Google AI Videos: Grab Your Popcorn and Kick Back
December 20, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
Google has an artificial intelligence inferiority complex. In January 2023, it found itself like a frail bathing suit clad 13 year old in the shower room filled with Los Angeles Rams. Yikes. What could the inhibited Google do? The answer has taken about two years to wend its way into Big Time PR. Nothing is an upgrade. Google is interacting with parallel universes. It is redefining quantum supremacy into supremest computer. It is trying hard not to recommend that its “users” use glue to keep cheese on its pizza.
Score one for the Grok. Good enough, but I had to try the free X.com image generator. Do you see a shivering high school student locked out of the gym on a cold and snowy day? Neither do I. Isn’t AI fabulous?
Amidst the PR bombast, Google has gathered 11 videos together under the banner of “Gemini 2.0: Our New AI Model for the Agentic Era. What is an “era”? As I recall, it is a distinct period of history with a particular feature like online advertising charging everyone someway or another. Eras, according to some long-term thinkers, are millions of years long; for example, the Mesozoic Era consists of the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods. Google is definitely thinking in terms of a long, long time.
Here’s the link to the playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqYmG7hTraZD8qyQmEfXrJMpGsQKk-LCY. If video is not your bag, you can listen to Google AI podcasts at this link: https://deepmind.google/discover/the-podcast/.
Has Google neutralized the blast and fall out damage from Microsoft’s 2023 OpenAI deal announcement? I think it depends on whom one asks. The feeling of being behind the AI curve must be intense. Google invented the transformer technology. Even Microsoft’s Big Dog said that Google should have been the winner. Watch for more Google PR about Google and parallel universes and numbers too big for non Googlers to comprehend.
Somebody give that kid a towel. He’s shivering.
Stephen E Arnold, December 20, 2024
A Monopolist CEO Loses His Cool: It Is Our AI, Gosh Darn It!
December 17, 2024
This blog post flowed from the sluggish and infertile mind of a real live dinobaby. If there is art, smart software of some type was probably involved.
“With 4 Words, Google’s CEO Just Fired the Company’s Biggest Shot Yet at Microsoft Over AI” suggests that Sundar Pichai is not able to smarm his way out of an AI pickle. In January 2023, Satya Nadella, the boss of Microsoft, announced that Microsoft was going to put AI on, in, and around its products and services. Google immediately floundered with a Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Show in Paris and then rolled out a Google AI service telling people to glue cheese on pizza.
Magic Studio created a good enough image of an angry executive thinking about how to put one of his principal competitors behind a giant digital eight ball.
Now 2025 is within shouting distance. Google continues to lag in the AI excitement race. The company may have oodles of cash, thousands of technical wizards, and a highly sophisticated approach to marketing, branding, and explaining itself. But is it working.
According to the cited article from Inc. Magazine’s online service:
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella had said that “Google should have been the default winner in the world of big tech’s AI race.”
I like the “should have been.” I had a high school English teacher try to explain to me as an indifferent 14-year-old that the conditional perfect tense suggests a different choice would have avoided a disaster. Her examples involved a young person who decided to become an advertising executive and not a plumber. I think Ms. Dalton said something along the lines “Tom would have been happier and made more money if he had fixed leaks for a living.” I pegged the grammatical expression as belonging to the “woulda, coulda, shoulda” branch of rationalizing failure.
Inc. Magazine recounts an interview during which the interlocuter set up this exchange with the Big Dog of Google, Sundar Pichai, the chief writer for the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Show:
Interviewer: “You guys were the originals when it comes to AI.” Where [do] you think you are in the journey relative to these other players?”
Sundar, the Googler: I would love to see “a side-by-side comparison of Microsoft’s models and our models any day, any time. Microsoft is using someone else’s models.
Yep, Microsoft inked a deal with the really stable, fiscally responsible outfit OpenAI and a number of other companies including one in France. Imagine that. France.
Inc. Magazine states:
Google’s biggest problem isn’t that it can’t build competitive models; it’s that it hasn’t figured out how to build compelling products that won’t destroy its existing search business. Microsoft doesn’t have that problem. Sure, Bing exists, but it’s not a significant enough business to matter, and Microsoft is happy to replace it with whatever its generative experience might look like for search.
