
Sergey Brin: Facebook and Apple a threat to Internet freedom - gamebit07
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57414316-93/googles-sergey-brin-facebook-and-apple-a-threat-to-internet-freedom/
======
twelvechairs
Despite everyone else seemingly being on the opposite side here, I agree with
Brin.

Google allow you basic functionality over your own data with them, such as the
freedom to migrate to other services, which Facebook and Apple restrict (and
profit from).

And he is right that when companies horde user information and then control
access to it (for profit) rather than provide it freely, it stifles innovation
[though Google themselves do a little of this too].

I'm sure that Google could be doing a lot more to screw everybody's personal
information for profit if they chose to, but they dont because they have at
least some respect for the common user (though they are not perfect either).

Also, as a side issue, the original (guardian) article is very poor in the
sense that the journalist imposes their own narrative on top of what Brin is
saying.

~~~
danmaz74
There is a real threat, but Google could answer to it in a much better way: By
positioning Google Plus as "the open web alternative to Facebook". To do so,
they should make G+ the identity/social graph platform on which third parties
want to base their own services instead of FB connect. I'm sure they could do
that, because Google can profit from people going around in the web, while FB
needs to keep people as much as possible inside its walled garden.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like G+ is moving towards that direction.

~~~
magicalist
It would be nice, though it would be even better if we could settle on a more
federated model (like Mozilla's BrowserID).

The lack of success with previous federated ID systems isn't encouraging,
however.

~~~
danmaz74
In theory, I agree that a federated approach would be more desirable. But in
practice that looks even more difficult to do right.

------
trevelyan
For a counterpoint, my company is one of the larger players in our field
measured in terms of user numbers, but we have zero visibility in Google on
anything but brand searches. We survive in part thanks to decent visibility
through Apple and Facebook where word-of-mouth recommendation actually works
because the recommendation networks are human-powered.

If the aim is promoting a healthy online ecosystem, Google is a greater threat
to startups than either Apple or Facebook in the sense that it is heavily
biased against new entrants, and encourages a competitive equilibrium in most
markets which encourages the gaming of its search algorithms by actors working
in bad faith. Google meanwhile insists that the ranking problems of good sites
are the fault of webmasters rather than its own problems measuring site
quality, focus and user engagement.

The problem here is with Google, not with Facebook or Apple.

~~~
magicalist
Huh? Yes, google is the usual way that people search for sites on the
internet, but in the end it's just an index and search engine for other
people's content.

You've posted before about your troubles with SEO and google, but remember
that ranking is inherently unfair, and there's no reason that new entrants
should have any ranking advantage just because they are new. Word of mouth is
also heavily biased against new entrants but there is no bad actor there.

I still think there's no such thing as a perfect ranking algorithm. There is
an argument here about the internet becoming ossified, but it's not clear to
me that google is being an active bad actor here.

~~~
taligent
Google is not just an index and search engine for other people's content.

It also provides a range of services e.g. news, maps, social networking which
it preferentially sorts above others. If you were trying to compete in these
markets you would be at a disadvantage.

~~~
kamaal
That is exactly what makes them vulnerable to losing out to competition.

Have a look at this app
:<http://itunes.apple.com/in/app/shazam/id284993459?mt=8>

What does it do? Given a music sound input it will give you the exact and song
and all metadata related to it.

This kind of apps are the biggest threat to Google. Because they do vertical
search far too well. And too many apps like this cut off oxygen bit by bit on
the longer run making you vulnerable. Facebook realized this, hence they
acquired Instagram.

The thing about Apple and Facebook is they allow such kind of apps to not just
thrive but also remain profitable through their platform. I am sure a lot of
iPhone apps have eaten into the potential of Google products. Apple's
platforms are becoming start up incubators. The same with Facebook. This is
the biggest threat. Because they are setting the momentum in a very different
direction.

Now imagine, if something like Apple consumer TV brings this platform to every
living room. I bet that is going to really hurt Google a lot.

------
conradfr
After having my Google account suspended because I made a stupid mistake when
creating a YOUTUBE account, and all my appeals (with my ID) denied until I
chose to have my CC charged (what would happen if I had an Android ? ).

