Slashdot Mirror


Google Striking Fear into the Corporate Masses

SpectralDesign writes "The New York Times reports that Google is striking fear into the hearts of even unrelated industries. From the article: 'We watch Google very closely at Wal-Mart," said Jim Breyer, a member of Wal-Mart's board. In Google, Wal-Mart sees both a technology pioneer and the seed of a threat, said Mr. Breyer, who is also a partner in a venture capital firm. The worry is that by making information available everywhere, Google might soon be able to tell Wal-Mart shoppers if better bargains are available nearby.'"

27 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. Monopolies by Crouty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Jim Breyer is not against monopolies, he is just against monopolies that others have. This small-minded businessman is for the right thing for the wrong reasons.

    --
    On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
    1. Re:Monopolies by DrHanser · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure why this is modded insightful. As a member of Wal-Mart's board, it is his job to do what's in the best interest of Wal-Mart and its shareholders, not the general public. Railing against a businessman for doing what makes sense for his business is more than a little silly.

      I'm no fan of Wal-Mart by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm a capitalist at heart, and seeing comments like these make me scratch my head in confusion.

      --
      What is humor if not pain tempered by time?
    2. Re:Monopolies by DoraLives · · Score: 5, Insightful
      for the right thing for the wrong reasons

      As it's shaping up right now, Google, monopoly or not, is beginning to look like the only thing that might possess the throw-weight to successfully counter the otherwise alarming trend that has recently manifested itself among almost all large capitalist enterprises, and that is the trend of restricting and choking access to information/data/operating code to the point where no one is able to access/use/employ that information/data/operating code without the considered permissions of whomever "owns" it.

      We now live in a VERY dangerous time in which the scales seem to be tipping in favor of an Orwellian outcome where all information is locked down tight and any attempt to look under the hood or otherwise perform any "unauthorized" operation on any information/data/operating code is met with a draconian response of severely criminalizing those who would attempt to do so.

      As it stands now, Google seems to be the only large capitalist entity that would further its interests by tearing down any and all restrictions on information/data/operating code.

      As loathsome as the business of political lobbying may be, it is now incumbent upon Google to get cracking in the seats of political power to ensure that information/data/operating code is kept as open and free as possible.

      No one else has the clout that Google now possesses, and therefore no one else has a prayer of achieving the absolutely vital goal of keeping information open and free.

      Should this endeavor fail, some very dark times await us.

      That Google may be a monopoly is, at present, something that we're just going to have to ignore. We can't have our cake and eat it too, so we must, unfortunately, cheer on Google as it becomes even larger and more powerful.

      Should the battle to free information/data/operating code be won (and it is by no means a certainty), then and on then may we turn our attentions toward Google itself with an eye toward reducing such excesses of size as exist at that time.

      For now, Google is the enemy of our enemies, and is perforce our friend.

      --
      Is it fascism yet?
    3. Re:Monopolies by czarangelus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So when IBM worked with Hitler to exterminate the Jews... the fucking shareholders, man! Think of the fucking shareholders!

      This is a rhetorical example, but seriously. There have got to be limits to what a corporation is allowed to do in pursuit of the almighty dollar, but you never hear any of the Ayn Rand-types talking about that. But capitalism is no magic utopia where the invisible hand stops pollution, disposes of hazardous waste properly, or ensures that children are fed and cared for even if their parents are drug-addict deadbeats. Time and time again, corporations show to us that they are untrustworthy on their own, and will always do the most profitable thing, no matter how many lives they destroy in the process.

      --
      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    4. Re:Monopolies by DrHanser · · Score: 5, Insightful
      i seriously doubt the allegation that unions are bad for the economy. do you know any studies/research about this? the theory that unions are bad for the economy sounds like a fat corporate trying to justify why unions should be abolished. face the facts - unions are the people. economy depends on how comfortable and well fed people are. atleast that's what i think.

      Have you ever worked for a union? I have. And by and large, they promote mediocrity. On a not-so-personal level, take a look at American automakers. The unions are strangling them, and one of the reasons they turn out junk is because of the unions. American cars are decidedly average, and that's what unions promote: being average. In fact, where I worked, if you were better than average, you were looked down upon and made to feel unwelcome.

      --
      What is humor if not pain tempered by time?
  2. Better than Wal-Mart by Sacarino · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hell, I can tell you a better place to buy crap than Wally World... It's called Costco.

    They don't treat their employees like EA coders, and you can still buy cheap.

