Google yes, Google no

I do not attend an event of entrepreneurs in which someone does not criticize Google, you know, Adsense is not transparent, that if the days are numbered, that if a Russian kid has a better search algorithm than Google. And then we go back home and we all keep using it, and what's worse, the same internet entrepreneur who hours before had criticized Google, starts using the Google maps API for his website.

Now the fashion is to mess with their data protection policy, you know, if you use Desktop, they have indexed all the files on your computer, if you use Docs, you leave your documents directly to Google, and more recently, with Latitude they have even your position and that of your friends (note, who does not know what is Desktop, Docs, Adsense, ... copy the word and put it in Google). Some people are already talking about the unstoppable launch of free services that seek to keep all our data and therefore with Interntet completely; and I wonder if these people realize that Google is already profitable by itself and that loyalty to users is not bad either, or do they like those offers of bank deposits two percent above the interest they give them but "Only for new customers".

I will not be the one to defend such a giant, but let's admit that if Google is where it is, it will be because it will have done something good, Larry Page and Sergey Brin developed a search algorithm much better than the existing ones, but above all they launched their products under the idea of "less is more" prioritizing simplicity and quality over the "portals of the time", remember Yahoo, Terra or Lycos.

Later they realized that on the Internet, user loyalty is null, let's remember that thinking that an Internet consumer could be made loyal by offering a lot of content was the main cause of the first technological bubble back in 2001. They also realized that anyone could overtake them on the right, that is, that the barriers to entry in an Internet business were low, although higher than now, and that they had to compete constantly; another thing they knew was that people like things to be free, we could summarize it as follows frivolity, competitiveness and gratuity. Good thing the French Republic was founded on equality, liberty and fraternity, and not on Internet consumption patterns, otherwise we would have been wiped off the map long ago.

In short, Google dedicated itself to offer more and more and better free and simple services with which to build user loyalty, and meanwhile earned money mainly with its search engine, and they continue to do the same, of course, to compete you need to have competent people, and Google became the best headhunter on a global scale. So no, I don't think they want to or can absorb the Internet and with it our brains, precisely because of the promiscuity in Internet consumption; as Faemino and Cansado would say, the guys at Google do it "all for the money" and that's it, like any other company.

It's great that there are more people who think the same way, and if it's Enrique Dans, even more so

Fear of the unknown is a natural characteristic of living beings. Inertia, the resistance to change the state of rest or movement, is also. But aren't we already beginning to see these reactions as enormously tiresome? Regardless of whether or not the program comes from Google, and whether or not this company embodies for some people a terrible threatThe mentions of the "terrible dangers" it poses do not stand up to the slightest serious analysis, and are repeated punctually every time a new technology appears. Everything is very bad, everything is a threat, everything is full of dangers. Can we ask society to have a favorable attitude towards technological progress when the media feeds them with sensationalism and lack of rigor?

Post


Comments

7 responses to "Google yes, Google no”

  1. Plas, plas, plas! Excellent post, Javier. It is very easy to criticize Google, but very difficult to confront them because, like it or not, today they are the benchmark on the Internet. Their search engine can be improved, but those who claim to be better than them neither prove it nor hold up (just look at Cuil), and the rest of their services may not be the best, but they work and do what they have to do, just enough to keep millions of users loyal.

  2. Mariangela Avatar
    Mariangela

    You are definitely right!

    pd is "friVolity".

    Agur!

  3. Thanks Mariangela, I would give you some apology about the "b" "v", but I really thought it was with "b", but I have already corrected it.

  4. Hi Javier, I also agree with what you say and following Mariangela I'll add another one too... it's "absorBer" ;D

    A hug.

  5. thanks also to you, pymecito

  6. I don't like this entry because it is definitely pro-Google despite claiming not to defend it. A few small corrections:

    ...let's recognize that if Google is where it is, it must have done something good.

    Google is where it is not because of how good what it has done is, but because of how "profitable" it is.

    ...and that building user loyalty is not a bad thing either.

    Some forms of customer "loyalty" are not legal in some places and others are not morally acceptable to some people.

    ...and in the meantime it made money mainly with its search engine, and they are still doing the same,...

    Google makes money from the advertising it manages. The money doesn't come from the search engine, it comes from the display of advertising on it and on millions of other sites.

  7. Javier Avatar
    Javier

    @Jas de Burgos: Just to say that you are right, indeed, I am pro-Google; but it is not a blank check, until four years ago I was also pro-Apple, but now I'm over it. I don't see anything wrong with Google making money by displaying advertising on its search engine, it also offers a lot of free services, some of which, such as Analytics, have high added value.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

English