

With Google, There Will Be Bad Blood - canistr
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/06/ive-abandoned-my-boy/

======
Yhippa
TL;DR: Google tries to enter many different markets at the same time. People
are upset that Google is encroaching on their territory. The encroachees are
retaliating.

I think MG Siegler is the John C. Dvorak of these modern times. I wish the TC
authors would disclose any stock positions they have in any company mentioned
in their posts.

------
MikeCapone
Am I the only one feeling like some people are trying way too hard to
influence others on how they perceive Google? It seems to all have happened at
the same time too. I don't have any proof, but it does smell a bit like an
astroturf campaign (I'm not referring to this TC article, but mostly to
comments I've seen here and elsewhere).

~~~
sek
You are right, it gets suspiciously much these days.

In Germany, some days ago, came out that Microsoft paid for an Anti-Google
article in a Newspaper. I can search for a link (in German) if somebody wants
proof.

~~~
yanw
Yes please.

~~~
sek
The article itself: [http://www.fr-online.de/politik/meinung/der-mensch-denkt
--go...](http://www.fr-online.de/politik/meinung/der-mensch-denkt--google-
lenkt/-/1472602/8736368/-/)

Blog entry about this: [http://blog.die-linke.de/digitalelinke/anti-google-pr-
in-der...](http://blog.die-linke.de/digitalelinke/anti-google-pr-in-der-
frankfurter-rundschau/)

Follow up in a startup blog: [http://netzwertig.com/2011/08/05/mangelnde-
transparenz-uber-...](http://netzwertig.com/2011/08/05/mangelnde-transparenz-
uber-lobbyismus-in-der-internetwirtschaft/)

------
iamelgringo
People aren't pissed at Google because of they are trying to get into other
people's markets.

Startups and developers are creeped out by of Google.

Follow me:

What is Google's product? Really, If you were to sell Google, what would you
say it's product is?

Think about it long and hard, and what you end up with (I believe) is the
world's largest trove of personal data and information ever accumulated:
email, voice prints, search data, location data, music preferences, sexual
predilections, travel information, etc... And, they have an insatiable hunger
to gather more data.

How do they make money off if it? Right now... selling ads based on the
world's biggest recommender system.

Couple that with Google's strict NDA policy which prevents Googlers from being
out and about in the community talking about what they are doing, and people
really get creeped out.

Google's IP restrictions essentially prevent Googlers from working on a
startup in their spare time, because it would compete with their employer,
whose mission is to "organize the world's information". Which makes a
deafening silence around the Googleplex when it comes to spinning off
startups.

Finally, the current interpretation of Delaware corporate law states that a
corporation must maximize shareholder value. In the next 20 years, Google is
going to have to start extracting more value out of this massive database of
personal information they are assembling. And, Google's secrecy and self-
isolation erodes trust. No one has any clue or guarantee about what Google is
going to do next. It's impossible to contact someone on the inside if the
Google behemoth blindly steps on you. They have no customer service to speak
of.

This is why people in the Valley are creeped out by Google.

~~~
olalonde
Give me a break.

> And, Google's secrecy and self-isolation erodes trust.

Many, if not most, tech companies are much more secretive than Google
(Apple?). From the few times I've read Google's blogs, I thought they were
quite transparent and open.

> the current interpretation of Delaware corporate law states that a
> corporation must maximize shareholder value.

That would make a great tagline for a dystopian Hollywood film. There is a
good reason why Google takes good care of your data and won't sell it to evil
governments or corporations: they would go out of business if they did so.

Your comment is more a criticism of NDAs, corporate secrecy and capitalism
than Google itself.

~~~
iamelgringo
_Many, if not most, tech companies are much more secretive than Google
(Apple?). From the few times I've read Google's blogs, I thought they were
quite transparent and open._

Ummm.... I'm talking from the perspective of hosting the largest networking
group of tech founders in Silicon Valley for the last 4 years. We've held
meetups of 150+ people 4 miles away from the Googleplex every month for
several years now.

How many Google engineers have I talked to at our meetups in the last 12
months? 2 or 3. I've also talked to a ton of other young startups around the
Valley.

What I'm saying is based on that experience. I don't know where you're
located, or what your experience is with Google aside from "the few times I've
read Google's blogs". Your mileage of course may vary.

 _That would make a great tagline for a dystopian Hollywood film._

Perhaps. But, I'm also basing this on a number of conversations with quite
expensive lawyers in and around Silicon Valley. The fact of the matter in US
corporate law, is that C Corporations have to maximize shareholder value, and
act in the best interests of their shareholders. When a corporation doesn't do
that, the directors of that corporation open themselves to being sued for
breach of fiduciary duty.

 _There is a good reason why Google takes good care of your data and won't
sell it to evil governments or corporations: they would go out of business if
they did so._

Or, they could quietly, privately maximize that data by looking up personal
data on founders of startups that are being potentially acquired by Google.
They'd be quite silly not to, actually.

They could certainly look up for a history of searches coming from a
competitor's IP addresses to see what they are planning.

They could certainly look up a potential employee's search history, calendar
history (to check for other scheduled interviews), email contents, GPS
location data from their Android phones when they are screening job
candidates.

I'm saying this from the perspective of having built an alpha of a search
engine for financial news. And, I know that I was certainly interested in
every single search that was referred from an IP address located in Manhattan.
And if a lot of queries came in for a topic that I didn't have much data for
in my index, I quickly went out and found sources of information to pad my
index with.

It's not a criticism of corporate secrecy and capitalism. It's the essence of
capitalism.

If Google doesn't use that data for it's own corporate advantage it's stupid.
I've never heard of anyone call Google stupid. And, that's exactly what I
would do if I had access to that kind of data. Couple that with some tight
NDA's and no one would ever know.

