Google: The New Evil Empire?

Interesting little article came out today in the NY Times on Google. They must be reading this blog.

Here are a few random excerpts from Relax Bill Gates: It's Google's Turn as Villian:

Nowadays, when venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and technologists gather in Silicon Valley, they often find themselves grousing about Google, complaining about everything from a hoarding of top engineers to its treatment of partners and potential partners. The word arrogant is frequently used.

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.

"When I meet with venture capitalists, or if I'm engaged in a conversation about going into partnership with someone, inevitably the question is, 'Why couldn't Google do what you're doing?' " said Craig Donato, the founder and chief executive of Oodle, a site for searching online classified listings more quickly.

"The answer is, 'They could, and they're probably thinking about it, but they can't do everything and do it well,' " Mr. Donato said. "Or at least I'm hoping they can't."

Aggressiveness is another signal trait among successful companies like Google - something those in parts of the media world are starting to learn.

Google recently announced that it would not talk to any reporter from CNETNews.com, a technology news Web site, until July 2006, after a reporter for the site wrote an article raising privacy questions about the information Google collects about individuals.

See my posts belows at to why Google is not popular with its advertising customers.

I'll write more on this shortly.

Comments

[Shedletsky]

Do you ever worry that Google, the company, is actually run by a sentient evil-super computer bent on destroying humanity?

[Peter]

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. however, you appear to offer the solution at http://www.stanford.edu/~jjshed/blog/ though.

[Intheknow]

I've met and done business with the aforementioned Brian Lent. He's a smart guy but is unfortunately way off, as are you, on this issue.

Anyone that thinks Google has a monopoly on information access clearly needs to take some more classes. There are hundreds of search engines out there and there's absolutely nothing preventing any internet user from using them instead of Google. There are no barriers to switching whatsoever.

So, try again. You don't become a monopoly because everyone chooses you. Rather, you become a monopoly because everyone CAN'T choose anyone but you.

Lent is unfortunately bitter because his friends have made it big and his startups are floundering.

And by the way, the expression is "for all intents and purposes".

[Peter]

I don't know anything about Lent, so I won't comment.

Google is near monopoly status because it's captured about 80% of "mindshare" and search traffic. Do you ever hear anyone say "Hey, let's Yahoo it" or "Let's Teoma it?" No, you don't. All you hear is "Let's google it." That's mindshare capture which is the next best thing to a monopoly.

Look at the Alexa rankings for the other search engines after Y and G. They may as well not even exist.

With regards to my use of "for all intensive purposes", please read about my hobby of collecting malapropisms. http://smartstartup.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/08/for_all_intensi.html

[jdragon]

between google and microsoft, i'll pick the lesser evil. i just don't like microsoft in general!