Android: What You Are to Google?
|
The beta name for the Google phone platform is full of arrogance and disdain for potential customers. For people saying Google is the new Microsoft, Google just might be worse. |
The long-rumored Google phone is instead a mobile platform code-named Android, to which I assign real meaning and connotations. Isn't Google saying that it sees users as mindless automatons? For a company whose major product is an algorithm, should anyone really expect the Google huggy, kissy customer embrace? After all, search is very impersonal. People may search for things of personal interest, but the process is methodical on the front end and mathematical on the back end.
The Google worldview is looking more like this: Customers are programmed drones who repeatedly click the mouse on Google search and advertising services. Click, click, click. The mouse goes. Click. Click. Click. The stock ticker rises.
In May I asked: "Do Google's attitudes make it more dangerous than Microsoft ever was supposed to be?" And answered: "Yes." Android is more evidence of the Google attitude and mimicking of Microsoft of 15 years ago. For Android is an empty promise—the worst kind of vaporware. The company has a code name, a promised product, a late 2008 delivery date, a list of partners and almost no details. Either in its arrogance Google refuses to share details or else it has none to share. I say both are right.
Android is the worst kind of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) announcement. The timing is the giveaway: days after OpenSocial and right before Facebook announces its advertising platform. More broadly, Google has given enough lead time before next year's FCC auction to create doubt about the company's intentions. The lack of real Android information further feeds uncertainty about the extent of Google's mobile intentions.
Google's FCC auction pitch was for openness requirements that sounded a lot better in July than they do today. Based on the little Android information disclosed and reading between the lines, any openness benefits Google but eventually could lead to a closed-network model. Consumers could trade one master for another.
What Google wants is a more open mobile platform for selling contextual search and advertising. What the company expects: developer drones to embrace an SDK (software developer kit) slated for release next week and to begin creating products and services, now. But the phones are at least a year away. Meanwhile, developers could (and should) create real applications for real operating systems, like Symbian OS and Windows Mobile, today.
In Friday PBS blog post, "The Next Microsoft: Google is learning too well from the master," Robert Cringely checklists some of the ways Google is out of touch with its customers and becoming a monopoly in the process. But he's wrong about something. Google isn't the "next Microsoft." Google is worse than the last Microsoft.
Google controls more information and has a more crucial and growing economic role than Microsoft ever did. And based on the extent of information disclosure and other behavior, Google has about half Microsoft's humility, which can't be good.
Hopefully, I can rightly preserve the context of a April 2006 blog post by Jess Ross, a designer and open-source developer based in Minneapolis (that's MPLS to locals). He wrote:
"I have this theory that Google is going to become a deity. We turn to Google to give answers to our problems, and Google provides. Google is ever present, an unseen force that knows more about us than we know ourselves. Google can see deep into our psyches and hidden desires, seeing the searches we share with no one else."
But a deity presumably wouldn't profit from personal prayers information, the way Google does. The business model is rife with conflict of interest. Google mines data from customers it serves and then profits from it. The goldmine with the most valuable nuggets is the mobile phone. It's a captive, personal device for which customers can be clearly identified and their habits more easily cataloged than PCs. The mobile phone is an advertiser's dream machine, for the company that provides the demographic data.
Does Google know more about you than you know yourself? I don't recall my searches from last week, so not even last month. But Google knows and reminds me how long ago I went where whenever there is a new search. That's just the little information the all-mighty Google reveals to me. I'll ask: Do you really want to know what Google knows about you?
Microsoft is no candidate for sainthood, not that all-mighty Google would grant such designation. But Microsoft is repentant, or at least cowed. Whacked aside the head by stagnant share price and U.S. Justice Department and European Commission two-by-fours, Microsoft has changed. Call it brain damage or perhaps the simple desire not to get whacked in the head anymore. Microsoft is more focused on customers now than ever in its history.
Steve Ballmer deserves some credit for the change. In nearly eight years as Microsoft's chief executive, Ballmer has shifted the priority to customer satisfaction. For a company with a huge install base to which the same products are sold over and over, the customer is the right priority. Microsoft is more people-focused than ever.
