Google: Is It Becoming Microapple?
September 19, 2025
Google’s approach to Android, the freedom to pay Apple to make Google search the default for Safari, and the registering of developers — These are Tim Apple moves. Google has another trendlet too.
Google has 1.8 billion users around the world and according to the Mens Journal Google has a new problem: “Google Issues Major Warning to All 1.8 Billion Users.” There’s a new digital security threat and it involves AI. That’s not a surprise, because artificial intelligence has been a growing concern for cyber security experts for years. Since the technology is becoming more advanced, bad actors are using it for devious actions. The newest round of black hat tricks are called “indirect prompt injections.”
Indirect prompt injections are a threat for individual users, businesses, and governments. Google warned users about this new threat and how it works:
“‘Unlike direct prompt injections, where an attacker directly inputs malicious commands into a prompt, indirect prompt injections involve hidden malicious instructions within external data sources. These may include emails, documents, or calendar invites that instruct AI to exfiltrate user data or execute other rogue actions,’ the blog post continued.
The Google blog post warned that this puts individuals and entities at risk.
‘As more governments, businesses, and individuals adopt generative AI to get more done, this subtle yet potentially potent attack becomes increasingly pertinent across the industry, demanding immediate attention and robust security measures,’ the blog post continued.”
Bad actors have tasked Google’s Gemini (Shock! Gasp!) to infiltrate emails and ask users for their passwords and login information. That’s not the scary part. Most spammy emails have a link for users to click on to collect data, instead this new hack uses Gemini to prompt users for the information. Downloading fear.
Google is already working on counter measures for Gemini. Good luck! Microsoft has had this problem for years! Google and Microsoft are now twins! Is this the era of Google as Microapple?
Whitney Grace, September 19, 2025
YouTube: Behind the Scenes Cleverness?
September 17, 2025
No smart software involved. Just a dinobaby’s work.
I read “YouTube Is a Mysterious Monopoly.” The author tackles the subject of YouTube and how it seems to be making life interesting for some “creators.” In many countries, YouTube is television. I discovered this by accident in Bucharest, Cape Town, and Santiago, to name three locations where locals told me, “I watch YouTube.”
The write up offers some comments about this Google service. Let’s look at a couple of these.
First, the write up says:
…while views are down, likes and revenue have been mostly steady. He guesses that this might be caused by a change in how views are calculated, but it’s just a guess. YouTube hasn’t mentioned anything about a change, and the drop in views has been going on for about a month.
About five years ago, one of the companies with which I have worked for a while, pointed out that their Web site traffic was drifting down. As we monitored traffic and ad revenues, we noticed initial stability and then a continuing decline in both traffic and ad revenue. I recall we checked some data about competitive sites and most were experiencing the same drift downwards. Several were steady or growing. My client told me that Google was not able to provide substantive information. Is this type of decline an accident or is it what I call traffic shaping for Google’s revenue? No one has provided information to make this decline clear. Today (September 10, 2025) the explanation is related to smart software. I have my doubts. I think it is Google cleverness.
Second, the write up states:
I pay for YouTube Premium. For my money, it’s the best bang-for-the-buck subscription service on the market. I also think that YouTube is a monopoly. There are some alternatives — I also pay for Nebula, for example — but they’re tiny in comparison. YouTube is effectively the place to watch video on the internet.
In the US, Google has been tagged with the term “monopoly.” I find it interesting that YouTube is allegedly wearing a T shirt that says, “The only game in town.” I think that YouTube has become today’s version of the Google online search service. We have people dependent on the service for money, and we have some signals that Google is putting its thumb on the revenue scale or is suffering from what users are able to view on the service. Also, we have similar opaqueness about who or what is fiddling the dials. If a video or a Web site does not appear in a search result, that site may as well not exist for some people. The write up comes out and uses the “monopoly” word for YouTube.
Finally, the essay offers this statement:
Creators are forced to share notes and read tea leaves as weird things happen to their traffic. I can only guess how demoralizing that must feel.
For me, this comment illustrates that the experience of my client’s declining traffic and ad revenue seems to be taking place in the YouTube “datasphere.” What is a person dependent on YouTube revenue supposed to do when views drop or the vaunted YouTube search service does not display a hit for a video directly relevant to a user’s search. OSINT experts have compiled information about “Google dorks.” These are hit-and-miss methods to dig a relevant item from the Google index. But finding a video is a bit tricky, and there are fewer Google dorks to unlock YouTube content than for other types of information in the Google index.