My hunch is that Google will not be advertising on Inc.’s site. Inc. might have to do some extra special search engine optimization too. Why? Inc.’s article repeats itself in case Sundar of comedy act fame did not get the message. Inc. states again:
Google hasn’t figured out the product part. It hasn’t figured out how to turn its Gemini AI into a product at the same scale as search without killing its real business. Until it does, it doesn’t matter whether the competition uses someone else’s models.
With the EU competition boss thinking about chopping up the Google, Inc. Magazine and Mr. Nadella may struggle to get Sundar’s attention. It is tough to do comedy when tragedy is a snappy quip away.
Stephen E Arnold, December 17, 2024
Google: More Quantum Claims; Some Are Incomprehensible Like Multiple Universes
December 16, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
Beleaguered Google is going all out to win a PR war against the outfits using its Transformer technology. Google should have been the de facto winner of the smart software wars. I think the president of Microsoft articulated a similar sentiment. That hurts, particularly when it comes from a person familiar with the mores and culinary delights of Mughlai cuisine. “Should have, would have, could have” — very painful to one’s ego.
I read an PR confection which spot lit this Google need to be the “best” in the fast moving AI world. I envision Google’s leadership getting hit in the back of the head by a grandmother. My grandmother did this to me when I visited her on my way home from high school. She was frail but would creep up behind me and whack me if I did not get A’s on my report card. Well, Google, let me tell you I have the memory, but the familial whack did not help me one whit.
“Willow: Google Reveals New Quantum Chip Offering Incomprehensibly Fast Processing” is a variant of the quantum supremacy claim issued a couple of years ago. In terms of technical fluff, Google is now matching the wackiness of Intel’s revolutionary Horse-something quantum innovation. But “incomprehensibly”? Come on, BetaNews.
The PR approved write up reports:
Google says that its quantum chip took less than five minutes to perform tasks that would take even the fastest supercomputers 10 septillion years. Providing some sense of perspective, Google points out that this is “a number that vastly exceeds the age of the Universe”.
Well, what do you think about that. Google is edging toward infinity, the contemplation of which drove a dude named Cantor nuts. What is the motivation for an online advertising company being sued in numerous countries for a range of alleged business behaviors to need praise for its AI achievements. The firm’s Transformer technology IS the smart software innovation.
Google re-organized in smart software division, marginalizing some heavy Google hitters. It drove out Googlers who were asking questions about baked in algorithmic bias. It cut off discussion of the synthetic data activity. It shifted the AI research to London, a convenient 11 hours away by jet and a convenient eight time zones away from San Francisco.
The write up trots out the really fast computing trope for quantum computing:
In terms of performance, there is nothing to match Willow. The “classically hardest benchmark that can be done on a quantum computer today” was demolished in a matter of minutes. This same task would take one of the fastest supercomputer available an astonishing 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to work through.
Scientific notation exists for a reason. Please, pass the message to Google PR, please.
Okay, another “we are better than anyone else at quantum computing.” By extension, Google is better than anyone else at smart software and probably lots of other things mere comprehensible seeking people claim to do.
And do you think there are multiple universes? Ah, you said, “No.” Google’s smart quantum stuff reports that you are wrong.
Let ‘s think about why Google has an increasing need to be held by a virtual grandmother and not whacked on the head:
- Google is simply unable to address actual problems. From the wild and crazy moon shots to the weirdness of its quantum supremacy thing, the company is claiming advances in fields essentially disconnected from the real world.
- Google believes that the halo effect of being so darned competent in quantum stuff will enhance the excellence of its other products and services.
- Google management has zero clue how to address [a] challengers to its search monopoly, [b] the negative blowback from its unending legal hassles, and [c] the feeling that it has been wronged. By golly, Google IS the leader in AI just as Google is the leader in quantum computing.
Sorry, Google, granny is going to hit you on the back of the head. Scrunch down. You know she’s there, demanding excellence which you know you cannot deliver. For a more “positive” view of Google’s PR machinations couched navigate to “The Google Willow Thing.”
There must be a quantum pony in the multi-universe stable, right?
Stephen E Arnold, December 16, 2024
The EU Cafeteria Wants to Serve Grilled Google
December 10, 2024
This write up was created by an actual 80-year-old dinobaby. If there is art, assume that smart software was involved. Just a tip.
