CATEGORIES
- NYC COVERAGE
- WEB STARTUPS
- WEB NEWS
- CONFERENCES
- WEB TECH JOBS
- VENTURE CAPITAL
- MICROSOFT
- INTERVIEWS
- ADVERTISING
- VIDEO
- ALL TOPICS
- ALL COMPANIES
CONTRIBUTORS
- ADRIAN CHAN
- ALICIA NAVARRO
- ALLEN STERN
- CORSIN CAMICHEL
- DRAMA 2.0
- DARREN HERMAN
- HANK WILLIAMS
- MARK DAVIS
- RICK TUROCZY
- SANFORD DICKERT
- SHANNON CLARK
- Comment on YouTube Down for Maintenance by Killer
- Comment on The Absolute Most Awesome Google Maps Mashup Ever by Google Maps Gets A New Layer ? The NYC Subway | CenterNetworks
- Comment on Google Maps Launches NYC Subway/Public Transit Directions by Google Maps Get Layered With the NYC Subway | CenterNetworks
- Comment on T-Mobile USA Outage ? Service Down by khrtt
Google prefers Google
Dave Winer has started something this morning that a variety of blogs have commented on. Dave believes that we may see Google "prefer" Google Reader for blogs that use their FeedBurner service. He notes:
"… now someone at Google "owns" Feedburner and all their feeds. And they could, if they wanted to, change the feeds to another format, overnight, without asking anyone. Reader software might have trouble working with it. They would say "Oh but the new feeds work better with Google Reader, and that's the one most people use." And by the way, more and more that's true these days. But what about other feed suppliers? Do they have to change to work with Google Reader? They will say no, but there may turn out to be practical reasons why they must."
Philipp at Google Blogoscoped takes it a step further and shows all of the ways "Google prefers Google". Well worth a read about Google's use of their tools and how they push you from one Google tool to another Google tool. For example, search on Orkut for video and get links for Google Video and YouTube or how Gmail prefers Google Spreadsheets.
I am not sold on Dave's argument because RSS is not a technology that Google owns or created. It's an "open" product. I can see Google pushing links to it's own services within your feed from FeedBurner. My selfish side is not going to be excited if FeedBurner drops its ad network for AdWords as I will be pissed off to lose the very high CPMs that FeedBurner has managed to command.
We already know that Google controls the data of the Internet. While Jimmy was able to remove Google, for the other 99.999999999% of the Internet community, Google controls every bit and byte. And don't ever forget it. Of course, now they are going to control offline data as well with their cameras and new aerial acquisition. Oh yea, and phone data with GrandCentral.
The question here is simple: Is Google wrong for giving preferential treatment to its own services. As much as I want to say Yes, I must say No. Why shouldn't they try to keep you in their network? It makes perfect business sense.
If you don't like it, then join Jimmy in the potential revolution coming in the near short-term.
I don’t have any issues with Google marketing their own products. What’s wrong with them pushing Google spreadsheet on GMail? Can someone explain what the issue is here?
The stuff about RSS is completely hypothetical and pretty rediculous. Even if they did transform RSS feeds into some other format, nothing is stopping people from dropping Feedburner. In fact, Google has made it dramatically easier for people to use Feedburner while still “owning” their feed by making the MyBrand feature free.
Mike, I agree with you that there should be no reason why Google can't market Google while using Google. I am guessing at some point, unfair competition practices might come into play.
Remember, Google is all about the shareholders now.
Google hardly controls every bit and byte of data on the Internet. I can skip Google for a day and not really notice – Yahoo for search (9 times out of 10 with the same results as Google), Facebook for social interactions and messaging, my own pop3 mail (or Hotmail or Yahoo mail) on Zimbra for mail, and originalsignal.com for reading blogs. Our startup recently moved over to Zoho for collaboration and it’s even better for us than Google docs was. The only place where it’s hard to avoid Google is YouTube – because there aren’t many other mature video sites – but eventually there will be, and I try to stay away from YouTube anyway because you can waste a lot of time there.
“Is Google wrong for giving preferential treatment to its own services. As much as I want to say Yes, I must say No. Why shouldn’t they try to keep you in their network? It makes perfect business sense.”
You’re hitting the key concern about regulation in general — how much do you balance human nature while still supporting free choice? I’d love to say No, too, but we know the majority of people out there don’t know or care enough to take a position on lock-in or market fairness or anti-competitive behaviors if it’s “just a search engine” which will only encourage and reinforce those behaviors until it is checked by the informed and vested.
Yes, it is wrong for Google to give preferential treatment. It makes perfect business sense for Google to *promote* their own services over others, but all services must be *treated* equally for their search to be ethical.