What do I make of this? Several preliminary observations are warranted. First, Google is hugely successful, but the costs of running the operation and the quite difficult task of controlling the costs of ping, pipes, and power, the cost of people, and the expense of dealing with pesky government regulators. The “steering” of traffic and revenue to creators is possibly a way to hit financial targets.
Second, I think Google’s size and its incentive programs allow certain “deciders” to make changes that have local and global implications. Another Googler has to figure out what changed, and that may be too much work. The result is that Googlers don’t have a clue what’s going on.
Third, Google appears to be focused on creating walled gardens for what it views as “Web content” and for creator-generated content. What happens when a creator quits YouTube? I have heard that Google’s nifty AI may be able to extract the magnetic points of the disappeared created and let its AI crank out a satisfactory simulacrum. Hey, what are those YouTube viewers in Santiago going to watch on their Android mobile device?
My answer to this rhetorical question is the creator and Google “features” that generate the most traffic. What are these programs? A list of the alleged top 10 hits on YouTube is available at https://mashable.com/article/most-subscribed-youtube-channels. I want to point out that the Google holds down position in its own list spots number four and number 10. The four spot is Google Movies, a blend of free with ads, rent the video, “buy” the video which sort of puzzles me, and subscribe to a stream. The number 10 spot is Google’s own music “channel”. I think that works out to YouTube’s hosting of 10 big draw streams and services. Of those 10, the Google is 20 percent of the action. What percentage will be “Google” properties in a year?
Net net: Monitoring YouTube policy, technical, and creator data may help convert these observations into concrete factoids. On the other hand, you are one click away from what exactly? Answer: Daily Motion or RuTube? Mysterious, right?
Stephen E Arnold, September 17, 2025
Google: The EC Wants Cash, Lots of Cash
September 15, 2025
Sadly I am a dinobaby and too old and stupid to use smart software to create really wonderful short blog posts.
The European Commission is not on the same page as the judge involved in the Google case. Googzilla is having a bit of a vacay because Android and Chrome are still able to attend the big data party. But the EC? Not invited and definitely not welcome. “Commission Fines Google €2.95 Billion over Abusive Practices in Online Advertising Technology” states:
The European Commission has fined Google €2.95 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules by distorting competition in the advertising technology industry (‘adtech’). It did so by favouring its own online display advertising technology services to the detriment of competing providers of advertising technology services, advertisers and online publishers. The Commission has ordered Google (i) to bring these self-preferencing practices to an end; and (ii) to implement measures to cease its inherent conflicts of interest along the adtech supply chain. Google has now 60 days to inform the Commission about how it intends to do so.
The news release includes a third grade type diagram, presumably to make sure that American legal eagles who may not read at the same grade level as their European counterparts can figure out the scheme. Here it is:
For me, the main point is Google is in the middle. This racks up what crypto cronies call “gas fees” or service charges. Whatever happens Google gets some money and no other diners are allowed in the Mountain View giant’s dining hall.
There are explanations and other diagrams in the cited article. The main point is clear: The EC is not cowed by the Googlers nor their rationalizations and explanations about how much good the firm does.
Stephen E Arnold, September 15, 2025
Here Is a Happy Thought: The Web Is Dead
September 12, 2025
Just a dinobaby sharing observations. No AI involved. My apologies to those who rely on it for their wisdom, knowledge, and insights.
I read “One of the Last, Best Hopes for Saving the Open Web and a Free Press Is Dead.” If the headline is insufficiently ominous, how about the subtitle:
The Google ruling is a disaster. Let the AI slop flow and the writers, journalists and creators get squeezed.
The write up says:
Google, of course, was one of the worst actors. It controlled (and still controls) an astonishing 90% of the search engine market, and did so not by consistently offering the best product—most longtime users recognize the utility of Google Search has been in a prolonged state of decline—but by inking enormous payola deals with Apple and Android phone manufacturers to ensure Google is the default search engine on their products.
The subject is the US government court’s ruling that Google must share. Google’s other activities are just ducky. The write up presents this comment:
The only reason that OpenAI could even attempt to do anything that might remotely be considered competing with Google is that OpenAI managed to raise world-historic amounts of venture capital. OpenAI has raised $60 billion, a staggering figure, but also a sum that still very much might not be enough to compete in an absurdly capital intensive business against a decadal search monopoly. After all, Google drops $60 billion just to ensure its search engine is the default choice on a single web browser for three years. [Note: The SAT word “decadal” sort of means over 10 years. The Google has been doing search control for more than 20 years, but “more than 20 years is not sufficiently erudite I guess.]
