"Don't be evil"
That's been Google's credo since the beginning. And why not? After all, Google is just the little Silicon Valley start up that gives people what they want in search results? They're only here to help, right?
All it means is that Google single-handedly controls 70% of all information distribution online.
...they also pioneered one of the most profitable advertising models in history (creating a whole new industry and along with it, jobs, including mine - Thanks Google!)....
...and they're making a run at all computing activities....
...the failed attempt to reinvent the way we communicate online...
...plus there's the phone system...
...and the digitalization of all possible information...
...and don't forget about the smart phone hardware and operating systems.
Which brings us to Google+, the much-discussed project that flooded our online eardrums just days ago with speculation, opinion and excitement.
"What's that? A Facebook challenger? Finally!", or as this comic so aptly puts it visually, just something else.
But Google? What makes Google a suitable replacement? Why are we so quick to accept yet another Google takeover of our online activities? Why should we allow Google to control yet another aspect of our second-life which is coming oh-so-closer to supplanting real life?
Let's not be naive about this - Google, like any good business, is looking for more ways to make money. What they've been after for some time now is the one thing they can't have - our online personas. They can't have them because someone else does (*ahem* Facebook).
But that may be changing. There is opportunity where there once was none. There is a backlash akin to a run on banks. Facebook users are concerned about privacy (and with good reason), or just plain old sick of Facebook updates running their public lives. Google isn't stupid, this opportunity means more money.
How, you ask?
The obvious answer is information. Google's holy grail is understanding every single person, not as a name or identification number or anything like that, but as an online being - a target audience of one.
Just take a look at what Google+ does. It groups people into little audiences with similar interests - heck it doesn't even hide the fact that it is most concerned about your interests and those of your friends!
Now, look at the whole picture.
 |
| Who controls your online persona? |
Not that online targeting is a bad thing.
There is little or no evidence pointing to the idea that Google has any nefarious intentions in mind, in fact I would venture to say Google has been pretty transparent since day one. But the question has to be asked, and the point has to be made. Perhaps we should give someone else a chance to run just this one aspect of our online existence? A little balance of power, anyone?
Google has always been on the side of the consumer.
"Don't be evil."
If Google+ catches on, how much longer can that last?
Phil Decoteau is the Founder and President of Deco Dig, an Inbound Marketing Services Company based in Connecticut. Learn more at www.deco-dig.com.
Good stuff. That comic was pretty dead on. I'm afraid that, instead of consolidating my online things (twitter, Facebook, Linkedin) it'll just be another one to upkeep. Too many things! I don't want to do that (I want to do that).
ReplyDeleteMy initial thought is to give this +1, but I refrain for the very essence of this post.
ReplyDeleteI can certainly see where you're coming from and I like that this makes me think in a different light. But as far as I know, they've never done anything to hang me up, freeze me, crash me, delete me, incorrectly search me...in fact, I've been pretty pleased with my Google experience. So while this post makes me think, I also just realized I like Google.
Feel free to find me on Google+, email my Gmail account, Gchat with me, call me via Google Voice, add an event to my Google calendar, view this in my Google reader or even (*gasp*) Google Buzz me.
Thanks Phil. Good thoughts.
Thanks for the feedback!
ReplyDeleteAmanda - I think I came to the same kind of conclusion towards the end of writing as well, but I guess the question I am asking is, is it okay to give one company so much power, even if they seem altruistic at the moment? Obviously it's an open-ended question, but one that should at least be considered.
With that said I am a proud gmailer, Google apps user, Google chrome browser, etc. etc.
Google does "it" well. Whatever it has been. Historically, they've been reliable+, as Amanda mentions. But, the "it" that they've done well in the past has been about me and my non-consumer needs. With Google+, it appears the direct beneficiary is the entity who wants to reach me, while I am the indirect beneficiary (though many would be hard-pressed to admit this as a benefit). It's also blatantly consumerist. That's fine, of course, but it doesn't make me jump out of my seat in celebration because my desire to be marketed to is quite subconcious. Also, people are made to feel lousy for even admitting that they want things. If google+ is pushing that angle, I imagine they're gonna have some trouble. And...Google is huge. Google+ will make them huger; expanding into new product lines in addition to growing marketshare in their other products/services. How much longer can their altruistic ways last? They're already fading, my man. I'm investing now so that when they come out with the Google Electric Vehicle, I'll be poised to make millions of Googlers (the future currency of the world).
ReplyDelete