This is a contradiction.
If the likelihood of acquisition goes down, so does the likelihood of startup funding. Which means the likelihood of growing into a large company goes down too.
I don't think it's a good idea to want a world where companies like Google are less likely to come about.
Google cannot come about now. There is literally no need to have the world's most used search engine, mobile OS, browser, video streaming website, maps application under the same corporate umbrella. Only one of these was built in-house, every other one was acquired.
I, as a consumer, would rather make that decision myself. If you don't want to use Google Maps that's up to you. I don't see why you'd force me to do the same.
As it stands, Maps falling under Google means that I and many others on this planet, from Africa to the Middle East to Asia and others, get to use it for free because it's subsidised by Google's search ads.
A standalone maps company would have to charge money to run the service. People around the world (along with businesses small and large) would be poorer if this were the case.
I defend your choice to dislike this state of affairs. But it's rather difficult to defend a proclivity to take choice away from the rest of us.
Yes. That is typically how businesses work. That cost is being subsidized by an uber-entity that is slurping private data of its more economically valuable customers at every turn. Why is it fair to do that?
> But it's rather difficult to defend a proclivity to take choice away from the rest of us.
Where is my choice to step out of this Big Brother ecosystem? If Maps was so awesome, why did Google acquire Waze? And why was it allowed to?
I'm kinda hoping we're getting to the lessons learned point of easy debt burn it till you make it startup culture.