How does one cook a kraken (a Norwegian octopus)? Here’s the recipe from Garlic & Zest:
- Clean the octopus, remove the beak(s) and place them in a large, heavy pot or Dutch oven.
- Add the vegetables, wine and corks.
- Bring to a boil, reduce heat to a simmer and cook for 45 minutes to one hour.
The hapless octopus awaits its fate. The goal is to serve up tasty individual dishes and follow up with a refreshing takoyaki. Thanks, MidJourney. Looks tasty.
I want to point out that the creature dies in this process. Now to the write up:
“Google Split Still on the Table, New EU Antitrust Chief Says” reports:
A potential split of Google’s business is still under consideration, according to Teresa Ribera, the European Union’s new competition chief, who also pledged to build bridges with incoming US President Donald Trump.
That’s the intent to grill the delectable sea monster, according to some children’s books.
The person setting the menu and supervising the chefs who will chop off the tentacles, remove its beak (ouch!), tenderize the helpless creature, and plop it on the barbie is Teresa Ribera.
For those who don’t follow Spain’s emergent leaders, Ms. Ribera is a socialist who will find some philosophical points of difference between her new kitchen team and the Wild West chuckwagon approach taken toward Google in the US of A.
The cited news story says the new EU Antitrust chef (sorry, I meant chief) allegedly said:
“It’s [chopping up Google] something that is of course on the table, and we try to work together with other relevant competition authorities worldwide, including the US competition authorities,” she said. ‘It is important to take into consideration this potential division, divestment of some of these businesses. We will be assessing case-by-case.”
The question is, “When will the main course be served?” Restaurant kitchens — like Brussels, the French and German governments — can be chaotic places.
Stephen E Arnold, December 10, 2024
Google and 2025: AI Scurrying and Lawsuits. Lots of Lawsuits
December 6, 2024
This is the work of a dinobaby. Smart software helps me with art, but the actual writing? Just me and my keyboard.
I think there are 193 nations which are members of the UN. Two entities which one can count but are what one might call specialty equipment organizations: The Holy See aka Vatican City and the State of Palestine. The other 193 are “recognized,” mostly pay their UN dues, and have legal systems of varying quality and diligence.
I read “Google Earns Fresh Competition Scrutiny from Two Nations on a Single Day.” The write said:
In India – the most populous nation on Earth – the Competition Commission ordered [PDF] a probe after a developer called WinZo – which promotes itself with the chance to “Play Mobile Games & Win Cash” – complained that Google Play won’t host games that offer real money as prizes, only allowing sideloading onto Android devices.
Then it added:
Advertising is the reason for the other Google probe announced Thursday, by the Competition Bureau of Canada – the world’s second-largest country by area. The Bureau announced its investigations found Google’s ads biz “abused its dominant position through conduct intended to ensure that it would maintain and entrench its market power” and “engaged in conduct that reduces the competitiveness of rival ad tech tools and the likelihood of new entrants in the market.” The Bureau thinks the situation can be addressed if Google sells two of its ads tools – but the filing in which the identity of those two products will be revealed is yet to appear on the site of the Competition Tribunal.
Whether Google is good or evil is, in my opinion, irrelevant. With the US, the EU, Canada, and India chasing Google for its alleged misbehavior, other nations are going to pay attention.
Does that mean that another 100 or more nations will launch their own investigations and initiate legal action related to the lovable Google’s approach to business? In practical terms what does this mean?
- Google will be hiring lawyers and retaining firms. This is definitely good for legal eagles.
- Google will win some, delay some, and lose some cases. The losses, however, will result in consequences. Some of these will require Google to write checks for penalties. These can add up.
- Conflicting decisions are likely to result in delays. Those delays means that Google will be more Googley. The number of ads in YouTube will increase. The mysterious revenue payments will become more quirky. Commissions on various user-customer-Google touch points will increase.
Net net: We have a good example of what a failure to regulate high technology companies for a couple of decades creates. Kicking the can down the road has done what exactly?
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2024
Batting Google and Whiffing the Chance
December 6, 2024
This is the work of a dinobaby. Smart software helps me with art, but the actual writing? Just me and my keyboard.
