Imagine Apple, Facebook or whoever controlled the Internet like Google does:
How long would it take until they abused their power?
If someone is dominating the web it's Google and looking at their power and how much traffic they move—their actions feel balanced and neutral compared to any other player.
Part of what has put Google in their position as the gatekeeper is that the perception of being balanced and neutral. If search was more overtly biased, Bing would step in as the neutral player.
The more they consolidate their power, the less they seem constrained by this. I don't see anything that fundamentally distinguishes google from these other companies other than their present strategic position.
You can be successful with your product on the WWW without employing any Google services, being totally independent. If people and other sites like you and link back to you your traffic will quickly skyrocket—which feels natural. You are not obliged to use any Google service like GA. Just use the Internet and its open standards and you are ready to go because Google left the Internet's core like it is and didn't build a walled garden around it. That's the great thing about the web: it's decentralized and everybody can contribute, Google haven't tried to change this. That's why I don't like the native app trend with the appstore, all the innovation the Internet brought us are vanished by one central and strict entity and nobody cares, Android at least tries to emulate some parts of the net (i.e. by using intents, allowing multiple appstores, with the open nature of Android, etc.), Google is regarding their marketplace Play much more relaxed than Apple.
Looking at the Appstore or the Facebook API, there are so many rules which don't follow any of the core principles of the Internet. You have to play by these rules otherwise you are banned or completely and utterly dependent of one single entities. Moreover, if you then play by Apple's or Facebook's rules you still do not get the impact as from Google traffic-wise.
Ultimately, Google haven't entered the Chinese Market which shows the company's values. Every larger western corporation have build joint venture based branches in China—every corporation, except Google—and that's distinguishes Google.
The reason Google hasn't built a walled garden around the internet because they simply don't yet have the power to do that.
You talk as if it was something they could easily have done but have chosen not to. I disagree. They just aren't in a position to do it.
It makes no sense at all to say that innovation on the web has vanished because of the Appstore. We are in in a boom time for internet startups, and we have healthy browser competition leading to web standards advancing much faster than at any time in the past.
There is room for both the open web, and for more controlled environments like the app store or Facebook to coexist and compete with one another. Each offers different tradeoffs.
The existence of different kinds of environment is a good thing. It provides a variety of different economic opportunities, and choices for consumers.
Google would naturally like to have more influence and control, but the reality is that they exist in a competitive environment.
Google could do this—there are multiple options to silently wallgarden the user. Just check how much traffic Google moves. If they want they could arbitrarily redirect traffic and subtly punish user's not using their tools.
But that's not their culture. Just look at their products, how far they pushing the boundaries and still stay open, give back and contribute to the community. Look at V8, Dart, Go—all open, all free, all top-notch, all following the Internet's principles and look at Apple, FB—I see no groundbreaking innovation that's free or not protecting their walled garden. Even if Google has some hidden agenda with their products (like with Chrome) the products are always best-of-breed and never deadlock the user.
The point is: Google benefits of an open Internet, their business model is fully based on an open Internet. Therefore they will do everything to keep the Internet neutral, free and decentralized. In contrast, the bizmodels of Apple and FB do not rely on these values, they need walled gardens. Enough reasons to trust them less.
Facebook have given back plenty of open source to the dev community. Scribe (their federated logging server) and HipHop (their PHP compiler) come to mind immediately, but there may be others.
Their business tactics are ridiculously sleazy though. Aside from the google smear campaign fiasco last year, do you know that facebook does not allow AdSense advertising on it's 3rd party applications? They don't want FB ads performance to be compared with Google's (more profitable ads) on the same pages.
I somewhat agree. Frankly I'm no fan off Google, Facebook, or Apple. But pretending that one of them is more "open" then the other because they open source some software now and again is a falsehood: they are all for-profit corporations, with more in common with each other then what separates them, notions of culture aside.
You've actually made my point for me. "Redirecting traffic and subtly punishing users" is far from a walled garden, and would lead to an instant backlash if detected.
As I said, they don't have the power to close the internet that you attribute to them. This has nothing to do with their culture, however great you might think it is.
