Google’s Tipping Point

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

1. Paul Freet
   

   December 30th, 2006 at 4:47 am

   Wow, this has been a touch week for Google. And, your use of a Malcolm Gladwell reference is spot on. But, I don’t think there is a true tipping point until a real search alternative arises.

2. Eric Jackson
   

   December 30th, 2006 at 5:03 am

   You’re right to be pointing to early-warning signs, but it’s certainly not a 3 alarm fire yet. They need to pause and reflect and come back reinvigorated.

3. Mirko
   

   December 30th, 2006 at 5:05 am

   This is exactly what I have been discussing with friends for a while now. Google is getting too big for its motto. With this many services, users and revenue goals, it’s quite difficult to live up to “not be evil”.

4. Bill Minton
   

   December 30th, 2006 at 5:11 am

   Google yanked my Adsense account and never paid what they owed me for over a year of hosting their ads. To this day I have no clue why they yanked it and they’re too arrogant to say. One can I was at $43.xx, the next it was yanked. I’ve written them, and their response was something along the lines of “We reviewed everything, and we’re still right”. I don’t even know *what* they’re right about.

   I hope the company goes down quick.

5. Simon
   

   December 30th, 2006 at 5:21 am

   I thought there was a ruling not long ago that said companies couldn’t purchase keywords related to their competitors. i.e. Pepsi couldn’t buy the keyword “Coke”. Isn’t Google pushing Google Calendar as a prime listing on a search for Yahoo Calendar the same thing?

6. Meg
   

   December 30th, 2006 at 5:38 am

   Is is possible that they deserve to be there for those searches? When I do a search for “email” Yahoo comes up first - would have thought they’d be pushing gmail. http://www.google.com.au/searc.....&meta=

7. Steve E
   

   December 30th, 2006 at 5:41 am

   Google do seem to have lost sight of their desire to make the world’s information accessible and usable. Seems to me they need a refocus or they risk alienating their audience. But as others said above, until there is a viable search alternative you won’t see users voting with their feet by staying away.

   Simon: I’m guessing ‘Yahoo Calendar’ isn’t a trademark otherwise it would be double standards for Google to position themselves above the natural results, when in paid search you can’t bid on a trademarked term… Guess the difference is this isn’t paid search and Google owns the real estate.

8. sply
   

   December 30th, 2006 at 6:03 am

   But Google does not belong to itself. It’s a public company and it has one main goal - to increase a profit for its shareholders. Sometimes, many years ago, when Google was a private company, it had ability to use any direction it wanted.

   But now if Google wouldn’t promote it own services and if it wouldn’t winkle the last cents out of everything, its officiers will loose faith and the company will loose capitalization.

   I think, it’s a common way for all companies that become public. They loose its own personality, face and than they loose their will and responsibility for an abstract good ideas that don’t make maximal profits somewhen in the future.

9. Allen Stern
   

   December 30th, 2006 at 6:10 am

   I have to disagree about the “tips” - Can Google do it? yep. Should they be? Nope. Because it does not level the playing field. Users will click those tips before an ad or an organic listing. And as Google expands its empire, we will see more and more tips. Click my name to read my full post.

   I agree with sply - Google is public and will do everything it can to wring every penny out of that sponge. And remember that investors don’t care about users or employees. They care about their bottom line.

10. Josh
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 6:26 am

    I searched for “yahoo calendar”, Yahoo was the first result, other than the tip. I searched for “calendar” Yahoo was the fourth result. I searched for “email”, Gmail is second after Yahoo. I tried these same searches on Live, AOL, and Yahoo and received similar results. If you don’t like Google, don’t use it. Google shows up second in a search for “search engine”. Any “for profit” company is evil. Get over yourselves, no one is making you search at google.com.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=search+engine

11. OREO
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 6:30 am

    It sure does feel that Google has been changing its directions ever since it agreed to its censoring agreement in China. Google is hiring so many employees at such a rapid rate and getting so much publicity that the company is starting to get out of control. It will be interesting to see what happpends down the road.