After having my Adsense banned without warning, with money cancelled and no
(real) appeal feasible.

It opened my eyes and I really want to move away from Google more than
Facebook (which has only stupid data about me) or Apple (which I don't use any
product).

I use more than 10 Google services that are somewhat critical to me and now
that I have the feeling that it can be blocked anytime it has become very
uncomfortable.

------
bookwormAT
Sure, let's all kill the messenger, he has selfish intentions. But let's also
consider the message.

There would be no Wikipedia today if Microsoft would have control over its
ecosystem back then in the way Apple does today.

Wikipedia was a direct competitor to one of Microsofts Products. They would
have simply rejected it to make us buy Microsoft Encarta on DVD.

There would probably be no internet at all. Don't fight Netscape or Firefox.
Just reject them.

~~~
Xuzz
I'm sure that with Apple's declining and certainly minority market share in
one form of computing (cell phones), that would be the biggest issue here?
When the web is fully accessible on these devices, and something like
Wikipedia can and _was_ created there?

------
TomAnthony
Google could also be more open:

\- They introduced 'rel author' HTML attribute to assign authors to web-
content. Despite being an OpenID provider, they only allow you to 'verify'
with a Google+ profile. This doesn't feel much like the 'open web'.

\- Google+ isn't crawlable from the outside. (just like Facebook isn't).

\- The Facebook API allow a user to 'connect' with a site so they can pass
data back and forth. Google+ does not.

\- Google search now strips your search term from the referrer header so
webmasters cannot analyse the data. They state privacy as the reason, yet will
sell you the data if you pay via Adsense!

Google are great company, who have done some awesome stuff and been a positive
force for the internet. However, since Page took the helm they seem to have
changed direction somewhat.

------
pwpwp
"First thing I'd say to Brin, if you're sincere in your concern for the open
web, why aren't you leading it?" -- Dave Winer

<https://twitter.com/#!/davewiner/status/191579280034103296>

~~~
nullflux
Winer put this whole debate succinctly.

Hypocritical comments like this often seem to stem from one of two things: a
desire to drum up needless press conflict or a complete lack of self-
awareness. Perhaps Google has gotten the best of itself and in their all-
consuming "must be, er, kill Facebook" dogma not realized that they are likely
more a threat to privacy and openness as those they criticize.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
The problem may essentially be that Brin is now too close to the whole
situation to see the problem as it really is, that in his head what's right
for Google and what's right for the internet are too closely linked.

Obviously there are two things here regardless of who you are - what you think
is "good for" the internet and what you think is helping and hindering it.
Brin's view is predicated on a particular view of the first point - what's
good for the internet which is (for obvious reasons) very similar to Google's
own view.

But any view on what's helping and what's hindering has to be viewed in terms
of what you actually see as good for the internet.

------
skrebbel
Pot, kettle?

All popular internet services used to be designed in a distributed fashion,
with no central servers, no single point of failure and no single organization
to tell you whether you get access or not.

Then came Google.

~~~
redthrowaway
AOL preceded Google by a large margin, and was much, much worse for the
Internet. Google has its problems, but it has been by far a net positive.

~~~
bluethrowaway
AOL predates the modern commercial internet. Heck, the first HTTP spec came
out 8 or so years after the company started and in the same year they named
themselves America Online. Picking on them for not grokking the internet is a
bit facile for my liking.

~~~
redthrowaway
I'm not picking on them; I'm saying their approach to the Internet was similar
to Apple's, and the antithesis of Google's.

Also, while they may have predated the web (not Internet), they still acted in
direct opposition to it.

~~~
bluethrowaway
They did predate the _modern commercial internet_. Commercial ISPs didn't
appear till the late 80s (at best) and AOL started in ~81. In that context
they're a weak example to cite.

~~~
redthrowaway
Did you a thallus create an account _just_ to respond to me? I didn't think
our exchange was so contentious as to merit a new account.

------
shadowmatter
Kinda sick of hearing this. I mean, you've been able to download an archive of
everything you've posted to Facebook for awhile now. The Facebook APIs are way
more built-out than the Google+ APIs. And here are like a billion other web
sites out there that only make information available after logging in and so
also qualify as walled gardens, but apparently aren't worthy of criticism.

Meh.

