You cannot wield the kind of economic power Google does and not be evil, at least for the working definition many people have of "evil".

We've put a huge hunk of our intellectual and economic capital under the control of a marketing company. I really, really like Google, but I don't see this situation as being stable over a period of decades. Maybe 5-10 more years or so, but not a lot longer.

These kinds of decisions, where we pick economic winners and losers, are political decisions, no matter who makes them. (Personally I abhor making them, but that doesn't change what they are). These knife guys have representatives. Indeed, every small business Google has run over has democratic representation. Each year Google continues to make these decisions the political hue and cry will increase. This can't go on forever like this. "Don't be evil" was a great slogan, but its days are numbered. Perhaps over.

Side note: one of the ways I can tell Google's power has grown too large is the elliptical way many commenters have of criticizing it. They're unhappy with its actions, perhaps even livid, but it's always a tone of "Golly! This is really unfortunate and I'm sure nobody at Google really meant to do this, but...."

This is the same way you'd criticize a king, somebody you are beholden to. "Golly! I know you, the king, are not at fault, but some of these advisers of yours must have accidentally goofed up somewhere..."

Whereas if Dell, the electric company, or the garage down the street screws up in your eyes? Different tone entirely.

> Is there some sort of crazy game of one-upmanship in the USA as to who can drive the most impractical gas guzzler?

Not at all. It’s just that in the USA, things are on a different scale, and it makes sense to have larger vehicles.

For example, a couple of years ago on eBay I bought a second-hand carrier battle group. Now, if you’re not from the USA, I can already hear you objecting that “it’s impractical” to drive a small fleet of ocean-going vessels on suburban streets, or that “it’s wasteful” to retain a staff of thousands just to make the daily commute, or that it’s “not all that great, environment-wise,” to knock over city blocks every time I make a Starbucks run. And, in your country, I’d guess you’d have a point. But here in the USA, once you factor the need to carry back all the stuff we buy at Costco, you can see how the extra capacity of a carrier battle group would actually save you trips and, in the long run, be more efficient than a smaller vehicle. So, once you think it through, it actually makes sense.

It’s all a matter of scale.

And rather than publicly criticising Ted (see the article) you talk about ways to avoid these deadline misses in the future.

The problem that HBR misses here is making the issue "about Ted" rather than "missing the deadline." If you can credibly talk about what was needed to make the deadline and wasn't there, then you can talk to the solution. Ted may come up to you in private and say "I'm not sure I can handle this" but they don't need to feel like a turd.

I once explained to a person that if I asked them to lift a car off the street would they consider themselves a failure for not being able to do it? or me unreasonable for asking it? They said it was an unreasonable ask. (which in that way it is) and then I asked "Ok, so if I said we need that car up and off the street, can you take care of that?", their response was "What tools can I use?" and I say "What do you need?", they say "A crane, a crane operator" and I say "Ok, the crane company will be in touch." Now they are going to achieve the same thing, "Get the car lifted off the street" but it's not about them, its about getting what is needed to be done, actually done.