12. Aaron M
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 6:36 am

    I was a very early beta user of Google and have been a fan for a long time, as have so many others. But how the company can mature and stay true to core values at the same time pleasing investors and a vocal group of emplopyees will be interesting. A good read is “The Wal-Mart Effect”. Can a company get too big to “not be evil” simply through sheer size and market impact, much less a conscious straying from core values? Is tomorrow’s Google today’s MSFT?

13. Maya Incaand
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 6:49 am

    Taken on a bit too much, making missteps.

    Should pause for breath, put core values back on top of the pile.

14. Mike S
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 6:56 am

    They need to stop worrying about 757s and SpaceShipOnes and get back to earth before their stock price does it for them.

15. Kevin
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 7:06 am

    The risk Google has here is that their only real asset is their “good name”. This means that they are always one misstep away from destroying their value (a la Arthur Anderson). Unlike a bricks and mortar company where the assets bring most of the value, Google plays in a space where their value is in their brand name only.

    I say this only because they have to be very very careful. They are approaching “predatory” behavior which could kill them and turn the technologists against them. You are right to call this out as a time for them to very very careful.

    P.S. I would not hold stock in any company which only had a brand name as their asset. Yes, technically, I am sure their “search” is better but most people do not know that. As soon as they are seen as “duping” the public, they will be dropped like a brick.

16. Darren
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 7:13 am

    I find myself using Wikipedia for fact related searchs now, Google got where they were from search but they have become so caught up with fighting spammers that there results are starting to suffer.

    one point no one seems to have mentioned is anti trust issues etc. With such a high percentage of the search market they could get in trouble for pushing thier own services before others.

17. Greg Furry
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 7:17 am

    Mike, If you believe you make the best photo, email and calendar products is it evil to put them at the top of the list? Just like a mother picking their own child in a beauty contest. It is not evil to pick your own children but not necessarily an unbiased choice.

18. Narendra
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 7:23 am

    Mike,

    Do you think that a search on “30Boxes Calendar” should yield a Google at the top? I don’t think so and other search engines don’t employ such a broad network promotion. It also seems to fly in the face of the trademark guidelines they subject adwords customers too.

    Matt Cutts writes

    >Q: But if Google thinks its (say) Calendar is the best, isn’t it okay to give that as a tip?
    >A: In my personal opinion, not if the tip triggers for too many irrelevant queries.

    what about when 3rd parties don’t think so?

    ultimately, this isn’t a big deal because Google has already climbed the mountain. I guess it is more about hoping that they could stay innocent, hip, and irreverent. If they had real foresight, they would start a massive effort for software support and general goodwill building by forcing engineers to engage in “public” works online (coding and in forums)…

19. Alexander Plank
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 7:24 am

    I think people have a problem with the fact that these “tips” are not labeled as “sponsored links.” However, the bigger problem people seem to have is that these tips are allegedly being displayed when competitors’ names are used in the search.

    However, I have not been able to replicate the searches to display a tip for a competing product and have not seen any screenshots. Would anyone be willing to show me an example of Google doing this with a competitor’s name? A search for yahoo calendar does not display a tip, but Blake Ross’s original post claimed it does.

    A search for calendar does display a tip.

20. Michael Markman
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 7:25 am

    My goodness, with all the moralizing going on this week (tippy Google, lap-toppy Microsoft), you’d think we were heading into Rosh Hashanna, not New Year’s.

21. Peter Cooper
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 7:27 am

    I’m not as worried about their tips and Gmail worries as I am about the downward spiral of the quality of their search results. They had a blip a year or two ago where splogs and ‘index’ type sites were jamming up the results, which they resolved quickly, but it’s been particularly nasty for the past month or two now. There are absolutely tons of “Supplemental Result”s appearing above valid results, good sites crashing down the ratings, and it seems unless you’re searching for either something ultra-generic or ultra-specific, the quality is miles below what it used to be. If anyone else is interested in this topic, check out the Google News forum at WebMasterWorld where it’s getting discussed at length.

    I am looking for alternatives to use. Yahoo has okay results, but their pages are more spammy than Googles, alas.. I am hoping Jimbo Wales and Wikia are going to provide the solution.

22. Ralph Dagza
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 7:28 am

    http://ralphdagza.com/2006/12/.....or-domain/

23. Peter Cooper
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 7:33 am

    Alexander: I just used the “Yahoo calendar” link in the article above and got the tip showing.. here’s a screenshot.

