What is Googles End Goal?

Be like Nutella

Watched some documentaries recently on Google, its whole story etc all about Larry Page and Sergey Brin and all that... and it got me very interested in Google in general and the more I learned about Google and its various products and projects I found myself wondering about the monopoly which is Google and its future intentions etc..

So I thought I'd start a thread to see what people think about Google, whether it truly does apply its infamous 'don't be evil' mantra to its operations and its future plans.

Personally I have issues with Google's collection of personal information and my searching and all that privacy stuff and yet I understand that it is this information which allows Google to be so good at search. I have issues with the amount of access it gives officially or unofficially to agencies like the FBI/NSA. I consider Google as 'too big for society' to control or have a say in and I think it represents a massive 'potential' threat to all the democratization the internet promises to the individual and to societies - especially in the case of China for instance who has a secret business arrangement with Google and we all know that that would include issues such as Censoring the internet to its citizens etc..

Anyway
what do yez think?
Google good or bad?
what aspects of Google do you distrust?

They have an awful lot of major technological advances in the pipeline right now and enormous projects which will effect the whole world when they come to fruition. They don't have a history of asking people what they want before they 'inflict' their ideas upon the world and that is their right as a money making company ... but at what cost potentially?

I think the internet is amazing and Google is the core of the internet and as such has 'enabled' amazing and benevolent things to happen in the world. But are they too big now? Is it too much POWER concentrated in one single corporation?

Just lookin for opinions, things I haven't thought of etc.. whats your take?

employs >50k people,
turns over 50 Bn and makes a profit of 10 Bn a year,
Processes 3 billion searches a day.

Is there a conspiracy?

Mech1

Is there a conspiracy?


Google it.

Torakx

lol I did google it!
I thought I might break the interwebz, but no...
I got a google friendly CT page at the top search.
http://gawker.com/260980/the-top-four-google-conspiracy-theories

I feel much safer now that its all been covered and apparently we are being paranoid
Even some posed scenarios of where it could work, end with reasons for how it couldnt work.

Good thread topic by the way.
I have noticed I try to do a search and the damn search engine tries logging me into my gmail to record my searches.
Also youtube seems to do this if you go from a logged in Gmail search to youtube vids, you will be watching the vids logged into youtube O.o
Pain in the ass.

I do often wonder what will become of all this.
Google is so popular its mentioned everywhere and I myself am always telling people who ask stupid questions to google it.
A search engine is handy but sometimes I think to switch because I dont like the idea of any corp gettign that big.

Any suggestions for alternatives?
I dont want to google "seach engines" haha!

Brown Bomber

http://blekko.com/

Torakx

the_syco

I had a long response laughing at your conspiracy, but when I clicked "submit reply", I got this;

keelanj69

Torakx wrote: »

Ahhh. 609. And with a little tweaking here and there and hey presto 666!

Sonics2k

Torakx wrote: »

What's 999 got to do with it?

thiarfearr

Here's a statement from isohunt concerning google, and their ability to censor:

On the news that Google announcing they will downrank sites "with too many valid DMCA takedown notices". Since isoHunt is currently listed as #3 of most noticed sites, that is likely to happen to to us.

But let's get it out of the way that we are crying foul just because we are scared of losing traffic. About 75% of all our traffic are direct traffic, with 21% coming from Google searches (and much of that being searches on "isohunt" and "isohunt.com"). So even if Google takes isoHunt entirely out of their index, we'll survive. Unless Google start censoring isoHunt at the Chrome browser level, but let's not give them any ideas.

What I want to bring to attention about this search algorithm change is Google is no longer the search engine upstart they used to be (for a while now). As Search Engine Land says, Google is now a content distribution company. What's missing on Google's DMCA notices report? Youtube. The by far largest video content website in the world ought to have very high volume of DMCA notices, if not the most, and it's inconspicuously missing from the list. To downrank and censor any website that's not Google's that receives a high number of DMCA notices? Sounds exactly like antitrust to me.

