If you're a startup, don't do this. Maximizing the growth exponent does a lot more than tweaks on per-user revenue. Intentionally annoying users is bad business.
When companies do this, it's also good to look at PE ratios, since it suggests they don't anticipate growth.
Indeed. The question I have is does that mean it goes eventually the way of Microsoft/IBM, or the way of SGI/Computer Associates?
HP is at about a fifth of it's peak market cap, largely as a result of a similar play.
I'd short Google, but there's an old saying that markets can be irrational far longer than an individual wallet can sustain a short....
I has entered this phase at least 10 years ago.
No one is suggesting Google should encourage anything. Openly user-hostile actions devalue brand and trust. That's doubly-true for power users who are thought leaders.
If Walmart has store security shoot suspected shoplifters and unionizers with a 9mm, discontinuing that policy would not be encouraging unions or shoplifting.
This is a straw man. I obviously didn't mean that I thought you suggested that Google should explicitly tell people to use ad-blockers.
Now tell me how not doing anything to discourage people from blocking YouTube ads supports Google's long term interests. Or tell me how they could discourage people from blocking their ads without "[devaluing] brand and trust."
Google maintains a monopoly and their brand. Profits are entire the of percent lower by the few power users who use all blockers. Big-O profits remain similar.
That contrasts with real competition, brand loss, or monopoly loss. That can lead to astronomically lower profits.