Imagine Apple, Facebook or whoever controlled the Internet like Google does:
How long would it take until they abused their power?
If someone is dominating the web it's Google and looking at their power and how much traffic they move—their actions feel balanced and neutral compared to any other player.
Part of what has put Google in their position as the gatekeeper is that the perception of being balanced and neutral. If search was more overtly biased, Bing would step in as the neutral player.
The more they consolidate their power, the less they seem constrained by this. I don't see anything that fundamentally distinguishes google from these other companies other than their present strategic position.
> their actions feel balanced and neutral compared to any other player.
There are distinct business models at play here and that should be noted before arriving at a conclusion that Google is a benevolent corporate actor. The fact that Google (or any company for that matter) can dominate and observe traffic patterns and content should be a matter of concern to the democratically [in the contemporary sense] minded individuals.
Agree with that and other points you made but one can also be concerned by some recent evolutions off Google. Their move toward a more "designed" ui, with hover popups everywhere, etc, is a bit alarming. Their catch up game with Facebook could be a slippery slope. The recent removal of many labs. And so on.
For me they can keep the benevolence as a priority only if they become more something like a great worldwide university paid by some ads in a search engine.
Refreshing response from Sergey. The Guardian article made him come off very immature.
The article brought to my mind a presentation Roger McNamee (Elevation Partners) has been circulating -"10 Hypothesis for Technology Investing."
A number of the points in the presentation illustrate a challenging future for Google:
- Index Search has peaked: Google's position of dominance on the web is fading, due largely in part to their own success.
- Apple's App Model Threatens the World Wide Web: a walled garden, un-indexable
- Rise of Social. Facebook owns. Again, a walled garden, un-indexable
- Lack of searches on mobile
Similar arguments were made in Wired's "The Web is Dead" feature, and they all point towards Google's core business going downhill.
The Guardian article made Sergey seem... well... butthurt. As if recognizing his lousy position, but instead of owning it, whining about it. I've always thought of Sergey as smarter than that. He's always seemed much more pragmatic than The Guardian article made him out to be. It didn't feel like the Sergey I [don't actually] know.
Certainly Sergey has gripes with Apple and Facebook, and certainly he has self-preserving motivations for responding as he did. But I feel like giving him more of the benefit of the doubt here and calling slight nanz on The Guardian for rabble-rousing as press outlets do.
Also - kudos to Sergey for his extremely diplomatic clarification there. We've all seen much less tactful responses to press spins.
This is an excellent deck, why have not seen this before! Was this on HN?
I agree with almost all his points, insiders are very bullish on Apple, the feeling's that %600 is nowhere near the peak, it'll be more like $1K. On the other hand, Google has started to give off the "has-peaked" vibe: the silly badmouthing of rivals, huge reorgs, half-thought out failed projects, not being clear of where to go next and milking the usual cow, etc.
One important point that he makes that I think is important to reiterate is how open the mobile area is, since non of the big guys currently have good extensions. So I think we'll see more of the Instagram-type successes (probably not on the $1B level, though).
Takeaways if you're an up and coming, young (or otherwise) developer: Learn the Apple stack (70% of your time) and learn HTML5/JS (20%).
I'm glad he wasn't attacking Facebook and Apple in the way it was portrayed.
I think a key issue here is that powerful incumbent corporations have always challenged the economic freedoms of smaller players and individuals operating in their space.
In the heyday that Brin refers to, those powerful corporations hadn't yet emerged. Now they have. The biggest challenge to starting a new eBay today is eBay. The biggest challenge to starting a new Google today is Google.
Going forward, what matters is the extent that a platform economically empowers its participants to create additional value. Ideological openness is just one dimension in that.
Facebook, Apple, and Google all do empower their participants in different ways and with different tradeoffs, as do startups like Square and Kickstarter.
To me this is another example of a fundamental difference between the Web 1.0 entrepreneur generation and today's superstar startup CEOs. The former's ambitions ranged from data liberation, information freedom and up to interplanetary travel. The new generation's ambitions end in their stock valuations.
Let me paraphrase: "I bemoan the rise of Internet tollbooths and gatekeepers, such as the ones put up by Facebook and Apple. By the way, please build native apps for Android, and please use Google+ to connect with your friends and family."
Pretty scary some of the proposed legislation being thrown around in the UK.
On large companies... If individuals have issues with large companies they can simply go to an alternative. However government should intervene to ensure "internet" companies comply with the same laws as "non internet".
Which is part of what the proposed laws are ie extending the traffic analysis they can already do on phonecalls to the internet (ok they are asking for a lot more but that may be a negotiating ploy)
Though after the scandel with the Met and News International maybe it RIPA sould be amended so that the Police dont have access without a warrent and leave just the SS and SIS.
