Misunderstanding the Google: A Hot Wok
August 29, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.
I am no longer certain how many people read blog posts. Bing, Google, and Yandex seem to be crawling in a more focused way; that is, comprehensiveness is not part of the game plan. I want to do my small part by recommending that you scan (preferably study) “Google Is Killing the Open Web.”
The premise of the essay is clear: Google has been working steadily and in a relatively low PR voltage mode to control the standards for the Web. I commented on this in my Google Legacy, Google Version 2.0, and other Google writings as early as 2003. How did I identify this strategic vision? Easy. A Googler told me. This individual like it when I called Google a “calculating predator.” This person made an effort (a lame one because he worked at Google) to hear my lectures about Google’s Web search.
Now 22 years later, a individual has put the pieces together and concluded rightly that Google is killing the open Web. The essay states:
Google is managing to achieve what Microsoft couldn’t: killing the open web. The efforts of tech giants to gain control of and enclose the commons for extractive purposes have been clear to anyone who has been following the history of the Internet for at least the last decade, and the adopted strategies are varied in technique as they are in success, from Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (EEE) to monopolization and lock-in.
Several observations:
- The visible efforts to monopolize have been search, ads, and the mobile plays. The lower profile technical standards are going to be more important as new technologies emerge. The accuracy of the early Googlers’ instincts were accurate. People (namely Wok) are just figuring it out. Unfortunately it is too late.
- Because online services have a tendency to become monopolies, the world of “online” has become increasingly centralized. The “myth” of decentralization is a great one but so was “Epic of Gilgamesh.” There may be some pony in there, but the reality is that it is better to centralize and then decide what to move out there.
- The big tech outfits reside in a “country,” but the reality is that these are borderless. There is no traditional there there. Consequently governments struggle to regulate what these outfits do. Australia levies a fine on Google. So what? Google just keeps being Googley. Live with it.
One cannot undo decades of methodical, strategic thinking, and deft tactical moves quickly. My view is that changing Google will occur within Google. The management thinking is becoming increasingly like that of an AT&T type company. Chop it up and it will just glue itself back together.
I know the Wok is hot. Time to cool off and learn to thrive in the walled garden. Getting out is going to be more difficult than many other tasks. Google controls lots of technology, including the button that opens the gate to the walled garden.
Stephen E Arnold, August 26, 2025
More Innovative Google Management: Hit Delete for Middle Managers
August 28, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
I remember a teacher lecturing about the Great Chain of Being. The idea was interesting. The Big Guy at the top, then not-so-important people, and at the bottom amoebae. Google, if the information in “Google Has Eliminated 35% of Managers Overseeing Small Teams in Past Year, Exec Says,” is on the money has embraced the Great Chain of Being.
The write up says:
Google has eliminated more than one-third of its managers overseeing small teams, an executive told employees last week, as the company continues its focus on efficiencies across the organization. “Right now, we have 35% fewer managers, with fewer direct reports” than at this time a year ago, said Brian Welle, vice president of people analytics and performance ….“So a lot of fast progress there.”
Yep, efficiency. Quicker decisions. No bureaucracy.
The write up includes this statement from the person at the top of the Great Chain of Being:
Google CEO Sundar Pichai weighed in at the meeting, reiterating the need for the company “to be more efficient as we scale up so we don’t solve everything with headcount.”
Will Google continue to trim out the irrelevant parts of the Great Chain of Being? Absolutely. Why not? The company has a VEP or a Voluntary Exit Program. From Googler to Xoogler in a flash and with benefits.
Several observations:
- Google continues to work hard to cope with the costs of its infrastructure
- Google has to find ways to offset the costs of that $0.47 per employee deal for US government entities
- Google must expand its ability to extract more cash from [a] advertisers and [b] users without making life too easy for competitors like Meta and lurkers waiting for a chance to tap into the online revenue from surveillance, subscriptions, and data licensing.