~~~
angryasian
>If Google doesn't use that data for it's own corporate advantage it's stupid.

Maybe they don't do some of the things you're saying because its illegal and
in 13 years of business where their business relies on a public reputation..
it would do more damage to their business then the minor wins of spying on
some startup that they can probably out compete anyways.

~~~
iamelgringo
_because its illegal_

Not trying to be difficult, or troll.

What laws would this be breaking? The data they are gathering is proprietary
and people have opted in to that data by using their services. Why shouldn't
they use it to their financial benefit?

~~~
akkartik
There's all sorts of legal issues. It's a minefield.

And in any case, there's huge PR exposure. And Google is _ridiculously_
sensitive to bad PR.

I often get the sense the lawyers are running things, considering how often
I've given up personally on ideas that involve data mining.

------
fragsworth
This article is basically judging Google for competing against market leaders.

By the tone of this article, it would seem the author (MG Siegler) prefers
instead that a monopoly exists in every sector of the market and that the
companies are all buddy-buddy with one another.

Fuck everything about that.

~~~
blinkingled
A large section of Apple bloggers are taking this whole Google vs. Apple thing
as if monopoly of the iPhone was a divine, assured panacea that was unfairly
disrupted by Google's misstep that was Android. It was as if something akin to
their 'right' was denied and they will go to any lengths to restore it.

It is mind boggling how the vestiges of religious zealotry make a big part of
technology evangelism! You would think that the technically inclined will take
at least a tad bit logical approach to it but no - it's equally worse or more
than religious zealotry!

------
thurn
Competition is ultimately good for users. As long as Google isn't using its
size in a Microsoft-vs-Netscape capacity to compete unfairly and destroy
innovation in a particular market, I think we should welcome this trend.

~~~
protomyth
Google's release of Android parallels Microsoft's release of IE a little too
closely for some (I do believe it was mentioned in some report I read).

~~~
pkulak
They really shouldn't have bundled Android with GMail like that.

~~~
abraham
Gmail isn't bundled with Android. In fact Google went after CyanogenMod for
bundling it.

~~~
mdwrigh2
I think he's going after the inverse point and in a sarcastic manner: that
Google didn't bundle Android along with any of their popular products.
Microsoft did by including IE with Windows which was then shipped with every
computer, thus using their dominant marketshare of the OS space in order to
take over the browser space.

~~~
abraham
Could be. I read it as being a serious point but I can see how it could also
be sarcastic.

~~~
protomyth
Nope, I was very serious. The narrative of a company using its cash cow to
finance a product, given away for free, that directly attacks the cash cow of
another company was why the DoJ went after Microsoft for Netscape. A smart
Microsoft lawyer could do a fairly easy narrative that in the case Google
(cash cow: Ads) is going after Microsoft (cash cow: OS) via a free product
(Android). Throw in patent violations and it is a pretty good narrative for a
not-so-scary-anymore Microsoft.

You and others (given the down votes) may not agree with the narrative and
don't want to hear it, but it is a probable argument that can be used to go
after Google and stay any effort to allow them free use of other companies
patents. The original DoJ's case against Microsoft attacking IE was rather out
there given Microsoft's other behavior (i.e. no matter what OS you buy
Microsoft still gets its fee).

// I think this is my last comment on any Google story. Companies can do cool
stuff and still do uncool things, just like people. Every company tries to
protect its revenue stream in whatever way it thinks up.

------
danielhunt
There have been quite a few stories here recently, bashing Google. Reading
this, I'm actually concerned that a company that dominates so much of my
online persona could end up being gutted as a result of some very expensive
patent cases.

Could we end up back with hotmail again in 2 years time when this dust
settles? Will our (popular, modern) phones cease to be quite so useful if the
almighty Google falls? (mail/calendar/contact synching/chat)

I suppose I should be more concerned by my own reliance on an American for-
profit company than on if they'll come out of all this unscathed...

