Hard to stay mad at Google
As many who know me, know that I have not been a big fan of Google. I love the desktop search (or I did until I got a Mac with Spotlight) but am not a big fan of their corporate culture. Just because they got search right (emphasis on the past tense, but that’s a later post) doesn’t give them the license to walk around the valley looking down their noses. (Prius anyone?) They are a notoriously difficult company to partner with and to sell to (probably the real genesis of my distaste.)
I especially dislike the “Do No Evil” motto. As if other companies have the motto ”Do Evil.” It’s like an ad campaign that asserts “Trebelicious BubbleGum has no Spider Eggs in it.” (Although we know that certain telco’s bubblegum does have spider eggs.)
But lately, I’m beginning to like Google. They really do seem committed to an open web, and that is good for everyone. First was their support of Net Neutrality. Actively fighting the telcos in their effort to control what traffic they deliver is critical to the success of the Internet. To see what would happen if AT&T and Verizon got their way on Net Neutrality, one would just have to look at how horrible the mobile web browsing experience is (another area Google is trying to address with it’s gPhone initiative.)
Now one could argue that Google supports Net Neutrality because they don’t want to pay telcos for carrying terabits worth of YouTube videos. Except that Google has more than enough cash to pay the telcos and serve their cafeteria meals in disposable gold happy meal boxes. If Google didn’t believe in an open web, it would do just that. The truth is while Google can afford to pay the telcos off, start-ups would not. They could effectively bar a good portion of their next generation of competitors from the market by allowing the telcos to set up a content tax that would be a market killer.
Google’s latest salvo of course is their OpenSocial initiative. Again, Google has come down on the side of an open platform over using its muscle to promote a Google-only platform. The cynics of my readers (also known as my family minus my wife) would point out that’s because Google is getting its seat handed to them on a platter in social networking by Facebook and this is their way of fighting back.
And the cynics would be right. They also would completely miss these two points:
- It doesn’t matter if Google’s self interest helps everyone else. What matters is that we keep moving to an open web platform that fosters innovation and interconnectivity.
- Google seems to be the only big company that realizes that an open internet is the best way to expand it’s market presence. By making the web more open (and by extension better) they believe they will have more opportunity, not less.
Not surpisingly the old line telco’s and software companies doen’t understand this, which is why we have so many proprietary platforms (from Verizon’s vCast to SAP’s NetWeaver.) Suprisingly, some of the coolest and smartest new companies don’t seem to realize it either. I love Facebook, SalesForce.com and Apple and I use their products every day, but all of them are closed proprietary systems. That makes it difficult for me to interconnect them and other apps in a way I find as useful.
So hats off to Google today. From Net Neutrality, to OpenSocial, to the gPhone - they are making the internet a more interesting place. I’m sure they will benefit from that openness mightily, but so will OpSource, and our customers and thousands of other companies who have yet to be formed.
And to thank them, I have now changed my default search engine from Yahoo to Google. Think that will get me a ride on Google Jet?
Posted: November 5th, 2007 under SaaS - Software As A Service, Uncategorized, Web applications.
Comments: 5
Comments
Comment from Dan
Time: November 13, 2007, 9:36 am
> one could argue that Google supports Net Neutrality because they don’t want to pay telcos for carrying terabits worth of YouTube videos.
This sounds suspiciously like the Telcos’ logic. You should have pointed out that Google, like every Internet firm already pays for their outbound bandwidth every month. And Google’s bill is certainly in the millions. Likewise, consumers have already paid their ISP for the level of service they want. There’s NO reason why Google should have to pay again each consumer ISP whose customers access Google, other than pure monopolist greed.
What the telcos want is like forcing Ford to make payments to parking garage owners in order for Fords to be allowed to park there–over and above the payment you also make to park there.
Comment from NevDull
Time: November 14, 2007, 8:30 am
I believe you meant SAP’s NetWeaver…
Comment from MikeFM
Time: December 1, 2007, 11:05 pm
Don’t be evil may seem a silly slogan but in corporate culture I think it is an important thing to remember. To often companies get to involved in the business of business and forget their social obligations. It’s not that they’re trying to be evil - they just aren’t remembering not to be evil. Google doesn’t always succeed but at least they have something to remind them to think about what they’re doing.
Comment from John
Time: March 10, 2008, 2:55 pm
My experience is that most large corporations operate under the mantra “Get the job done and don’t worry about the consequences. That’s what we have lawyers for.” A far cry from anything ethical in my book. I applaud Google putting it out there and I hope they keep it!
Comment from HC
Time: April 29, 2008, 9:09 am
Treb, I get the impression that you do not know SAP NetWeaver well. It is very open with regards to interfaces for example. Look at the SAP Developer Network (SDN) community site.
Write a comment