Logic suggests that the Great Chain of Being will evolve, chopping out layers between the Big Guy at the top and the amoebae at the bottom. What’s in the middle? AI powered systems. Management innovation speeds forward at the ageing Google.
Fear, confusion, and chaos appear to be safely firewalled with this new approach.
Stephen E Arnold, August 28, 2025
Google Anti-Competitive? No. No. No!
August 28, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.
I read another anti Google news release from a mere country. When I encounter statements that Google is anti competitive, I am flabbergasted. Google is search. Google is the Web. Google is great. Google is America. What’s with countries that don’t get with the program? The agenda has been crystal clear for more than 20 years. Is there as dumb drug in your water or your wheat?
“Google Admits Anti-Competitive Conduct Involving Google Search in Australia” reports that Google has been browbeaten, subjected to psychological pressure, and outrageous claims. Consequently, the wonderful Google has just said, “Okay, you are right. Whatever. How much?”
The write up from a nation state says:
Google has co-operated with the ACCC, admitted liability and agreed to jointly submit to the Court that Google should pay a total penalty of $55 million. It is a matter for the Court to determine whether the penalty and other orders are appropriate.
Happy now?
The write up crows about forcing Google to falter emotionally and make further statements to buttress the alleged anti competitive behavior; to wit:
Google and its US parent company, Google LLC, have also signed a court-enforceable undertaking which the ACCC has accepted to address the ACCC’s broader competition concerns relating to contractual arrangements between Google, Android phone manufacturers and Australian telcos since 2017. Google does not agree with all of the ACCC’s concerns but has acknowledged them and offered the undertaking to address these concerns.
And there is ample evidence that Google abandons any alleged improper behavior. Sure, there have been minor dust ups about accidental WiFi interception in Germany, some trivial issues with regards to the UK outfit Foundem, and the current misunderstanding in America’s judicial system. But in each of these alleged “issues,” Google has instantly and in good faith corrected any problem caused by a contractor, a junior employee, or a smart “robot.” Managing Google is tough even for former McKinsey consultants.
Mistakes happen.
The nation state issues word salad that does little to assuage the mental and financial harm Google has suffered. Here are the painful words which hang like a scimitar over the fair Google’s neck:
The ACCC remains committed to addressing anti-competitive conduct like this, as well as cartel conduct. Competition issues in the digital economy are a current priority area.
Google is America. America is good. Therefore, that which Google does is a benefit to America and anyone who uses its services.
How can countries not figure out who’s on first, what’s on second, and I don’t know’s on third.
Stephen E Arnold, August 28, 2025
Google Uses a Blue Light Special for the US Government (Sorry K-Meta You Lose)
August 27, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.
I read an interesting news item in Artificial Intelligence News, a publication unknown to me. Like most of the AI information I read online I believe every single word. AI radiates accuracy, trust, and factual information. Let’s treat this “real” news story as actual factual. To process the information, you will want to reflect on the sales tactics behind Filene’s Basement, K-Mart’s blue light specials, and the ShamWow guy.
“The US Federal Government Secures a Massive Google Gemini AI Deal at $0.47 per Agency” reports:
Google Gemini will soon power federal operations across the United States government following a sweeping new agreement between the General Services Administration (GSA) and Google that delivers comprehensive AI capabilities at unprecedented pricing.
I regret I don’t have Microsoft government sales professional or a Palantir forward deployed engineer to call and get their view of this deal. Oh, well, that’s what happens when one gets old. (Remember. For a LinkedIn audience NEVER reveal your age. Okay, too bad LinkedIn, I am 81.)
It so happens I was involved in Year 2000 in some meetings at which Google pitched its search-and-retrieval system for US government wide search. For a number of reasons, the Google did not win that procurement bake off. It took a formal protest and some more meetings to explain the concept of conforming to a Statement of Work and the bid analysis process used by the US government 25 years ago. Google took it on the snout.
Not this time.