~~~
spot
you can't download/export your social graph.

------
Hoff
Am I missing something here? All the pontifications around threats to Internet
Freedom and the oft-referenced perils of walled gardens aside, where is Google
going here? Where's the revenue?

How is Google going to compete going forward, and with what? With Google+?
Google Wallet? GMail? Google Play? Google Glasses? Are these offerings growing
(fast) enough to support Google? How do they recoup their investments in these
and other projects?

What will Google do as the search market becomes increasingly commoditized and
specialized and, yes, fragmented? The ever-present walled gardens are just one
part of this. It appears likely that the flagship Google apps and services
will become increasing commoditized, and available from existing providers
such as Rackspace and Amazon, or entrants such as HP Cloud and Microsoft
Windows Azure? By providers that might choose to offer better customer
support, for instance.

How is Google going to continue to provide a platform for their
advertisements, when queries are being fed (from apps and tools and walled
gardens) more directly to specific (and tailored) hosts and search engines;
with queries directly connected into Yelp, LinkedIn, Wolfram Alpha?

How are they going to recoup their investments in the Android platform?
Chrome? With their investments in browser search boxes?

Certainly this whole effort involves speeches and press releases and related
marketing, but I don't see the platforms and the updates and the new sources
of revenues that the Google folks need to be investing in; not at the scale
that they need to maintain themselves. Walled gardens have and will continue
to happen and tech markets can and will fragment, particularly if the results
cater to the end-users and provide sufficient the revenues for the vendors.

TL;DR: What's Google doing about their risk for disintermediation?

~~~
rbarooah
Now that they've shown everyone how valuable data is, probably the only thing
they can do is to start to pay for it and take a hit to profitability.

------
mehuln
He may have a valid point to certain extent regarding a controlling nature of
those two firms, but if I look at last 10 years, I see more innovation out of
Apple than Google, and even in it's controlled way Apple through iOS has
driven more innovation (Instagram?)

Some of you may be a fan of Apple but I do not think one can deny the quality
of innovation that has come from Apple vs. lack there from Google. I am
talking about innovation that change the way we live.

~~~
padolsey
Supposed innovation doesn't excuse what they're being accused of here.

~~~
rbarooah
All they seem to be being "accused" of is not giving data for free to Google
to sell advertising against.

~~~
intended
> not giving Google to sell advertising against.

Fair enough - Google sells advertising against data which they search and
index, which is publicly available.

As opposed to Apple and Facebook, where you have to join a system that holds
your personal data under their lock and key, before getting to access data
that they will sell advertising against.

And everything in their ecosystem is not publicly available.

EDIT: Reducing the data to "goog just wants to sell against _FB and APP_
data", is to reduce many major issues into irrelevancies, which is incorrect.
Its not about 'just selling ads'.

~~~
rbarooah
It's only 'under lock and key' if you are Google.

For Google it is very much about selling ads. That's their business.

The data is obviously worth a lot of money to Google, and yet they want it to
be given to them for free.

That seems like an unrealistic expectation now that the market understands how
valuable data is.

------
namsral
I think Brin is being somewhat of a hypocrite.

User data should roam freely between services and shouldn't be locked-in.

But asking Facebook and Apple to open-up their core products is like asking
Google to publish their search algorithm or publish the profiles of all their
advertisers.

~~~
gbog
> asking Facebook and Apple to open-up their core products is like asking
> Google to publish their search algorithm

Nobody ask Facebook to open-source their algorithm or other fabrication
secrets. What we should be asking them is to allow users to choose to open
doors in the walls.