24. Zaid Farooqui
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 7:46 am

    #4 - you gotta be kidding me. I browsed around your site for few minutes and let me understand this: you’re hosting pirated ebooks among other things? I can’t say for sure but that’s some solid ground for google to suspend your account.

25. Jack
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 7:53 am

    Google Certainly Had their Share of problems
    One thing you haven’t mentioned is the vast amount of pirated content on Google’s network

    http://webiztoday.com/wordpress/?p=68

26. dimension
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 7:56 am

    Tips that never made it to the search page

    “Cigarettes”
    >> tip: Smoking can kill you!

    ” Software Developer”
    >> tip: U.S. immigration attorneys

    “Monkeyboy”
    >> tip: Looking for Steve Ballmer?

27. pankaj
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 7:59 am

    Its sad to see people just ripping off Google for small things like tips and their motto. If people don’t like tips then go to alternatives like yahoo and ask.com or whatever. I think its a good idea to keep techcrunch original. There are zillions of blogs outside, we just can’t analyze them on other blogs too.

28. Wim
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 8:01 am

    I see a techcruch banner on the frontpage promoting advertising on this site and I see posts about crunchgear on this site.

    Promotion of your own products and services is the most logical thing todo for anyone trying to make a living or am I from an other planet?

    They present it very low profile in one view with other solutions, no problem at all if you ask me. If you have a problem with it than just stop using all the free products google provides for you, plain and simple.

    Wim

29. Adrian Keys
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 8:24 am

    I will take the shallow approach and say its all about envy…envious of Google’s success and there is no end in sight…………

    What is a little self promotion and by the way, can anybody speak definitively about the algorithm that brought Google’s product results to the fore….are you telling me that Google just this once tinkered with there search apparatus just to skew the results….

    Do we think that even if it did skew the results that something like this would bring the mighty Google to its knees…methinks not!!

30. mathew
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 8:28 am

    One reason Google promote their products on search result pages is so that they don’t have to turn their front page into a Yahoo-like explosion of links.

    The “ad” is clearly identified with an icon and the word “Tip:” so you’d have to be an idiot to mistake it for a search result. Hence, I don’t see it as any more evil than including ads on search result pages in the first place.

    And frankly, it’s a bit late to be predicting a Google backlash–people have been writing articles about Google’s imminent demise for years; a quick search reveals “Google backlash” articles in 2002.

31. Sean
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 8:30 am

    Well it looks like Google listened already and took down their own ads for those keywords you mentioned … Funny.

32. mrshl
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 8:39 am

    Mike, you said:

    Google needs to change. They can’t kill the motto, so they need to live up to it, permanently. They need to stop treating the outside world with disdain, and replace it with transparency and honesty.

    What’s weird is that nothing you mentioned in this post seems to want for transparency or honesty. Nor do I see any hint of “disdain”. Perhaps there are other indicators of these failings you’re NOT mentioning in this post. Maybe you’re alluding to personal interactions we can’t be expected to understand. But frankly the post seems conclusory rather than explanatory. I’d like to know more about Google’s disdain. Or failing that, I’d like to know what exactly they need to be doing. What are YOUR ideas?

    The failures you’ve alluded to in this post are significant, but I don’t think they’re systemic. Also, Google’s response was measured and apologetic, AND admirably restrained considering your characterization of 60 account deletions as a MASSIVE problem.

    Based on your recent posts, I’m less inclined to think Google has a problem and more inclined to think you simply can’t wait to turn their next molehill into a mountain.

33. Jean
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 8:54 am

    “Even to the point of risking his job”

    When it comes to firing people for what they blog, you’re the master!

    Why, O Why am I still reading you??

34. tomo
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 8:58 am

    What is it going to take for people to realize that for google, not being evil means delivering information to you and i which THEY deem relelvant? They have no intention of making all information available to everyone all the time. Their intent is to make their information or information they deem relevant available. And another thing, if they are succcessful in buiding out an access side isp via wifi or whatever, this will only get worse. Google may have had do gooder intentions way back when but now it appears their influence is far too deep for anyones good.

