More on the Google Is Less Than Good
March 24, 2013
I am surprised by the number of “real” journalists who have hopped on the Google is less than good bandwagon. How Google became saddled with the Don’t Be Evil catchphrase is of little interest to most folks. I knew, but I dismissed the story as typical corporate history making. Booz, Allen & Hamilton (before it devolved into two azure chip outfits) was into corporate story telling. Interesting stuff but not in sync with the reality of 60 hour weeks and a desire to be validated as the smartest consulting firm in the world. Impossible, right?
I read with some surprise “The Economics of Evil Google.” As of March 24, 2013, at 11 40 am Eastern, the story was publicly accessible. Your mileage may vary, which is an indication of the “evil economics” of the struggling New York Times’ shotgun marriage of print and online content distribution.
The jumping off point is “Google’s decision to shut down Google Reader.” Yep, but a number of options became available. There is a nod to Google being more like the regulated AT&T than a 21st century vision of the fathers’ of capitalism.
The write up then dives into a rah rah for Avent, which is an outfit involved in “network externalities.” I am not sure what this means, but I couldn’t figure out first year economics either. I was paid to go to college and I got very high grades without much effort. The economics stuff baffled me as did my getting paid to index sermons in Latin. Go figure.
The update does not help me out too much either. I was looking for more information about the Google is evil thing. Here’s what I learned:
You can see from the way that this is drawn is that there is no price at which a monopolist can cover its costs here; yet the losses from providing the service at a price that draws in the low-intensity users would be much less than the gains to high-intensity users from having the service available.
Ah. I get it. Google was not able to make money with yet another of its free services. I sort of knew that Google was making most of its money from advertising, so I suppose that losing money is bad. Making money is good. Therefore, Google is not really evil at all. I am delighted I am not an economist, naked, peripatetic, or freaky.
Is Google evil or good? Neither. The semantic hook is little more than a way to call attention to a company with which I am unfamiliar and to remind me that economics may deserve the moniker “dismal science.” I am okay with dismal. The science part confuses me as do the economics of traditional journalism, socio-economic analyses, and the present financial situation in which companies, the government, and I find myself swimming.
Maybe economists are evil? Companies are just companies. Will Avent become another Google? Will the New York Times acquire Avent? Will those looking for ways to track the gems of the Internet pony up big bucks for a superior service? I have no answers but “no” keeps echoing through my mind.
Stephen E Arnold
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