The point is that competition in the number scale means that elephants are fighting. Guess what loses? The grass, the ants, and earthworms.
The write up concludes:
The 2024 ruling that Google was an illegal monopoly was a glimmer of hope at a time when platforms were concentrating ever more power, Silicon Valley oligarchy was on the rise, and it was clear the big tech cartels that effectively control the public internet were more than fine with overrunning it with AI slop. That ruling suggested there was some institutional will to fight against the corporate consolidation that has come to dominate the modern web, and modern life. It proved to be an illusion.
Several observations are warranted:
- Money talks; common sense walks
- AI is having dinner at the White House; the legal eagles involved in this high-profile matter got the message
- I was not surprised; the author, surprised and somewhat annoyed that the Internet is dead.
The US mechanisms remind me of how my father described government institutions in Campinas, Brazil, in the 1950s: Carry contos and distribute them freely. [Note: A conto was 1,000 cruzeiros at the time. Today the word applies to 1,000 reais.]
Stephen E Arnold, September 12, 2025
Google: Klaxons, Red Lights, and Beeps
September 12, 2025
Here we go again with another warning from Google about scams in the form of Gemini. The Mirror reports that, “Google Issues ‘Red Alert’ To Gmail Users Over New AI Scam That Steals Passwords.” Bad actors are stealing passwords using Google’s own chatbot. Hackers are sending emails using Gemini. These emails contain a hidden message to reveal passwords.
Here’s how people are falling for the scam: there’s no link to click in the email. A box pops up alerting you to a risk. That’s all! It’s incredibly simple and scary. Remember that Google will never ask you for your username and password. It’s still the easiest tip to remember when it comes to these scams.
Google issued a statement:
“The tech giant explained the subtlety of the threat: ‘Unlike direct prompt injections, where an attacker directly inputs malicious commands into a prompt, indirect prompt injections involve hidden malicious instructions within external data sources. These may include emails, documents, or calendar invites that instruct AI to exfiltrate user data or execute other rogue actions.’ As more governments, businesses, and individuals adopt generative AI to get more done, this subtle yet potentially potent attack becomes increasingly pertinent across the industry, demanding immediate attention and robust security measures.’”
Google also said some calming platitudes but the record replay is getting tiresome.
Whitney Grace, September 12, 2025
Google Does Its Thing: Courts Vary in their Views of the Outfit
September 10, 2025
Just a dinobaby sharing observations. No AI involved. My apologies to those who rely on it for their wisdom, knowledge, and insights.
I am not sure I understand how the US legal system works or any other legal system works. A legal procedure headed by a somewhat critical judge has allowed the Google to keep on doing what it is doing: Selling ads, collecting personal data, and building walled gardens even if they encroach on a kiddie playground.
However, at the same time, the Google was found to be a bit too frisky in its elephantine approach to business.
The first example is that Google was found guilty of collecting user data when users disabled the data collection. The details of this gross misunderstanding of how the superior thinkers at Google interpreted assorted guidelines and user settings appear in “Jury Slams Google Over App Data Collection to Tune of $425 Million.” Now to me that sounds like a lot of money. To the Google, it is a cash flow issue which can be addressed by negotiation, slow administrative response, and consulting firm speak. The write up says:
Google attorney Benedict Hur of Cooley LLP told jurors Google “certainly thought” it had permission to access the data. He added that Google lets users know it will continue to collect certain types of data, even if they toggle off web activity.
Quite an argument.
The other write up with some news about Google behavior is “France Fines Google, Shein Record Sums over Cookie Law Violations.” I found this passage in the write up interesting:
France’s data protection watchdog CNIL on Wednesday fined Google €325 million ($380 million) and fast-fashion retailer Shein €150 million ($175 million) for violating cookie rules. The record penalties target two platforms with tens of millions of French users, marking among the heaviest sanctions the regulator has imposed.
Several observations are warranted:
- Google is manifesting behavior similar to the China-linked outfit Shein. Who is learning from whom?
- Some courts find Google problematic; other courts think that Google is just doing okay Googley things
- A showdown may occur from outside the United States if a nation state just gets fed up with Google doing exactly whatever it wants.
I wonder if anyone at Google is thinking about hassling the French judiciary in the remainder of 2025 and into 2026. If so, it may be instructive to recall how the French judiciary addressed a 13-year-old case of digital Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis. Pavel Durov was arrested, interrogated for four days, and must report to French authorities every couple of weeks. His legal matter is moving through a judicial system noted for its methodical and red-tape choked processes.
Fancy a nice dinner in Paris, Google?
Stephen E Arnold, September 10, 2025
Google Monopoly: A Circle Still Unbroken
September 9, 2025
Just a dinobaby sharing observations. No AI involved. My apologies to those who rely on it for their wisdom, knowledge, and insights.
I am no lawyer, and I am not sure how the legal journey will unfold for the Google. I assume Google is still a monopoly. Google, however, is not happy with the recent court decision that appears to be a light tap on Googzilla’s snout. The snow is not falling and no errant piece of space junk has collided with the Mountain View campus.
I did notice a post on the Google blog with a cute url. The words “outreach-initiatives” , “public policy,” and DOJ search decision speak volumes to me.
The post carries this Google title, well, a Googley command:
Read our statement on today’s decision in the case involving Google Search
Okay, snap to it. The write up instructs:
Competition is intense and people can easily choose the services they want. That’s why we disagree so strongly with the Court’s initial decision in August 2024 on liability.
Okay, not em dashes, so Gemini did not write the sentence, although it may contain some words rarely associated with Googley things. These are words like “easily choose”. Hey, I thought Google was a monopoly. The purpose of the construct is to take steps to narrow choice. The Chicago stockyards uses fences, guides, and designated killing areas. But the cows don’t have a choice. The path is followed and the hammer drops. Thonk.
The write up adds:
Now the Court has imposed limits on how we distribute Google services, and will require us to share Search data with rivals. We have concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy, and we’re reviewing the decision closely.
The logic is pure blue chip consultant with a headache. I like the use of the word “imposed”. Does Google impose on its users; for instance, irrelevant search results, filtered YouTube videos, or roll up of user generated information in Google services? Of course not, a Google user can easily choose which videos to view on YouTube. A person looking for information can easily choose to access Web content on another Web search system. Just use Bing, Ecosia, or Phind. I like “easily.”
What strikes me is the command language and the huffiness about the decision.
Wow, I love Google. Is it a monopoly? Definitely not Android or Chrome. Ads? I don’t know. Probably not.
Stephen E Arnold, September 9, 2025
Google and Its Reality Dictating Machine: What Is a Fact?
September 9, 2025
I’m not surprised by this. I don’t understand why anyone would be surprised by this story from Neoscope: “Doctors Horrified After Google’s Healthcare AI Makes Up A Body Part That Does Not Exist In Humans.” Healthcare professional are worried about their industry’s over the widespread use of AI tools. These tools are error prone and chock full of bugs. In other words, these bots are creating up facts and lies and making them seem convincing.
It’s called hallucinating.
A recent example of an AI error involves Google’s Med-Gemini and it took an entire year before anyone discovered it. The false information was published in a May 2024 research paper from Google that ironically discussed the promises of AI Med-Gemini analyzing brain scans. The AI “identified” the “old left basilar ganglia infarct” in the scans, but that doesn’t exist in the human body. Google never fixed its research paper.
Hallucinations are dangerous in humans but they’re much worse in AI because they won’t be confined to a single source.
“It’s not just Med-Gemini. Google’s more advanced healthcare model, dubbed MedGemma, also led to varying answers depending on the way questions were phrased, leading to errors some of the time. ‘Their nature is that [they] tend to make up things, and it doesn’t say ‘I don’t know,’ which is a big, big problem for high-stakes domains like medicine,’ Judy Gichoya, Emory University associate professor of radiology and informatics, told The Verge.
Other experts say we’re rushing into adapting AI in clinical settings — from AI therapists, radiologists, and nurses to patient interaction transcription services — warranting a far more careful approach.”
A wise fictional character once said, “Take risks! Make mistakes! Get messy! In other words, say “I don’t know!” Could this quick kill people? Duh.
Whitney Grace, September 9, 2025
Bending Reality or Creating a Question of Ownership and Responsibility for Errors
September 3, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.
The Google has may busy digital beavers working in the superbly managed organization. The BBC, however, seems to be agitated about what may be a truly insignificant matter: Ownership of substantially altered content and responsibility for errors introduced into digital content.