I read “The AI War Was Never Just about AI.” Okay, AI war. We have a handful of mostly unregulated technology companies, a few nation states, and some unknown wizards working in their family garage. The situation is that a very tiny number of companies are fighting to become de facto reality definers for the next few years, maybe a decade or two. Against that background, does a single country’s judiciary think it can “regulate” an online company. One pragmatic approach has been to ban a service, the approach taken by Australia, China, Iran, and Russia among others. A less popular approach would be to force the organization out of business by arresting key executives, seizing assets, and imposing penalties on that organization’s partners. Does that sound a bit over the top?
The cited article does not go to the pit in the apricot. Google has been allowed to create an interlocking group of services which permeate the fabric of global online activity. There is no entertainment for some people in Armenia except YouTube. There are few choices to promote a product online without bumping into the Disney style people herders who push those who want to sell toward Google’s advertising systems. There is no getting from Point A to Point B without Google’s finding services whether dolled up in an AI wrapper, a digital version of a map, or a helpful message on the sign of a lawn service truck for Google Local.
The write up says:
The government wants to break up Google’s monopoly over the search market, but its proposed remedies may in fact do more to shape the future of AI. Google owns 15 products that serve at least half a billion people and businesses each—a sprawling ecosystem of gadgets, search and advertising, personal applications, and enterprise software. An AI assistant that shows up in (or works well with) those products will be the one that those people are most likely to use. And Google has already woven its flagship Gemini AI models into Search, Gmail, Maps, Android, Chrome, the Play Store, and YouTube, all of which have at least 2 billion users each. AI doesn’t have to be life-changing to be successful; it just has to be frictionless.
Okay. With a new administration taking the stage, how will this goal of leveling the playing field work. The legal processes at Google’s disposal mean that whatever the US government does can be appealed. Appeals take time. Who lasts longer? A government lawyer working under the thumb of DOGE and budget cutting or a giant outfit like Google? My view is that Google has more lawyers and more continuity.
Second, breaking up Google may face some headwinds from government entities quite dependent on its activities. The entire OSINT sector looks to Google for nuggets of information. It is possible some government agencies have embedded Google personnel on site. The “advertising” industry depends on distribution via the online stores of Apple and Google. Why is this important? The data brokers repackage the app data into data streams consumed by some government agencies and their contractors.
The write up says:
This is why it’s relevant that the DOJ’s proposed antitrust remedy takes aim at Google’s broader ecosystem. Federal and state attorneys asked the court to force Google to sell off its Chrome browser; cease preferencing its search products in the Android mobile operating system; prevent it from paying other companies, including Apple and Samsung, to make Google the default search engine; and allow rivals to syndicate Google’s search results and use its search index to build their own products. All of these and the DOJ’s other requests, under the auspices of search, are really shots at Google’s expansive empire.
So after more than 20 years of non regulation and hand slapping, the current legal decision is going to take apart an entity which is more like a cancer than a telephone company like AT&T. IBM was mostly untouched by the US government as was Microsoft. Now I am to to believe that a vastly different type of commercial enterprise which is for some functions more robust and effective than a government can have its wings clipped.
Is the Department of Justice concerned about AI? Come on. The DoJ personnel are thinking about the Department of Government Efficiency, presidential retribution, and enhancing LinkedIn profiles.
We are not in Kansas any longer where there is no AI war.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2024
Googlers Face Another Ka-Ching Moment in the United Kingdom
December 5, 2024
This write up is from a real and still-alive dinobaby. If there is art, smart software has been involved. Dinobabies have many skills, but Gen Z art is not one of them.
Mr. Harold Carlin, my high school history teacher, made us learn about the phrase “The sun never sets on the British empire.” It has, and Mr. Carlin like many old-school teachers forced our class to read about protectionism, subjugation of people who did not enjoy beef Wellington, or assorted monopolies.
Two intelligent entities discuss how to resolve legal problems. Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
Now Google may want to think about the phrase, “The sun never sets on Google legal matters related to its alleged behavior in the datasphere.”
“Google Must Face £7B UK Class Action over Search Engine Dominance” reported:
The complaint centers around Google shutting out competition for mobile search, resulting in higher prices for advertisers, which were allegedly passed on to consumers. According to consumer rights campaigner Nikki Stopford, who is bringing the claim on behalf of UK consumers, Android device makers that wanted access to Google’s Play Store had to accept its search service. The ad slinger also paid Apple billions to have Google Search as the default for the Safari browser in iOS.
