One Nation Under Google...with Liberty and Apps for All?
|
News Commentary. Some days I really miss living in Washington. A new administration brings lots of juicy political speculations about new policies. Today's policy contradiction: Google. |
Last week, just about anyone and everyone was buzzing commentary about the appointment of Vivek Kundra as the nation's first CIO You remember Vivek. He's the Washington, D.C., CTO who sent Microsoft packing (tried to, anyway).
Last year, Vivek switched 38,000 D.C. employees to Google Apps from Microsoft Office. He also sponsored the "Apps for Democracy" program, for which developers submitted 47 applications. The nation's new CIO apparently is a big Google Apps fan, enthusiasm that generated all kinds of open-source punditry last week. The sentiments: Mr. Open Source goes to Washington to kick out corrupt commercial software incumbents such as Microsoft. Term limits for all commercial software! Etc. Etc.
Silicon Alley Insider's Eric Krangel blogged: "America's New CIO Vivek Kundra worships Google." Over at Gizmodo, Adrian Covert wrote about Vivek: "He's also a fan of building government intranets based around Google Web apps." There's a simply, outrageously appropriate accompanying image.
The oft hilarious and insightful John Paczkowski blogged: "If stories about Kundra's enthusiasm for Google (GOOG) and Apple (AAPL) products are any indication, we can expect to see some big changes in the way federal technology spending is handled." His All Things Digital post title: "Obama's CIO Pick Brings New Meaning to Term 'Federal Googlement.'"
I chuckle at all this speculation that there's a new open-source/Web 2.0 sheriff in town who is about to run Google in and Microsoft out. Why? Because, about two weeks ago, many of the same people speculated about the changing policy winds going against Google.
Then, political pundits wondered if President Obama's antitrust chief nominee, Christine Varney, would kick Google's ass down Pennsylvania Ave. During a June American Antitrust Institute panel discussion she called Microsoft "so last century," but worried about Google's growing dominance. She said that Google "has acquired a monopoly in Internet online advertising."
Henry Blodget of Silicon Alley Insider blogged about Christine's nomination: "Hard to view this as anything but negative for Google. A strident government attack on the company seems unlikely (and ill-advised), but Google's future moves will almost certainly be more scrutinized and restricted than they have been to date."
TechFlash's Todd Bishop blogged: "Her comments make it pretty clear which company she believes deserves the closer scrutiny nowadays." Todd commented based on some real, honest reporting. He hunted down the audio clip of her speech and transcribed portions. He quoted her in context:
For me, Microsoft is so last century. They are not the problem. I think we're going to continually to see a problem, potentially, with Google, who I think so far has acquired a monopoly in Internet online advertising lawfully. I do not think they have done anything other than be a spectacular, innovative company. I'm deeply troubled by their acquisition of DoubleClick, and I'm deeply troubled by their deal with Yahoo.
The Obama Administration seemingly further damned Google with last week's quiet YouTube switcheroo. President Obama's weekly video addresses had been posting to YouTube, before a Feb. 28 switch to Akamai-powered government servers. Then in a March 2 post on the Google Public Policy Blog Steve Grove asserted: "That report is wrong. The White House decision does not mean that the White House has stopped using YouTube." Ah, such drama!
So which is it, oh soothsayers of Washington? Is the Obama Administration going to give Google a loving smooch or the kiss of death? Will somebody here please make up their minds? Or perhaps they should stop trying to read the minds of new political appointees.
But if they stopped pontificating, what would I blog about? (Don't answer that question!)
[Please send your tips or rumors to watchtips at gmail.com.]
Comments (7)
I wouldn't make a guess either way. I expect the CIO to do his job, not to act in any fanatical way. If using Google Apps makes more sense than using MS products then go that way. It's not such a simple matter though; with MS products all information is stored on your own machines while the data storage/management/access/security issues with using an off-site provider like Google may make it unsuitable for certain government work even if it is acceptable for some other government tasks.
Posted by Anonymouse | March 9, 2009 2:53 AM
"Last week, just about anyone and everyone was buzzing commentary about the appointment of Vivek Kundra as the nation's first CIO"
You should possibly add a disclaimer: If you live in America.
I don't tend to follow American politics except in a very general way and so I haven't been watching who gets appointed to what position.
I have no problems with the rest of what you say in this post, but I've come to dislike the assumption (made by far too many blog writers out there) that every reader is American and knows all about what's happening in American administration.
Posted by Jess Meats | March 9, 2009 5:22 AM
Jess: Consider that the next phrase after your quote is 'You remember Vivek. He's the Washington, D.C. CTO" and I think it's not too hard to figure that out.
Posted by Mike | March 9, 2009 5:44 AM
Why is Microsoft so last century? They are still very active politically all over the world, they are still buying politicians.
They are still buying votes for their stupid so called standards, ooxml anyone.
They are trying to corupt ODF, they are trying to use novell to corrupt the upstream linux distros with patented crapware, and that stupid dot net crap.
They are here and now and need to be dealt with. They are still monopolistically making OEM's install crap windows on every machine with no choice for what the consumer wants.
How is any of this last century?
This administration needs to get its head out of its arse and see the world how it is. It still has a lot of work to do with microsofts corupt business practices.
Posted by kitkat | March 9, 2009 8:53 AM
In government, particularly the US Federal Government, often the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. So they could kick ass and smother them in kisses at the same time. Note that the relevant anatomical features are at opposite ends.
Posted by Meredith Poor | March 9, 2009 11:00 AM
Considering the recent security issue with google docs, (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/09/google_docs_serious_security_breach/) this gives a whole new meaning to 'open government' ...
You wouldn't even need a FOIA to see government documents ;-)
Posted by Ronald | March 9, 2009 11:09 AM
I think that the "outrageously appropriate accompanying image." is a stinking filthy lie of the 25,789th degree. If Microsoft categorizes open-source developers as Communists, then I categorize Microsoft as Nazis.
But standardizing on Google docs? Gmail has its strong points and is quite serviceable, even though it has some weak points and some disturbing privacy and safety issues. But Google Docs as a standard really pushes the bounds of "Do No Evil". Do we really want the Web 2.0 equivalent of an Etch-A-Sketch?
And do we really want Chrome as a dominant browser on Google-pushed Android? IE pushing the world into Microsoft's concentration camps is bad enough; Google pushing the world away from Firefox and its Adblock Plus is nearly just as bad. I rank web page ads up there with billboards on the Florida turnpike, constantly reminding you in a non-ending stream of blight about greasy spoon restaurants and strip clubs.
It's just too bad of the economy is crimping Steve Ballmer's Divine Right to become a trillionaire. Likewise, it's also just too bad that the economy is crimping Google's Divine Right to own their own fleet of Airbus A380s, and their own private Space Shuttle and Interplanetary Probe network (Google Universe, anyone?). Like parents tell (or should tell) their teenagers, the World does NOT owe you a living.
Of course, my teenagers aren't able to purchase their very own high-ranking politicians and force the laws to be written to enforce the World to give them a living on a silver platter. But Microsoft can, and does. And it looks like Google can and will also. Perhaps "Do No Evil" really means "Don't Get Caught Doing Evil". Anything else in the criminal organization known as national politics just doesn't make sense. *sigh*
Posted by Philosopher | March 9, 2009 4:20 PM