10 ms·

Imagine Apple, Facebook or whoever controlled the Internet like Google does: How long would it take until they abused their power? If someone is dominating th

by tferris 14y ago

Imagine Apple, Facebook or whoever controlled the Internet like Google does: How long would it take until they abused their power? If someone is dominating the web it's Google and looking at their power and how much traffic they move—their actions feel balanced and neutral compared to any other player.

rbarooah 14y ago
Part of what has put Google in their position as the gatekeeper is that the perception of being balanced and neutral. If search was more overtly biased, Bing would step in as the neutral player. The more they consolidate their power, the less they seem constrained by this. I don't see anything that fundamentally distinguishes google from these other companies other than their present strategic position.
- tferris 14y ago
  Sorry, I don't get your point. You can be successful with your product on the WWW without employing any Google services, being totally independent. If people and other sites like you and link back to you your traffic will quickly skyrocket—which feels natural. You are not obliged to use any Google service like GA. Just use the Internet and its open standards and you are ready to go because Google left the Internet's core like it is and didn't build a walled garden around it. That's the great thing about the web: it's decentralized and everybody can contribute, Google haven't tried to change this. That's why I don't like the native app trend with the appstore, all the innovation the Internet brought us are vanished by one central and strict entity and nobody cares, Android at least tries to emulate some parts of the net (i.e. by using intents, allowing multiple appstores, with the open nature of Android, etc.), Google is regarding their marketplace Play much more relaxed than Apple. Looking at the Appstore or the Facebook API, there are so many rules which don't follow any of the core principles of the Internet. You have to play by these rules otherwise you are banned or completely and utterly dependent of one single entities. Moreover, if you then play by Apple's or Facebook's rules you still do not get the impact as from Google traffic-wise. Ultimately, Google haven't entered the Chinese Market which shows the company's values. Every larger western corporation have build joint venture based branches in China—every corporation, except Google—and that's distinguishes Google.
  - rbarooah 14y ago
    I agree that you don't get my point. The reason Google hasn't built a walled garden around the internet because they simply don't yet have the power to do that. You talk as if it was something they could easily have done but have chosen not to. I disagree. They just aren't in a position to do it. It makes no sense at all to say that innovation on the web has vanished because of the Appstore. We are in in a boom time for internet startups, and we have healthy browser competition leading to web standards advancing much faster than at any time in the past. There is room for both the open web, and for more controlled environments like the app store or Facebook to coexist and compete with one another. Each offers different tradeoffs. The existence of different kinds of environment is a good thing. It provides a variety of different economic opportunities, and choices for consumers. Google would naturally like to have more influence and control, but the reality is that they exist in a competitive environment.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - Sargis 14y ago
      Google's mission is to display their ads to as many people as possible. How is a walled garden going to help achieve that goal?
      - rbarooah 14y ago
        ...because Google left the Internet's core like it is and didn't build a walled garden around it. The commenter I was replying to claimed that Google chose not to build a walled garden around the internet because of their good character. If they were able to do this, they'd be able to limit the threat of Facebook and other advertising based competitors. They haven't done it simply because they can't. Not because it wouldn't be to their advantage.
    - tferris 14y ago
      Pardon, you are totally misleading. Google could do this—there are multiple options to silently wallgarden the user. Just check how much traffic Google moves. If they want they could arbitrarily redirect traffic and subtly punish user's not using their tools. But that's not their culture. Just look at their products, how far they pushing the boundaries and still stay open, give back and contribute to the community. Look at V8, Dart, Go—all open, all free, all top-notch, all following the Internet's principles and look at Apple, FB—I see no groundbreaking innovation that's free or not protecting their walled garden. Even if Google has some hidden agenda with their products (like with Chrome) the products are always best-of-breed and never deadlock the user. The point is: Google benefits of an open Internet, their business model is fully based on an open Internet. Therefore they will do everything to keep the Internet neutral, free and decentralized. In contrast, the bizmodels of Apple and FB do not rely on these values, they need walled gardens. Enough reasons to trust them less. RE-EDIT: Took out later added passages as wished.
- jkn 14y ago
