>Open Source makes innovation possible for startups, Competition is for the grasping of a market and Innovation >doesnt need to grasp but just innovate. The aims are different.

I don’t agree with you if you are asserting that Innovation doesn’t need a marketplace (which is what you seem to be saying in your quote above “…and Innovation doesn’t need to grasp but just innovate. The aims are different”).

I think the only way that small companies can compete against the large is by innovation…which *has* to be followed by marketplace adoption. And it turns out that for small companies the marketplace adoption is almost always the hard part.

Even if a small company successfully innovates, market success (or even survival) based upon that innovation is far from guaranteed. That is, innovation by small companies gives small companies a chance to survive, but sadly there are lots of ways that innovation can be squashed by competition in the marketplace. There are lots of examples of this…some of which I’ve experienced personally…from large companies buying smaller ones (and effectively killing the smaller companies innovations), to beating them into the ground with sales (of sometimes far inferior products), to fud and so on.

A clarification request: Just so I (and maybe others) understand what you are saying in your comment…are you saying that Google’s two-class ownership structure materially changes its relationship with shareholders and investors?

Also a question that I’ve had since hearing about this ownership structure: Do you think it also has some effect on the likelihood of Google persuing innovation as a competitive business strategy?

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/twoclass_corporate_ownership_s.php

I am a Google employee, but I do not speak for Google.