Google Considered Too Big To Fail

theodp writes "Doc Searls is worried about the way Google makes money. 'Nearly all of it comes from advertising,' he frets. 'That's what pays for all the infrastructure Google is giving to the rest of us. As our dependency on Google verges on the absolute, this should be a concern.' Have we reched Peak Advertising? Blogger Dave Winer says amen, asking if Google is already 'too big to fail.'"

Comments

What a doorknob

[ZeroExistenZ]

Nothing is "too big to fail".

At the current rate, people will shy away from Google as it's becoming an omnipresence on the internet which is raising concern.

There are numerous examples of things that could not be that happened, like the Titanic, Yahoo and Enron.

Re:What a doorknob

[Anonymous Coward]

This I fundamentaly agree with. In my view "too big to fail" actually means "too wedded into the rest of economy to be alowed to fail". The banking system (certainly here in the UK and as I understand it in most of the world) was just that. Not only were individual banks so big that if they collapsed they would bring down vast sections of the economy but they few huge banks there were all made the same stupid mistakes so the same conditions meant they were all about to fail at the same time (the 1930s would have looked like nothing if the governments hadn't stepped in).

By comparison Google provide:
- web searching services; but if they disapeared then most of us would just move to Bing or Yahoo.
- maps and GPS navigation; most of us would get by without it, thouse that wouldn't are probably using TomTom anyway
- email; this could cause more of a problem for people as email accounts take a while to mature. That said, not many businesses use Google mail so it would people's personal mail boxes that would be effected and people can probably manage their lives without them.
- other web tools (e.g. blogging, Google Health, YouTube etc) OK; a few people might be a bit upseat and Google Health might have to be sold off but, big deal.

My gut feeling is if Google disapeared overnight a lot of us would be confused for a few days an then get over it. Hardly too big to fail.

But... supposing they DID control significant parts of Business communications; or DID manage 50% digital health records; or DID run the most successful micro-payment scheme in the world; etc. Not unlikely scenarios and then I think they might be too big to fail.

- Christopher

Re:What a doorknob

[ShinmaWa]

By fall 1921 the depression was over." held true, but I can't even begin to comprehend what could you possibly mean by that.

He means exactly what he says. Before the "Great Depression" that started in 1929, there was another one that started in January 1920 and recovered about 18 months later in the summer of 1921. However, where commodore64_love went wrong was in regards to the cause. The end of WWI brought back 1.6 million newly unemployed ex-soldiers back into the workforce, which, for a short time, shocked the economy. To compare the Depression of 1920 to what is happening today isn't really valid at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321

Re:What a doorknob

[jc42]

This I fundamentaly agree with. In my view "too big to fail" actually means "too wedded into the rest of economy to be alowed to fail".

Yeah, that's one of the common meanings of the phrase. But there's another that might well apply in this case, too: A company is "too big to fail" if it has the clout to, uh, persuade the government to prevent its failure.

This can be (and has been) done in a number of different ways. In the telecom industry, the traditional approach has been to establish a monopoly position that's enforced by the government. This effectively eliminates competition and guarantees a "regulated" profit margin. You can probably think of examples in other economic fields.

In the computer field, we saw a good example of another approach during the US's 2000 election. Prior to this, Microsoft had been only marginally active in politics. In 2000, Microsoft became one of the largest campaign "contributors". They contributed to campaigns in both parties, but mostly to Republicans, especially the Bush/Cheney campaign. Shortly after the winners took office, the Justice department effectively settled the lawsuit about Microsoft's monopolistic practices (of which they had been convicted by a lower court) on terms that were very friendly to Microsoft. The "punishment" was minimal, a few hours worth of MS's profits. They were also to be "regulated" by a 3-person committee, with Microsoft appointing one person and having veto power over the other. You haven't heard much about that committee, because they haven't done anything. Part of the "punishment" was that no further indictments would happen without the committee's approval, and none have happened.

But this example is relevant here mostly because this is a computer-geek forum. Similar examples of "bribery-by-another-name" abound, in other economic fields, and are one of the common meanings of "too big to fail". It means a company that can bribe officials to support it. (You might ask the OLPC folks for more examples. ;-)

There are still other meanings to the phrase. Back in the late 1970s, there was an incident in which the head of a department of the state of California implemented a switch from the usual IBM computer systems to some other kind of computer. Which kind didn't matter. What mattered was that the department's top official was forced to justify his decision before the state legislature. It was widely reported that he won, i.e., the legislature permitted him to keep his job. Industry analysts also pointed out that IBM had won really big (despite their apparent loss of the one sale). They had demonstrated that if you're sure you can justify a non-IBM purchase before a committee of computer-illiterate politicians, go right ahead and buy what you want. But if you do, IBM can and will have you dragged before those computer-illiterate politicians, and you'll be fighting for your professional life. If you aren't absolutely sure you want to do this, you'd be better off just buying what your IBM rep says you should buy. We can be sure that managers everywhere understood this lesson.