35. Jhatak Free Web Meeting Client
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 9:19 am

    Well all of here have to realize here that…google is no more the startup it used to be..it is now a multi-billion dollar corporation…and it is now into the business of making money..whatever it takes

36. Jawad (Shuzak)
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 9:34 am

    This is definitely not the tipping point. The tipping point is perhaps when Google Search stops working or a competitor comes along with a better offering. I use Google Search, Notepad, Reader, Gmail, Desktop, Docs, etc. because they work. The masses don’t care about the ethical side to Google just as most people don’t care they get Microsoft XP preinstalled on their computer.

    Exxon Mobil is perhaps the largest polluter of the world. Did that stop us from buying gas for our cars? No. We have a tendency to not care unless an alternative comes along. There hasn’t been a visable alternative to Google yet.

    - Jawad Shuaib

37. Pro-SEO
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 9:37 am

    How can asking you to use thier calendar be considered “evil”.
    The motto is fine, It’s peoples definition of “evil” that is sliding.

    Let’s face it, Googles “tip” is hardly charles manson, is it…

    Get over it, and get over yourselves.

38. Wim
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 9:42 am

    Thats what I said, Techcrunch isn’t the informational site anymore it used to be, it’s million dollar corporation…and it is now into the business of making money..whatever it takes.

    Wim

39. fewquid
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 9:42 am

    “quite frankly, Google has every right to promote their own products on their website”

    I agree in principle, but promotion should be separate from search i.e. not in the regular search results. If someone is looking for “Yahoo Calendar” as a search term, that’s what they should get at the top of the results. If they just looked for “calendar” I think it’s fair game to list Google products first.

    If you used a search engine to find “blue car” and it came up with “red car” as a result, you’d assume either the search engine (a) was broken (b) was bad or (c) was being bribed to answer certain questions favorably.

    Search should be like Switzerland — no allegances. You should get what you ask for based on (a) what you asked for and (b) the best result that meets those search terms.

    Google’s revenues come from advertising, but that’s driven by search. Undermining their own search results to push free (i.e. non-revenue generating) products seems both short sighted and rather foolish.

    Why anyone would need a “search” to find Yahoo Calendar is a whole other question…

40. Naum
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 9:44 am

    It’s time to look at alternatives - Kosmix, Snap, Quintura, etc. They are up and coming.

41. Mike S
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 10:02 am

    #37

    You sir are an idiot. Live.com. Yahoo. IceRocket. Ask. The alternatives are out there and they’re getting BETTER everyday. Live.com is particularly good.

42. Jeremy Toeman
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 10:03 am

    I always thought the “not be evil” motto was simply a great way TO BE evil. It’s like the “Clean Air Act” - which is about… polluting the air MORE. Best ’spin’ I’ve ever seen…

43. Jae Rune
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 10:07 am

    The trend of hating and mistrusting Google is not new. Their most recent failures, however, have injected the mostly fringe-paranoia group with new energy. Check out http://www.googlewatch.com/ and get an idea. Google is held to a higher standard than any other company, which is why I am personally more forgiving of their mistakes than most. I also don’t use much beyond their search engine and their email, though. Although SketchUp is danged fun…

44. Jae Rune
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 10:08 am

    My mistake: http://www.google-watch.org/

45. Sam Meilach
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 10:14 am

    If you do a search for “calendar” in Yahoo, you will get a link to Google’s calendar as # 1. How ironic !!! Searching for “calendar” in Google, Google’s calendar comes up as #2 and Yahoo’s as #3.

    Google’s Calendar has a Page Rank of 8 and Yahoo’s Calendar has a page rank of 7.

46. kokorozashi
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 10:29 am

    Please please please, people, let go of “don’t be evil.” It was never the least bit true and nobody with a brain ever thought it was. Google is a publicly traded corporation (and always aspired to be). Their legally mandated top priority is to deliver shareholder value. That requires them to be “evil”, as silly as that word is. Anything they say to the contrary is just marketing. Please get back to work on your own shareholder ploys.

