The Dark Side of Google

My friend Shel Israel, the co-author of Naked Conversations who has been trying to get me to properly blog for a year or so, thinks I'm too soft on Google. He suggested in his blog that I either write some mean stuff about Google or buy some Google pom poms. Maybe I am too naive about Google. This is only the second time in some 20-odd years that Shel has accused me of being too soft on a company. And the first time, he was right.

Further, Curt Monash thinks I'm too soft on Google as well, although he says on his blog that I'm not usually biased. Curt's a very smart guy. Jason Cormier at the marketing and PR firm Room 214 thinks maybe I'm onto something, but that just reinforces the idea that I'm an unpaid flak for Google.

I just don't see much evil there. The one big, gaping, horrific, inexcusable flaw Google has is it paranoid shizophrenic secrecy. My theory is that this secrecy is the source of all the complaints about Google. Does it deal with click-fraud appropriately? Who knows? Will it really protect all the data it collects about our online activities? Who can say? Did it really turn to the dark side when it set up shop in China? No, but the company has done an abysmal job of defending itself.

So tell me. In what way do you dislike Google? Do you see the dark cloud of evil creeping into this capitalist machine? What do you think are Google's biggest flaws? Give me examples. If you like, I'll pulish them in my book. Whenever that happens.
 

Comments

[Tara 'Miss Rogue' Hunt]

Not that they are necessarily evil (as in intending to be), but they are insular and secretive and believe that they offer the only and the best solutions, thus trouncing upon community, small entrepreneurs, etc. For a much better explanation of this, see this post:

http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2006/08/20/building-a-better-mouse-trap/

[Tara 'Miss Rogue' Hunt]

Oh...and here is a good one:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2006/08/19/does_google_mean_resistance_is_futile.html

There is something inherently wrong with one company holding the key to everything. One company benefiting and being the gatekeeper. Like Microsoft before it, Google may have to face an antitrust suit if they continue down this path.

It doesn't make them evil (nor was microsoft...it's just bizness), but it does make them greedy.

[shel israel]

I guess what bothers me the most is that on any given day, the blogosphere is filled with discussions about Google like this. You never see anyone from google joining the conversation. They seem to have so many talented people there, but I personally would be unhappy anywhere that didn't trust me enough as an employee to allow me to blog.

[Piyush Pant]

I have commented in detailed on my blog. Basically I think the number one danger is a coporate culture that lacks the ability to contemplate failure and becomes progressively elitist, inward looking and arrogant.

[David]

Piyush - I think you are on target. They aren't bringing enough of the right type of outside thinking in to see what is necesary for this phase of the company a focus on service and empowering all levels to truely satisfy customers.

Please see my link above for more details on this.

[/pd]

There's a distinct difference between users' data retained on their behalf (kept for as long as they give specific consent), and data about users, kept forever without their informed consent.

right now, Google is holding all the data bout users without letting use know what is being used and how its being used. This is what we (users who use Google extensively) would like to know. But, would this type of information getting into public hands, may also permit the competition to understand their closely guarded methods etc, and that was the primary reason the stood up against the DOJ case.

Shel : "You never see anyone from google joining the conversation"

your wrong, on that. Google does communicate and listen too..remember the Tablets being shipped and Kirby who got a bunch of google goodies beecause Checkout failed on him ?? Moreover, there are direct conversations that occur within certain forums. However it could also get a little technical and not business oriented.

My biggest grippe with Google is a simple question: "What is it that you know about me then I know about myself ?"

[Richard Brandt]

Tara-- It's an interesting comment about it being "inherently wrong" for one company to hold so much information. It's inherently worrisome and dangerous, but it may be hard to regulate Google as a monopoly. Monopolies are not inherently illegal. Only if you abuse monopoly power can the feds go after you. They'll have to prove that with Google.

Now, is it possible for an inherently honest company to collect this data without abusing it? I'd like to think so, but there are no examples I can think of. Power corrupts.

There is one possibility. Being honest works. It has helped make Google popular. On the internet, it's easier to find out what's good and what's bad. The Wisdom of Crowds. If it deviates from that, its popularity will decline. Its secrecy is already making that happen, which is why it needs to open up.

[Richard Brandt]

Piyush also has an excellent point. Microsoft got arrogant, but maintained a healthy paranoia that anyone could come along and knock them off the charts. Sergey and Larry have had so much success since starting the company, they have an infallibility complex. Google has an elitist culture, a Stanford playground of arrogant brainy people. NIH is a danger.

[/pd]

FYI only --just in case someone sez --Google does not listen :)_

http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2006/07/dr-google-sends-pain-relief.html

http://www.kirb.com/Blog/index.php/2006/07/27/google-sends-goodies/

"Sergey and Larry have had so much success since starting the company, they have an infallibility complex." -- maybe thats what they want you to think ??

Remember, we only see what oogle wants us to know !!

[Richard Brandt]

I've talked to people who have worked with Sergey and Larry in the past, and they say the duo are extremely arrogant and have huge egos. But then, so does Bill Gates...

Thanks for the links. Interesting.

[CPCcurmudgeon]

I'm unhappy about the way Google has handled the click fraud issue. I guess I don't understand how a company of Google's engineering caliber did not understand that PPC advertising as it is would open up the fraudulent traffic floodgates. But I'm biased ... I have always felt that PPC was a bad business model because of its vulnerability to click fraud.

[Rob Cottingham]

Richard, I'm not sure NIH is that big a deal for Google... their approach seems to be "Not invented here, huh? Then let's buy the inventors."