Microsoft's slogans are all about people: "Your Potential. Our Passion"; "People Ready"; "Open Up Your Digital Life." Google's slogan is, well, what? There's not much people branding beyond the name's use as a verb.
Right, but there is Android. And, what are you to Google?
Related Posts:
- Google Brings Mobile Software to Life as Android, Google Watch, Nov. 5, 2007
- Is OpenSocial the Microsoft Anti-social?, Microsoft Watch, Oct. 31, 2007
- Google's Busy Signal Rings True for Microsoft, Microsoft Watch, July 31, 2007
- Google is All About Information, Microsoft Watch, July 17, 2007
- Why Google Succeeds, Part 2, Microsoft Watch, June 15, 2007
- Why Google Succeeds, Part 1, Microsoft Watch, June 15, 2007
- The Google Problem, Microsoft Watch, May 31, 2007
- The Google Quandary, Microsoft Watch, April 24, 2007
- Google Catfight About 30 Years in the Making, Microsoft Watch, March 6, 2007
- What Is Microsoft's Services Platform?, Microsoft Watch, March 1, 2007
- Why Google Matters to Microsoft, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 22, 2007
- Google and Long Tail Computing, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 22, 2007
- Who Runs Microsoft Now?, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 31, 2007
Comments (19)
What's happened to you, Joe? Seriously. You've become a raving nut case the last couple of weeks.
"Android" happens to be the name of the mobile startup that Google purchased in 2005, the results of which you see beginning in today's press release. Maybe five minutes worth of research would have revealed this to you.
They should have changed the name just to prevent your looney theories?
As for the rest of the post, sure, Android is vapor. But your meal ticket practically INVENTED using vaporware to freeze the market, so don't get all pissy just because Google stole a page from their playbook.
Posted by Tom | November 5, 2007 8:18 PM
I think you're overreacting in the extreme here.
Don't forget that Andy Rubin, the head of the project, started a company called "Android" which Google acquired in 2005 to start the Open Handset project. Isn't it more reasonable to believe that keeping the project name the same as the original company is just inertia than some brutal attempt to show complete contempt for customers? Occam's razor suggests this is at least as likely as the froth-at-the-mouth meaning you attach. Also, if two of the founders were named "Andy," isn't the company name "Android" a riff on their names, just like Matt Mullenweg named the maker of the WordPress software "Automattic" after himself?By the way, did you ever think of calling Google PR and asking them about the genesis of the name before you work yourself into an apoplectic state?
Posted by Brent | November 5, 2007 8:19 PM
"The beta name for the Google phone platform is full of arrogance and disdain for potential customers"
So do Microsoft-Watch , it seems to me that brand names in IT are mis-leading
Microsft-Oh-No-Google Watch
Posted by Marty | November 5, 2007 8:29 PM
Why not , Andriod is just another name.
Apple named its mp3 device as iPod, to Joe is a brilliant idea , to me Apple is stupid, a lowercase letter "i" ? WTF @@#
A very silly protest indeed.
The points to argue is too shallow to warrant any intellectual discussion .
Case closed
Posted by Peter | November 5, 2007 8:35 PM
Judging by what I've seen of OpenSocial, it could be Vaporware - I'll grant you that.
but...
Microsoft's Slogan's are all about people? Where were the people when they designed the 2007 ribbon?
Microsoft's current drive is all about appearing "open" while preventing your customers from moving away to alternative systems. Not sure about their slogans, but their drive certainly is.
Posted by Gavin Bollard | November 5, 2007 8:36 PM
Joe , it seems that you are " hysterically " over-reacted .
It just another fancy name
Microsoft's slogans are all about people:
1) Your Potential. Our Passion - But Joe, you don't have any passion to write anymore
2)People Ready- But Joe, you are not ready to accept the fact that you can write no more
3) Open Up Your Digital Life - But Joe , it seems that you live in an enclosed analog life
Posted by Peter | November 5, 2007 8:42 PM
Joe wrote " Does Google know more about you than you know yourself? I don't recall my searches from last week, so not even last month"
Joe , in fact , we don't recall you did any commentable research .