47. Fraud Alert
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 10:34 am

    The biggest tipping point for Google will be when more advertisers realize that a significant portion of the AdSense program is being gamed by websites, low-level crooks and organized crime. In theory Google has no accurate way of detecting the most sophisticated fraud attacks involving zombie computers which look like legitimate users. What’s worse, Google’s interests are directly aligned with those of the fraudsters. Because Google splits revenues with AdSense participants, when the fraudster makes money with click fraud, so does Google. In other words, from a purely economic perspective, Google has no financial incentive to deal with the problem. In fact, their incentive is exactly the opposite. They cannot let people know the extent of the problem because it would their one revenue stream under jeopardy. Don’t believe this? Look at the recent announcement that a would-be extortionist had charges against him dropped. He developed software to carry out click fraud and wanted Google to pay him $150,000 to not release it. He actually went to Google’s headquarters and met with them. Apparently they had all of this on tape and it was a “slam dunk” case. Anybody want to guess why they dropped the charges? When this thing comes crashing down it’s going to be ugly.

48. Jason M. Lemkin
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 10:39 am

    It will be hard to see when Google jumps the shark in real time. From an end-user perspective, is it really so different from Altavista back in the day?

    From an advertiser perspective, it continues to accelerate away from the pack. The ROI on Adwords vs. Yahoo or Microsoft is dramatically superior. Combine that with its greater reach, and it goes from strength to strength.

49. ituloy angsulong
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 10:44 am

    I search for “get paid to blog” in google and get a

    Tip: Want to share your life online with a blog? Try Blogger

    what a joke!

50. Trygve Throntveit
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 10:47 am

    Anyone who contributes to or cares about this post has WAY too much free time. Go get a hobby or a girlfriend.

    Seriously. Google just added a tip to the top of search results. Who cares. They can do whatever they want. Just because they said “don’t be evil” doesn’t mean they can’t be evil. What are you going to do? Sue them?

    Google is doing great. Please shut up and go get a life.

51. Steven
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 10:51 am

    Google is one of those rare companies that will probably survive most misteps than most and the userbase will keep coming back. why? because they successfully captured the human venacular

    http://www.winextra.com/?p=197

    As for changing … the moment they went public Google had its motto that appealed to the masses change into an albatross around their corporate neck. Up until now they’ve managed to navigate some choppy waters and survive (anyone remember their entry into China). so it is rather funny that they begin pimping themselves and the uproar starts.

    http://www.winextra.com/?p=199

52. bird
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 11:01 am

    The motto has been changed to “You can make money without being evil” long time ago.
    I have discovered less than 20 so obvious bugs on Google and really doubt they have a high standard on product.
    Their product are good. But those bugs just make me doubt about it.
    Never mention that people are complaining larry.page@gmail.com will accidentally receive email sent to larrypage@gmail.

53. zembla38
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 11:01 am

    I’m sorry to say Techcrunch is also starting to look a the “…” wing moralist of the internet. It’s pretty sad, keep on talking technology, not morality, you have the credentials for the first one, the other, I don’t know.

    Cheers

54. BlogReader
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 11:02 am

    Narendra Do you think that a search on “30Boxes Calendar” I don’t think so and other search engines don’t employ such a broad network promotion.

    I did a search for “30Boxes Calendar” and the first item to come up was:
    30 Boxes | it’s your life
    30 Boxes is almost certainly the easiest way to share your calendar and your web stuff online. Organize your life, share all or parts of it with friends.

    If you’re going to try and make an example at least try it out first.

55. Mark Schraad
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 11:13 am

    They clearly show the “tip” as visuall separate and different from the search results. Sure it is on the top… why not. It is their real estate. This seems consistent with everything else that google does.

    As for “not be evil”, all I can say is Enron.

56. Trygve Throntveit
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 11:16 am

    Who cares. Move along.

57. Roy T
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 11:40 am

    The evil empire telling other not to be evil. Does anyone really think you can get to that size without being anything else?

    Cmon, everyone of us has done some sneaky things to get bigger…even some people here (no comment)

58. jj
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 11:58 am

    Oh just let it go… It’s pathetic how people still bring up the “do no evil” crap. Move on with your lives.. Google is a company and needs to make money and make the most for its shareholders. Don’t like a tiny little tip suggestion? Well too bad, go use some other engine!

