Slashdot Mirror


Google's Continued Growing Pains

eldavojohn writes "The Mercury News is reporting that Google's 500 percent growth since its IPO hasn't come without a cost. With the purchase of DoubleClick, Google is facing antitrust charges in both the United States and the European Union. And with their rising success, there are open source alternatives springing up."

17 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. How long can it last? by zmollusc · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man, i dread the day that they isolate the maybe 10,000 people on the planet who actually respond positively to advertising. What will we do with all the trees and bandwidth then? :-(

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    1. Re:How long can it last? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Man, i dread the day that they isolate the maybe 10,000 people on the planet who actually respond positively to advertising.

      Yeah, I'm sure that the reason companies have been pouring billions and billions of dollars into advertising for decades isn't that it works, but that nobody even though to check.

    2. Re:How long can it last? by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, marketing such as you see on TV only works insofar that you and/or your product get the air time instead of someone else.

      Advertising is like an arms race; everyone is doing it (and spending way too much on it) just because everyone else is.

      People in general respond negatively to advertising. However, it is generally true that a bad reaction is better than no reaction at all; even if they're annoyed by a commercial, people are still more likely to buy a product they'd heard about (or of) in a commercial than a product they'd never even heard of before.

      Furthermore, since everyone is doing it, people are annoyed more or les equally by all companies, so the negative effect (annoyance) is diminished/shared, while the positive effect (people hearing about your product) is retained.

      Basically, if everyone stopped playing the advertising game... nah, sorry, it would start all over again. Same dealers, new suck^Wplayers.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    3. Re:How long can it last? by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you don't think advertising works you must not have an adsense account that earns money. Advertisers pay on a per click or per view basis and can calculate their profit based on advertisement clicks.

      I'm sure you're not saying that the reason billions are spent on advertising is that advertisement media producers are just really good salespeople, but that's how it sounds.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  2. Re:Unregulated capitalism == evil by dch24 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think this article is misleading. They talk about the antitrust investigation into Google's acquisition of DoubleClick... caused by:

    Complaints that "publishers might fear that if they did not deal with Google, their ranking in Google's search engine might be affected"

    In other words:
    Before Google ever drops my search ranking because I cancelled my DoubleClick subscription, I'm going to spread FUD about this hypothetical possibility, and insist the Government shut them down.

    There is also the typically worries about privacy after Google knows not only what you search for, what AdWords you click on, but now what DoubleClick Banners and Pop-Ups you click on too. And they talk about some of Google's competitors, trying to find the next Google killer. They think Wikia and OpenAds will be more open-source (Google's PageRank is a "closely guarded secret") and won't collect any consumer information.

    It's all just so ... hypothetical. Wake me up when you have an actual search engine or advertising model. In the meantime, let Google buy DoubleClick. If they fail to deliver on either front, there are plenty of competitors who will willingly accept all their dissatisfied customers.

  3. So how did this article end up on here, anyway? by Behrooz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd say these 'growing pains' appear rather similar to the challenges faced by any corporation of similar size. Potential mergers with companies in the same field being investigated by the FTC? Welcome to the Fortune 100. Open source alternatives as a 'threat' to ubiquitous name recognition and >50% market share? Yep, that's a truly pressing problem most tech companies would love to face. Difficulties sustaining rapid growth when your market cap exceeds $150B?

    Well, yes, it's difficult to grow rapidly when you're valued at over 1/400th of the gross world product. Pick a bigger planet next time, perhaps?

    Honestly, did this article really say anything insightful or unusual? If it did, I missed it...

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  4. Big is evil? by Epsillon · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, SM, not big, just cookies that don't expire until 2038 and profiling users might be just a little naughty. An anonymising proxy based search plugin may well be the answer for Firefox users. Those without Firefox can still make use of Blackboxsearch - at least until something a little more ethical (than BlackBox or Google) appears.

    FWIW, BlackBox is also slightly naughty. It's using Google's search technology without giving anything back. The disparity between getting a few links and giving up your right not to be profiled makes it the lesser of two evils, though.

    --
    Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
  5. I work at a startup by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We would be inclined to view antitrust charges as a "nice to have" type of problem.

  6. Re:Unregulated capitalism == evil by FleaPlus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google is a decent company, but they do evil simply by virtue of dominating the market and being impossible for a newcomer to compete with. Is Google actually doing anything to prevent newcomers from entering the market?
  7. Of course they are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google DeathSquads(tm) are driving from campus to campus, slaying out of hand any student enrolled in CS, IT or Engineering fields.

    And you thought those vans were just taking pictures.

    No, Google's not doing crap to stop innovation/competition; there's just the usual, "But, but, it's Google! Waah! I don't want to work my ass off, I don't want to make something better, I just want to call them evil and tell them what to do as a non-shareholder!" crap going on here at Slashdot.

  8. Competitors by Arabani · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apparently Yahoo! is catching up to Google, at least in terms of customer satisfaction, so I really don't think Google's dominance in search is that big of a deal. In advertising, maybe, but that's why the FTC and EU are looking into possible antitrust violations ... nothing particularly special there. Now, if they actually stopped the merger because of antitrust violations, THEN that's news. Until then, it's just hypothetical bullshit and dreams. The article does manage to make on good point, though, which is that sooner or later the market would manage to break Google's (hypothetical) monopoly. Heck, there's already countless startups all hoping to displace Google. Google does not come close to enjoying the dominance that Microsoft once did, which is why all this concern about Google shutting out the competition seems premature, at best.