Discussing a hairsplitting definition of a walled garden doesn't make sense here. Google do not deadlock wether users nor site owner/publishers (referred above as "users" as well) to use their products but they could as explained above (deadlock=walled garden).
It sounds as though you are now claiming that Google has already turned the Internet into a Walled Garden but are simply nicer in their policies than anyone else.
This is the first time I've heard anyone make this claim.
I couldn't reply before to your post because the reply link was missing (guess the system does not allow too many post in a given period of time), so I used my former post and put an "EDIT+my reply" in order to comment on your words. I should have waited and replied properly. Thanks for your understanding.
Google have entered the Chinese market, compromised their values and still got their asses handed to them by Baidu, then pulled out. Not quite the same thing.
Google's penetration in China was very low (we've had native Chinese speakers living with us for the last three years and they had hardly heard of Google).
Not only is Google's share in China low, it's falling.
"You can be successful with your product on the WWW without employing any Google services"
It is often more difficult to be successful on the internet without devoting significant resources to Google specific SEO. Doing so without the benefit of Google search would be orders of magnitude more difficult, and Google is under no obligation to return any particular website in their results (e.g. Safe Search).
Google is a company just like any other, only, perhaps, more so.
If you build a really great web based product you don't need to do any single SEO activity to get strong traffic. No white or black hat or anything needed. People will come anyway.
It's all about the product. If it's good people will tell and Google will notice. And Google is so smart that every crappy site powered by 100,000 system generated backlinks blasts will stay inferior.
I don't see anything that fundamentally distinguishes google from these other companies other than their present strategic position.
There is I think a difference in company culture. Sure, it is not something you can measure like market capitalization or dividends, but that doesn't make it insignificant.
It is common for people to say that all big companies are equivalent in that they just look for the best strategy to maximize shareholder value, which they have to do by law. I don't think that's the complete picture: there are humans behind every company, behind every decision they make. If Larry Page and Sergey Brin believe in an open Internet, that will strongly influence what strategy among many they choose to maximize shareholder value. Well, as long as they have a controlling stake, which might be for a long time seeing the recently announced stock split.
But it's not only board members who determine how open a company is. For example, developers have their say in what technology or protocol will be used for a particular project. What they propose might depend on their personal views, and what passes as a valid argument (e.g. openness or standard compliance) depends on company culture. Personal views and company culture obviously depend on who gets hired, and that's a matter where anyone (developer, HR, etc.) might have a say. If Google employees have a bias towards hiring people who embrace open technologies, that will have an effect. And if Google's image tends to attract job applications from people who believe in an open Internet, that will also have an effect. This culture thing is probably more stable than a strategic position.
For all the reports that Google is full of idealists, I hear just as many that it's a very 'careerist' place, and it's clearly attractive to people who want to make money as much as it is to those who believe in internet freedom.
I agree that culture is not irrelevant. I don't even dispute that Google attracts people who have a certain ideology. I just don't think that Google's ideology is all that clear or meaningful.
When they use words like "openness" or "freedom" these become a rorschach onto which people project their own hopes.
I would like to see Google succeed by proving the competitive advantage of openness, not by moralizing about others who are choosing to test another theory of how to provide value.
> their actions feel balanced and neutral compared to any other player.
There are distinct business models at play here and that should be noted before arriving at a conclusion that Google is a benevolent corporate actor. The fact that Google (or any company for that matter) can dominate and observe traffic patterns and content should be a matter of concern to the democratically [in the contemporary sense] minded individuals.
Central servers must go. We must also disentangle presence management, identity, and services built on top of those layers. Access to identity must be layered and fully subject to user control.
I am personally remiss in this matter as I thought deeply about all this when ICQ came out in mid 90s (and even filed a PPA on April 1st 1997 with USPTO on my take on the solution) but did not advocate effectively enough for the (obvious) architectural remedies. Frankly it bugs me to this day and weighs on me like a still born child.