59. Mike
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 12:08 pm

    Google has no interest in getting rid of their “don’t be evil” motto, whether it’s good for P.R. or not. It was part of the company culture long before it was public and was intended for *internal* consumption, to keep Google the kind of company its founders and employees wanted it to be. The motto became public not because Google wanted to impress the public, but because they wanted to warn potential investors that maximizing shareholder returns wasn’t their only concern.

60. Narendra
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    @BlogReader.

    Searching “30Boxes Calendar” yields a google calendar tip at the top of search results.

    It is definitely their real estate. It is just aggressive.

61. Jimmy
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 12:27 pm

    For once, I couldn’t agree with Mike more…

62. MistOne
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 12:27 pm

    its an interesting point about public perception shifting away from google, people may still use their products and advertise on their network, but adamant evangelism that has helped grow so fast is beginning to wane.

    The fact that users drive every cent of revenue and have created an environment that advertisers cannot ignore, means perception and loyalty is very important for their bottom line. Without loyalty to their search box and a willing audience of product testers and users, the environment begins to deteriorate.

    Google unlike Msoft does not have diversity of revenue streams so it is quite important indeed that they stay focused on delivering their brand promise.

63. diggthiskids
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    Google is all about revenue. Just buy GOOG stock and you’ll think different.

64. Trygve Throntveit
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    Shut up, buy GOOG and be happy.

65. Hanford
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 12:43 pm

    The motto has nothing to do with this. You cite AOL and MS as examples of companies in the same situation and, well, they never had the motto. And Google has been pissing off users for years: every time pagerank changes, every time a site gets yanked from the index, every time a new cookie is rolled out, etc. etc. This is just the latest wave … any significantly large company cannot help but piss a few people off whenever they do anything. Nothing has changed with this Tips thing, it’s just now your eyes are open and aware of it. Google still has a long, long way to fall.

66. DavidEzra
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    I’d be curious to know the breakdown of the average consumer’s *affinity* for Google - what percentage is based strickly on the quality of its services and what percentage is based on the consumer’s perception that Google “Does No Evil?”

    (It’s my assumption that a large percentage of Google’s users use Google because of its “Do No Evil” persona … primarily to evidence their disdain and dis-satisfaction with the way they’ve been previously treated by corporate America … and that if Google where to let this “Crucial Characteristic” melt away, they would be loosing a large part of their formidable foundation that allows them to be dominant in the marketplace.)

    True, they’re now a corporation that has to answer to shareholders. “Squeeze every penny” … sounds like the “Profit Paradox” at work - “By maximizing today’s profits, a company sows the seeds of its own destuction tomorrow.”

    I’d be curious to know the comprehesive marginal gain in net income / profits by “somewhat deceptively” pushing its own products vs. the comprehensive marginal loss in net income / profits due to destroyed consumer confidence that is manifest when others are more cynical of its services or when they start patronizing its competitors.

67. arianman
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 2:10 pm

    Could the world switch to another search engine?
    I think the answer is “Yes”! and fairly easy.
    Yahoo/MSN search results are pretty darn on the mark these days.

    So if Google starts on the Microsoft path, revolting against google will be very easy. And this time it wont be the courts but individuals worldwide can take charge and move to Yahoo for e.g.

    The ad-clicks could die down pretty quickly.

    The point is that it is much easier to turn the tide against Google than in any other previous case of bullying around or being too self-righteous.

68. DHP
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 2:23 pm

    A year ago my AdSense was revoked, and no reason was given. After several emails, they refused to give me a reason, but said they would reconsider my account if I give them my site statistics - uniques, page loads, etc. They don’t care a bit about the end user (like many, I made just a little, but had their ads on my page for quite a while), they care about their profit. If they continue to act arrogantly, they will succeed only in alienating those who once supported. I feel betrayed by Google.

69. John Milan
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    Excellent! I think I’m assured no worse than 1 for 10 now, Mike.

    Thanks to you and Blake!

    http://intelligantt.blogspot.c.....tions.html

    However, I do think this will mean very little in the grand scheme of things since it won’t prevent Google from continuing to make gobs of money– only Microsoft or some heretofore unknown competitor can prevent that from happening.

