> That isn't enough. Due to the frankly idiotic way corporate investors think 'any company that isn't growing must be dying'.

I despise it when I see large companies make business moves purely to "grow". The big ones are roughly the size of the first world, excuse them for not growing a full 20% like they did last year.

Investors are in a bubble of "bigger is better". Who cares if you have a monetization strategy or how good your product is, how big are you? Who cares about the quality of interaction, how much did you get?

You see the social media giants like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc, make UX moves that their dedicated userbase displakes purely because they're trying to tap into the long tail of users. Sometimes it feels like they would prefer 3x the userbase at 1/5 the average interaction quality because moar unique active accounts/month!!111

I would bet this ridiculous obsession with QonQ growth is responsible for half the irritating garbage UX we experience. It tests better for engaging the long tail so it ships. It's why your timelines/feeds refuse to sort chronologically, the casual masses only do drive-bys and need to be hooked/engaged every micro-chance that presents itself. It's why they want to curate your feeds, because most people are turned off by a raw firehose and the best content needs to be front and center when they do glance past it.

It's why Twitter literally runs ads literally telling people how to choose a username[0], because if you have a phone then please create an account, like seriously omgplzcreateanaccountwehavetogrowlikethisquarter!!!

Sorry, sore spot for me.

[0]: https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/comedian-romesh-ranga...

Yes, it seems that the traditional "stocks and shares" approach to funding is only suitable for a particular phase of the development of a business.

Past a certain point it's actually bad for the business, employees and customers. I wonder why businesses don't just seek a more stable funding model once they get there.

Pardon my ignorance but this sounds like just the kind of thing that "Bonds" are for. Long term, slow steady growth. It also sounds like specifically the kind of investment opportunity Warren Buffet seeks out, so there must be some logic to it.

That’s not true. Google is trying to grow because it thinks it still can, and thus investors expect it to. Companies like GE or Maersk have already saturated their market positions, and are now considered value stocks that return dividends, rather than increasing investors stock holding value.

Not true about either GE or Maersk.

They have businesses in very broad areas, including areas of high growth and innovation. Lack of imagination, poor management, poor judgement, poor execution... That's what is happening. Both are run by greedy people with a dinosaur mentality.