Can we create a trusted identity service that doesn't rely on centralized highly-trusted nodes? It seems necessary to me that the government or other large associations (/corporations) are the only entities with the resources necessary to secure and maintain decent authentication services. I can't say I'm fond of the idea of maintaining a personal auth server so I can participate in society (and I'm one of our privileged class who can actually contemplate doing such a thing.)
I couldn't design my way around a centralized bootstrap node, but after that, it can be decentralized. And it has to be highly trusted, so the vision for the ur-node was a bunch of servers in Switzerland inside a vault, run by a public non-profit; subject to random audits; and funded by the IP royalties of the projected patent. (But thank God we can now rely on the good graces of concerned geeks such as Sergey Brin who have millions to spare. (Right Sergey?))
Yes, there is need for user agents running on the user's devices. Your chrome browser transparently maintains a https connection to mother ship (last I checked). I don't think that part of it is really an issue.
i2p, tor, and dht all rely on some sort of centralized node for bootstrapping. e.g. a fresh install, or when the client has been disconnected from the internet for years.
Would it work to use multiple orthogonal bootstrap methods? i.e. try in a random order any of the following until the client can join the swarm:
• DNS records, http pages, etc. (a straightforward approach like i2p, tor, and dht do)
• "user content," i.e. comments on news sites, blogs, image sharing sites, pastebin, github, etc. that contain the information, hidden using steganography or encryption. A simple google search should not find this user content - the bootstrap method would need to crawl a large number of pages looking for the "signal in the noise," which would make it difficult to find and eliminate all the places the data was hidden.
• "data broadcast," i.e. the bootstrap client listens on random TCP or UDP ports within a certain range. Active swarm peers do "port knocking" in this port range, subdividing the IPv4 space among them so that they visit every IP address within about 24 hours. The range is chosen so as not to incriminate the peers doing the knocking. The waiting bootstrap node will eventually be reached, and the active peer can then transmit the needed data. (IPv4 address blacklists are a must, i.e. do not "port knock" in government address ranges or other sensitive targets.)
By attempting all the methods at random, any that get shut down can be detected and the status updates pushed out to all clients.
I'm loving this discussion, but how would we convince even 1% of internet users to switch?
Unless I am badly mistaken, you propose we tell people: "abandon all the services you've grown to like about the internet. Let's reboot the internet within the confines of this new secure service."
No sarcasm intended - a new service, with real security, would still lack a "killer app."
In case it needs repeating, I would subscribe. I want this to happen.
I'm guessing I don't understand the email service, but if I assume it's separate from the current SMTP world, then...
• gmail is currently "good enough" most people wouldn't see 100% spam blocking as a big improvement
• no address for inbound email; can't post "my address" online
• friction to get the service set up, because an email client is included already on my machine, my phone, etc.
• might cost extra to be able to read my email anywhere (i.e. "cloud email storage")
Ok, so if it's so hard to replace email, how can it be done? Instinct tells me that until gmail loses some of its shine, nothing is going to happen. But gmail is more vulnerable than people think, and having a workable alternative when the time comes would go a long way toward getting people to switch. And if gmail fails, it's not going to be Yahoo Mail that steps up to fill in - gmail is the peak of traditional email services. I don't see how, from a technical standpoint, you could do any better than gmail without abandoning SMTP email altogether. (And I mean gmail along with all the accessory programs to make it perfect, i.e. iPhone integration, google apps for your domain, etc.)
Agree with that and other points you made but one can also be concerned by some recent evolutions off Google. Their move toward a more "designed" ui, with hover popups everywhere, etc, is a bit alarming. Their catch up game with Facebook could be a slippery slope. The recent removal of many labs. And so on.
For me they can keep the benevolence as a priority only if they become more something like a great worldwide university paid by some ads in a search engine.
Refreshing response from Sergey. The Guardian article made him come off very immature.
The article brought to my mind a presentation Roger McNamee (Elevation Partners) has been circulating -"10 Hypothesis for Technology Investing."
A number of the points in the presentation illustrate a challenging future for Google:
- Index Search has peaked: Google's position of dominance on the web is fading, due largely in part to their own success.