    What it does foreshadow is a slowing of Google’s spectacular growth. I can’t imagine the pressure to produce eye-popping revenue and profit numbers quarter after quarter (though I’d like too :). A decision like this looks a lot like someone willing to risk ‘Google Goodwill’ in order to stoke yet more revenue.

    The pressure of ‘Do No Evil’ meeting Wall Street producing the first fissure.

70. Ron Diggity
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    Great write up!

    Thanks to Blake!

    Google = Evil — Bill Gates donates billions to charity, Larry and Sergey donate a couple hundred thousand of their personal money.

71. Nate
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    I think I’m going to go hiking.

72. grant
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    I appreciate this article which has more analysis and depth than Om’s one paragraph attention grabber.

    5 years ago, I told Nextag’s founder that google will be the next microsoft. And if they have not become, they are well on their way to such. Business, society, eco-system are just like individual human body, no matter what they do, they will grow stronger, and older at the same time, this is the law of nature.

    What we can change is to delay, alter this process. Google’s tipping point will become the tipping point for this web2.0 boom started 2 years ago. Google will have hard time to keep up the stock price in 2 years; From now on to 2008, they need to do a damn good job to put user first, no time for arrogance. That may delay their peak time for this boom for probably another cycle.

73. Trygve Throntveit
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 3:32 pm

    GUYS. Buy GOOG, shut up, and be happy. This discussion is totally irrelevant and pointless.

    See you at $600.

74. AndrewG
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    Well at least one person got it right but failed to connect the dots…

    Google doesn’t deal in products. All they have is their name.

    They know this, and they have done the research and study groups on what it would take to damage the name enough for them to go under.

    The guys running Google are smart enough to not willingly do anything that will make them lose their only asset. There might be some small group of employees that slip by the upper ranks and put out something not fully approved, but there’s way to save face in regard to that sort of thing. Now if the people at the top got really stupid and forgot they don’t really offer any products, then they risk messing up really bad.

75. Theo
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 3:41 pm

    I personally like Snap better.

76. SD
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 3:42 pm

    This is a very relevant discussion for anyone who wants sustained success in your business. Before the fall comes pride…that’s somewhere in the Bible. Have you ever seen Google representatives speak at a conference. The young engineers are arrogant, condascending and aloof. I’ve talked to senior people at google…nice, but arrogant. Like no one can touch them. That’s when you start taking the customer for granted. You lose your way. Microsoft was arrogant, and in many ways still is. Dell was arrogant. Apple in the mid-90s…arrogant. All fell from grace. Companies that are earning their customers business and don’t take anything for granted: Costco, Southwest airlines, USAA. It’s relevant if you want sustained success.

77. Mik
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    Google and all the other “search engines” stopped being search engines a long time ago - they are all basically a listing of paid links - much like craigslist but you have to pay for it.

    On a typical page, there are 3+ paid links at the top, 3+ paid links at the bottom, and 8+ paid links on the right, leaving about 6 or so regular results lost in the middle. Also, intentionally, the paid links are made to look like regular as much as possible (just a barely visible background color difference) so people can’t tell them apart (results in more clicks).

    Eventually the advertisers will either run out of money or realize most of their paid clicks are just going to waste and will stop wasting their money.

78. billg
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 3:45 pm

    Google ought not to do this. Not because of any self-imposed ethical imperative, but because it’s just bad for business.

    (If they really did promise to “Do No Evil”, they were fools, because they left it up to others to decide what constitutes evil.)

    Finally, public perception is not, as you imply, synonymous with that of bloggers. My guess is that most people think they’re taking a shot in the dark when they use any search engine, so they might as well stay with Google. Tests and reviews that pit one engine against another are pointless, because normal people will never see them.

79. rickdog
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 3:48 pm

    The Google tips are clearly separated from the organic content, and clearly marketed as a tip. I don’t see it as a problem. Compare that small amount of selfish content with the percentage of page real estate that you or Om and especially the Lockergnome devote to revenue generation. Give Google a break, it’s provided the web community with a free excellent service for years, has enriched all of our web lives. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

80. Ron Mahabir
    

    December 30th, 2006 at 4:01 pm

    “Don’t be evil” already went out the window went Google bent over to accept China’s censorship policies. This is another small step in the direction of capitalism winning over idealism. Tough to fight when you’re a US$140 billion company.