Anyway, the phrase is a rather elegant way to summarize a wide range of conditions in which the government will guarantee the ongoing success of a giant corporation.

Anyone got any more examples of yet other meanings (or implementations) of the phrase? It might be fun to generate a list of them, complete with links and explanations of how they differ from each other.

Our "dependency" on Google

[dkleinsc]

Really? How dependent are you on Google?

For searching, you can always use Yahoo or Bing, or a few others. For replacing GMail, you can always use POP access to download your mail and keep it locally, run your own mailserver (after informing people of your new address), use your ISP's mail system, or another free email service. If you're using Google Maps for something, you could make do with Mapquest. If you're an advertiser on Google, there are lots of sites that would be happy to have you advertise on their sites instead. If you're doing SEO, you can follow Yahoo or Bing's rules at least as easily as Google's. If you had no Android phones, you'd still have iPhones. The list goes on for the vast majority of their offerings.

In all cases, Google has its dominant position not via lock-in, but by delivering services that are on par with or better than its competitors. Either that or sheer habit. But that's significantly different from, say, a Windows user's dependency on Microsoft.

Overdose of Adverts is Why People Use Wikipedia

[theshowmecanuck]

When you search on almost anything on Google, all you get is a listing of people who sell some item with your search term in the product name. Sometimes it isn't even that. Sometimes it a page that is another advertising search page.

At least when you search for something in Wikipedia you get to a topic, not an advert. The fact that people select Wikipedia to go to so often is likely why a Wikipedia search result is almost always near the top of a Google search. Most of the time, it is the only type of information a person is looking for. 'Tell me about subject xyz', I don't want to fucking buy it, just learn about it. A lot of the time now, except when looking for product (one I have already bought) or programming forums I just search Wikipedia immediately. The articles also usually have enough external links to get me surfing for more info without needing to use Google too much.

Re:Is $COMPANY "$BUZZWORD"?

[Monkeedude1212]

Is NevarMore "Funny"?

Monkeedude says NevarMore has utilized its PHP too much and Slashdot needs to do something about it. PHP happened to CowboyNeal and NevarMore is on the same path.

Have you used the Google Local Business Locator yet? You'll be able to find out where you need to go in no time! Soon you won't be able to find your way home without our us!

Moderators say Nevarmore is responsible. No one disagrees.

-

This is more fun than mad libs!

Re:OMG! Bailout.

[RingDev]

(Think Saturn. They weren't unionized, but profitable.)

Uhh, Saturn was unionized (UAW) and was only profitable for 1 year out of its entire existence (1993).

Not to say that the union was the problem, but not having a union does not give you the able to ignore trends, consumer demands, and quality controls and still have a successful company.

-Rick

Bankruptcy works if it is allowed to happen

[zogger]

All those car factories would still have existed, just with new owners now. They could still make cars, or perhaps something else. They would have needed workers, and would have been in a position to offer a fair, but less ridiculous salary and benefits package for factory work.

    A real bankruptcy and liquidation is that, stuff gets sold, the new owners use it. Stockholders would have been taught a lesson that they need to do due diligence on their executive employees better, management would have learned you can't be stupidly top heavy, and the rank and file boys would have realized they need to not expect as much as they think they are worth, not in a global economy.. So all around, it would have been better for that to happen, long range.

I feel the same away about those bloated tick parasite casino banks, they should have been allowed to go bankrupt, then we could have sorted out what all those scam paper financial products are really worth, which is..not near as much as they contend now. I think society has hit "peak wealth leeching" with those guys.

Ya, it would have sucked a little for a couple of years, but the resulting economy would have been MUCH better. Less stupid overpaid fatcats sucking out of the system, more middle class actual productive wealth creation jobs back.

As it is now, all they have done is reward those who failed in the first place, and given them incentive to just follow the same failed policies. Quite dumb really. Slap this generation and the next several in debt for this to happen, too. That's not dumb, that's outright criminal.