“YouTube secretly used AI to Edit People’s Videos. The Results Could Bend Reality” reports:
In recent months, YouTube has secretly used artificial intelligence (AI) to tweak people’s videos without letting them know or asking permission.
The BBC ignores a couple of issues that struck me as significant if — please, note the “if” — the assertion about YouTube altering content belonging to another entity. I will address these after some more BBC goodness.
I noted this statement:
the company [Google] has finally confirmed it is altering a limited number of videos on YouTube Shorts, the app’s short-form video feature.
Okay, the Google digital beavers are beavering away.
I also noted this passage attributed to Samuel Woolley, the Dietrich chair of disinformation studies at the University of Pittsburgh:
“You can make decisions about what you want your phone to do, and whether to turn on certain features. What we have here is a company manipulating content from leading users that is then being distributed to a public audience without the consent of the people who produce the videos…. “People are already distrustful of content that they encounter on social media. What happens if people know that companies are editing content from the top down, without even telling the content creators themselves?”
What about those issues I thought about after reading the BBC’s write up:
- If Google’s changes (improvements, enhancements, AI additions, whatever), will Google “own” the resulting content? My thought is that if Google can make more money by using AI to create a “fair use” argument, it will. How long will it take a court (assuming these are still functioning) to figure out if Google’s right or the individual content creator is the copyright holder?
- When, not if, Google’s AI introduces some type of error, is Google responsible or is it the creator’s problem? My hunch is that Google’s attorneys will argue that it provides a content creator with a free service. See the Terms of Service for YouTube and stop complaining.
- What if a content creator hits a home run and Google’s AI “learns” then outputs content via its assorted AI processes? Will Google be able to deplatform the original creator and just use it as a way to make money without paying the home-run hitting YouTube creator?
Perhaps the BBC would like to consider how these tiny “experiments” can expand until they shift the monetization methods further in favor of the Google. Maybe one reason is that BBC doesn’t think these types of thoughts. The Google, based on my experience, is indeed thinking these types of “what if” talks in a sterile room with whiteboards and brilliant Googlers playing with their mobile devices or snacking on goodies.
Stephen E Arnold, September 3, 2025
Misunderstanding the Google: A Hot Wok
August 29, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.
I am no longer certain how many people read blog posts. Bing, Google, and Yandex seem to be crawling in a more focused way; that is, comprehensiveness is not part of the game plan. I want to do my small part by recommending that you scan (preferably study) “Google Is Killing the Open Web.”
The premise of the essay is clear: Google has been working steadily and in a relatively low PR voltage mode to control the standards for the Web. I commented on this in my Google Legacy, Google Version 2.0, and other Google writings as early as 2003. How did I identify this strategic vision? Easy. A Googler told me. This individual like it when I called Google a “calculating predator.” This person made an effort (a lame one because he worked at Google) to hear my lectures about Google’s Web search.
Now 22 years later, a individual has put the pieces together and concluded rightly that Google is killing the open Web. The essay states:
Google is managing to achieve what Microsoft couldn’t: killing the open web. The efforts of tech giants to gain control of and enclose the commons for extractive purposes have been clear to anyone who has been following the history of the Internet for at least the last decade, and the adopted strategies are varied in technique as they are in success, from Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (EEE) to monopolization and lock-in.
Several observations:
- The visible efforts to monopolize have been search, ads, and the mobile plays. The lower profile technical standards are going to be more important as new technologies emerge. The accuracy of the early Googlers’ instincts were accurate. People (namely Wok) are just figuring it out. Unfortunately it is too late.
- Because online services have a tendency to become monopolies, the world of “online” has become increasingly centralized. The “myth” of decentralization is a great one but so was “Epic of Gilgamesh.” There may be some pony in there, but the reality is that it is better to centralize and then decide what to move out there.
- The big tech outfits reside in a “country,” but the reality is that these are borderless. There is no traditional there there. Consequently governments struggle to regulate what these outfits do. Australia levies a fine on Google. So what? Google just keeps being Googley. Live with it.
One cannot undo decades of methodical, strategic thinking, and deft tactical moves quickly. My view is that changing Google will occur within Google. The management thinking is becoming increasingly like that of an AT&T type company. Chop it up and it will just glue itself back together.
I know the Wok is hot. Time to cool off and learn to thrive in the walled garden. Getting out is going to be more difficult than many other tasks. Google controls lots of technology, including the button that opens the gate to the walled garden.
Stephen E Arnold, August 26, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
