How long would it take until they abused their power?
If someone is dominating the web it's Google and looking at their power and how much traffic they move—their actions feel balanced and neutral compared to any other player.
The more they consolidate their power, the less they seem constrained by this. I don't see anything that fundamentally distinguishes google from these other companies other than their present strategic position.
You can be successful with your product on the WWW without employing any Google services, being totally independent. If people and other sites like you and link back to you your traffic will quickly skyrocket—which feels natural. You are not obliged to use any Google service like GA. Just use the Internet and its open standards and you are ready to go because Google left the Internet's core like it is and didn't build a walled garden around it. That's the great thing about the web: it's decentralized and everybody can contribute, Google haven't tried to change this. That's why I don't like the native app trend with the appstore, all the innovation the Internet brought us are vanished by one central and strict entity and nobody cares, Android at least tries to emulate some parts of the net (i.e. by using intents, allowing multiple appstores, with the open nature of Android, etc.), Google is regarding their marketplace Play much more relaxed than Apple.
Looking at the Appstore or the Facebook API, there are so many rules which don't follow any of the core principles of the Internet. You have to play by these rules otherwise you are banned or completely and utterly dependent of one single entities. Moreover, if you then play by Apple's or Facebook's rules you still do not get the impact as from Google traffic-wise.
Ultimately, Google haven't entered the Chinese Market which shows the company's values. Every larger western corporation have build joint venture based branches in China—every corporation, except Google—and that's distinguishes Google.
There is I think a difference in company culture. Sure, it is not something you can measure like market capitalization or dividends, but that doesn't make it insignificant.
It is common for people to say that all big companies are equivalent in that they just look for the best strategy to maximize shareholder value, which they have to do by law. I don't think that's the complete picture: there are humans behind every company, behind every decision they make. If Larry Page and Sergey Brin believe in an open Internet, that will strongly influence what strategy among many they choose to maximize shareholder value. Well, as long as they have a controlling stake, which might be for a long time seeing the recently announced stock split.
But it's not only board members who determine how open a company is. For example, developers have their say in what technology or protocol will be used for a particular project. What they propose might depend on their personal views, and what passes as a valid argument (e.g. openness or standard compliance) depends on company culture. Personal views and company culture obviously depend on who gets hired, and that's a matter where anyone (developer, HR, etc.) might have a say. If Google employees have a bias towards hiring people who embrace open technologies, that will have an effect. And if Google's image tends to attract job applications from people who believe in an open Internet, that will also have an effect. This culture thing is probably more stable than a strategic position.
There are distinct business models at play here and that should be noted before arriving at a conclusion that Google is a benevolent corporate actor. The fact that Google (or any company for that matter) can dominate and observe traffic patterns and content should be a matter of concern to the democratically [in the contemporary sense] minded individuals.
What concrete action would you suggest to make the internet more democratic?
Imagine Facebook or Google controlled the mobile phone market like Apple do.
Imagine Apple or Google controlled social interaction like Facebook do.
Imagine Apple, Google or Facebook controlled desktops like Microsoft do.
Verizon and AT&T control the mobile phone market, all the new money tech cos wish they had that kind of government-granted monopoly.
For me they can keep the benevolence as a priority only if they become more something like a great worldwide university paid by some ads in a search engine.
The article brought to my mind a presentation Roger McNamee (Elevation Partners) has been circulating -"10 Hypothesis for Technology Investing."
A number of the points in the presentation illustrate a challenging future for Google:
- Index Search has peaked: Google's position of dominance on the web is fading, due largely in part to their own success.
- Apple's App Model Threatens the World Wide Web: a walled garden, un-indexable
- Rise of Social. Facebook owns. Again, a walled garden, un-indexable
- Lack of searches on mobile
Similar arguments were made in Wired's "The Web is Dead" feature, and they all point towards Google's core business going downhill.
The Guardian article made Sergey seem... well... butthurt. As if recognizing his lousy position, but instead of owning it, whining about it. I've always thought of Sergey as smarter than that. He's always seemed much more pragmatic than The Guardian article made him out to be. It didn't feel like the Sergey I [don't actually] know.
Certainly Sergey has gripes with Apple and Facebook, and certainly he has self-preserving motivations for responding as he did. But I feel like giving him more of the benefit of the doubt here and calling slight nanz on The Guardian for rabble-rousing as press outlets do.
Also - kudos to Sergey for his extremely diplomatic clarification there. We've all seen much less tactful responses to press spins.
10 Hypothesis Slides: http://read.bi/GMHoYQ
10 Hypothesis Video: http://bit.ly/w0qpeh
I agree with almost all his points, insiders are very bullish on Apple, the feeling's that %600 is nowhere near the peak, it'll be more like $1K. On the other hand, Google has started to give off the "has-peaked" vibe: the silly badmouthing of rivals, huge reorgs, half-thought out failed projects, not being clear of where to go next and milking the usual cow, etc.
One important point that he makes that I think is important to reiterate is how open the mobile area is, since non of the big guys currently have good extensions. So I think we'll see more of the Instagram-type successes (probably not on the $1B level, though).
Takeaways if you're an up and coming, young (or otherwise) developer: Learn the Apple stack (70% of your time) and learn HTML5/JS (20%).
I feel strongly about pushing it and getting it out there though. What's the etiquette on resubmissions?
I think a key issue here is that powerful incumbent corporations have always challenged the economic freedoms of smaller players and individuals operating in their space.
In the heyday that Brin refers to, those powerful corporations hadn't yet emerged. Now they have. The biggest challenge to starting a new eBay today is eBay. The biggest challenge to starting a new Google today is Google.
Going forward, what matters is the extent that a platform economically empowers its participants to create additional value. Ideological openness is just one dimension in that.
Facebook, Apple, and Google all do empower their participants in different ways and with different tradeoffs, as do startups like Square and Kickstarter.
On large companies... If individuals have issues with large companies they can simply go to an alternative. However government should intervene to ensure "internet" companies comply with the same laws as "non internet".
If a company is compliant then it is up to government to intervene and change laws. However law change should apply to all entities, on or off line.
Though after the scandel with the Met and News International maybe it RIPA sould be amended so that the Police dont have access without a warrent and leave just the SS and SIS.
Oh and remove any ability of local govenment from RIPA
Online store: You'd be paying for adwords, probably.
One of them being Google.