    I didn't even need Google for that.

    --
    -- El Sacarino tiene gusto de la chocha
  3. wow! by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 4, Interesting

    funniest reason to be scared, ever.

    they are saying: the cheapest on the whole world, are they lying? No, it's simply not possible

    btw, castorama (like wal-mart in europe, but smaller and focuses only on things that people may use when building/renoving a house) gives warranty on their prices. Their ad is: "if you find this thing cheaper anywhere, we will return to you the price difference". I've never tried if this actually works.

    --
    #
    #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
    #
    1. Re:wow! by loucura! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

      Price-matching isn't about the consumer, it's about competitors. When a retail store announces that it will match prices, it is telling its competitors that it wants to end a price-war. When the competitors follow suit, the price-matching serves as a mechanism so the corporations in question can see who is breaking the "terms" of their cartel action. In essence, price matching is collusion to keep prices higher.

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
  4. cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar wor by httpamphibio.us · · Score: 4, Insightful

    unlikely...

    cheaper than walmart online? yeah, but it's not just froogle that lets us find that out.

    --
    sig.
  5. Better prices Always... by subitophoto · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is Walmart supposed to have the better prices... Always ;)

  6. Lame... by Douglas+Simmons · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Competition historically has been a good thing, but here are two companies, public i should add and /not/ that completely disconnected in terms of their respective industries, that could improve each other's customers' satisfaction. But once in a while, as in this instance, things get too adversarial and people stop working and start fighting.

    If this were kindergarten, they'd be given time-out to stare at a wall. I'm not going to suggest that there's any conspiracy with Microsoft pulling some wal-mart puppet strings, so I'll just some other paranoid poster take care of that.

  7. That works both way by trollable · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, Google will tell you if there is cheaper somewhere else but it will also bring you customers if your offer is the cheapest. However this is not new: many services like that exist (Kelkoo), but they are limited to online shops. Google already has Froogle. The wave is reaching the mortar shops. Fine for me.

  8. Ah . . . by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . . . so capitalism is best with perfect information. Wal*Mart no doubt would like as close to perfect information about its customers and what they might be willing to pay in a given market. But they cry foul when the tables are turned and their policies of discriminatory pricing based on region and neighboorhood might be in jeapordy. Go figure.

    --
    I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
  9. Sad by chrisgeleven · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh the horror, someone telling me that I might get a better price somewhere else!!!

  10. Re:The dark side of Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.pakin.org/complaint/ COMPLAINT GENERATOR. SIMPLE.

  11. I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I doubt its Walmart that should be afraid, more likely brands like Nike, Reebok and Gucci and not only that they should be afraid of the information thats out there not the search engines that find it.

    Let me explain:

    A quick quiz:
    Gucci is an Italian Fashion product maker right? Tick tock tick tock ..... times up.
    Wrong! Gucci are an Amsterdam company that buy in practically all of their products that makes *brands* (Boucheron, Balenciaga...) they say they buy shoes from Italy, according to this guy, the Italian high-fashion shoe industry get most of the shoe from Romania and China now and as a result Italy is Europe's biggest shoe importer:
    http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?id =179

    Quiz:
    Nike are a high quality manufactured brand, Reebok are a high quality manufactured brand, Pan Shoes Bangkok are some crappy Asian brand? Right or wrong, tick tock tick tock... Wrong. Bangkok Rubber company make Reeboks for Reebok, Nike's for Nike and Pan Shoes for Pan Group (which owns Bangkok Rubber Company).
    http://www.pan-group.com/

    CAT Footware (From Caterpillar):
    http://www.catfootwear.com/Main.aspx
    Cat Footware are American made and 'Authentic since **1904***' (from their website)? Correct or not?
    Tick tock tick tock... Wrong.

    Cat brand products are made by Wolverine World Wide.
    Here is the information saying they signed up the CAT brand in ***1994***, not 1904:
    http://www.wolverineworldwide.com/brands_cat.asp

    Here's their annual report:
    http://www.wolverineworldwide.com/investors_report s.asp

    So where are CAT brand shoes made? Read the 2004 Report, page 29.
    Risk factors:
    "reliance on foreign sourcing and concentration of production in China; the availability and price of power, labor and resources in key foreign sourcing countries, including China;"

    Made in China.

    It's not the search engines, its the information they should fear. Look at the CAT thing, I simply clicked on their financial details and did a search for 'China' to locate the information. Nothing to do with Google or Yahoo.

