Posts tagged google
My theory that the search business will eventually become nearly identical to the soft drink industry is panning out nicely
- Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan: You say that you have like these 200 factors [that determine search rank], why not at least just list them?
- Eric Schmidt: Because we change them. What would happen is, you’ve asked me this question for the eight years I’ve worked with you, so it’s the same question. Why don’t we publish these things. And the fundamental answer is we’re always changing. We’re always changing, and if we started saying here’s how the black box works, then all of a sudden huge incumbencies would come out about this change and that change, and we just don’t want that pressure.
- Sullivan: I’m not saying this is how the factors are actually measured up or weighted.
- Schmidt: But even the list.
- Sullivan: But 50 of those factors have never changed.
- Schmidt: Let’s just be honest and say you and I disagree.
- Sullivan: OK...
- Schmidt: It’s a business secret of Google.
- Brian Womack of Bloomberg: But that’s not very open.
On Google Instant
It’s about serving more ads.
“ Not only are you never lonely, you’re never bored! We’ll suggest what you should be watching, because we know what you care about. We can suggest what you should do next, what you care about. Imagine: We know where you are, we know what you like.”
Google CEO Eric Schmidt, speaking at IFA in Berlin today.
That is the creepiest, most worrying thing I’ve ever heard from a CEO. And by worrying, I mean that both ways: people should be fearful of how their data is being used and investors should be fearful because Schmidt (and Google, but especially Schmidt) is freaking everyone out.
“We know where you are, we know what you like,” sounds cribbed from either a mad scientist or Bond villain. (Via paidContent)
Google’s raising our babies now? These ads cross the uncanny valley of what you should and shouldn’t be turning to Google for advice. There’s something very sad about someone turing to a search algorithm for every question they have about a child. Do we talk to people anymore? Or are we being raised by robots-by-proxy? (Via Agency Spy)
Google tests the monopoly line
The Columbia Journalism Review has an excellent roundup of reactions to Google’s purchase of ITA, an airline-flight information provider.
In a nutshell, CJR describes how this purchase (among others) pushes Google towards monopoly status in two ways. First, Google is purchasing a company that may present potential competition to their core paid search business. But more importantly, with a purchase like ITA, Google is going beyond ‘organizing the world’s information’ to actually owning it.
Given their massive hold on how people find information online, there is a risk that their closely-held search algorithm could favor their own products. Such a move is almost a direct equivalent to Microsoft making IE the default browser within Windows.
CJR sums it up:
Further complicating this is that Google, despite all its talk of openness, is a black box. Its search algorithms are top secret, meaning it could manipulate them how it likes to favor its businesses in results. Why does that matter? Norris points us to a comment by Google’s head of search results in the Telegraph, who calls those results ““the biggest kingmaker on this Earth.”
Google Me
To be a fly on the wall at Google Me meetings… Listening to engineers try to reverse engineer people into an easily searchable, sortable form.
Here’s what I how I imagine the project has progressed:
- A worker realized that Google knows most everything about all of us anyway and organized personal data into a automatically generated profile.
- A team was tasked to turn this into a product. They set out to create an ‘Auto-Facebook’: sign in, confirm which of the individuals with your name is actually you, and all your information is automatically pulled into a profile.
- Lots of people test this at Google and most love it. They theorize that this product is a Facebook-killer since its profiles are the result of actual action, not user statements (since people are notoriously inaccurate).
- The product is pitched to the top brass with the set up, “Don’t you find it difficult to succinctly describe yourself and what you do when asked point blank? …”
- Someone realizes that this perhaps even creepier than Street View. His or her concerns are dismissed when someone cites Facebook’s growth despite their privacy issues.
And soon it will launch!
“ Let’s be clear. This change is not in the best interests of users or developers. In the history of technology and innovation, it’s clear that competition delivers the best outcome. Artificial barriers to competition hurt users and developers and, in the long run, stall technological progress. Since I started AdMob in 2006, I have watched competition in mobile advertising help drive incredible growth and innovation in the overall ecosystem.”
AdMob’s CEO on Apple blocking advertising services owned by mobile competitors.
Come on man: this is competition. You can whine about not being let in, but at the end of the day this is competition between Apple and Google, iPhone and Android, not simply AdMob and iAd. These aren’t “artificial barriers to competition.” This is competition. (Via The Life and Times of AdMob)
“ If we did not act, we faced a draconian future. Where one man, one company, one carrier was the future.”
Google Vice-President of Engineering Vic Gundotra.
Plus they wanted to make a bunch of money off mobile search. But, yeah, the moral thing too.
Also: after hearing this quote and watching the coalition of Sony/Adobe/Google form, I couldn’t help but think these guys have seen Lord of the Rings one too many times. (Via AllThingsD)
Although I don’t disagree with this chart, it’s pretty worthless. For all practical purposes, TV is so ubiquitous it can’t grow.
It reminds me of a chart waved around by NASCAR in 2006 showing how Latino audience growth was up 500%. I took this to mean they had 5 Latino fans. (Via Google I/O)
Germany Asks Google to Surrender Private Data
This will be interesting to watch.
Google head Eric Schmidt recently said that having people’s private data in their hands was better than a government. Google says they follow local laws, but their China decision indicates that they’ll pick up and leave when their principles are violated (or firewalls.)
This case should be interesting, and a landmark, for many reasons:
- The data in question Google collected by snooping on personal WiFi networks while collecting images for Street View. This is in violation of Germany’s privacy laws, not to mention ethically iffy (creepy, at least.)
- The data is that of Google users, we can safely assume based on their ubiquity. So handing it back rather than just deleting it might violate some sort of ethical principle Google has; at the least it sets a dangerous precedent for them: they’ll have handed over personal data to a government because of a legal request.
- Google snooped on networks everywhere Street View exists! Is your house on Street View? Is your wifi network open? Google might have some traffic of yours… Other states could just as easily request this data from Google, especially if they hand it over to Germany. So the stakes are high if they hand it over.
- What happens if Google doesn’t surrender it? Can they afford to pull out of Germany? With the recent sell-off of GOOG shares, this doesn’t seem like the greatest idea.
Thoughts?