Now, on what is "valid" DMCA notices to warrant Google labeling a site as pirate? Google Legal has already labelled us a "pirate" service before, to prop themselves up as "legit". That is their opinion. What is really wrong with downranking/censoring websites based on "valid" DMCA notices however is that what's valid is simply notices that has not been countered. With millions of links subject to notices, we never bothered countering any DMCA notices on Google (not to mention Google only recently put up their transparency report so there hasn't even been an easy way to review what's been noticed per domain). That does not mean all links under isohunt.com which Google has filtered by notices are valid, just because we haven't countered them. Not any more valid than how Youtube took down NASA's Mars video just because a broadcaster said so. Is what Google/Youtube routinely call valid takedowns valid, like many others before? You tell me. (although to Google's credit, a video of a Canadian urinating on his passport is too good to takedown, unlike a video from Mars)

To complicate matters, we are also a search engine, like Google, not just a regular website. We have our DMCA policy and takedown process, like Google. (ours was electronic by email years ago I might add, when Google was still requiring snail mail) And contrary to popular beliefs, we have plenty of torrent links to non-copyright infringing content, and we'll be adding 1.4M more from the Internet Archive soon. Is it right for Google to downrank or outright censor torrent links to legit, non-infringing content on isoHunt.com (or any other site), just because copyright holders have spammed a million "valid" DMCA notices on our other pages to Google that hasn't been countered? Censorship will never be easier, by DMCA spam.

The media conglomerates failed to pass SOPA, now they are getting in bed with Youtube at the public's expense. I'd point you to Google alternatives like DuckDuckGo (which respects your privacy a lot more to boot), or heck, bing but since everyone google, that's unlikely to go far in practice. While Google already started down this path of censorship with autocorrect before, search ranking based on mere DMCA notices is a line that should not be crossed.

We need a protest against Google censorship and antitrust.

Logical_Bear

Like any big corp it has to have an eye kept on it:D

Im a bit wary of it's policy of collecting 'non-personal' information and the way they tailor adds for you in gmail etc(why it keeps showing ads for fleshlights and thai brides would lead me to think their algorithim is broke )

To give them credit gmail was a game changer and their support of android has had a major impact on technology(also see their google glass).

having said that they can show their true corporate colours sometimes.I use isohunt as my torrent search engine.That site is being chased through the courts in the states(along with many others) and has posted some interesting points.The one below is one that involves googles behaviour

On the news that Google announcing they will downrank sites "with too many valid DMCA takedown notices". Since isoHunt is currently listed as #3 of most noticed sites, that is likely to happen to to us.

But let's get it out of the way that we are crying foul just because we are scared of losing traffic. About 75% of all our traffic are direct traffic, with 21% coming from Google searches (and much of that being searches on "isohunt" and "isohunt.com"). So even if Google takes isoHunt entirely out of their index, we'll survive. Unless Google start censoring isoHunt at the Chrome browser level, but let's not give them any ideas.

What I want to bring to attention about this search algorithm change is Google is no longer the search engine upstart they used to be (for a while now). As Search Engine Land says, Google is now a content distribution company. What's missing on Google's DMCA notices report? Youtube. The by far largest video content website in the world ought to have very high volume of DMCA notices, if not the most, and it's inconspicuously missing from the list. To downrank and censor any website that's not Google's that receives a high number of DMCA notices? Sounds exactly like antitrust to me.

Now, on what is "valid" DMCA notices to warrant Google labeling a site as pirate? Google Legal has already labelled us a "pirate" service before, to prop themselves up as "legit". That is their opinion. What is really wrong with downranking/censoring websites based on "valid" DMCA notices however is that what's valid is simply notices that has not been countered. With millions of links subject to notices, we never bothered countering any DMCA notices on Google (not to mention Google only recently put up their transparency report so there hasn't even been an easy way to review what's been noticed per domain). That does not mean all links under isohunt.com which Google has filtered by notices are valid, just because we haven't countered them. Not any more valid than how Youtube took down NASA's Mars video just because a broadcaster said so. Is what Google/Youtube routinely call valid takedowns valid, like many others before? You tell me. (although to Google's credit, a video of a Canadian urinating on his passport is too good to takedown, unlike a video from Mars)

To complicate matters, we are also a search engine, like Google, not just a regular website. We have our DMCA policy and takedown process, like Google. (ours was electronic by email years ago I might add, when Google was still requiring snail mail) And contrary to popular beliefs, we have plenty of torrent links to non-copyright infringing content, and we'll be adding 1.4M more from the Internet Archive soon. Is it right for Google to downrank or outright censor torrent links to legit, non-infringing content on isoHunt.com (or any other site), just because copyright holders have spammed a million "valid" DMCA notices on our other pages to Google that hasn't been countered? Censorship will never be easier, by DMCA spam.

