Google: A Victim of Success
May 6, 2009
If you are a person who sees Google as a victim, you may enjoy James B. Stewart’s essay “Few Match Google. Does that Make It a Monopoly?” here. This link may go dead at any time, but the hard copy version of this story appeared in the May 5, 2009, Wall Street Journal. The author argued that Google has been successful. As a result, Google should not be singled out for regulatory or any other action that would impede the company. For me, the most interesting comment in the write up was:
Google is indisputably a victim of its own success. Its market share of Internet search has continued to rise steadily, encompassing roughly two-thirds of total searches. At 76%, its share of search advertising is even higher, thanks to Google’s technological prowess at matching ads to people’s search queries. Given the accompanying high profit margins on this lucrative business, Google displays the telltale characteristics of a monopolist: high, even dominant market share, with high profits and pricing power that are evidence of high barriers to entry for competitors.
This is the MBA argument, and we know how well MBAs handled the financial industry.
The problem, in my opinion, is not regulatory. The problem is that Google is a new type of industrial enterprise. I argue that it is not a single firm. Google is something like the invention of the printing press. The company is transformational. Regulators have trouble with known entities such as utilities and pharmaceutical firms. The SEC was clueless when it came to Bernie Madoff’s alleged Ponzi scheme. Regulators are likely to be at sea without a life raft when it comes to understanding the “digital Gutenberg”. Should we trust MBAs? Should we trust Google? Ideas?
Stephen Arnold, May 6, 2009
Patricians, Cesspools and Rubber Boots
May 6, 2009
I became interested in ancient technology by accident. I ignored history, particularly ancient history, in college. Too fuzzy. A few years ago on a tour with some friends we were in a ruin somewhere in Turkey. I looked down and saw an exposed clay pipe. I asked the tour guide what the pipe was, and she replied, “The wealthy citizens had running water.” The ruins dated from the 800 BCE period, and I assumed that the folks who lived used the equivalent of outhouses. I was wrong. Someone had figured out how to make pipes and install indoor plumbing.
There were two classes of residents. Some had indoor plumbing and lived the good life. Others had a less good life. Patricians have used plumbing as one way to distinguish themselves from people like me. My ancestors had to use outdoor plumbing.
The image of the cesspool, then, is one that makes clear that there are two classes of people – an upper class and a lower class. When I read about metaphors invoking cesspools, I think about the class distinctions that are evident in the ruins of ancient cities. Those cities were much like the modern one in which I live. Order and disorder collide, and institutions make an attempt to prevent chaos from dominating simple activities like driving to work or shopping.
I thought about this dividing line when I read Jim Spanfeller’s “What Google Can Do to Make the Web Less of a Cesspool” here. The article makes some interesting points, yet I was troubled by assertion that a commercial enterprise can and should assume responsibility for information. A commercial enterprise has finite resources and, by definition, the need to clean up is likely to be a large job. Information is created by many, which leads to the implicit idea that a larger entity should become the janitor. If not Google, who? Well, one candidate is “the government” or perhaps a group of really smart and good people will will act as the government’s agent. Now we are back to the plumbing in the ancient city. As long as the patricians can keep the mess from their premises, life improves.
Mr. Spanfeller wrote:
At Forbes.com, we have estimated that Google makes roughly $60 million a year directing folks to our site. And by the way, 40 percent of those dollars are derived from the search terms of Forbes, Forbes.com or Forbes Magazine—simple navigation. Seems like a very nice chunk of change for simply being there. In the end, in attempting to “do no evil,” Google has done exactly that. I say this not just as someone running a content site but also as an end user. If this inequity of support continues along these lines, we will see a continuing destruction of our journalistic enterprises—enterprises that are one of the core building blocks of our democracy. Last year, while addressing the magazine publishers and editors of the MPA at the Google Campus, Eric Schmidt suggested that the web was a “cesspool” and that it was up to the major journalistic brands to clean it up. Well Eric, in a great many ways, Google has helped to create that cesspool, and as such I would hope that it can be part of the solution.
