever sent in this.
What happened is that Dolphin applied to go on Steam and announced that. Then Valve emailed Nintendo asking for permission. Nintendo said they didn’t want it on the store, pointed to parts of the DMCA which were not actually valid for a theoretical case, and Valve blocked Dolphin from going on Steam
You’re right.
Sorry, I just heard somewhere Nintendo sent a DMCA notice and assumed it was right because that seems like a Nintendo thing to do.
Valve is already evil: they locked down their steam client (unacceptable in the times of GOG, and Epic Games) and allow developers to put DRM in their games. Outside of that they were the pioneers of digital gambling with CS:GO and TF2 and using anti-features as a way to entice people to purchase micro-transactions.
That’s likely in part due to the fact that they’d really like to he publicly traded.
deleted by creator
There is also the B Corp designation (short for Public Benefit Corporation) which allows a company to balance its responsibility towards the share holders with some other benefit it aims to provide where the share holders aren’t the (only) beneficiaries.
deleted by creator
It’s why I think worker-owned coops should be more common. Research shows that they’re a more resilient business model than hierarchical businesses. I think it’s because they can largely avoid the principle-agent problem, wherein executives and investors act on behalf of the company, but their personal incentives do not necessarily align with the company’s. For example, a CEO has a vested interest in pumping up profitability in the short term, even if it’s by slashing R&D funding and alienating customers long-term, so they can get nice numbers to pad their resumé. Likewise, investors just want their investment back.
With a coop, overall control of the company’s decisions is guided more by the long-term health of the company, as that’s what is best for the workers. It aligns incentives, avoiding the perverse incentives that cause hierarchical businesses to make unsustainable, short-term business decisions.
catabolic stage of capitalism
Being good is good for growth, but investors eventually want that payout.
Google also had, realistically, no competition in the online ads business for most of that time. Microsoft tried so hard but never broke into that market. No other online ad company could even come close to google 2000-2010 in terms of scale, technical chops, etc.
It’s easy to have principals, it’s hard to live up to them. The first real competitor to Google’s online ads dominance was Facebook and has caused Google to completely shit the bed (from practices and policy, they’re obviously doing well money wise)
'You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain"