The economics of this all are quite interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_market http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_market However, cheap pol

The economics of this all are quite interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_market http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_market However, cheap polemics (like being very adamant about who gets to be the customer) help nobody. Two-sided markets can push prices for one side of the market below zero, that’s just an inherent property of those markets. That does not mean the one side is the product. Google has to provide value to you, otherwise they couldn’t make money. If they screw you they screw themselves. Now, this doesn’t mean that Google can do no evil, but it does mean that you can’t just assume by default that the relationship between users and Google is an exploitative one. (And two-sided markets are nothing new. Google has essentially the same business model as the free magazine that informs me about cultural events in my hometown. Because of their very well targeted ads – local restaurants, businesses, etc., often pointing to current events – they can offer that magazine for free. That doesn’t mean I’m the product.)