Total capitulation on Google's part. They were one of the few companies that could have stood up to the telecoms. We can't expect the congress, bought and paid for by telecom dollars, to do it. The courts won't allow the FCC to do it. This was Google's moment to change the world. What bothers me is not only did they shrug off that responsibility we projected on them as being a smart company standing up for users but they didn't even put up a fight. They seem to be the first US company to happily surrender to the telecoms. I hate to say it because it comes off like a conspiracy theory but you can't convince me that Android and Google TV aren't the main factors behind this. Google doesn't want to pick a fight with wireless providers, telco-video providers, cable TV/broadband providers. They need them to push their products. I can't believe they're doing this. It's mind boggling.
It is Google's moment. They will change the world, as soon as they start controlling who gets access to what on the internet along with Verizon and others.
> ... responsibility we projected on them as being a smart company
That is really our fault not theirs. We are the ones fooled by their marketing and moralistic mission statements.
> They seem to be the first US company to happily surrender to the telecoms.
Google exists to make money. If surrendering to the telecoms makes money then that's what they'll do.
> I can't believe they're doing this. It's mind boggling.
What truly boggles the mind is the number of smart people here who are completely enthralled with Google, and believe it is a source of pure good in the world, fighting those evil companies on behalf of the little guy.
Google is a great company and I admire it for building such an exceptional image of itself in the eyes of tech community. It is a good company not because it saves the world or feeds the hungry, but because it makes money.
What boggles my mind is that you and everyone else here are getting your collective pants in a twist over an unconfirmed report from anonymous sources about something that frankly sounds rather unlikely considering Google's history of public statements and financial commitments on the subject. Surely there will be enough time for that after you actually know what Google and Verizon are trying to do, if anything.
However they did meet with Verizon behind "closed doors" to agree on a common definition of what "net neutrality" is. Yes, it is not as infamatory as "let's implement something together and screw everyone else".
> We remain committed to an open internet.
Of course they do. No company we'll say - "we want to control the internet and everyone's access to it". They'll say somethig like "we want to expand more options for consumers", "we are helping deliver better content", and of course "we want an open internet". They are the ones being accusses of working out a deal behind consumers' back so their PR department will say something nice to soften the blow.
The only way to figure it out is to wait and see what happens. You'll have to forgive me if I don't take Google's PR department's word for it.
>> They seem to be the first US company to happily surrender to the
>> telecoms.
> Google exists to make money. If surrendering to the telecoms makes
> money then that's what they'll do.
That's a rather naive view of a complex question. Google has to balance short-, medium-, and long-term gains. If my only goal is to 'make money,' then I could make a ton of money if someone paid me $1-million to inject myself with the Ebola virus, but that's probably a fairly short-sighted decision...
> That's a rather naive view of a complex question.
Absolutely correct. I thought someone would call me out on that so let me explain in more details:
It is still about making money. It is about the expected ability to keep making money in the future. I was talking about maximizing the global future returns function (you can think of it as the stock value). This function is some composition of the 3 functions you broke it down to.
That still doesn't change the goal.
However,as you argue, there is a set of decisions that when taken, might lead to maximizing short term profit at the expense of long term profit.
Google traditionally tried to maximize the long-term, by positioning itself on the positive side of the moral spectrum -- it is their well-known "do no evil" mission statement. This of course could just be pure PR. Or, if not, it could have resulted in taking some short term losses (not getting involved with repressive governments around the world, for example) while increasing long term gains (attracting the right kind of geeks who actually care about morals, human rights, freedoms, etc.).
[As a quick side node on such moral mission statements, one can argue that the losses taken as a result of defending a moral stance, might be a good measure of how serious and sincere that moral stance really is. I am not passing any judgement on Google one way or the other here, just pointing out a general guideline].
The bigger the company got, the more likely that short-term gains will be emphasized. The company has stopped being identified with the personae of the original founders.
Consequently it's moral properties have been slowly pushed aside and it became just another faceless multi-billion dollar behemoth.
Don't get me wrong, I like Google. It is making me money. I bought stock in it. But, I never bought into its "morality" message. I just assumed it was a PR trick to attract the right talent. It worked great, you have to give it to them. Eventually they'll have to rely on PR again, when that bubble bursts to minimize the damage to it "good" public image. Perhaps, now is such a time...
How so? The point was to present an example of taking short-term gains that will have an effect on long-term gains. If Google blindly pursues only short-term gains, they risk weakening their medium- and/or long-term prospects.
Because your short long term loss doesn't benefit anybody. The long term gain in google's case would be Verizon, but in your example, it's some evil corporation who just wants you to die.
It is a good company because it solved a problem, related to us, and held itself to a high standard and we rightly attributed it good qualities because in its inception and even to today it has been a good force onto the world.
The moment Google starts to focus on the money at the expense of other more noble principles, such as Don't Be Evil, the company will die a slow at first and then immediate death.
Google was disruptive in its inception. It had and still has much support because it stood up to Microsoft. But now that it has paved the way and there is little difference between Google search and Yahoo or MSN, what keeps most searchers, especially in the tech community with google is its image.
The moment they start doing some evil, such image is dead, and people will be on a look out for some other search provider.
Specifically, Google and Verizon's agreement could prevent Verizon from offering some prioritization to the biggest bidders who want better delivery of content on its DSL and fiber networks, according to the sources. But that wouldn’t apply to mobile phones, the sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the companies have not officially made their announcement.
Where is it written that google is the protector of the internet? Sure they could stand up to the telecoms but they have responsibilities to their shareholders also and their bottom line.
It's a projection for the types of people who like to believe in mottos ("Don't be evil", "Think Different", etc) but it's a double edged sword if they're going to ride that reputation (China, open standards, open platforms, etc) and selectively duck the responsibility at other times. You can't help but be disappointed for selfish reasons. It's like Superman saving you from a burning building only to let the Earth spiral into the Sun a few days later. Thanks a lot Superman.
> ... but it's a double edged sword if they're going to ride that reputation (China, open standards, open platforms, etc) and selectively duck the responsibility at other times.
Very well and succinctly put.
It would probably be better if they never took a moral stance because they now risk getting judged by it, and thus appearing to be hypocrites.
That would create sort of a moral void, if you wish, ready for some other company to position itself into.
At the same time the moralistic motto was probably what propelled Google well ahead of others. When I think back, I wanted to work at Google because it was a "do no evil" kind of company. That kind of image will attract certain people. So if it was just a marketing ploy or they actually had to take short term losses in order to abide by their mission statement, it has served them well initially.
We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the future. I think they will start to abandon their moral stance slowly and turn into another faceless multi-billion dollar company.
I don't claim it is a bad thing. I had never bought into its morality anyway, I just bought its stock!
Their bottom line is hugely dependent on the goodwill that they've built up over several years, which will take a big hit if this story is accurate and the deal goes through. Switching default search engines is easy.
Microsoft/Bing could win themselves a ton of goodwill if they were to take the opposing stance to Google on this. (Though I question whether Microsoft leadership is savvy enough to capitalize on this opportunity.)
This is Google finally realizing that the public is more afraid of Google than it is of not having net neutrality. A google/Verizon deal makes all the niche content players more likely to favor net neutrality over having to complete with Google content.
The NY Times summary is exactly the opposite of reality -- Google negotiated to PREVENT a tiered internet, at least on landlines.
What the hell has happened with Tech News (this is hardly the first time where the fourth estate has presented reality in a shockingly inaccurate fashion)? The incompetence is just extraordinary.
