

We built Google for users, not websites - ismavis
http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2014/09/we-built-google-for-users-not-websites.html

======
crazychrome
b.s.

Google's business model dictates that the search engine is built for ad
publishers. Google might have put users in the first priority for 1 million
times but what about the next 1 billion times? What about the edge cases? The
reasonable conclusion is Google, as a commercial oragnization, will only be
responsible to its clients. Google users, you are only a number in its stats
chart shown on ad publishers' screens.

~~~
patrickaljord
But ad publishers do care about Google users, so Google better make its users
happy so they stick around. See, everyone benefits and it's not a zero-sum
game :)

~~~
crazychrome
it's a common misunderstanding that ad publishers care about Google users.
They care their own customers, and Google is just a user acquisition channel.

Say you are a bread maker, do you care the shopping environment your customers
buy the bread, if you only pay commission to the shopping mall according to
the sales number? Of course you don't, because if one shopping mall doesn't
sell any of your bread, you have no cost!

~~~
itsame
To play along with your analogy: patrickaljord's point is that if sales
decreases, then you get less commission. Decreased sales in this case is
decreased number of ad viewers that comes as a result of decreased number of
Google users.

So yes, ad publishers may not care about Google users in and of themselves,
but they care about volume, and Google making its users happy and engaged
keeps that volume high. By transitivity, ad publishers should (theoretically
or indirectly) care about whether Google treats its users well as it would
have some positive correlation with their viewership volume.

You're trying to draw a false dichotomy between the two -- they are _not_
mutually exclusive goals. Just because Google is building for the users
doesn't mean it's not building for the ad publishers. By building and
improving their products for the users, they are increasing the stickiness and
value of their users _for_ the ad publishers.

If you had to choose between advertising at a location where people just
breeze right through, and advertising at a location where people stick around
to browse the goods, which location would you rather pick? Obviously the
latter where people stick around, as it's more likely that they'll notice your
advertisement. Google improving their products for the users makes it more
likely that their users will stick around to notice the ads.

~~~
crazychrome
Your argument is based on the assumption that Google occupies the unique
position in the user->view->ad-click chain, your wording "at a location where
people just breeze right through". let's deal with it for a moment.

Assume it's true, then Google 1) will definitely abuse the position, and 2)
for Google, the top priority is about how to maintain the unique position,
which has less to do with users' experience/privacy/(put anything here), but
more to do with the browser + search engine paradigm. In fact, with the
emerging of Smartphone + Walled gardened Apps paradigm, it's about the time to
predict the decline of Adwords.

Say it's false... well, so is your argument.

~~~
itsame
Not sure how you concluded that that was my assumption. To have a "unique
position" is completely irrelevant. The point is that Google users are sticky
and valuable because Google keeps them engaged, and _knows more_ about the
users, and so the ads can be _more targeted_ and thus _more relevant_ to the
user. In other words, ads shown to Google users by way of Google's ad service
are (theoretically) _more likely_ to be acted upon. That the users stick
around using the Google services for long enough to potentially see the ads is
icing on the cake, and Google's services being as ubiquitous as they are
doesn't hurt either. Whether there exist other services in the same position
as Google's has no bearing on the intrinsic value of the user base.

On the other hand, your argument that Schmidt's post is "b.s." hinges on the
assumption that catering to users is a completely separate business model
distinct from catering to their direct revenue sources (e.g. ad publishers).
It's not.

~~~
crazychrome
So according to your logic, Microsoft in the 90s was not in the "unique
position"? All your points about user engagements, keeping them around,
intrinsic value, applied to Microsoft perfectly.

The fact is, Google occupies a unique position under the framework of browser
+ search engine. Their inability to expand meaningfully to other web segments
(except gmail) proves:

1) they are idiots. (highly unlikely) OR

2) the theory of "user engagement" does NOT work in case of Google Inc.
Therefore, mining of users' data serves purely for the business interest, it
has no value added to users. And yes, Google Search's model is fundamentally
different than ugc-centric services (e.g. fb).