The media conglomerates failed to pass SOPA, now they are getting in bed with Youtube at the public's expense. I'd point you to Google alternatives like DuckDuckGo (which respects your privacy a lot more to boot), or heck, bing but since everyone google, that's unlikely to go far in practice. While Google already started down this path of censorship with autocorrect before, search ranking based on mere DMCA notices is a line that should not be crossed.

We need a protest against Google censorship and antitrust.

http://isohunt.com/

johnny_ultimate

Torakx wrote: »

666 Image

This is either the funniest parody of conspiracy theories I've ever seen, or the single-most ridiculous actual conspiracy theory.

Could even be both!

Torakx

A conspiracy theory non the less

thecommander

Torakx wrote: »

bog?

Aquarius34

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

This is either the funniest parody of conspiracy theories I've ever seen, or the single-most ridiculous actual conspiracy theory.

Could even be both!

You have an odd sense of humour..... a...n...y...w..a..y...


666 is not all evil or hocus pocus like people make it out to be, but it is symbolic here and it does denote 666 regardless of whatever you believe about it. I have to say this too. It's not funny. I have a wild sense of humour and I am gonna cut you short here with that.

Be like Nutella

"NSA is not able to comment on specific relationships we may or may not have with U.S. companies. We can say as a general matter, however, that ... [the] NSA works with a broad range of commercial partners and research associates."

; )


NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/

Be like Nutella

What does Google plan to do with the information 'Google Glass' devices will absorb from the world around us once these devices are ubiquitous and they control the operating system running the whole Augmented Reality Space? What power could a company in that hypothetical position potentially have?

Imagine walking out your front door in 12 years time to a world where you know you are on film almost every second no matter where you go and that all your actions are tied to your digital footprint on the net giving Google essentially omnipotent control over deeply semantic information about you, the complexity of which you could never hope to grasp, and yet they will do things commercially/governmentally with that information which will effect your life.

Your search habits improve 'google' right now but that is in a screen limited world of offices, bedrooms and mobile phones. Google is planning its long term future with Google Glass. Right now anybody could conceptually invent better 'Search' like the way Larry and Sergey did in their dorm 16 years ago with novel Algorithms based on the concept of back-linking websites. So how do Google protect their position as 'the internet's Operating system' ??? The future they have been developing at X-Labs under Sergeys direction and now under Raymond Kurweils direction as of January is nothing short of a leap towards Strong A.I. Unsupervised machine learning across the entire data set of the entire web - which Larry downloaded in entirety while at Standford 16 years ago crashing the whole colleges network.

Before they reach Strong A.I. ability they will need access to the entire humanpedia i.e. the whole global human experience, which Glass tech will give them access to. This dataset will allow the learning 'Google' brain to grasp fully natural language, recognize people from video and pics naturally and form predictive powers based on the crunching of all levels of complex human interaction from finance to traffic observation. All data will be online constantly being crunched at speeds beyond current comprehension and stored in total in millions of servers and across the cloud. This total information aware corporation will give access to the NSA whenever it asks (nicely) OR will most likely just offer a backdoor in return for corporate advantage through endo-governmental help. The unstoppable rise of Google as the only 'brain' which can compute and store and manage the globes total information set coming from devices from PCs to handsets to Google Glass tech of all shapes and sizes will be in the US governments interest and something they will form an alliance with in order to essentially 'own' the cyber world. The line between the real world and the cyber world will get thinner and thinner as cyber actions influence real life - from being face-recogged on entering Star Bucks and your order automatically flowing from your Glass to the in-store network which auto charges your coffee based on an unnoticed retina verification. And Google will OWN this world physically and commercially and in conjunction with the US government and its agencies such as the NSA.

