More on Google...

Well Google is starting to get bad press. So I feel I'm not alone in starting to think Google is going creepy on us. A week ago, there was this article in the New York Times, Relax, Bill Gates; It's Google's Turn as the Villain in which the author, Gary Rivlin, explains how Google rose from being media darlings to becoming a little bit too big, too soon for anyone's comfort.

...It was not that long ago that Google reigned here as the upstart computer company that could do no wrong. Now some working in the technology field are starting to draw comparisons between Google and Microsoft, the company in Redmond, Wash., that Silicon Valley loves most to hate.

Bill Gates certainly sees similarities between Google and his own company. This spring, in an interview with Fortune, Mr. Gates, Microsoft's chairman, said that Google was "more like us than anyone else we have ever competed with."

Google's success has already spurred Microsoft to develop its own Internet search engine (a project code-named Underdog), but Google has legions of engineers banging away on a range of projects of its own that, if successful, could dislodge Microsoft from the pre-eminent spot it has enjoyed since the early 1980's.

Of course, Silicon Valley has had past pretenders to the throne. Netscape, which went public 10 years ago this month, and its Web browser, Navigator, were supposed to fell Microsoft - but it is Netscape that is no longer in business. And while Google is riding high, those closely following the company caution that it is hardly invincible; an inflated stock price, a desire to compete in too many sectors simultaneously or simple hubris might cause it to stumble, they say. Even Microsoft, after all, has had legal troubles. ...

Just as Microsoft has been seen over the years as an aggressive, deep-pocketed competitor for talent, Internet start-ups in Silicon Valley complain that virtually every time they try to recruit a well-regarded computer programmer, that person is already contemplating an offer from Google. ...

Google is also making it more difficult for some start-ups to raise funds. In the second half of the 1990's, entrepreneurs frequently complained that the specter of Microsoft hung over their every conversation with venture capitalists. Today, they say the same about Google. ...

*Phew* Now ain't that heavy? And, via Kootke.org, here's more of the same, Google's Unnecessary Arrogance, Dan Gillmore writes:

...John Battelle is probably correct that this story marks a southward turn in Google coverage. The remarkable thing, from my perspective, is the degree to which Google's public-relations wounds are self-inflicted.

Google is a great company, but a layer of hubris threatens to encrust the excellence. It was exemplified most recently by the childish banning of contact with CNET journalists after the news site did a story highlighting what can be done to invade privacy using the company's own tools.

The attitude problem has been evident for a while now. While I support the company's refusal to offer "guidance" to Wall Street -- a game used by public corporations to game the stock market -- the utter opacity of the operation is disconcerting. It's one thing to stick to principle, but another to rub people's faces in it, such as when Google held an open house and had the CFO -- the chief food officer, not the chief financial officer -- give a presentatinon. Cute, but that stunt will be remembered by people whom Google will someday need. ...

And there is this post by Daring Fireball's John Gruber, Google Is an Advertising Company:

...“Follow the money” is as good a way as any to define a company: the point of business is to profit. This is why Apple is not, and has never been, a software company: their profits come from hardware sales — computers, and, now, iPods. Microsoft is a software company: their profits — billions of dollars every quarter — come almost solely from software.

Judged by their profits, Google is an advertising company. They don’t profit from search, they don’t profit from software. They profit by selling ads. This isn’t to belittle them — I think Google is a terrific company, and they are profiting handsomely from ad revenue ($369 million last quarter). They’re market leaders because their ads are better for everyone — they’re far less obnoxious than traditional web advertising (so they’re better for users), and yet they’re also more effective and cheaper (so they’re better for advertisers). And their software is, in many ways, ingenious.

If Google has a platform, it’s an advertising platform, not a developer platform. I’m not even saying Google should have a developer platform — I’m just saying they don’t. Any software that uses Google as a back-end for web search could be modified to use Yahoo or MSN by changing a few lines of code. Google Desktop might be popular, but it’s nowhere near as cool as Yahoo Widgets (a.k.a. Konfabulator) in terms of acting as a developer platform.

Plus, if Google is such a threat to Microsoft, why is it that all of their non-web software only runs on Windows? (Cf. Scott Rosenberg’s post from last week: “Google’s Windows-Only World”.)

Business-wise, Google’s software is just an excuse to show ads. Google’s search results and apps like Gmail serve the same purpose as the editorial content in magazines and newspaper. Google may or may not become a direct threat to Microsoft in the future, but in the here and now, the entrenched monopolies that ought to feel threatened by Google are newspapers. Newspapers, especially local small- and medium-market newspapers live off the revenue from classified ads. But because most towns have only one major newspaper, classified ad prices are artificially high. Google is primed to burst into this market, with targeted local ads that are cheaper for advertisers and easier for users to find what they’re looking for or interested in. ...

So these days, it sure isn't cool to be Google... HeHeHe