Oh and remove any ability of local govenment from RIPA
I'm certainly not saying I agree with this wholeheartedly, but I think his point is that you wouldn't get very far without (my examples here) a Facebook and Twitter presence, and an iPhone and Android app.
[+] [-] tferris|14 years ago|reply
How long would it take until they abused their power?
If someone is dominating the web it's Google and looking at their power and how much traffic they move—their actions feel balanced and neutral compared to any other player.
[+] [-] rbarooah|14 years ago|reply
The more they consolidate their power, the less they seem constrained by this. I don't see anything that fundamentally distinguishes google from these other companies other than their present strategic position.
[+] [-] eternalban|14 years ago|reply
There are distinct business models at play here and that should be noted before arriving at a conclusion that Google is a benevolent corporate actor. The fact that Google (or any company for that matter) can dominate and observe traffic patterns and content should be a matter of concern to the democratically [in the contemporary sense] minded individuals.
[+] [-] rmc|14 years ago|reply
Imagine Facebook or Google controlled the mobile phone market like Apple do.
Imagine Apple or Google controlled social interaction like Facebook do.
Imagine Apple, Google or Facebook controlled desktops like Microsoft do.
[+] [-] gbog|14 years ago|reply
For me they can keep the benevolence as a priority only if they become more something like a great worldwide university paid by some ads in a search engine.
[+] [-] AVTizzle|14 years ago|reply
The article brought to my mind a presentation Roger McNamee (Elevation Partners) has been circulating -"10 Hypothesis for Technology Investing."
A number of the points in the presentation illustrate a challenging future for Google:
- Index Search has peaked: Google's position of dominance on the web is fading, due largely in part to their own success.
- Apple's App Model Threatens the World Wide Web: a walled garden, un-indexable
- Rise of Social. Facebook owns. Again, a walled garden, un-indexable
- Lack of searches on mobile
Similar arguments were made in Wired's "The Web is Dead" feature, and they all point towards Google's core business going downhill.
The Guardian article made Sergey seem... well... butthurt. As if recognizing his lousy position, but instead of owning it, whining about it. I've always thought of Sergey as smarter than that. He's always seemed much more pragmatic than The Guardian article made him out to be. It didn't feel like the Sergey I [don't actually] know.
Certainly Sergey has gripes with Apple and Facebook, and certainly he has self-preserving motivations for responding as he did. But I feel like giving him more of the benefit of the doubt here and calling slight nanz on The Guardian for rabble-rousing as press outlets do.
Also - kudos to Sergey for his extremely diplomatic clarification there. We've all seen much less tactful responses to press spins.
10 Hypothesis Slides: http://read.bi/GMHoYQ
10 Hypothesis Video: http://bit.ly/w0qpeh
[+] [-] Jun8|14 years ago|reply
I agree with almost all his points, insiders are very bullish on Apple, the feeling's that %600 is nowhere near the peak, it'll be more like $1K. On the other hand, Google has started to give off the "has-peaked" vibe: the silly badmouthing of rivals, huge reorgs, half-thought out failed projects, not being clear of where to go next and milking the usual cow, etc.
One important point that he makes that I think is important to reiterate is how open the mobile area is, since non of the big guys currently have good extensions. So I think we'll see more of the Instagram-type successes (probably not on the $1B level, though).
Takeaways if you're an up and coming, young (or otherwise) developer: Learn the Apple stack (70% of your time) and learn HTML5/JS (20%).
[+] [-] rbarooah|14 years ago|reply
I think a key issue here is that powerful incumbent corporations have always challenged the economic freedoms of smaller players and individuals operating in their space.
In the heyday that Brin refers to, those powerful corporations hadn't yet emerged. Now they have. The biggest challenge to starting a new eBay today is eBay. The biggest challenge to starting a new Google today is Google.
Going forward, what matters is the extent that a platform economically empowers its participants to create additional value. Ideological openness is just one dimension in that.
Facebook, Apple, and Google all do empower their participants in different ways and with different tradeoffs, as do startups like Square and Kickstarter.
[+] [-] zerostar07|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dchest|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jad|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sparknlaunch12|14 years ago|reply
On large companies... If individuals have issues with large companies they can simply go to an alternative. However government should intervene to ensure "internet" companies comply with the same laws as "non internet".
[+] [-] gaius|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjwalshe|14 years ago|reply
Though after the scandel with the Met and News International maybe it RIPA sould be amended so that the Police dont have access without a warrent and leave just the SS and SIS.
Oh and remove any ability of local govenment from RIPA
[+] [-] rwmj|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrmg|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] crdoconnor|14 years ago|reply
Online store: You'd be paying for adwords, probably.
[+] [-] crdoconnor|14 years ago|reply
One of them being Google.