The idea that free flowing information can be cleaned up is an interesting one. I don’t think the job will be easy. I don’t think patricians from the dead tree world or from the online world are up to the task. We have a new context in which digital information is not a cause, but a consequence of our present way of existing.
The cesspool arguments are tempests in a chamber pot. Once the information flows outside the boundaries of restricted and tightly controlled channels, the information cannot be put back into those old containers. Get your boots on may be a better way to approach the situation.
Large flows of information, cesspools, and a digital mess are the characteristics of this time and place. The combined efforts of Forbes and Google will have little substantive impact. In fact, neither of these companies and not even the governments of Australia and China can contain the information flows, but these nation states keep trying to shut Pandora’s box.
The patricians want the good old days, but those days are gone. What’s interesting is that the newer modes of communication may be permanently outside the span of control of the Google and, it seems to me, existing mechanisms for control of human behavior. The fix is to abandon computers, electricity, and all things digital.
Mr. Spanfeller’s argument and his plea for Google to do its part are like the scholars’ reading of ancient texts: interesting, maybe intellectually satisfying, but markers of an era lost to history. Rubber boots, on the other hand, are practical, work reasonably well, and put the responsibility in the hands of an individual, not in fantasyland. Perhaps I will tweet that boot idea?
Stephen Arnold, May 6, 2009
SharePoint Overview
May 6, 2009
Barb Mosher wrote “SharePoint Online (SaaS) Review – What It Is and Isn’t.” You can find the full write up published by CMS Wire here. Ms. Mosher has done a very good job of explaining the Software as a Service implementation of SharePoint. She walks through the basics and provides some screenshots. She has done what she could to make these screenshots easy to follow, but I find the steps for some basic tasks convoluted. Addled geese are not good candidates for SharePoint wisdom, I suspect. The most useful part of the article is her description and lists of what is included and what is not included. With regards to search, it seemed that only the bare bones of queries within a site are supported. I have questions about the stability of SharePoint from the cloud, which she did not address. Latency also triggers questions in my mind. Useful information to download and keep close at hand.
Stephen Arnold, May 6, 2009
Scholarly Research Shocker
May 5, 2009
Short honk: Don’t read this post if you are offended by strong language. The authors are answering the question “What Is The Best Search Engine For Scientific Journals?” The winner is Google Scholar. The loser. Ebsco. In between some names that are familiar. In my opinion the days of the commercial database are likely with a whimper or a bang.
Stephen Arnold, May 4, 2009
Ebook Wariness
May 5, 2009
Short honk: Technews World ran an interesting article about books that are not available in digital form. You can find “The E-Book Library’s Conspicuously Absent Volumes” here. Hillel Italie included a number of examples of authors, publishers, and estates wary of jumping into the digital zeros and ones.
Stephen Arnold, May 3, 2009
Microsoft Enterprise Site
May 5, 2009
Short honk: A happy quack to the reader who sent me a short email stating, “Microsoft introduced a new Enterprise Search website that does not have a search.” I navigated to the link the reader provided. Try it yourself at http://www.microsoft.com/enterprisesearch/en/us/default.aspx. No search box. Hmmm.
Stephen Arnold, May 5, 2009
Microsoft and Two Rip Tides
May 4, 2009
Jason Hiner’s “The Two Trends That Are Conspiring against Microsoft” here is a so-so title for a pretty good analysis of the rip tides sucking at Microsoft’s revenue. The two points are browser-based applications which blur the distinction between the desktop and the cloud, and mobile devices, which make the traditional desktop computer a boat anchor. The essay is hard hitting, and I think it makes some excellent points.
Stephen Arnold, May 4, 2009
Big Screen Kindle: Back Pack Snap and Crack
May 4, 2009
I have been involved in electronic books for a number of years. The form factors pose several challenges:
First, there is the issue of screen contrast. Although contrast is improving, white on black is more like light gray on dark gray. Great for young eyes. Not so hot for those in their mid 60s.
Second, there is the issue of user interface. The early devices were clunky. Today’s devices are – well – still clunky. But on a long trip, would I tote a bag of dead tree books or a Kindle? I go for the Kindle One because I like the extra capacity the secure digital storage card affords. Still early days on form factors.