  I don't see anything that fundamentally distinguishes google from these other companies other than their present strategic position. There is I think a difference in company culture. Sure, it is not something you can measure like market capitalization or dividends, but that doesn't make it insignificant. It is common for people to say that all big companies are equivalent in that they just look for the best strategy to maximize shareholder value, which they have to do by law. I don't think that's the complete picture: there are humans behind every company, behind every decision they make. If Larry Page and Sergey Brin believe in an open Internet, that will strongly influence what strategy among many they choose to maximize shareholder value. Well, as long as they have a controlling stake, which might be for a long time seeing the recently announced stock split. But it's not only board members who determine how open a company is. For example, developers have their say in what technology or protocol will be used for a particular project. What they propose might depend on their personal views, and what passes as a valid argument (e.g. openness or standard compliance) depends on company culture. Personal views and company culture obviously depend on who gets hired, and that's a matter where anyone (developer, HR, etc.) might have a say. If Google employees have a bias towards hiring people who embrace open technologies, that will have an effect. And if Google's image tends to attract job applications from people who believe in an open Internet, that will also have an effect. This culture thing is probably more stable than a strategic position.
  - rbarooah 14y ago
    For all the reports that Google is full of idealists, I hear just as many that it's a very 'careerist' place, and it's clearly attractive to people who want to make money as much as it is to those who believe in internet freedom. I agree that culture is not irrelevant. I don't even dispute that Google attracts people who have a certain ideology. I just don't think that Google's ideology is all that clear or meaningful. When they use words like "openness" or "freedom" these become a rorschach onto which people project their own hopes. I would like to see Google succeed by proving the competitive advantage of openness, not by moralizing about others who are choosing to test another theory of how to provide value.
rmc 14y ago
Imagine Facebook or Google controlled the music industry like Apple do. Imagine Facebook or Google controlled the mobile phone market like Apple do. Imagine Apple or Google controlled social interaction like Facebook do. Imagine Apple, Google or Facebook controlled desktops like Microsoft do.
- lukeschlather 14y ago
  >Imagine Facebook or Google controlled the mobile phone market like Apple do. Verizon and AT&T control the mobile phone market, all the new money tech cos wish they had that kind of government-granted monopoly.
eternalban 14y ago
> their actions feel balanced and neutral compared to any other player. There are distinct business models at play here and that should be noted before arriving at a conclusion that Google is a benevolent corporate actor. The fact that Google (or any company for that matter) can dominate and observe traffic patterns and content should be a matter of concern to the democratically [in the contemporary sense] minded individuals.
- sounds 14y ago
  I follow your logic. I agree. What concrete action would you suggest to make the internet more democratic?
  - eternalban 14y ago
    Central servers must go. We must also disentangle presence management, identity, and services built on top of those layers. Access to identity must be layered and fully subject to user control. I am personally remiss in this matter as I thought deeply about all this when ICQ came out in mid 90s (and even filed a PPA on April 1st 1997 with USPTO on my take on the solution) but did not advocate effectively enough for the (obvious) architectural remedies. Frankly it bugs me to this day and weighs on me like a still born child.
    - lukeschlather 14y ago
      Can we create a trusted identity service that doesn't rely on centralized highly-trusted nodes? It seems necessary to me that the government or other large associations (/corporations) are the only entities with the resources necessary to secure and maintain decent authentication services. I can't say I'm fond of the idea of maintaining a personal auth server so I can participate in society (and I'm one of our privileged class who can actually contemplate doing such a thing.)
      - eternalban 14y ago
        I couldn't design my way around a centralized bootstrap node, but after that, it can be decentralized. And it has to be highly trusted, so the vision for the ur-node was a bunch of servers in Switzerland inside a vault, run by a public non-profit; subject to random audits; and funded by the IP royalties of the projected patent. (But thank God we can now rely on the good graces of concerned geeks such as Sergey Brin who have millions to spare. (Right Sergey?)) Yes, there is need for user agents running on the user's devices. Your chrome browser transparently maintains a https connection to mother ship (last I checked). I don't think that part of it is really an issue.
gbog 14y ago
Agree with that and other points you made but one can also be concerned by some recent evolutions off Google. Their move toward a more "designed" ui, with hover popups everywhere, etc, is a bit alarming. Their catch up game with Facebook could be a slippery slope. The recent removal of many labs. And so on. For me they can keep the benevolence as a priority only if they become more something like a great worldwide university paid by some ads in a search engine.

by tferris 14y ago

rbarooah 14y ago

Part of what has put Google in their position as the gatekeeper is that the perception of being balanced and neutral. If search was more overtly biased, Bing would step in as the neutral player. The more they consolidate their power, the less they seem constrained by this. I don't see anything that fundamentally distinguishes google from these other companies other than their present strategic position.

tferris 14y ago
Sorry, I don't get your point. You can be successful with your product on the WWW without employing any Google services, being totally independent. If people and other sites like you and link back to you your traffic will quickly skyrocket—which feels natural. You are not obliged to use any Google service like GA. Just use the Internet and its open standards and you are ready to go because Google left the Internet's core like it is and didn't build a walled garden around it. That's the great thing about the web: it's decentralized and everybody can contribute, Google haven't tried to change this. That's why I don't like the native app trend with the appstore, all the innovation the Internet brought us are vanished by one central and strict entity and nobody cares, Android at least tries to emulate some parts of the net (i.e. by using intents, allowing multiple appstores, with the open nature of Android, etc.), Google is regarding their marketplace Play much more relaxed than Apple. Looking at the Appstore or the Facebook API, there are so many rules which don't follow any of the core principles of the Internet. You have to play by these rules otherwise you are banned or completely and utterly dependent of one single entities. Moreover, if you then play by Apple's or Facebook's rules you still do not get the impact as from Google traffic-wise. Ultimately, Google haven't entered the Chinese Market which shows the company's values. Every larger western corporation have build joint venture based branches in China—every corporation, except Google—and that's distinguishes Google.
- rbarooah 14y ago
  I agree that you don't get my point. The reason Google hasn't built a walled garden around the internet because they simply don't yet have the power to do that. You talk as if it was something they could easily have done but have chosen not to. I disagree. They just aren't in a position to do it. It makes no sense at all to say that innovation on the web has vanished because of the Appstore. We are in in a boom time for internet startups, and we have healthy browser competition leading to web standards advancing much faster than at any time in the past. There is room for both the open web, and for more controlled environments like the app store or Facebook to coexist and compete with one another. Each offers different tradeoffs. The existence of different kinds of environment is a good thing. It provides a variety of different economic opportunities, and choices for consumers. Google would naturally like to have more influence and control, but the reality is that they exist in a competitive environment.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - Sargis 14y ago
    Google's mission is to display their ads to as many people as possible. How is a walled garden going to help achieve that goal?
    - rbarooah 14y ago
      ...because Google left the Internet's core like it is and didn't build a walled garden around it. The commenter I was replying to claimed that Google chose not to build a walled garden around the internet because of their good character. If they were able to do this, they'd be able to limit the threat of Facebook and other advertising based competitors. They haven't done it simply because they can't. Not because it wouldn't be to their advantage.
  - tferris 14y ago
    Pardon, you are totally misleading. Google could do this—there are multiple options to silently wallgarden the user. Just check how much traffic Google moves. If they want they could arbitrarily redirect traffic and subtly punish user's not using their tools. But that's not their culture. Just look at their products, how far they pushing the boundaries and still stay open, give back and contribute to the community. Look at V8, Dart, Go—all open, all free, all top-notch, all following the Internet's principles and look at Apple, FB—I see no groundbreaking innovation that's free or not protecting their walled garden. Even if Google has some hidden agenda with their products (like with Chrome) the products are always best-of-breed and never deadlock the user. The point is: Google benefits of an open Internet, their business model is fully based on an open Internet. Therefore they will do everything to keep the Internet neutral, free and decentralized. In contrast, the bizmodels of Apple and FB do not rely on these values, they need walled gardens. Enough reasons to trust them less. RE-EDIT: Took out later added passages as wished.
jkn 14y ago
I don't see anything that fundamentally distinguishes google from these other companies other than their present strategic position. There is I think a difference in company culture. Sure, it is not something you can measure like market capitalization or dividends, but that doesn't make it insignificant. It is common for people to say that all big companies are equivalent in that they just look for the best strategy to maximize shareholder value, which they have to do by law. I don't think that's the complete picture: there are humans behind every company, behind every decision they make. If Larry Page and Sergey Brin believe in an open Internet, that will strongly influence what strategy among many they choose to maximize shareholder value. Well, as long as they have a controlling stake, which might be for a long time seeing the recently announced stock split. But it's not only board members who determine how open a company is. For example, developers have their say in what technology or protocol will be used for a particular project. What they propose might depend on their personal views, and what passes as a valid argument (e.g. openness or standard compliance) depends on company culture. Personal views and company culture obviously depend on who gets hired, and that's a matter where anyone (developer, HR, etc.) might have a say. If Google employees have a bias towards hiring people who embrace open technologies, that will have an effect. And if Google's image tends to attract job applications from people who believe in an open Internet, that will also have an effect. This culture thing is probably more stable than a strategic position.
- rbarooah 14y ago
  For all the reports that Google is full of idealists, I hear just as many that it's a very 'careerist' place, and it's clearly attractive to people who want to make money as much as it is to those who believe in internet freedom. I agree that culture is not irrelevant. I don't even dispute that Google attracts people who have a certain ideology. I just don't think that Google's ideology is all that clear or meaningful. When they use words like "openness" or "freedom" these become a rorschach onto which people project their own hopes. I would like to see Google succeed by proving the competitive advantage of openness, not by moralizing about others who are choosing to test another theory of how to provide value.

rmc 14y ago

Imagine Facebook or Google controlled the music industry like Apple do. Imagine Facebook or Google controlled the mobile phone market like Apple do. Imagine Apple or Google controlled social interaction like Facebook do. Imagine Apple, Google or Facebook controlled desktops like Microsoft do.

lukeschlather 14y ago
>Imagine Facebook or Google controlled the mobile phone market like Apple do. Verizon and AT&T control the mobile phone market, all the new money tech cos wish they had that kind of government-granted monopoly.

eternalban 14y ago

> their actions feel balanced and neutral compared to any other player. There are distinct business models at play here and that should be noted before arriving at a conclusion that Google is a benevolent corporate actor. The fact that Google (or any company for that matter) can dominate and observe traffic patterns and content should be a matter of concern to the democratically [in the contemporary sense] minded individuals.

sounds 14y ago
I follow your logic. I agree. What concrete action would you suggest to make the internet more democratic?
- eternalban 14y ago
  Central servers must go. We must also disentangle presence management, identity, and services built on top of those layers. Access to identity must be layered and fully subject to user control. I am personally remiss in this matter as I thought deeply about all this when ICQ came out in mid 90s (and even filed a PPA on April 1st 1997 with USPTO on my take on the solution) but did not advocate effectively enough for the (obvious) architectural remedies. Frankly it bugs me to this day and weighs on me like a still born child.
  - lukeschlather 14y ago
    Can we create a trusted identity service that doesn't rely on centralized highly-trusted nodes? It seems necessary to me that the government or other large associations (/corporations) are the only entities with the resources necessary to secure and maintain decent authentication services. I can't say I'm fond of the idea of maintaining a personal auth server so I can participate in society (and I'm one of our privileged class who can actually contemplate doing such a thing.)
    - eternalban 14y ago
      I couldn't design my way around a centralized bootstrap node, but after that, it can be decentralized. And it has to be highly trusted, so the vision for the ur-node was a bunch of servers in Switzerland inside a vault, run by a public non-profit; subject to random audits; and funded by the IP royalties of the projected patent. (But thank God we can now rely on the good graces of concerned geeks such as Sergey Brin who have millions to spare. (Right Sergey?)) Yes, there is need for user agents running on the user's devices. Your chrome browser transparently maintains a https connection to mother ship (last I checked). I don't think that part of it is really an issue.

gbog 14y ago

Agree with that and other points you made but one can also be concerned by some recent evolutions off Google. Their move toward a more "designed" ui, with hover popups everywhere, etc, is a bit alarming. Their catch up game with Facebook could be a slippery slope. The recent removal of many labs. And so on. For me they can keep the benevolence as a priority only if they become more something like a great worldwide university paid by some ads in a search engine.