I, as a Facebook user, would much prefer getting the few baby pics I receive
there from some friends directly into any "social content client" of my
choice. I wrote something about it there:
[https://plus.google.com/u/0/104035200377885758362/posts/EWjN...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/104035200377885758362/posts/EWjNSS4Rxqb)

I am no Apple product user, but if I was I would require Apple to allow me to
have full ownership on the files I store on the gadget, and I would require to
be allowed to install manually any app I choose to install, however "harmful"
it may be to my user experience.

~~~
namsral
Maybe I haven't been clear enough.

> Nobody ask Facebook to open-source their algorithm or other fabrication
> secrets.

No, but Google isn't interested in algorithms. Facebook's main asset are user
profiles and Google wants to use them free of charge in order to sell more
ads. No sane company is going to share its main asset with other companies,
let alone free of charge.

Now Google is playing the "everything should be open" card to make Facebook
and Apple look bad and force them to share their main asset. But has Google
opened-up their main asset?

Unless they open-up their search algorithm, Google's main asset, they
shouldn't be blaming other companies for not being open.

That's why I think Brin is a hypocrite. And user data should be free to roam
despite everyone's stance.

------
m_eiman
How is Apple a threat to the open web? They don't even DO web... At worst they
make it possible to write (walled in) native clients that perform better than
a browser for specific tasks.

~~~
namsral
On the contrary I think Apple has had a possitive effect on the web:

1\. Most of those native clients use public Web-APIs

2\. The iOS platform was one of the kick-starters to get rid of the closed
Flash environment

3\. And one of the kick-starters for better video standards, h264

Maybe Brin mentioned Apple to generate more headlines.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
Further, I don't think they are interested in controlling it because it's
really really hard. Their web strategy has been to push open standards. They
can't reasonably curate it or control it in any meaningful way. So they
probably want to level the playing field and then deliver the best possible
experience they can.

~~~
namsral
That would be the best stance for every party to have. Nobody controls the
internet.

------
michaelpinto
You know who I feel sorry for? Microsoft -- who doesn't even rate as being a
threat to the internet...

~~~
pyre
Well, Gates did feel that this whole 'Internet' thing was a fad. They're
preparing to be a major player in the post-Internet era.

~~~
jsemrau
Might be that the joke went over my head, but can you specify post-Internet ?

~~~
sidman
there isn't. Not in the foreseeable future, hence microsoft, a power ONCE to
be reckoned with , once king of the technology mountain will have to sit on
the sidelines and prepare for the next "big thing" in technology ... whatever
that may be.

As it stands now, unless they get their act together quick smart, they have
missed the boat on many different things internet related of which they could
have ALREADY dominated if they didn't think the internet was just a fad.

~~~
pavanky
May be do an IBM and go after niche markets that pay well?

I hate to say this, but they have an good research department. Some products,
like the kinnect aren't half bad. They may not make the billions a year they
do now, but they sure as hell can go do something useful and awesome than be
jerks going around suing people.

~~~
kamaal
I don't think Microsoft's primary worry is Internet business at the moment.

Their primary worry is mobile computing, and Android and iOS seem to ruling at
the moment, the future is really bleak for Microsoft. And they want some
internet services like search, news and email ready when they actually make it
big in mobile areas(If at all they every make it big).

So at max MS would be looking at internet services as a catalyst to be ready
to get into the reaction at the right time.

------
kamaal
Openness and freedom are really subjective terms to people.

The common person doesn't give two hoots about all this. Just like how we
don't give a damn about openness in the design of car or a truck engine or the
chemical composition of engine oil.

I don't get this cry at all. Your data was never personal. The day you used
your cell phone your location could be tracked and was tracked I suppose(Even
if for merely billing reasons). The day you shopped you were giving away
information on your buying habits, spending trends and contributing data to
larger data sets used by corporates. All that happened by merely using a
credit card.

Nearly everything related to a person is track-able.

But do you know what is bigger threat today? Its massively big monopolies
controlling everything about a particular business like online advertising,
payments and access to information(search).

According to me that is a bigger threat. Coming to openness of computers in
terms of hack ability. For a common man a computer is no different compared to
a washing machine. And people don't tear down their washing machines to hack
on it. Just like how we don't hack our cars and mixer grinders.

And there is basically nothing wrong with that.