Now that is a conspiracy theory if ever I saw one ; )

CollardGreens

If a person doesn't like google seeing everything, then can't they just turn the computer off.

simon0brien

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Watched some documentaries recently on Google, its whole story etc all about Larry Page and Sergey Brin and all that... and it got me very interested in Google in general and the more I learned about Google and its various products and projects I found myself wondering about the monopoly which is Google and its future intentions etc..

So I thought I'd start a thread to see what people think about Google, whether it truly does apply its infamous 'don't be evil' mantra to its operations and its future plans.

Personally I have issues with Google's collection of personal information and my searching and all that privacy stuff and yet I understand that it is this information which allows Google to be so good at search. I have issues with the amount of access it gives officially or unofficially to agencies like the FBI/NSA. I consider Google as 'too big for society' to control or have a say in and I think it represents a massive 'potential' threat to all the democratization the internet promises to the individual and to societies - especially in the case of China for instance who has a secret business arrangement with Google and we all know that that would include issues such as Censoring the internet to its citizens etc..

Anyway
what do yez think?
Google good or bad?
what aspects of Google do you distrust?

They have an awful lot of major technological advances in the pipeline right now and enormous projects which will effect the whole world when they come to fruition. They don't have a history of asking people what they want before they 'inflict' their ideas upon the world and that is their right as a money making company ... but at what cost potentially?

I think the internet is amazing and Google is the core of the internet and as such has 'enabled' amazing and benevolent things to happen in the world. But are they too big now? Is it too much POWER concentrated in one single corporation?

Just lookin for opinions, things I haven't thought of etc.. whats your take?

employs >50k people,
turns over 50 Bn and makes a profit of 10 Bn a year,
Processes 3 billion searches a day.

Is there a conspiracy?

Google is a million times better than bing..
If you add unknown ppl on Facebook they call this 'harrasment'. Whereas on Google Plus It's simple a way of finding new friends and ppl to talk with.. Even though this is only the surface, I really like Google

Be like Nutella

The approach of 'well if ya don't like it turn it off or don't use it' is a bit of a false binary option in my opinion. The issue is of power and ubiquity and the balance of information and control.

Google is going to be used 3 billion times today by hundreds of millions of people who on average do not understand what it is Google do. We don't have a grasp on how they use our information or what information we give them willingly by using Google and gmail... some of us have a general assumption about that process but really they have the power of balance of information on their side. Kind of like a bank who gives a loan they know will probably end up in trouble down the road.

Google will do what it can get away with as a company... that's the way capitalism works. Google operates in a space it created itself and as such retains a position three steps ahead of those who would attempt to 'check' such power. Legally they don't have to tell anybody about their dealings with China or their arrangements with the CIA/NSA/FBI etc.. and so we end up in a space where we apply conjecture because we have fears about their power and future plans and we know that they have the position of power in the debate. If they were serious about 'don't be evil' then they would realize that they, as an entity, have become so powerful they represent a concentration of power dilemma and should proactively engage with this issue even it means losing competitive edges in some areas or giving up its secrets which give it its competitive monopolistic position.

They are literally too big to fail.

Google is directly aiming for Strong A.I. This has been admitted to by Raymond Kurweil who now heads up their research at X Labs in this area. He is the worlds per-eminent authority when it comes to the 'singularity' and he now has virtually unlimited resources to go after A.I. This means that Google are most likely in the strongest position to bring Strong A.I. to reality and this will change the world and effect billions of people. Therefore I think people should know more about what they are doing. But this goes directly against the ideal of capitalism and corporate entity and the legality of keeping corporate secrets and competitive edge.

Google Glass will change the world entirely if and when it is a success. Google will 'own' this space by running the system which IS Augmented Reality 'search'. Google is the entity which will store all this metadata physically across its cloud of servers which rivals the storage of all major governments combined. Essentially they will 'own' this data for all intensive purposes and therefore will represent a massive concentration of power - waaaay beyond what we observe right now.

