3 ms·

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 bu

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.

Intermernet 15y ago
I think the argument against Facebook and Apple had nothing to do with the problems with Google. Both Facebook and Apple are pushing systems that are very easy to get data into, but almost impossible to get it out. As an example, try sending an MP3 (M4A, whatever) from an iPhone to anywhere else other than iTunes, iCloud etc. Now try it from an Android phone. See the difference?
maxiparla 15y ago
It's so easy to blame others for our failures. If Google's unable to capitalize on their social strategy with G+, they better get back to the drawing board and stop blaming companies that simply have a different business model than theirs.
- etherealG 15y ago
  I think what Brin is highlighting here is a problem in those 2 companies. Mentioning other problems that Google itself has doesn't take away from those companies having openness issues. Please stay on topic.
  - rbarooah 15y ago
    It is on topic - Google has the exact same openness issues that these other companies have, and yet Brin fails to mention this.
    - intended 15y ago
      If you had to rank them, Google would be the lesser of the offenders. Even more so, considering the vast amount of information they DO have.
      - rbarooah 15y ago
        That doesn't make it any less hypocritical when they attacking others for doing it. If they think it's a problem they should stop doing it themselves.
        intended 15y ago
        Come now, that's hardly fair - you are asking them to unilaterally open their doors And be open with their data, while the others would obviously not reciprocate. Your standard for credibility ensures the speakers suicide, at which point there is no conversation to be had because the remaining players don't give a damn. How do you suggest they go about handling this? Edited for brevity.
        rbarooah 15y ago
        I suggest they acknowledge that business realities are driving them to do the same thing but that it would be better for everyone if they could find a way to cooperate. Painting themselves as somehow superior while they engage in the same behavior doesn't seem likely to engender trust.
magicalist 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 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.
  - magicalist 15y ago
    Again, there's an argument there for reinforcing incumbency, but just because something is the second result on a page and so doesn't get the traffic it would if it were first is not equivalent to removing it from the internet (in terms of this topic, at least).
nextparadigms 15y ago
You can get your website recommended the same you get your app, through word of mouth. I don't understand the difference.

Intermernet 15y ago

I think the argument against Facebook and Apple had nothing to do with the problems with Google. Both Facebook and Apple are pushing systems that are very easy to get data into, but almost impossible to get it out. As an example, try sending an MP3 (M4A, whatever) from an iPhone to anywhere else other than iTunes, iCloud etc. Now try it from an Android phone. See the difference?

maxiparla 15y ago

It's so easy to blame others for our failures. If Google's unable to capitalize on their social strategy with G+, they better get back to the drawing board and stop blaming companies that simply have a different business model than theirs.

etherealG 15y ago
I think what Brin is highlighting here is a problem in those 2 companies. Mentioning other problems that Google itself has doesn't take away from those companies having openness issues. Please stay on topic.
- rbarooah 15y ago
  It is on topic - Google has the exact same openness issues that these other companies have, and yet Brin fails to mention this.
  - intended 15y ago
    If you had to rank them, Google would be the lesser of the offenders. Even more so, considering the vast amount of information they DO have.
    - rbarooah 15y ago
      That doesn't make it any less hypocritical when they attacking others for doing it. If they think it's a problem they should stop doing it themselves.
      - intended 15y ago
        Come now, that's hardly fair - you are asking them to unilaterally open their doors And be open with their data, while the others would obviously not reciprocate. Your standard for credibility ensures the speakers suicide, at which point there is no conversation to be had because the remaining players don't give a damn. How do you suggest they go about handling this? Edited for brevity.
        rbarooah 15y ago
        I suggest they acknowledge that business realities are driving them to do the same thing but that it would be better for everyone if they could find a way to cooperate. Painting themselves as somehow superior while they engage in the same behavior doesn't seem likely to engender trust.

magicalist 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 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.
- magicalist 15y ago
  Again, there's an argument there for reinforcing incumbency, but just because something is the second result on a page and so doesn't get the traffic it would if it were first is not equivalent to removing it from the internet (in terms of this topic, at least).

nextparadigms 15y ago

You can get your website recommended the same you get your app, through word of mouth. I don't understand the difference.