  12. And nobody in the business world understands it: by lord+sibn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just a few years ago, Google was nothing. Now entire industries are shitting their pants, because they are incapable of understanding Google's business model.

    Google has become ubiquitous; They make products people want to use. And they don't even feel compelled to say "customer satisfaction is our number one priority!" on every sign, railing, and even doormat in the building.

    While other companies (and even industries) are struggling to lock consumers into their own little slice of the marketing pie, they have not figured out a way to get people to stop going to google for products or services. And that scares the bejesus out of them. It's not that hard; run the business and stay in the black. Give people what they want, instead of offering them a product and telling them that they want it because you want what's best for them.

  13. That's a very negative way to look at it by Biotech9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wal-mart could also see a glass half FILLED with milk, Google would be able to tell customers that Wal-mart have a better deal than their competitors. That's all google can do, is spread information. It's not ever going to act by itself, it's just going to allow people to make better decisions (assuming the information is accurate).

    Some customers might spend a while looking at froogle.com and find that the cheapest Speakers only cost 50 quid at Wal-mart, and that'll keep Wal-mart and the consumers happy.

    Others might spend time with google.com and find the best speakers are from Genelec and buy them, keeping Genelec and the consumers happy.

    More information = more informed people = less bad purchases. It can only affect Wal-mart (and others) badly if they are not offering what their target market wants.

  14. Healthcare by wralias · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The worry is that by making information available everywhere, Google might soon be able to tell Wal-Mart shoppers if better bargains are available nearby.

    What they really should be worried about is workers finding out that other companies actually pay living wages and provide good health coverage, unlike Walmart.

  15. It's called Froggle by AngryNick · · Score: 4, Funny
    Wal-Mart's fears are very close to reality. It doesn't take an MBA to figure out that:

    maps.google.com + froggle.google.com = "She's a witch!"

    Wal-Mart should look forward to this day...or do they not really have the lowest prices?

  16. get used to it by idlake · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google isn't even the leader in web-based price comparisons. This is going to happen, Google or not.

    I expect the main channel of delivery in the future will be via cell phones anyway: SMS, MMS (photo of product bar code), and cell phone browser.

    I guess what he doesn't like is that, for a while, there was an information imbalance between sellers and buyers, with sellers being able to use sophisticated computer systems for pricing, but buyers being left clipping coupons. Well, that imbalance is going away. That's a good thing for a market economy and capitalism. You like market economies and capitalism, right?

  17. Google, Coupons, and You by patio11 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Are you familiar with the economics of coupon clipping? Coupon clipping is essentially the retail establishment's version of price discrimination: they know that, for example, that V. Pickles brand I can never spell but always buy appeals to people with vastly different ability to pay for quality pickles. So "they" (and by they I meant both the pickle manufacturer and the retail stores) put coupons out in the paper. If you're willing to spend the time searching through lots of advertising to find the coupon for the pickles you buy and not the hair dryer you don't, you get a little money. I'm a working professional, searching for a 25 cent pickle coupon is not a good use of my time. My mother, on the other hand, used to do this religiously before *every* shopping trip. The average shopper clears between $6 and $8 in savings per hour. So I end up paying an extra quarter for pickles than mom does (and, considered over several million buyers, thats not a small amount of difference to Wal-Mart).

    OK, so thats the retail environment for you. Now, you'll notice that the price discrimination is enabled by one thing: differential access to information, or the "cost of search" if you want to think of it that way. You're already assuming that the cost of search for a better deal is going to be greater than the savings you'll realize. Question: do you consider $6 an hour for boring tedium a good use of your time? Many, many millions of people whose opinions are very valuable at Wal-Mart world headquarters do. The ultimate nightmare app for Walmart would be a scanner attached to your cellphone (already widely available here in Japan) which would just scan all the items you need and tell you "Buy pickles, diapers, baby formula, and orange juice at Walmart. Go to the Jewel three minutes away for apple juice, note paper, and their 8 for the price of 3 pizza deal."