'Don't Be Evil' can only be accepted as a noble mission statement when it is demonstrable under democratic normatives - i.e. transparency and accountability. Google has already demonstrate its power to attain monopolistic position by attempting to rob the worlds authors of the content of all their books. This was met head on in court and they lost. But as Brin said in an interview he is still optimistic they will succeed with Google books because he knows how much power Google can bring to that equation so his optimism is based on again, the balance of information which is heavily in his favor.

Sergey Brin is not motivated by personal wealth at this stage. He is an idealist with a massive piggy bank and a collection of the worlds finest minds ready to do his bidding behind closed doors. The world is his white board he can do essentially what he likes behind the curtain of free market secretive corporate action. There are many logical reasons to fear and distrust Google and the response of 'well if you don't like it get off the grid' is unrealistic and short-sighted.

The digital revolution is coming and a big part of that will be regaining our 'power' in a Google world. We are being treated as ignorant subjects by FB and Google and other companies which inflict ubiquitous inventions upon us but operate from behind a curtain of secrecy, who have major plans for OUR future but don't wish to share them with us in black and white for us to consider and debate.

The internet is supposed to be democratizing but as with all things in a capitalistic world - power gets you more votes at the table and allows you to mold the world you want to see become reality.

Augmented Reality will be a major paradigm shift in human development and should not be in the hands of so few who are so unanswerable to those it will effect so greatly.

A.I. 'could' literally be an end game moment for mankind in the next 50 years and 'don't be evil' notwithstanding, the road to hell is paved with good intentions!

Google is too big, too powerful and too secretive and has demonstrated it can achieve total monopoly without much push back from humanity - this is not a good recipe for our future. They simply say 'trust us we know what we're doing'. Well I for one do not trust them entirely nor do the libraries and authors who stood against them.

hooradiation

Be like Nutella wrote: »

A.I. 'could' literally be an end game moment for mankind in the next 50 years

People have been saying that for about sixty or so years at this point.
And will be for another sixty at the very least.

Be like Nutella

hooradiation wrote: »

People have been saying that for about sixty or so years at this point.
And will be for another sixty at the very least.

yeah true that.... but do you really think the subject had more weight in 1962 with a computer 1 million times less powerful than the phone in your pocket does today as you type that?

The Web is 20 years old, what will the next 20 look like? Moore's law has continued on a smooth exponential rate of accelerating returns come wars or recessions for 70 years. I said Strong A.I. not necessarily 'sentient' computers or fantasies like that. I qualified it because I knew somebody would make a comment like you did. Natural language, human recognition, machine learning, operating under predatory A.I. rule sets - this is all becoming reality as we speak. I bought IBM Via Voice in order to accelerate studying 15 years ago... it required hundreds of hours of training and then was only partially useful for dictation and read back. Now Siri is answering vague nuanced questions.

This is not pie in the sky thinking - hence Google devote major resources towards it from a business perspective with shareholders in mind.

But essentially if you meant to dull the Terminator fantasy then yes you are right - it was unnecessary on my part and should have been qualified more thoroughly - exchange 'end game' for 'existential challenge'... at some point in the next 75-100 years. Goal posts moved. Point taken.

Jonny7

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Google is too big, too powerful and too secretive and has demonstrated it can achieve total monopoly without much push back from humanity - this is not a good recipe for our future. They simply say 'trust us we know what we're doing'. Well I for one do not trust them entirely nor do the libraries and authors who stood against them.

Worry more about trying to get a job in google than the company's threat to mankind - it's constantly listed as one of the best places to work.

Also Google is ranked 73rd in the fortune 500 2012

briany

Augmented reality disturbs me, Google Glass disturbs me. Even the level of privilege that the Google Search app on my phone gets disturbs me but I cannot deny that Google provides fantastic, almost futuristic service in most of the fields they enter. I like when they go into something like e-mail or being an ISP and make their competitors sit up, take notice and up their own game. This is happening right now in Kansas City with 1Gbit Google Fiber being installed. Time Warner have doubled their speeds and halved their bills for current customers within current or future 'fiberhoods'. It happened when Gmail went live. Everyone I know dropped their hotmail, IOL, Yahoo ect. accounts like a bad habit, as a primary account anyway. Right now, they are the biggest innovator with the biggest bank roll. They make their competitors compete.

