Google Gets Pinged on Its Maturity
September 16, 2011
I am permanently 18 years old. The problem is that I am 67 and I recognize that my mind plays tricks on me. Even though I have moved from the land of beets to land of wurst, I try to keep both of my goose-like webbed feet on the ground. I enjoy a good game of global chess. One “expert” believes that Google does not maintain an even keel. I read the two part article “Google: The Big Baby That Won’t Grow Up.” My initial reaction is that Google knows what it is doing and has the cash to make reality conform to Googley perceptions. The article takes a different view, and one that I find somewhat contentious. One of the key passages in my opinion provides a view of Google that is jaundiced and a trifle sharp:
Last week, the New York Times broke the story that unscrupulous competitors were going on to Places and signaling that a rival business was permanently closed, which could be fatal to that fully operational business. When I read that story, I wondered why the aggrieved businesses didn’t simply call up someone at Google to get help. It turns out they can’t. With a few exceptions, “there’s just no way to reach Google when you have a problem with Places,” Linda Buquet, a marketing consultant, tells me.
Google supports its customers via Web pages, email, and the self help information in Google Groups. Maybe some folks think Messrs. Page and Brin are going to field inbound phone calls. My experience says, “No.” There are humans available to sell Adwords. Humans for trivial tasks are not part of the “game plan.”
The Infoworld article adds:
As I’ve said a few times, Google’s outlay of some $400,000 per patent in the Motorola Mobility acquisition was a shocking waste of money and an example of the absurdity of the mobile patent wars. What I didn’t realize was how badly Google handled the acquisition; it’s probably fair to say that Google was bidding against itself. We know this because Google outlined the process in exquisite detail in a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. After months of meetings, Google offered Motorola $30 a share. Motorola rejected the offer. A few days later, Google came back with an offer of $37 a share, but get this: Hours later, before Motorola had even responded, Google upped the offer by another three bucks a share, raising the initial offer by $3 billion when no one else was bidding on the company. For good measure, it agreed to pay a $2.5 billion breakup fee in the event regulators kill the proposed merger.
Those who are not Googley cannot grasp the Google method. Those who can work at Google. “Experts” who make clear their inability to grasp the broad outlines and subtle contours of the Google method struggle to communicate that what looks like missteps are brilliant chess moves. Here in the land of wurst, I see the elegance of the Google method. Perhaps if one is too close to the Google, perception is distorted. Google now has patents with which to attack and defend itself from competitors who are treating the GOOG in an unfair manner. What’s a few billion here or there? A generous golden parachute for certain Motorola Mobility professionals makes perfect sense. “Experts” often miss the logic which leads up to the end game. I am waiting for Google to announce, “Check.”
Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
