I was being hyperbolic but it's not that far from the reality of the situation. Google's decline started around the same time as that merger.

I'm not the only one who thinks this way: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/technology/google-doublec...

See also Boeing merging McDonald Douglas[1] [1]https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merg...

I know there were rumblings in the late 00's and early 10's about how McDonnell Douglas culture and executives were ruining Boeing.

But some people take a step farther back than this and blame Congress for the 737 MAX. They basically forced the merger, and unhappy weddings make for unhappy homes.

I've seen plenty of mergers where there's a weird brain transplant and flippozambo! the acquired company's leadership is now in charge of the buying company. The fish, as they say, trots from the head.

I totally agree with you. Ads have influenced everything they’ve done since. It’s like a brilliant, talented individual who has been addicted to heroin for a decade.

Yeah but google also became wildly successful to the point that they blow money on ventures with no real businesses plan and give up two years later when they can't turn a profit. They effectively have a blank check at all times. They're more like a businessman who's addicted to making money at the expense of all their personal relationships.

Regarding unhinged ideas, doubleclick is quite old, but is it old enough that opening a hyperlink would've typically required a double click at the time? Or is the metaphor here that their ads are so amazing people are double-clicking them in ecstasy?

Double-click, as others have said was never something you did with hyperlinks, even before the web.

Double-clicks were used with icons on the desktop because you could do more with an icon than just open it. You could move it, copy it, etc. Double-click was a convention for a shortcut to open the reference of the icon. A single-click would have not allowed those other actions.

Because of this, double-click became business speak for going to the next level of detail, digging into, etc.

The idea behind this name for ads was: this company makes ads relevant and compelling, so users drill into them and find whatever you want to advertise.

For what it's worth, because of the affordance you mention, even though users didn't have to, they consistently double-clicked banner ads, and most things they wanted to activate, even after they learned they only had to single click the blue underlined things.

Your use of the past-tense is premature, I see double-clicking all the time at work.

Have we moved so far past the desktop that this knowledge is starting to be lost?

I had to swap real quick to my desktop and see if I still had to double click an icon just to be sure.

I mostly access things with the super key / search now and I guess people with phones would just tap an icon.

You can configure single clicking in Windows, or at least you once could.

You can but that means hovering over files for a second will select them (and clear your previous selection). Other systems (e.g. KDE) manage single click to open without that annoyance.

> A single-click would have not allowed those other actions.

Yes it would. And did. Windows chose double click to open but other systems managed with a single click while still allowing you to drag around icons and files.

Opening a hyperlink has never required a double click in browsers. Not from Mosaic forward.