Alphabet Google: The Confusion for 2017
January 5, 2017
I read two write ups. Both of these were branded “Business Insider.” Am I confused? No, just skeptical. I read “One Year Later, Nobody Knows What Alphabet Is — and That’s a Godsend for Google’s Public-Image Problems.” The basic idea seems to be:
Last August, Google announced it would change its name to Alphabet, which would effectively be a holding company for Google and its various businesses — YouTube, Android, etc. — as well as Google’s more outlandish experiments, like its moon shots factory, “X”; its investment arms; and more.
This seems clear enough to me. Google’s new clothes are those of a holding company. Think about the similarities between the “new” Google and LingTemcoVought. Oh, you don’t recall Jimmy Ling and the LTV thing. Well, let’s move on.
I noted this passage in “One Year Later…” write up:
The number of people Googling “Alphabet” is basically negligible.
Well, that is a downer. Google is used by about two thirds of those looking for information via a desktop computer and by more than 95 percent of those using mobile devices. Perhaps the name Google is a bit more familiar. Alphabet is a holding company. Think about LTV and my comment about some folks not knowing what that was. Forgettable.
The write up reminds people that Google had “creepy” connotations. Alphabet, since no one knows what it is, is not so creepy. That makes sense to the handful of people who know about Alphabet.
My view of Alphabet is different. I think that the founders wanted to get out of the line of fire. With the Alphabet thing, other executives can talk to the regulators grousing about a Google monopoly. The lack of visibility for the holding company is little more than a way of saying, “Hey, we are a bit tired of this search thing. Regulators have finally caught on. Let’s do science projects.”
The second write up is remarkable because it states the obvious: “Danny Sullivan: The ‘State of Google Search Remains Strong.” Well, since there are antitrust legal matters associated with Google, that’s a bit of friction. On the other hand, the GOOG’s share of the Web search market, the Android thing, and the various allegations of the Foundem variety suggest that the Google is able to make money with ads.
These two facets of Alphabet Google are examples of the wonder some folks feel when thinking about the great success Backrub has become. As Beyond Search ponders 2017, several thoughts flew through the addled goose’s very small brain:
- Alphabet is more like a corporate two step. If Hewlett Packard can split into two, sell off Autonomy, and announce an improved Autonomy IDOL product, the Google folks can do some fancy dancing as well. Who wants to sit in court and explain that Google is not a monopoly? Answer: Lawyers and the people running the ad business.,
- Google is an online advertising business and a very big one. In 2017, Google will become more aggressive. One reason is that the mobile ad revenue behaves differently from the 20 year old desktop search ad business. The other reason is that Google is going to do what unfettered publicly traded companies do; that is, do what is necessary to make more money.
- People think search and research equate to use of Google. That’s just wonderful for some.
- The Alphabet Google thing is locked in a series of processes which give it significant control over social, political, and technical issues. That’s okay because Amazon, Facebook, and a handful of other outfits are in the same game. Oligarchies are a big new thing.
What’s the contraction for 2017? My view is that Google is not search. People think Google is search. There you go. Look it up online and try to verify what you find. Are there disturbances in Denmark? Is the US Department of Defense hiding documents? Are Google executive biographies findable? The Google answer to these questions may be different from what a professional research finds.
That’s the contradiction. Search without finding objective information. No matter how one spells it, the result is an assumption of accuracy and objectivity. Can cheerleaders spell well?
Stephen E Arnold, January 5, 2016
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