It's very well to be concerned by Google's continued growth but the average person on the street is going to use them until Google begins making things harder than easier by tieing down their services and by slacking off on their innovation......Or by sending death squads to the door of anyone using Duckduckgo.

Hoop66

Be like Nutella wrote: »

The approach of 'well if ya don't like it turn it off or don't use it' is a bit of a false binary option in my opinion. The issue is of power and ubiquity and the balance of information and control.
...
Google is too big, too powerful and too secretive and has demonstrated it can achieve total monopoly without much push back from humanity - this is not a good recipe for our future. They simply say 'trust us we know what we're doing'. Well I for one do not trust them entirely nor do the libraries and authors who stood against them.

You're way too reasonable and well-informed for the CT forum.

Sparticle

I think they are trying to monopolise as many aspects of the internet as they can for monetary benefit. They are still a corporation deep down even with that "don't be evil" façade.

That being said there are much worse companies than Google and I don't believe there is any other underlying reason other than wanting to make lots of money. If I'm going to be screwed I'd rather be screwed by Google than Microsoft.

Be like Nutella

Sparticle wrote: »

I think they are trying to monopolise as many aspects of the internet as they can for monetary benefit. They are still a corporation deep down even with that "don't be evil" façade.

I agree and I don't think there is necessarily one giant evil reason behind what they do either. I just know that the internet has affected the world so much and it's only coming to the end of its first phase which has been screen based... now we're into touch screens and soon enough Augmented reality technology will take hold with Google Glass and other new stuff and that will really make the internet even more central to everyone's lives and change it beyond ways we can understand from today's perspective. That is important to understand. 'IF' Augmented Reality technology such as Google Glass becomes AS ubiquitous as touch screen internet handsets (eventually) then Google (who has deep plans to own this 'search' space) will essentially be able to use almost all information about our lives far and beyond the data-set they have worked with up to now and this will allow them to impose their monopolistic 'power' upon us - their market, their consumers, their 'assets' really... beyond what they have been doing up to now, in more powerful ways, affecting our consuming choices, our opinions, our tastes, our freedom, our information, our privacy, our memes, our total information - and the chances are, we will just wade into it without asking enough smart questions or demanding enough transparency... hence this discussion. They are of course a corporation who's first priority is assumed to be 'making its shareholders richer' but it isn't always as simplistic as that. We're not talking a toaster manufacturer here - we're talking about two guys who really had an ENORMOUS idea in college and realized they could literally change how the whole world works. Vint Surf gave us the net which became the web which has now become essentially, Google.
Google is not just streets ahead in search and storage but it is literally so big and has at its disposal such quantities of resources in terms of properties, hardware, patents, server numbers, efficiency, algorithms and very importantly Brain Power that there is no foreseeable competitor to take its crown. Facebook's search is an issue I'll grant them that but there's no serious opinions saying it's potentially a giant slayer. The strength of Google IS its size and its 'headstart'. To take Google's mantle would require you to BE Google's size or relatively massive... nobody is even in the same paragraph as them. A true behemoth. The smartest people in their space works for them simple as that. You couldn't build a brain-army as impressive with all the money in the world! Ph.Ds are Gold in computing. They have moved into another sphere of business, quite different to anything we're seen before.

Consider this quote from Bill Moyers (independent)

" For a news provider, dropping below the front pages of Google’s search results means lost advertising dollars. But more important, it can mean disappearing from public view. In the United States last fall, about 65 percent of all web searches were made on Google. In Britain and elsewhere in Europe, the figure was closer to 90 percent. When Google’s secret and constantly changing algorithm decides a news source is not relevant, that source can lose credibility and become invisible to a significant chunk of the reading public. Google’s near monopoly in the online marketplace is becoming an unchallenged monopoly in the marketplace of ideas.

