If there’s one company that gets people talking technology, it’s Google. Many love it, and a handful hate it — but more often than not, we are interested in it. Not only does Google organise our information, but it shapes the way we think about the web. Indeed for many, it is the telescope through which they see the world.
A decade ago, when Stanford students Larry Page and Sergey Brin began working on search technology, it is unlikely they were thinking about becoming one of the biggest brands in the world. The company’s famous slogan — ”Don’t be evil” — was a Silicon Valley engineer’s mind writ large: build it good, built it fast, build it clean. That mantra was given form in clear, concise solutions that did what they promised quickly and simply.
Things are different now, though. The little search engine that could is a multibillion-dollar corporation — and, almost inevitably, it is getting the bad press that goes along with the position. The launch of two new Google products last month produced an outbreak of chin scratching. Is Google too big to love any more? Can it take on the dominance of Microsoft? What effect is it having on our right to privacy?
Certainly there are questions to be asked. While Google’s supporters point to how useful its web applications are, some wonder whether market dominance is desirable. For every fan who points to ”don’t be evil”, there are critics who worry about the firm’s cooperation with a censorious and politically repressive Chinese government.
Google’s problem is, ultimately, a product of the success it has enjoyed. Just a few years after it entered the world, Google is so ubiquitous that it is beginning the transition from well-loved innovator to bastion of corporate America. On this trajectory, it might not be long before it achieves a status comparable to McDonald’s, Wal-Mart and, of course, Microsoft.
And there’s the crux of our relationship with Google. For the health of home computing, many want a challenge to Microsoft’s command — and many think Google could do it. By using the web browser as the central application on your computer, not the operating system, they might weaken the vice-like grip that Microsoft has carefully constructed. But it takes power to prise open Bill Gates’ fingers, and perhaps it is only by becoming a corporate monolith that Google can challenge Microsoft’s might. And does that mean we might simply trade in one faceless giant for another?
Google’s supporters say there is a long-standing tradition that when something successful is built up, it is swiftly knocked down. Is that true? To find out, we asked a selection of technology industry insiders — fans, rivals and impartial observers — what they thought about Google’s past, present and future.
Jon von Tetzchner, founder of web browser firm Opera
”I like their products; I use the Google search engine as my default and it is the default on Opera. More than 70% of our users said they wanted it that way. It does not mean the others are bad, but try to remember what the market was like before Google.
”They have some interesting things coming in the future, but it is really still early days for them.
”They are competing with Microsoft and not competing with them at the same time: they’re not making office suites and the like, but they are taking on some of the MSN web services. We are fighting Microsoft, too, so we don’t mind someone helping us out.”
Jeff Jarvis, media commentator and consultant
”As a company, Google has done wonderful things: It has re-architected knowledge with its search; it has taken the cooties off citizens’ media with its ads on blogs. But as they gain power, they lose trust. Google’s insistence that it would do no evil is only its surest sign of arrogance. The company grew too big — and especially in this age of small, we distrust big.
”The search engine prides itself on uncovering information anywhere in the world, yet the company is not transparent about its share of publishers’ ad revenue or its Google News sources. Google depends on our links and clicks to inform its search, yet the company seems allergic to people; it trusts only its secret algorithms. In short: Google makes Microsoft look human.”
Craig Newmark, founder of community advertising site Craigslist.org
”Google is primarily a technology company — it innovates and supports its products. Microsoft is primarily a marketing company, and regarding support and innovation, not so much.
”Also, the Google guys sincerely believe in their ‘do no evil’ philosophy. So far, they seem to do a good job protecting the privacy of their users’ information.”
Richard Cox, senior investigator for anti-spam campaigners Spamhaus
”It seems to us that they’re putting profit before security. But it is not just Google — anyone who gets to that size tends to forget how easily it can be for people to abuse their services.
One of the biggest problems is that it anonymises. Gmail lets you sign up anonymously, and lets you mail anonymously, too. Usually, if anybody needs to find out where an email came from, they can find out — Yahoo! and Hotmail show you. But Gmail just kills that. I don’t think it was a conscious decision, I just don’t think they thought about it properly. And even if you do have a problem, there’s no mechanism to talk to them.”
James Cridland, head of new media, Virgin Radio
”Everything that Google does, I use. Every computer at Virgin Radio has the Google toolbar pre-installed. My personal e-mail goes into a Gmail account; Google Talk is a useful business tool for the new media team at Virgin Radio [just don’t tell IT]; and if Google made drinks, we’d get happily drunk on GoogleJuice. Every night.
Their biggest weakness is probably a strength — they launch things without really knowing what will happen or thinking it through. Google could easily put Microsoft, Dell and AOL out of business if they wanted. Stripped-down laptops, running a Linux-based Google OS with a GoogleBrowser, using Google servers as a remote hard drive, connecting to GoogleWi-Fi available in every town — dreamy.”
Cory Doctorow, science fiction author, digital activist and co-editor of BoingBoing.net
”Their technical insights still remain among the best in the field. Early search engines were based on ranking pages using artificial intelligence: Google decided to use people’s intelligence, and it continues to have insights that are almost as good as that. It managed to capitalise on an advertising market that nobody thought existed.
”They have done some things I think are questionable: the screening of information from Chinese dissidents, for example, is reprehensible.
”The great limit on Google’s growth is going to be competition. If its ability to order information could be applied to other areas, then I’d be a very happy man.”
Jason Kottke, professional blogger and Google watcher
”Google is at an interesting point. They’re publicly making the transition from a medium-sized company to a large company. As such, they are acting very much like a kid would act in the transition to adulthood; they want to be good, they want to do things their way, they have unapologetically done some inappropriate things, and due to their quick growth, have had to make some hard decisions they were unprepared to make or have avoided making other decisions altogether.
”In some ways, I think the company is conscious of this process and is trying to retain as best they can those youthful qualities that have guided them in the past. The question is, will their customers, shareholders, and the media let them? Those groups tend to frown upon big companies taking risks, being willing to make mistakes, and doing things their own way.
”What Google is attempting is audacious, and I would rather see the attempt and subsequent failure than see them becoming just another boring middle-aged American company.” – Guardian Unlimited Â