- Apple's App Model Threatens the World Wide Web: a walled garden, un-indexable
- Rise of Social. Facebook owns. Again, a walled garden, un-indexable
- Lack of searches on mobile
Similar arguments were made in Wired's "The Web is Dead" feature, and they all point towards Google's core business going downhill.
The Guardian article made Sergey seem... well... butthurt. As if recognizing his lousy position, but instead of owning it, whining about it. I've always thought of Sergey as smarter than that. He's always seemed much more pragmatic than The Guardian article made him out to be. It didn't feel like the Sergey I [don't actually] know.
Certainly Sergey has gripes with Apple and Facebook, and certainly he has self-preserving motivations for responding as he did. But I feel like giving him more of the benefit of the doubt here and calling slight nanz on The Guardian for rabble-rousing as press outlets do.
Also - kudos to Sergey for his extremely diplomatic clarification there. We've all seen much less tactful responses to press spins.
This is an excellent deck, why have not seen this before! Was this on HN?
I agree with almost all his points, insiders are very bullish on Apple, the feeling's that %600 is nowhere near the peak, it'll be more like $1K. On the other hand, Google has started to give off the "has-peaked" vibe: the silly badmouthing of rivals, huge reorgs, half-thought out failed projects, not being clear of where to go next and milking the usual cow, etc.
One important point that he makes that I think is important to reiterate is how open the mobile area is, since non of the big guys currently have good extensions. So I think we'll see more of the Instagram-type successes (probably not on the $1B level, though).
Takeaways if you're an up and coming, young (or otherwise) developer: Learn the Apple stack (70% of your time) and learn HTML5/JS (20%).
I'm glad he wasn't attacking Facebook and Apple in the way it was portrayed.
I think a key issue here is that powerful incumbent corporations have always challenged the economic freedoms of smaller players and individuals operating in their space.
In the heyday that Brin refers to, those powerful corporations hadn't yet emerged. Now they have. The biggest challenge to starting a new eBay today is eBay. The biggest challenge to starting a new Google today is Google.
Going forward, what matters is the extent that a platform economically empowers its participants to create additional value. Ideological openness is just one dimension in that.
Facebook, Apple, and Google all do empower their participants in different ways and with different tradeoffs, as do startups like Square and Kickstarter.
To me this is another example of a fundamental difference between the Web 1.0 entrepreneur generation and today's superstar startup CEOs. The former's ambitions ranged from data liberation, information freedom and up to interplanetary travel. The new generation's ambitions end in their stock valuations.
Let me paraphrase: "I bemoan the rise of Internet tollbooths and gatekeepers, such as the ones put up by Facebook and Apple. By the way, please build native apps for Android, and please use Google+ to connect with your friends and family."
Pretty scary some of the proposed legislation being thrown around in the UK.
On large companies... If individuals have issues with large companies they can simply go to an alternative. However government should intervene to ensure "internet" companies comply with the same laws as "non internet".
If I maintain a free, US-based, ad-supported website which caters to Iranians (and so pay no Iranian taxes), do I forfeit the right to an opinion on filtering by the Iranian government?
Google has datacenters in the UK, so I think that's one fault in your argument. Also, Google sells ads, search services, email, office tools, and other things. Yours and my personal use of the service may cost us nothing, but I'm sure that Google sells millions of dollars worth of services to customers in the UK.
There's a pretty important distinction between a government-provided service and the government's infringement of a (negative) right, especially when it comes to who gets to complain based on the amount of taxes they pay. The government doesn't pay money to not censor the internet.
Which is part of what the proposed laws are ie extending the traffic analysis they can already do on phonecalls to the internet (ok they are asking for a lot more but that may be a negotiating ploy)
Though after the scandel with the Met and News International maybe it RIPA sould be amended so that the Police dont have access without a warrent and leave just the SS and SIS.
Oh and remove any ability of local govenment from RIPA
I'm certainly not saying I agree with this wholeheartedly, but I think his point is that you wouldn't get very far without (my examples here) a Facebook and Twitter presence, and an iPhone and Android app.
How long would it take until they abused their power?
If someone is dominating the web it's Google and looking at their power and how much traffic they move—their actions feel balanced and neutral compared to any other player.