The write up noted:
According to Stopford [a UK official], Google used its position to up prices paid by advertisers, resulting in higher costs to consumers. “What we’re trying to achieve with this claim is essentially compensate consumers,” she said.
Google has moved some of its smart software activities to the UK. One would think that with Google’s cash resources, its attorneys, and its smart software — mere government officials would have zero chance of winning this now repetitive allegation that dear Google has behaved in an untoward way.
If I were a government litigator, I would just drop the suit, Jack Smith style.
Will the sun set on these allegations against the “do no evil” outfit?
Nope, not as long as the opportunity for a payout exists. Google may have been too successful in its decades long rampage through traditional business practices. The good news is that Google has an almost limitless supply of money. The bad news is that countries have an almost limitless supply of regulators. But Google has smart software. Remember the film “The Terminator”? Winner: Google.
Stephen E Arnold, December 5, 2024
Another Google AI PR Push from a British Googler
November 27, 2024
This write up is the work of a humanoid who admits he is a dinobaby; that is, deadwood too old to employ. By the way, the “dinobaby” lingo allegedly emerged from IBM during its housecleaning event years ago. The art, however, is from MidJourney and definitely AI fakery.
With the US Department of Justice suggesting a haircut for the Google, the company is ramping up its AI PR. As you may recall, a Googler suggested that Google should not be constrained because Google has to be Google to do Google AI. With AI a wonderful benefit to customer service cost reductions and delivering advertising to those who use Google search, Google wants to get the word out.
The “art” was output by OpenAI, and I am not sure if it is quantumly supreme. The reason, “OpenAI is not Google.”
Examples include:
- “Demis Hassabis, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry: We Will Need a Handful of Breakthroughs Before We Reach Artificial General Intelligence” in El Pais
- Fast Company’s “The Future According to Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis”
- “Google DeepMind AI Can Expertly Fix Errors in Quantum Computers” in New Scientist
The articles share several themes:
- Google’s AI is great and the company is working hard to make it greater
- Google’s research is pretty darn close to making AI smarter
- Google is doing good and wants to do more to make life even gooder.
From the razzmatazz world quantum computers to the practical applications for Bill and Betty Average, Google is the driving force for smart software.
It has the transformer expertise. It has a Nobel prize winner. It has a building in London’s Knowledge Quarter.
What the write ups do not talk about is the suggestion that the Google needs a haircut, specifically, its Chrome browser has to chopped off. The PR push has another goal in my opinion. Google must be seen as a prime mover in the technology that everyone absolutely must have: Googley AI.
With investors wondering if the money pumped into smart software will pay off, Google is doing what it can from what some might call its monopoly position to advance the agenda of Google’s technology. Microsoft, Amazon, and some Chinese outfits are spending billions to make sure they are part of the next big thing. Meta is chugging along with its open source approach. Apple is letting its AI fruit ripen which takes time.
Copyright hassles, electric power demands, and the alleged diminishing returns from high flier OpenAI mean that someone has to stand up and say, “AI is wonderful. Google is more wonderful.”
What’s interesting is that in each of the cited stories, notes of skepticism are evident; to wit:
El Pais says, “The CEO of Google DeepMind cools expectations about the progress of AGI…” Okay. Not exactly a rah rah statement.
Fast Company says, “That Google has had to apologize for glitches discovered by users underlines the urgency with which it’s been shipping features in the post-ChatGPT age.” Translation: Ooops.
New Scientist says, “That Google has had to apologize for glitches discovered by users underlines the urgency with which it’s been shipping features in the post-ChatGPT age.” Okay. Six percent. One method produces 100 error fixes. Google can fix 106 errors. Progress? Yep. Revolutionary? To some, sure. To others, not so much.
Each of these AI PR waves are little more than marketing. What’s interesting is that Google may be able to prevent significant changes to its operations if it can make Google the pivot point for the next big thing. I wonder if those involved in prosecuting the different cases about Google’s business behavior are convinced.
That chatter about selling Google’s browser is the background radiation against which these PR emissions are output. Will they be heard?
Stephen E Arnold, November 27, 2024
Google Chrome Generating Attention. A Lot of Attention
November 26, 2024
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) took the first step in breaking up Google’s Big Tech monopoly by forcing Alphabet Inc. to sell its popular Web browser, Chrome. Alphabet Inc. is responding like all past companies who had their market dominance broken up by the government: it is throwing a major temper tantrum. The BBC reports on Google’s meltdown in: “Google Reacts Angrily To Report It Will Have To Sell Chrome.”