Imagine if a single company had the same sweeping and arbitrary power over print news distribution that Google wields over digital news distribution. Such a company would rightly be the subject of intense public and government scrutiny. Yet in dealing with Google, the FTC has largely decided to take the company’s motto, “Don’t be evil,” at face value and let Google regulate itself. "

http://billmoyers.com/2013/02/06/googles-monopoly-on-the-news/

Google is not just a search engine 'option' in a market place, it clearly has a monopoly on almost everybody's internet experience in the entire world...PC and Mobile. That becomes a whole other kettle of fish IF and WHEN Augmented Reality technology such as Google Glass and associated technologies rise from a fad and a gadget concept to total ubiquity and a whole new paradigm of internet.... remember people argued on forums for years whether most phones would eventually be big HD screens with lightening fast internet speed and massive processing power with incredible multi touch screens and countless applications.... and now its almost a completed reality for the entire world.... total ubiquity. Total connection, always online, never off grid - life. And behind it all - Google and its secrets and its servers and its 'next ideas'. Hiring Ray Kurweil to go for Strong AI. over a long term project (essentially the rest of his professional and academic career) with enormous resources is a clear and powerful statement that Google has massive plans in store for the world - in which it plans to of course make serious money in and grow its Market Capital Value from 274.48 Billion dollars, right now, to twice that? three times that?... but I prose that Google's owners have other things in mind than mere dollars in their bank accounts. They want to change the world from behind the curtain of their untouchable corporation.... not to make the world a worse place... that's not the point at all, the point is they are not going to ask you or I whether we like or want the world they wish to prescribe to us. As their 'market', do you really think that the successful negotiation of the free market capitalistic river they have embarked upon will retain OUR freedoms and Privacy as paramount concerns or will they serve their own ideals AND shareholders ahead of our democratic rights and interests ?

Consider Google's growth potential going from its current position.

by 2000 the internet reached 360 Million people in the world.

by 2012 the internet had 2.4 Billion users or 34% of the world !

That leaves an awful lot of pie ! and you have to think about the next wave of increase in internet access not just in terms of discrete numbers of users but in terms of HOW they will use it.

How much money is exchanged through the net for goods right now? and how much will be exchanged in 5-10 years time?
I would expect an exponential increase in business done over the net in the next decade especially with mobile cashless transfers in retail stores and therefore an exponential increase in how valuable Google's products i.e. Search and AdWords - becomes... to the worlds companies!
That inherent value in Google is appreciated and understood more by Google than by anyone else, obviously, so they have invested billions in what happens in the next 5 years and beyond. They have bet heavily on mobile internet access and on Augmented Reality technology such as Google Glass. What seems to me and you like a gadget concept gamble is an awful lot more than that. This Google Glass thing is literally Sergey Brin's personal baby - he is not banking on simply selling 1500 dollar glasses with screens built in and it will go boom or bust - instead he's betting on a long term trend away from sitting in front of flat screens for business and pleasure and instead - being permanently online, whether on the move or in a shop or sitting in a restaurant with endless voice activated in-screen ability across a wide range of product concepts the first of which is Google Glass and things like '6th Sense'.

With this massive profit seeking and global business plans will come massive change in how we communicate, do business and entertain ourselves and Google plan on being right in the middle of all of it - absorbing all that metadata on how we live to make better 'search' and more money. That is the simple theory but the reality is more complex and affects us in potentially negative ways, as well as positive. It is this 'Google future' of the internet which should concern us. Not in 5 years but right now we should be discussing the concepts and conjectures some of which I confidently make here. It is NOT my opinion that Google is Evil or that it is one giant conspiracy to control us etc etc... it is however my opinion that the natural process of capitalistic growth, especially in terms of the scale point and monopoly point Google has surpassed, can and will put at risk, freedoms of choice and privacy rights and a whole host of other issues which are almost too complex to understand.