  9. Deja vu? by SamP2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When Microsoft was originally established, in the era of IBM dominance over PC OS and software, their mission statement was to be everything IBM wasn't at the time... To cut the red tape, to avoid bureaucracy, to put human relations above legal stuff, to be the "people's company" that fights the IBM tyranny. And back then, in the late seventies and early eighties, it was. If you find it hard to imagine, just google the "Would you have invested?" poster.

    Fast forward 20 years, and what do you see? Microsoft now is the Big Bad Suing-R-Us company, holding almost total dominance over the PC OS and other markets. It is the new Goliath. And then, comes the new David, Google, with the mission statement of "do no evil", in other words, "do no Microsoft", once again being the "people's company" that fights the MS tyranny.

    Fast forward another X years... You get the idea.

    The cycle never ends, and indeed it is pretty much natural. Once a company grows from a small enthusiastic community (which Google once was, which Microsoft even earlier once was, etc) to a big faceless corporate conglomerate, there will come a new player, making up with agility what he lacks with force. And the new David vs. Goliath battle ensues, until David grows up to be so big and fat you can't tell him apart from Goliath anymore, and the next David candidate takes on the role.

  10. Re:misleading "OpenSource" use? by vidarh · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The point is that if the source to a competitive search engine was freely available, the cost of actually competing with Google is pretty low. Google has tremendous hardware costs, but mostly due to scale. The minimum cost to start indexing the web is pretty modest - you can crawl at least tens of millions of pages a day on a single Xeon box (been there, done that), and you can create a search index from tens to hundreds of millions of documents in a day on a single box depending on how good your indexer is (again, been there, done that) and how much metadata etc. you want to index. As such, you could get going with a dozen EC2 licenses or a few thousand a month in hosting fees.

    The sticking point is search quality. That's a hard problem. And that is what is limiting most of the companies trying to compete with Google: Finding ways of getting results that are as good as or better than Google's without having Google's resources available.

    The crawling, the indexing and returning basic results is easy. Back in '97 I shortly did a Linux specific search engine. It took only about a week to write the basic elements, and I indexed about a million pages to test it. Today it would've taken more care, as the number of documents you'd need even for a narrow niche vertical search engine is far higher, but there are also more off the shelf full text engines available that can easily handle at least up to the tens of millions, some into the hundreds or more (though _all_ of them are slow) if you don't want to do the work yourself. But that part is not hard work.

    Most of the rest of what Google does well is scale the system, and that contributes to their margins, but it's something any competitor would have a lot of time to figure out too. Besides, over the next few years we're going to see a huge number of ex-Google employees who have learned a lot about scaling from Google's system, and who are back in the job market for various reasons, or looking to start their own companies.

  11. Re:Google's master plan. by pipatron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, and apparently it's led by someone that understands that the way to a continued successful growth is to be nice to your employees, to treat your customers with respect, and well, generally Do No Evil. Everyone understands that they want to make money. It's no charity. What makes them different from virtually every other major IT company out there is that people don't hate them, which is why, whenever there's talk about Google, the Do No Evil mantra comes up.

    --
    c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  12. Re:Google's master plan. by somersault · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yep, I don't get the 'googleisthenewmicrosoft' tag in this article. People hate Microsoft because they make shoddy products, and still dominate the market. If they made decent products, people really wouldn't care so much. I wouldn't anyway. A good product deserves to dominate. Poor products dominating purely through marketing and underhanded tactics is what is disgusting, but google's products are actually pretty useful, stable and have decent interfaces.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  13. So, compete with them by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Join Majestic 12 and contribute to an alternative search engine. You can have your machines index a certain amount per day and contribute the result to the index.

    Having alternatives is what keeps companies honest. Government regulation just makes the regulators a target to be corrupted.

    --
    Deleted
  14. Re:I used to share your misconception ... by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used to share your misconception. My undergraduate was Computer Science, however now I have had some graduate level marketing classes and I was surprised to find out how quantitative professional marketing is. There is massive experimentation to determine what works and what does not. Really? Wow. My undergrad marketing class confirmed everything I'd suspected. We had several case studies to present as group projects. One in particular was presenting a new frozen food product in supermarkets. I asked him how we were supposed to go about surveying the market to figure out if there was even a demand for what we were selling before we pitched the board, i.e. him and the other groups. "Just make up the figures," he said. "The important thing here is the exercise in making the presentation." Doing my damnedest to keep my smart mouth shut, I went along with it. But seriously, what the fucking fuck? Sure, we did a bang-up job of selling the idea to the class, we got an A on the project, but the facts we presented were all bullshit. I had no more idea of whether or not the product would succeed than before I started the project.

    I'd hoped that this was just a poor class and that marketing professionals would actually know what the hell they're doing. Sadly, it hasn't been the case. I worked my way through college and I've seen advertising and marketing done by mail-order catalog companies, dot.coms, homebuilders, etc. I could gather all those marketing people together in one room and you wouldn't find a single clue in the entire lot. When I was still in school, I was working in one marketing department as a jr. report cruncher. Now the way I learn things, I cannot go by rote. I need to know why we're doing things, how the process works. If I just get a series of steps handed to me like a magical incantation, devoid of rational explanation, I'll never remember it. So I ask tons of questions, ask the why's, and end up pissing people off because they think I'm using socratic questioning to point out how big of dumbasses they are. That isn't even the case! I'm just sitting there wondering why nothing makes sense. By the time I realize it's because nobody knows what the hell they're doing and I should just shut up, they're already put me on their shitlist.

    What the other poster said about marketing types being good at selling their ideas, that's exactly right. The marketers I've worked with have all been con men, good at backslapping and getting an idea sold but unqualified to even understand if the idea is a good one.

    I'm sure there are marketing professionals out there, somewhere, who are actual professionals. But in my experience, sales and marketing is where football jocks go when they get fat.
    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne