Was it a good step for Google to buy YouTube back when it was full of (way more) pirated music, movies and tv show episodes? I remember at least one article that questioned Google for buying YouTube back then, calling them out for the piracy.
I see what you mean, but I don't think the two are comparable. Granted, my morals about copyright infringement are a lot looser than sexual impropriety.
The point being they've improved a LOT since the acquisition, and that they can do the same with Uber. I feel it's wrong to assume that Google wont do anything to fix up Uber if they do acquire them.
Not quite - the Youtube co-founders intentionally kept most of the piracy claims/problems under wraps until after the Google acquisition. Uber may have been trying to do the same with the sexual harassment, except now it's out in the open, pre-acquisition.
The single greatest "innovation" at YT was the monitization scheme and licencing deals that automatically shuffled ad revenue to the copyright holders, effectively solving the piracy issues while still allowing users to share whatever they wanted to whatever soundtrack (with some exceptions).
That innovation was mostly a financial one and probably could only have been brought about with the leverage of the existing Google ad network, and the critical mass of users using YT for music piracy. YT is a much better experience for it too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxigNvJxGn4 Teenage Mutant Hardcore Turtles was one my favorite first memes. I was so saddened when the soundtrack was ripped out when I went to show my friends. I was pleasantly surprised to have the true sound track back after Google fixed the moneyz.
I remember a lot of the piracy situation improving sometime after Google took over. I remember YouTube as the place you could type a movie or show quote and find a clip for that movie or show quote. Now you're lucky if you find it on YouTube, especially if you find the original clip without any oddness to it.
> With much of the sexual impropriety stories at Uber, is it really a good PR move for Google to go ahead with such acquisition?
Maybe; the problem is an HR/management one, which an acquisition in which upper management and HR are largely replaced and lower management is scrutinized under a microscope could probably resolve quickly to prevent any ongoing issues, and not keeping the Uber name in use would deal with most of the public image issues.
It's not just a problem of upper management and HR. It sounds to me like a rotten culture from the bottom up. This is not the case at Alphabet (so far as I know), so what happens when a clash of cultures hits? Usually, people that can't adapt are fired or marginalized until replaced. In such a case, is the purchase of Uber worth it or necessary?
> In such a case, is the purchase of Uber worth it or necessary?
The platform and existing customer and (at least in the transitional phase) driver relationships are not without value, and there's probably IP value as well (and, if they've really built on stuff stolen from or encumbered I by patents owned
by Google, it's potentially uniquely valuable to Google, compared to other buyers.)
So, I mean, even an “acquifire” where none of the actual people employed by Uber are retained might be worthwhile, at the right price.
Why not? They are not complicit in this, and they can have legitimate claim to clean it up. And even some credit for the future, where they can treat new cases as "remnants from the old management". Of course, that credit will expire, but not immediately.
