The Google Problem

Yes.

There's an irony about Google that is frightening. For a company whose business is all about finding information, Google is reluctant to disclose much of any. Google doesn't easily reveal its inner workings and processes, nor its technologies. Sure, Google courts developers and makes available bunches of APIs (application programming interfaces), But much less information goes out than comes in. Meanwhile, Google gets access to more and more information. The disparity is enormous and increasing.

Google's pending acquisition of DoubleClick would greatly increase the amount of personal information collected, which could be given back to potential advertisers tied to end users' search queries and other online activities. There are good reasons why Google's DoubleClick acquisition is on track for second review by the Federal Trade Commission.

What's troubling—even as Google's search market share increases—is the uncharacteristic slack given the company. When the U.S. Justice Department pursued Microsoft in separate 1997 and 1998 court cases, there was concern Microsoft would become the Internet's gatekeeper, charging a Windows toll. Google's candidacy as gatekeeper is much stronger, but, except for recent maneuverings in the European Union, the company increases its online dominance largely unchallenged. What irony if Microsoft, the so-called enemy of the Internet, turned out to be defender of the Web against (gulp) Google.

From the perspective of transparency—the extent of real information disclosure—Google is quite opaque. Today is Google Developer Day, where the company released a bunch of new APIs with the goal of extending the number of offline applications. It's a nice bit of information disclosure, but still small when compared with—you can do your gasping now—Microsoft.

Microsoft is hugely and increasingly transparent, and uncharacteristically so among large, successful companies. Through MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network), Channel 9, Channel 10 and more than 4,000 employee bloggers, Microsoft disseminates terabytes of information about its products past, present and future.

The Information Broker
Google may be more withholding because information is the company's crown jewel, much of which it takes from others. Extensive information disclosure could reveal enough about Google's algorithmic magic for competitors to look into the cauldron and learn something of the secret recipe.

Google performs its search and search keyword magic mostly around information produced by others. The company's success derives from the good works of others. Google is like the middleman of the Web, the car salesman—or, more aptly stated, the financial broker. Google doesn't produce the information, just another—and arguably better—means of consuming the information.

Microsoft's major platforms are the operating system and productivity suite. Google's platform, simply put, is information. The company develops software for extracting meaning from the information and releases APIs by which others can tap into it, using Google technology, of course. Many developers, like Apple with its Google Maps APIs work on iPhone, will far exceed the work of Google. Nevertheless, as more companies tap into Google APIs, the greater will be its middleman role as broker of Internet information.

What's that saying about who controls the information?

Google Developer Day is another irony. While Microsoft moves more of its business online, Google reaches down from the Web to the desktop. Today's announcements, including Google Gears for developing offline applications, affirm what Microsoft has been saying: Software plus services is the future because people can't do everything online.

The Desktop Is a Jungle
Offline is a dangerous place for Google. For one, the company moves into territory hugely dominated by Microsoft. For another, Google loses control of the end-user experience, which could negatively affect its brand and customer perceptions. Google is a lot like Apple, in that core user experience is delivered end to end.

Google derives much of its success from delivering very good end-user experiences, in part by hiding most of the technology complexity. For example: To search, people simply type keywords, and Google's algorithms and Web servers do the heavy lifting. On the Web, Google can update, say, Gmail, and all users have new features at the same time. Extensive use of APIs, particularly offline, would likely change the user interaction and Google's ability to keep the experience consistent and simple.

As Google moves to the desktop, it will encounter problems similar to other software developers working there, including Microsoft. Last week, colleague Larry Seltzer wrote about getting Google craplets on a Dell PC. Craplets are common problems on Windows PCs not usually associated with Google. Early this morning, Michael Gartenberg, a JupiterResearch director, wrote about how Google Gears "hosed" his machine—two actually.

If Microsoft released something like Google Gears, some surely would cry foul. The offline utility Google provides requires end users to download a browser plug-in. The mechanism would further Google middleman technology. What if Google were to tie Gears to DoubleClick tracking? Surely advertisers would want to know who's taking what offline and where ads should be placed for downloading with content. Righto, Gears could eventually be as much about bringing those ads to the desktop as keeping them on the Web. Google is cut slack where Microsoft would be skewered and fried.

Conflict of Interest
Google's youth and accompanying brash and arrogant information-withholding attitudes should concern people more. As a younger company building a customer base, Google can take risks that the more established Microsoft cannot in its middle age. Microsoft has a large customer infrastructure to protect. One approach would be to button up and be secretive, like Apple. Instead, Microsoft chooses greater transparency, so that customers and partners know what is and what's coming.

Google hires lots of very smart young people, arguably too many. The company's youth, the youth of its work force and the arrogance of success are a dangerous combination. Google's words—"You can make money without doing evil," from its 10 Things—should be measured against its actions.

What is evil? Or better stated when dealing with vast amounts of information, some of which is bearing privacy risk: What is ethical? The arrogant often take an ends-justifies-the-means attitude to right and wrong, which already is tough to define when a public company's priority is shareholders.

Should Google have invested $3.9 million in co-founder Sergey Brin's wife's biotech startup 23andMe? I say, no. There is inherent conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of it. For a company whose trust is the information most people seek on the Web, even the appearance of conflict of interest should be deterrent enough. But it wasn't.

There's a saying that it takes one to know one. Who better then to judge Google as a problem than Microsoft? If Microsoft is concerned, why aren't you?

Related:

• Google Gears Reflects Demand for Offline Data Access, eWEEK, May 31, 2007
• Google Gears Up for Offline Apps, Emerging Tech, May 31, 2007
• The Google Crapplet, eWEEK, May 25, 2007
• The Google Quandary, Microsoft Watch, April 24, 2007
• DoubleClick and Microsoft's Thrift Culture, Microsoft Watch, April 16, 2007
• Google Catfight About 30 Years in the Making, Microsoft Watch, March 6, 2007
• Why Google Matters to Microsoft, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 22, 2007
• Google and Long Tail Computing, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 22, 2007