Slashdot Mirror
Google's Impact on the Internet
Kierkegaard writes "The Globe & Mail and Fortune Magazine both wrote a piece on Google, arguably one of the most important companies in the world, and its influence and impact on the Internet. In particular, they mention the effects of Google's recent new services, like Blogger and Maps, as well as their take on how Google threatens the Microsoft Corporation. "If Sergey and Larry stick to their corporate mantra -- Don't be evil -- and are able to stem degeneration into the typically corrupt corporate ethos, who knows, they may just succeed in assuming the fair and honourable dominion over the world's information they so naively set out to achieve eight years ago in their garage.""
If they weren't around I'd just be using Yahoo or whatever, and having less unused space in my various free web-based email accounts.
I tend to find that especially amongst "non-geeks", Google IS the internet. Could they have much more of an impact than that?
There is nothing more practical than a good abstract theory.
Consider this. Yahoo, MSN, and many others have begun scrambling to provide the same services that Google has right now. Toolbars, Desktop Search apps, and even increased space in your email accounts. Like it or not, Google has changed the face of the search industry. Will they keep their dominance? It depends on how the technology evolves. I've not seen any of the other internet based companies have the same impact. I'd say that makes Google pretty important.
Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
...they may just succeed in assuming the fair and honourable dominion over the world's information they so naively set out to achieve eight years ago in their garage.
Is it just me, or does it seem every computer "revolution" begins in a garage (*ahem* apple, etc)?
*Note to self* Get a garage.
I am a meat popsicle.
How about Google assisting censorship in China?
/ ch ina_censorship_working_google_workers_happy/
http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2005/04/15
As an avid reader of Slashdot, I think we all can find a bit of evil in this..
Unless Google pulls a rabbit out of a hat (like a new operating system), I cant see this changing any time soon.
Yeah. So they think that goodness will triumph. Fat chance. The Dark Side always wins. Power corrupts. No matter what pledges are made, there is nothing concrete that will keep google from becoming 'evil'. After all, everyone's perception of evil changes, and who knows what would happen if Google starts thinking for people, deciding for its customers what it's best interests are? The online community is getting too reliant on google. We need competition. We need alternatives. If one group be allowed to dominate, it needs to be one with openness and non-profitness written into its being. And google does not have that.
Google's AdWords program is completely opaque in it's processes. I get my clicks reduced/"slowed"/paused on some keywords, and through the roof on others. Google flat out ignores requests for explanations. Google also turns a huge blind eye to fradulent clicks, which we estimate could be as high as 10-20% of all registered clicks. This is not limited to just myself. Both issues are well documented on the webmasterworld.com forums by dozens of other advertisers. Higher volume advertisers get no preferential treatment from what I can tell, except that we just run into problems *more* often, due to the volume.
What it comes down to me is the fact that Google seems to actually care about pushing new ideas and new technologies. Microsoft has always been about giving the user as little as possible until someone else innovates, and then sinking cash into bringing it to the popular market.
Microsoft's impact on the Internet exists because most people are browsing from a Microsoft platform. If Google can introduce a platform to browse to all their services easily (Google branded Knoppix, perhaps) they might just remove the element of: "I'll use Microsoft Internet services because it must work smoothly with my OS".
The philosophy behind "maximize shareholder value" is one that I have never been able to understand. A corporation will certainly want its stock to maintain some value - otherwise they will not be able get new capital through issuing new stock - but in the end it's not the stockholders that keep the company in business. It's the customers who keep the company in business. (And in the case of Google, the "customers" I'm referring to aren't the people giving Google money, they're the people using Google to search - although in Google's case some concessions must be made to advertisers.) A company that has customers who are happy with its products will probably maintain or increase the value of its stock (not to mention customer loyalty and word-of-mouth's affect on profit margins). A company that is increasing the value of its stock artificially (by stock buy-backs, for example), is probably not a company that is keeping its customers happy.
I'm not trying to say companies that are trying to maximize shareholder value are evil. I'm trying to say that I think the belief that maximizing shareholder value is a good business practice is misguided, as it's something that will happen naturally if the company is being run properly.
I know I'm probably talking out my ass and will be flamed for it, but that's the way I feel.
--Ender
Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
Google IS the internet
To my 9 yo son, the name of the company is "Google Beta".