You have left nothing to write, you condemn on "Andriod" , merely a project codename.
You are wasting everybody time to read your sordid article
Posted by Marty | November 5, 2007 10:55 PM
Ok Joe,
I understand that you are frantically attached to Microsoft... Might be, I think it's your blog that's a FUD on Android. Android in a sense is a serious threat to iPhone, because Cupertino is very keen in locking out developers out of the market. Second threat to Microsoft Windows Mobile... But I don't think Android could replace Windows Mobile devices just because it's free... Windows Mobile is also an open platform unlike iPhone and the software licensing cost is I think around 3-5$ per phone (not very sure...) May be this will lead Redmond to rework on their Photon project...
Mugunth
Posted by Mugunth | November 5, 2007 11:10 PM
If you want to see what Microsoft's focus is, don't look to their marketing slogans. Look to their employees' recounting of the company meeting:
Division head after division head, including Ballmer, spoke only about crushing the competition. Not one mention anywhere of customer needs or the user experience.
I don't think Google's announcement today -- no matter how it ends up -- is the least bit mean, unless of course you think it's mean to compete against Microsoft by using their own techniques against them.
Posted by Chip | November 6, 2007 12:20 AM
Its obvious Google wants to be just like Microsoft, IBM, Apple, Oracle and many others in the Industry. Instead of concentrating on one thing they are good at they have gone into so many areas that is of no significant value to them or the end user. But its obvious they are just trying pull customers from the well known industry titans to build an ecosystem similar to Microsoft, simply it goes back to the Stock and money, nothing else. The days of Do No Evil are over, with Android you are looking at a new Google, they have shown their true colors people. Joe see's it, Robert Cringely sees it and I see it.
Its a me too case, Google (Sergey and Larry) want to be the next Bill and Steve and they believe this is their chance to do it. Windows is the platform/brand/eco-system for Microsoft. Google Search is the platform/brand/ecosystem for Google and they are building out that and tying it to the never out of beta products. The difference is, they are using Open Source as a facade to captivate end users and developers.
But, I can guarantee you, its gonna backfire on them. Why? The industry does not want another Microsoft, the industry does not want another IBM. But the fact that Googles dependency is based upon Search and the web, they are in a tricky situation. Microsoft does web services, IBM does web services, the entire industry does web services. There will come a time when Windows Live or some other up and coming product belittles Google.
Its obvious Google is going after nostalgic days of when a Company ruled the industry, which Microsoft still does btw. Anyway, I suggest they try improving their search results, its dropping off lately, I still don't like Live Search btw.
To sum it up, Google realizes they are vulnerable, and they want something to feel more tangible and sticky to users. Windows and Office for MS are sticky for Microsoft, Google wants to be like that but users are seeing through them and they better realize it.
Posted by Andre Da Costa | November 6, 2007 12:21 AM
Ah, it makes one wish for the return of those halcyon days of Microsoft supremacy.
They don't make monopolies like they used to.
Posted by HG | November 6, 2007 12:42 AM
Tom wrote: "Your meal ticket practically INVENTED using vaporware to freeze the market, so don't get all pissy just because Google stole a page from their playbook."
Hi, Tom,
I've written plenty on Microsoft vaporware. It's on record and surely there will be more Microsoft vaporware about which to write. But Google is supposed to be the "make money without doing evil" company. Google's 10 principles are its judge and jury.
I could say Google is as bad as Microsoft ever was, but Google's arrogance is far greater. This post exonerates Microsoft of nothing.
Joe
Posted by Joe | November 6, 2007 12:48 AM
Joe wrote: "I could say Google is as bad as Microsoft ever was..."
You could say it, but you'd be wrong.
- Google wasn't hauled into Federal court and found guilty.
- Google isn't the one getting slammed by the EU.