Imagine going home from work one day and when you got home you found out that somebody was controlling the lights in your favor making your journey shorter and thus helping you. Now flip that around. Ok that's a simple binary.
Now increase the complexity. Imagine those lights forced you to pass by Woody's because that somebody knew you planned on buying red paint because they read your email 2 weeks before. Now you pass Woody's, go in and get your paint paying for it with your phone constantly logged into Google who now knows your location and has tagged you as a successfully convinced consumer. Imagine they could argue that in a sales pitch to Woody's who will then pay Google millions each year for page rank and AdWords service. It's just a hypothetical example - but it is quite analogous to what Google has the power to do. Interesting how people refer to Google as a sentient entity with the phrases they use. Anyway imagine what they can do with 10 times the level of complexity involved. In such a world you could never understand how the internet affects your choices at that level and my point is that they wouldn't have to tell you, as a corporation. You will simply agree to an incredibly complex legal agreement one day and don't tell me people will read and understand these agreements because they don't on both counts. Now imagine NSA asking for access to Google's 'total information set'.... as a US corporation who lobbies heavily in Washington do you think they will not allow access by the NSA/CIA to their information. If this process CAN be abused it WILL be abused like everything else.

Google are too big already in my view and will get so much bigger. They have too much power as it is and they will literally reach god-level in terms of information power and control over the next 10 years. It is hard to imagine how they could navigate the T-junction I see them at right now when you consider the conflicts of interests involved, which makes the situation a difficult and maybe impossible puzzle to solve. Some of what I raise here represents the views of a growing number of people. Should this number increase, with reason, to a threshold which demands Google to face up to this discussion and sit across the table from millions of concerned people in the world which I predict is going to happen in the form of a digital revolution of sorts, then what are they to do? Google cannot reveal their secrets or they lose the business game. They can't reveal all their future plans or the also lose, one would think. It is hard to imagine Google being capable of agreeing to becoming a more 'acceptable' entity to myself or those with similar views without sacrificing business logic which will, you would think, hurt their share price and market position and hence makes such actions highly unlikely. But maybe, Google will become so big, so powerful, in terms of the market it operates in that it literally transcends the idea of being a company and finally is free of the reigns of capitalistic logic and serving shareholders ahead of interest groups such as US.

a thought:
No company has grown as fast as Google in history. Would you trust Google less or more if it was a Chinese corporation? Something tells me it wouldn't have grown as fast.

briany

Sparticle wrote: »

I think they are trying to monopolise as many aspects of the internet as they can for monetary benefit. They are still a corporation deep down even with that "don't be evil" façade.

That being said there are much worse companies than Google and I don't believe there is any other underlying reason other than wanting to make lots of money. If I'm going to be screwed I'd rather be screwed by Google than Microsoft.

I haven't seen them 'monopolise' much of anything. There's still Bing, there's still Yahoo, there's still Dailymotion etc. etc. There's alternatives, some better, some not as good, but I personally will use what's best for me, Google or not. So far though, Google have not been able to completely push out competitors.

I don't think Google want a monopoly in the strictest sense of the word. They seem to like being innovative for now and not being the stagnant player jealously guarding their position at the top by ruthlessly stifling those underneath. That's not exactly what got them to where they are. For now, I think they know that but that may change with successive generations of leadership. Only time will tell.

Be like Nutella

I wouldn't say Google have done anything illegal or anything like that to reach their current position of virtual monopoly... in fact let's not get caught up in monopoly or duopoly or any of that pedantic stuff. They are THE search engine for the world - is the important point. What Google does affects the whole internet world, what the others do does not.

Search Market share 2011

Google 82.80%

Yahoo! 6.42%

Baidu 4.89%

Bing 3.91%

briany

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I wouldn't say Google have done anything illegal or anything like that to reach their current position of virtual monopoly... in fact let's not get caught up in monopoly or duopoly or any of that pedantic stuff. They are THE search engine for the world - is the important point. What Google does affects the whole internet world, what the others do does not.

Search Market share 2011

Google 82.80%

Yahoo! 6.42%

Baidu 4.89%

Bing 3.91%

I agree. I think that Google have achieved that position because they do, for the most part, provide the best service and you really can't blame them for that. Their competitors' slim market shares tell us that Google is indeed wholly dominant but tech history shows that a dominant player is only ever one or two (if they're lucky) moves away from disaster.