~~~
angryasian
what does it matter history has shown people will start over with whatever
services are better or easier. if google falls you'll go with another set of
services and the cycle starts over.

~~~
danielhunt
Oh I don't doubt that I'll be able to start over somewhere else, but this
event would be the first of its scale. Google own/hold more of my identity
than any other online system/organisation ever has - something I'm sure is
true for others too.

Moving to other providers, after having invested so much time and effort (for
better or worse) into the almighty GOOG would be a massive pain for me, a
techy, let alone for those not so inclined. I can't imagine having to walk
through the Yahoo! Mail interface with my mother, for example :)

------
kiba
Google done so much good in the world and people are pissed off for google
butting into their market and taking away their money.

~~~
technoslut
All tech companies have an equal amount of the good and evil in them. For you
to characterize Google as 'good' means that their PR has done it's job well.

~~~
rryan
> All tech companies have an equal amount of the good and evil in them.

[Citation Needed]

~~~
technoslut
Please do tell me why a citation is needed. Are you so childish that the world
exists in black and white for you?

There is no such thing is the world as a constant when it comes to human
emotions, much less a conglomerate. Even the most darkest have at least a
little light.

By reading through your history I can see where your bias lies.

~~~
technoslut
So you believe that the world exists only in shades of black and white. I
congratulate you because you have figured out what all philosophers could not.

------
rrrazdan
I have always wondered about the bad blood between MGS and the TC community.
Now I know why. How this passes off as journalism is beyond me.

EDIT: rephrasing of final line.

~~~
TimJRobinson
Yup, every post he makes is either trash talking any of Apple's competitors,
or praising Apple for how they are dominating the market / making record
profits etc.

Back before Android was such a force he used to trash talk Microsoft
constantly. Now that Android has overtaken iOS he's switched targets to
Google.

He still works for them because he gets a ton of attention and page views for
TC. But really he's just a troll, and while trolls get lots of attention that
isn't necessarily a good thing...

------
protomyth
Is anyone really surprised? Microsoft destroyed Netscape by leveraging the
profit made in one market to give away something in another. Apple execs
totally screwed up the patents on the UI which let Microsoft develop Windows
and kill their market share. Institutional memory is an amazing thing.

------
argsv
I wonder if this is another attack paid for by facebook (or Apple?)

[http://www.cnbc.com/id/43017686/Facebook_Admits_Secret_PR_Mo...](http://www.cnbc.com/id/43017686/Facebook_Admits_Secret_PR_Move_Against_Google)

------
hfuecks
To me the only real problem with Google attempting to "do everything" is they
seem to be bad at doing real business in any space other than their core ad
business. It's as if the billions they make from ads dwarf other activities to
the point where they cant be bothered to earn the millions they could make
with other activities.

For example Google Analytics. From Wikipedia;

> Another market share analysis claims that Google Analytics is used at around
> 49.95% of the top 1,000,000 websites (as currently ranked by Alexa)

Having used Google Analytics on a relatively high traffic site (
<http://www.local.ch> ), it has some serious shortcomings, such as limits on
API usage and accuracy of the data or even basic technical support. We'd be
more than willing to pay an "enterprise license" fee in the order of a few
hundreds of thousands to address this but Google isn't interested, which is
maddening. As such they squat on the analytics market, their free offering
acting as a barrier to entry for innovative competition, while failing to
innovate themselves. The strategy with Analytics seems to be that it should
support the ad business and nothing more.

The Android Market is another example. The market dynamics are different, but
again Androids primary purpose seems to be to supporting the ad business
again. That seems to be reflected by Googles fumbling of the Android Market to
the point where Amazon feels it's worth attempting.

Similar stories apply to many other of Googles products; Groups, Blogger,
Picassa, Google Desktop and to an extent even Google Docs - the appearance of
"we're already rich - why bother?".

As such, outside of it's core business Google is basically a "Market
squatter", blocking entry to others while driving customers mad with
incomplete offerings. Can't help feeling if they could solve this by getting
serious about monetizing those side products.

------
michaelochurch
Calm down, all. We can be friends. Let's go down to the soda fountain and get
ourselves some milkshakes.

------
drivebyacct2
These emails have been discussed before. Can we leave the speculation alone
for a bit and resume when there's new information or a new vantage point?