    Another thing retail loves is called a loss leader -- something which is a staple, like milk, priced so low it will actively get people to come into your store, where they'll naturally buy other items which are priced higher. This works because people might know, for example, that $1.50 a gallon milk is an absurdly good deal, but putting together a list of all the items you need is very difficult, so you just get people to comparison shop on a few high-profile items and nickle-and-dime them on, say, cereal. (This is also one thing small stores LOVE to do to Wal-Mart, since it is very, very difficult to beat Wal-Mart's pricing across the board.) You can have loss-leaders which are much more expensive than milk though -- computer monitors, for example. And that + google = scare the pants off of you if you work in retail. Because it will bring people to your store for the purpose of getting the loss leader and *nothing else*. Best Buy calls these sort of customers "demons" (Google it, interesting article on the phenomenon) -- if you can exploit the information gap between you and the store you can tremendously cut into their business.

  18. Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Many years ago Walmart was a bit cheaper. They now are often much cheaper as they now have the power to pressure suppliers and rent factories to produce thier own branded products. This is a defacto national brand that competes with other national brands through the advantage of not having to run seperate ad campaigns.

    However, like other companies that started on the bottom rung by being cheap, they now need to learn a new trick or become irrelevent. Walmart needs customers with money, customers that are not going to shop at a cheap place that depends on illigal immigrants and desperate mothers. Shoppers that are going to value reasonable working conditions over wide aisles.

    And it is going to be hard for Walmart to keep prices low, unless they start looking at ineffeciencies in management and other overhead. These ineffeciencies, according to Forbes, is why Costco is a better company. And these ineffeciencies are why Walmart is vunerable even at the brick and mortor level. Historically a firm that competes just on price, or just on style, are not good long term prospects.There are a few national chains, like Target, that are competeing heavily on quality of life issues, and those chains will likely do better as Walmart is forced to sacrifice price to attact the more affluent customer.

    Walmart has already shown no dedication to a particular community. There are empty husks of building all over the country left as Walmart moved 10 miles up the road to cheaper land. With the price of gas, we may again be reaching a point where a 5 mile trip to the safeway is better than a 10 mile trip to the walmart.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  19. The trick to that offer by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many stores, including to an extent WalMart, will offer that guarantee. However, while on the face of it the offer is good, the reality is that the offer is meaningless, as they have a trick to get around it.

    Example:

    You go into Z-Mart, and you see a Ricaroni 5 CD changer for $15. You pick up a Z-Mart flier showing the price.

    You now head over to Q-Mart, and locate what initially appears to be the same Ricaroni 5 CD changer for $20. Since Q-Mart offers a "200% price difference" offer, you figure you are going to get the CD player for $10.

    But wait! When you go to claim your offer, the friendly Q-Mart manager points out that the Z-Mart flier is offering a Ricaroni model #5551212-a player, and Q-Mart's is a Ricaroni model #5551212-b - a different model number. He then points out that their offer only applies to "the same model", and since this is NOT the same model number, it is not covered under their vaunted "200% price difference" offer.

    Now, if you were able to check, you would find out that the only folks who have the model #5551212-a are Z-Mart, and the only folks who have the #5551212-b are Q-Mart. Moreover, if you could go to the Ricaroni manufacturing plant, you would see that the only difference between the model numbers is the model number sticker - they are otherwise the same unit.

    Then why the model number difference? Because both Q-Mart and Z-Mart insist upon the model numbers they sell being unique - so that their "200% price guarantee" trick can work.

    I've changed the names to protect the guilty, and obviously this trick isn't played on every item sold in every store, but it is played enough to allow the stores to offer tricks like this. And before you ask why the manufacturers go along with this - because when you are dealing with customers with the buying power of WalMart, BestBuy, and so on, you do what they want, or you don't sell product.

  20. Traditional Corporate Mindset Doesn't Get It by salesgeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Last week I had a series of meetings with attorneys and accountants about a new software product. It really helped me understand the corporate mindset that pervades the industry:

    * IP, in and of itself is valued by attorneys because it generates huge ammounts of billable work. No attorney in his or her right mind would recommend using anything that resembels an open source license. Too many barriers to litigation and legal fees. No huge lawsuits, no complex negotiations.

    * Accountants like IP because it is valued however you need it to be.

    So when I threw out the idea of GPLing the software, the result was almost comical:

    * One attorney tried to explain how he needed to read the GPL. And bill me hours to do so. (not going to happen)
    * One attorney suggested I'd be giving away a cash cow. I asked him: yours or mine. And the answer was a "what do you mean by that?" (struck a nerve here)
    * My accountant said the intangible asset would be useful at the end of the year, and that an open source license may dilute the value of the asset.