Google claimed it had a right to retain its monopoly on search because it was the best in the world. Not so, the Judge Amit Mehta of the DOJ replied, especially since the word “Google” is now a verb and there’s no fair competition. Instead of facing their fate with dignity, Google is saying it will harm consumers and businesses if it’s forced to sell Chrome. While that could be interpreted as a threat, Google probably meant it to sound like it was worried about its users. We think it sounds like a disguised threat.
Google doesn’t want to lose its 90% hold on the global search market augmented by Chrome as the world’s most used Web browser at 64.61%. Chrome is the default browser on many PCs and mobile devices. Judge Mehta wants to end that dominance:
Judge Mehta said in his ruling in August that the default search engine was "extremely valuable real estate" for Google.
‘Even if a new entrant were positioned from a quality standpoint to bid for the default when an agreement expires, such a firm could compete only if it were prepared to pay partners upwards of billions of dollars in revenue share’ he wrote.
The DOJ had been expected to provide its final proposed remedies to the court by Wednesday.
It said in an October filing documenting initial proposals it would be considering seeking a break-up of Google.
Potential remedies "that would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play [its app store], and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products" were among its considerations, it said then.”
Google replied:
“In response to the DOJ’s filing in October, Google said "splitting off" parts of its business like Chrome or Android would "break them".
‘Breaking them off would change their business models, raise the cost of devices, and undermine Android and Google Play in their robust competition with Apple’s iPhone and App Store,’ the company said.
It also said it would make it harder to keep Chrome secure.”
Those sounds like inflated arguments, especially when the only thing that will break is Google’s record profits. Investors will also be harmed, but that’s why it’s good to have a diverse portfolio. Wah Wah!
Whitney Grace, November 26, 2024
More Googley Human Resource Goodness
November 22, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The New York Post reported that a Googler has departed. “Google News Executive Shailesh Prakash Resigns As Tensions with Publishers Mount: Report” states:
Shailesh Prakash had served as a vice president and general manager for Google News. A source confirmed that he is no longer with the company… The circumstances behind Prakash’s resignation were not immediately clear. Google declined to comment.
Google tapped a professional who allegedly rode in the Bezos bulldozer when the world’s second or third richest man in the world acquired the Washington Post. (How has that been going? Yeah.)
Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
Google has been cheerfully indexing content and selling advertising for decades. After a number of years of talking and allegedly providing some support to outfits collecting, massaging, and making “real” news available, the Google is facing some headwinds.
The article reports:
The Big Tech giant rankled online publishers last May after it introduced a feature called “AI Overviews” – which places an auto-generated summary at the top of its search results while burying links to other sites. News Media Alliance, a nonprofit that represents more than 2,200 publishers, including The Post, said the feature would be “catastrophic to our traffic” and has called on the feds to intervene.
News flash from rural Kentucky: The good old days of newspaper publishing are unlikely to make a comeback. What’s the evidence for this statement? Video and outfits like Telegram and WhatsApp deliver content to cohorts who don’t think too much about a print anything.
The article pointed out:
Last month, The Post exclusively reported on emails that revealed how Google leveraged its access to the Office of the US Trade Representative as it sought to undermine overseas regulations — including Canada’s Online News Act, which required Google to pay for the right to display news content.
You can read that report “Google Emails with US Trade Reps Reveal Cozy Ties As Tech Giant Pushed to Hijack Policy” if you have time.
Let’s think about why a member of Google leadership like Shailesh Prakash would bail out. Among the options are:
- He wanted to spend more time with his family
- Another outfit wanted to hire him to manage something in the world of publishing
- He failed in making publishers happy.
The larger question is, “Why would Google think that one fellow could make a multi-decade problem go away?” The fact that I can ask this question reveals how Google’s consulting infused leaders think about an entire business sector. It also provides some insight into the confidence of a professional like Mr. Prakash.
What flees sinking ships? Certainly not the lawyers that Google will throw at this “problem.” Google has money and that may be enough to buy time and perhaps prevail. If there aren’t any publishers grousing, the problem gets resolved. Efficient.
Stephen E Arnold, November 22, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
