<i>"Rather than spending money on failed products (remember Google Plus?) or managers’ pet projects, Apple has to face the disciplining force of large investors."</i><p>So how would a large company stay innovative without testing ideas with "pet projects"? One may suggest letting the startups do the experimenting and buy only the results, which is not a bad strategy but that limits your options, especially if you have ideas of your own. Google Plus was that kind of experiment that, after Facebook, had low chances of succeeding unless it was backed by a big name. Having being tried by Google directly, instead of by some inexperienced entrepreneur in a start-up or in some Google incubator, actually conferred it a higher chance of success. If that wasn't enough - too bad, but at least it was tried. And considering the stakes of succeeding in social networks, taking the risk of developing Google Plus was justified. Bashing now the Google founders for that decision is just mean.
Describing Apple's situation as its "vision" or "strategy" is misleading. Apple required significant prodding to get to the point described in the article. A public company without a dual voting structure can only resist shareholders so much. It's hard to imagine that if Apple were incorporated today that the founders wouldn't have wanted to retain significant control. In any case, even with a dual structure, founders owe fiduciary duties to other shareholders; they can't do whatever they want.<p>Also, these are not "alternative models of capitalism". These are alternative models of public company corporate finance - a much narrower discussion.
I'd like Google to use some of that money to try raising up (taking over) a small town and turning it in to a haven for those who want science, facts, and logic to be the focus. Where decisions affecting the community will be studied by experts, reflected upon, and the best overall course of action taken; instead of allowing lobbying and other traditional politics to dictate a solution that awards only a few.<p>I think /that/ is how you create opportunities for all, including affordable places for workers to have a high quality life, and companies able to afford offices near their workers.