Third, durability. In the late 1990s, I interacted with a development shop with a flexible screen. Very interesting. But with repeated flexing, there was some image degradation. Today’s devices require careful handling. My early Sony reader got a screen crack just passing it around. Sony’s support was impossible, so I disassembled the gizmo, kept the screws, and tossed the device.
I am on my second or third Kindle. These devices are not sufficiently study to deal amicably with airport security checks. The “holder” a sort of faux book cover seems to eject the device when a TSA inspector takes a closer look. Am I the only person to travel with one of these devices? TSA is surprised routinely by my having a device which seems to have sharp edges.
As a result, I am curious about a large format Kindle. I agree with MG Siegler in TechCrunch. The article “The Big Screen Kindle Hail Mary to Newspapers Will Fall Incomplete” here. News papers may look at the Kindle as a way to save their business. I think most of the traditional publishing companies will have to pull a rabbit from a hat.
The most interesting comment in my opinion was MG Siegler’s observation about textbooks:
In fact, I’d argue that it’s the much less sexy textbook business that could be the real key to this big Kindle. Textbooks are an absolute rip-off in print form, with many costing over $100 a book. If Amazon was able to offer textbooks on this large Kindle at a discount the same way it offers a discount on regular books on the regular Kindle, that would be worth the price of admission for just about every college student in the country right there. And a Kindle textbook reader makes sense because it would make bookmarking, taking notes and syncing all of those things up to the cloud, a snap.
I think this is a valid point. With regard to student use, I think the durability will be the key. Textbook publishers are as fragile – maybe more fragile – than newspaper publishers. If a student snags a big Kindle with an expensive textbook, how long will the Kindle last in a back pack? My instinct is that the device will have to stand up to harsh treatment. Smash a couple a semester and the student may have to take out another student loan.
Stephen Arnold, May 4, 2009
Google: Thunder, Babies, and Controlled Chaos
May 4, 2009
Short honk: My Overflight system kicked out a link to an article called “Thinking about Thunder” here. The author is Googler Matt Cutts. As I read the article, Google does not want to spit out negative electronics to neutralize others’ positive electrons. Thus, Wolfram Alpha versus Google in the news neutralization dust up was an unhappy coincidence. You may not believe me, but I believe Mr. Cutts. Google’s controlled chaos is too uncontrolled and chaotic to make probable consistent neutralization of competitors’ search efforts. Just chance. Just chance the item appeared in a personal Web log. Just chance.
Stephen Arnold, May 3, 2009
Google News in Transition
May 4, 2009
There are some gossip swirls roiling the leaves around the goose pond this afternoon (April 30, 2009). I read in The Wrap here the headline and story “Eric Schmidt on Google’s New Plan for the News”. I scanned the article, and I learned that at a Hollywood party Eric Schmidt was the “most popular guy in the room”. Heady stuff for Sun Microsystems’ former chief technology officer. Dr. Schmidt was popular at Sun for his technical acumen. I am not sure if technical acumen or power is the catnip for the Hollywood glitterati.
The news, according to The Wrap, is that Mr. Schmidt is “aware of the newsprint meltdown.” Here is what The Wrap said:
But Google does have plans for a solution. In about six months, the company will roll out a system that will bring high-quality news content to users without them actively looking for it. Under this latest iteration of advanced search, users will be automatically served the kind of news that interests them just by calling up Google’s page. The latest algorithms apply ever more sophisticated filtering – based on search words, user choices, purchases, a whole host of cues – to determine what the reader is looking for without knowing they’re looking for it. And on this basis, Google believes it will be able to sell premium ads against premium content. The first two news organizations to get this treatment, Schmidt said, will be the New York Times and the Washington Post.
I find this quite interesting, if it is indeed true. My research suggested that the Google was going to allow partners to use the Google platform to generate revenue. You can see where I obtained this idea by reading US2008/0275763.
Maybe the GOOG will do several things simultaneous a method with which the company is quite familiar.
Stephen Arnold, May 1, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