    It's very clear to me now why most business people see Google as a threat: intellectual property speculation has replaced the bilking investors with electric lemonade stands and WebVans full of irrational exuberance of the late 90's as the trendy way to make money out of thin air. Reality is going to be absolutely harsh to IP squatters & speculators:

    * Innovation renders entire swaths of intellectual property useless. In the case of copyright, style and fashion relegate properties to the clearance bin or worse.

    * For every piece of prime real estate, there are thousands of acres of desert, swampland, uninhabitable mountain terrain and tundra. Investors, many of which think the latest biotech idea will pay off in 10-15 years will find out that their idea isn't the winner - and will find out that a worthless patent is about as useful as an EPA superfund site is a location for a strip mall.

    * Easments, emminent domain and the like have not been established in the IP world, and for the public good they will have to be. And the best ideas are often the ones that will eventually be taken via emminent domain. After all, if I can take your office park in NJ because I can put a bigger one up that will generate more tax revenue, why not take, say your one click buy or miracle drug patent because I can put it to better use for the common good?

    I hope that Greenspan's last act parallels his cooling of the internet bubble: throwing a barrel of icewatter on the out of control party that the current IP feeding frenzy has become.

    --
    -- $G
  21. Power by twitter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    For now, Google is the enemy of our enemies, and is perforce our friend.

    No, Google is your friend. Google seeks to create and share information others create. As long as they believe in and fight for the right of others to do the same, they are your friend. This is the exact opposite and the cure for the insane but inate will to control others you see. The truth does set you free.

    We now live in a VERY dangerous time in which the scales seem to be tipping in favor of an Orwellian outcome where all information is locked down tight and any attempt to look under the hood or otherwise perform any "unauthorized" operation on any information/data/operating code is met with a draconian response of severely criminalizing those who would attempt to do so.

    Ah, true, but you do not go far enough in your understanding of collective oligarchy and current law. Creating and sharing information is also against the rules by the DMCA, a very real law. You are supposed to mindlessly consume information fed to you, not examine, share or even remember it. Control of information is key to establishing an Orwellian society. That society proves it's existence to itself through suffering. The result is a society that exists to make you misserrable.

    In the pathetic WalMart example you see the motivation and an indication of how absolutely that motivation is applied. They are paranoid. Perfect information might hurt their sales and ability to take your money. Walmart is also freaky about taking pictures in their stores and other petty details. It's all about power and control. The small scale of this power and control is a good reason to be afraid. It indicates that no detail is too small to be controlled and manipulated. Power demands absolute power and the will to power is part of human nature. Small minded people get a kick out of such petty control but it's part of all of us and it's implications are much larger.

    Orwell recognized this about human nature. He drew his conclusions from experience in the colonies of the British Empire, as a tramp in Paris and London, a witness to communist revolutions in Spain and the second world war. These were all terrible experiences where the ordinary rules of conduct were removed and people were free to do oppress each other in any way. So, I'll quote the master:

    'The rule of the Party is for ever. Make that the starting-point of your thoughts.'

    ' You understand well enough how the Party maintains itself in power. Now tell me why we cling to power. What is our motive? Why should we want power?'

    He knew in advance what O'Brien would say. That the Party did not seek power for its own ends, but only for the good of the majority. That it sought power because men in the mass were frail cowardly creatures who could not endure liberty or face the truth, and must be ruled over and systematically deceived by others who were stronger than themselves. That the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that, for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better. That the party was the eternal guardian of the weak, a dedicated sect doing evil that good might come, sacrificing its own happiness to that of others.

    'You are ruling over us for our own good,' he said feebly. 'You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore --'

    He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O'Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five.

    'That was stupid, Winston, stupid!' he said. 'You should know better than to say a thing like that.'

    'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ... The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in thei

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  22. I *know* they care by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " Do you honestly think that the majority of consumers care about where their products are made? "

    Oh yes, I think they do. That's why I think these brands link themselves to American products/ US Atheletes etc. to give the impression of being a US product (Or Swiss or Italian or whatever).

    "What most people care about is getting stuff, and artificial intelligence and the internet (which is really what this article is about, not Google per se) is making this cheaper by stimulating competition."

    I say this again and again, price isn't everything, value for money is. If you can't tell if an Italian Luxury handbag is really an Italian Luxury Handbag and not just a Chinese bag with some finishing done in Italy to qualify for the "Made in Italy" label, then how can you determine value for money? Any search you get from Froogle doesn't help with that.

    Plus how much can you save? Is it worth the extra drive and extra time? I really don't think Walmart has much to fear there.