------
alastair
I find this funny considering you need to login with a google account to view
public Google+ posts (even though they appear in the SERPs).

~~~
lomegor
When did that happened? I can access public posts without being logged in with
no problem.

Facebook, on the other hand, tells me that I can't continue if I don't log in
(although I can just cancel the message, and continue reading).

~~~
magicalist
There was a thread a while ago with a google engineer taking bug reports on
this. At the time both iOS and Android browsers were redirecting to a login
page (on Android you could request the desktop version of the page and it
wouldn't prompt you to log in). Since then you no longer get redirected on
Android, but maybe it hasn't been fixed in mobile safari?

------
dotcoma
Oh, and, incidentally, to Google, too ;-)

------
xcirrian
I think this title is not what Brin was saying. He said government, Apple and
Facebook are threats to the 'Open Web'. The web and the internet are totally
different things.

------
rbarooah
Brin acknowledges that the data is valuable. It belongs to other people.
Google makes enormous revenue from it. Perhaps it's time for them to start
paying for it.

~~~
intended
How?

Also, remove google, let's say they collapse, then what? new altavistas?
Bings?

And we should now have them pay websites to let them index them?

So that those websites can be found and hence survive?

Isn't google helping those people by letting people find the data in the first
place?

~~~
rbarooah
I didn't say anything about removing Google. That's a bit of a strawman.

We're not talking about marginal websites that, by your reasoning are
dependent on Google for survival.

We're talking about businesses that have accumulated large amounts of valuable
data such as FaceBook. The value of being searchable through Google is clearly
not enough to persuade them to provide access to their data.

Integration is worth more to Google than it is to Facebook. When this
situation arises in business, often the one who values the resource more makes
a deal that involves paying money to the one who has the resource they want.

------
rjzzleep
and google is not?

------
mvasilkov
"You have to play by their rules, which are really restrictive."

Applies to Google just as well. The more they talk, the more disrespect they
earn, seriously.

When Android companies like HTC, Samsung were on a losing side of patent
litigations, Google claimed "patents are wrong, hurt innovation" -- and look
at the very same people squeezing every last dollar out of their patent
portfolio now, when they have some.

Announcing Google+? "Sharing on the web is broken". Yeah, right.

Now this, too. IMO Google poses much more substantial threat to the Interwebs
than Apple, while also being 20% more assholes.

~~~
mkjones
> Google claimed "patents are wrong, hurt innovation" -- and look at the very
> same people squeezing every last dollar out of their patent portfolio now,
> when they have some.

How is Google squeezing every last dollar out of their patent portfolio? By
defensively protecting themselves against offensive patent suits?

~~~
mvasilkov
Since you're on Hacker News, I believe in your ability to search the web
(using Google or otherwise).

> defensively protecting themselves

Not everyone agrees with your point of view, to say the least:

[http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/02/after-apple-microsoft-
als...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/02/after-apple-microsoft-also-files-
eu.html) [http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/03/eu-opens-two-
antitrust...](http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/03/eu-opens-two-antitrust-
investigations-into-googles-motorola-mobility/)

~~~
magicalist
As both stories note, Google's purchase has not been completed yet. Read
harder next time?

~~~
rbarooah
That's a red herring. Google could easily have asked them to desist from this
policy while the acquisition was closing. Executives at Motorola know who
their new boss is going to be and are acting accordingly.

~~~
magicalist
Do you have anything to back that up? (especially the assertion that they "
_are_ acting accordingly").

My last look at the agreement[1] the last time this came up did not come
across a provision for that sort of thing (especially before it was even
approved by the justice department), but it's been a while. In the meantime,
Motorola's board certainly can and will act as the want, good ideas be damned.

[1]
[http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1495569/00011931251122580...](http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1495569/000119312511225807/dex21.htm)

~~~
rbarooah
I don't need data to back up a commonly held observation - people are
influenced by those who they have to answer to. Are you really disputing that?

As for the idea that they can and will act as they want - that's obviously not
true. For example, what if they decided to sue the other Android licensees as
they threatened to do before the acquisition?

Do you think the person who decided to do that would have a great future once
the acquisition was completed?