- Google isn't the one paying hundreds of millions in fines every year.
- Google isn't the one whose oversight by the Feds may be extended.
- Google isn't the one 10 states have banded together to petition against.
Bottom line is Google has a long way to go to get near Microsoft's level of "bad".
As for arrogance, just read a few pieces of evidence from the most recent case of a state (Iowa) to bring Microsoft to trial -- or just read the testimony at the original anti-trust case -- to see how arrogant a corporation can be. You think Google is at that level? Based on what?
Posted by Tom | November 6, 2007 1:45 AM
I can't really say that I could critique this article effectively. I only managed to get to the end of the second paragraph before I had to reach for my barf bag.
"The beta name for the Google phone platform is full of arrogance and disdain for potential customers."
???
Really? You don't think maybe that's slightly subjective? If anyone, even a non-creative person, puts their mind to it they can come up with negative connotations for any product or company in the market today. The first time I read the name I thought: "Hey what a cool name." Just that disproves your statement as untrue. Maybe you should try and separate between fact and your opinion. If you did this in your articles I would respect your opinion but instead you state your own opinions as fact and often those opinions seem to be quite far removed from reality.
I think Tom's last post sums it up completely for me: "Based on what?" that's where you are sorely lacking Joe - no research, no considered opinions, no clever new angles, just a bunch of wild opinions with no basis in fact. Generally a journalist bases their output on some form of research but this is completely absent from your article.
I am not some Linux zealot. I am simply someone that loves IT, works in IT and I like to hear different points of view, preferably from someone who is informed or has interesting ways of looking at something. I can't help but notice from enjoying very good articles on Microsoft Watch say a year ago I now find very few articles that I can enjoy. In fact I have not found an enjoyable article on this site for some months now. They all seem to be written to either create controversy or to attack someone.
So this is my announcement that I will no longer be visiting this site. Your viewpoints and opinions are either being skewed heavily by some corporate interests or maybe you're just slipping slowly into senility but I am outta here.
Cheers, and thanks for the good times that are now sadly quite far in the past.
Martin.
Posted by Martin | November 6, 2007 8:45 AM
Please stop writing.Please.
Posted by Androidicon | November 6, 2007 11:33 AM
Oh God...
so THAT'S what happens when someone paid by microsoft gets bitter about a company poised to be more successful...
"...Google...Deity..."? "Android - what a slap in the face to us consumers!!"??
or going back a bit "the EU commission are like the gestapo, for example i can't even select my own username for their website! waaaaah"???
i might just have to start reading mary joe fooley's blog again to see if she implodes or at least does something similarly entertaining as joe
(btw, yes those snippets in quotes weren't the exact phrases, but just the prospect of reading all that shite again make me leghargic)
Posted by Eric | November 6, 2007 11:41 AM
So Google might become the "new evil empire" in time, if I read this correctly? Might. Maybe. Doubtfull. Is M$ so evil that they need to pay bloggers to throw dirt at other companyies so M$ won't look so bad? And Joe, while we all got to put food on the table, is your writting going to fall to the level of george ou and ed bott? If this is the case, its very sad indeed.
Posted by chips (not chip) | November 6, 2007 12:07 PM
Here's something for Iman;
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/06/1312240
Microsoft Plans $500 Million Chicago Data Center
Quote from the link: "is building a similar facility in San Antonio. Microsoft has also submitted plans for a $500 million data center campus in Dublin, Ireland."
----------------------------------------------------
Yep, M$ is planning to become the next advertising superpower on the internet. Now some will say no way, google is king, but consider this, the advertising patents embedded into an OS that MS did awhile ago. Also Works 9 free but with advertising to pay for it. The question is, will there be a future free Windows, that is paid with online advertisements? Is this the future, and has Micro$oft decided that this is the only way they can compete with GNU/Linux?
Posted by chips | November 6, 2007 1:29 PM
Agreed!
Among other things, I have no interest in having my cell phone information be part of Big Brother Google's Advertising Database.
Posted by TomT | November 6, 2007 2:05 PM