By golly, Google figured out how to deal with RFPs, SOWs, the Q&A process, and the pricing dance. The write up says:
The “Gemini for Government” offering, announced by GSA, represents one of the most significant government AI procurement deals to date. Under the OneGov agreement extending through 2026, federal agencies will gain access to Google’s full artificial intelligence stack for just US$0.47 per agency—a pricing structure that industry observers note is remarkably aggressive for enterprise-level AI services.
What does the US government receive? According to the write up:
Google CEO Sundar Pichai characterized the partnership as building on existing relationships: “Building on our Workspace offer for federal employees, ‘Gemini for Government’ gives federal agencies access to our full stack approach to AI innovation, including tools like NotebookLM and Veo powered by our latest models and our secure cloud infrastructure.”
Yo, Microsoft. Yo, Palantir. Are you paying attention? This explanation suggests that a clever government professional can do what your firms do. But — get this — at a price that may be “unsustainable.” (Of course, I know that em dashes signal smart software. Believe me. I use em dashes all by myself. No AI needed.)
I also noted this statement in the write up:
The $0.47 per agency pricing model raises immediate concerns about market distortion and the sustainability of such aggressive government contracting. Industry analysts question whether this represents genuine cost efficiency or a loss-leader strategy designed to lock agencies into Google’s ecosystem before prices inevitably rise after 2026. Moreover, the deal’s sweeping scope—encompassing everything from basic productivity tools to custom AI agent development—may create dangerous vendor concentration risks. Should technical issues, security breaches, or contract disputes arise, the federal government could find itself heavily dependent on a single commercial provider for critical operational capabilities. The announcement notably lacks specific metrics for measuring success, implementation timelines, or safeguards against vendor lock-in—details that will ultimately determine whether this represents genuine modernization or expensive experimentation with taxpayer resources.
Several observations are warranted:
- Google has figured out that making AI too cheap to resist appeals to certain government procurement professionals. A deal is a deal, of course. Scope changes, engineering services, and government budget schedules may add some jerked chicken spice to the bargain meal.
- The existing government-wide incumbent types are probably going to be holding some meetings to discuss what “this deal” means to existing and new projects involving smart software.
- The budget issues about AI investments are significant. Adding more expense for what can be a very demanding client is likely to have a direct impact on advertisers who fund the Google fun bus. How much will that YouTube subscription go up? Would Google raise rates to fund this competitive strike at Microsoft and Palantir? Of course not, you silly goose.
I wish I were at liberty to share some of the Google-related outputs from the Year 2000 procurement. But, alas, I cannot. Let me close by saying, “Google has figured out some basics of dealing with the US government.” Hey, it only took a quarter century, not bad for an ageing Googzilla.
Stephen E Arnold, August 27, 2025
Leave No Data Unslurped: A New Google T Shirt Slogan?
August 25, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.
That mobile phone is the A Number One surveillance device ever developed. Not surprisingly, companies have figured out how to monetize the data flowing through the device. Try explaining the machinations of those “Accept Defaults” to a clutch of 70-something bridge players. Then try explaining the same thing to the GenAI type of humanoid. One group looks at you with a baffled work on their faces. The other group stares into the distance and says, “Whatever.”
Now the Google wants more data, fresh information, easily updated. Because why not? “Google Expands AI-Based Age Verification System for Search Platform.” The write up says:
Google has begun implementing an artificial intelligence-based age verification system not only on YouTube but also on Google Search … Users in the US are reporting pop-ups on Google Search saying, “We’ve changed some of your settings because we couldn’t verify that you’re of legal age.” This is a sign of new rules in Google’s Terms of Service.
Why the scope creep from YouTube to “search” with its AI wonderfulness? The write up says:
The new restrictions could be another step in re-examining the balance between usability and privacy.
Wrong. The need for more data to stuff into the assorted AI “learning” services provide a reasonable rationale. Tossing in the “prevent harm” angle is just cover.
My view of the matter is:
- Mobile is a real time service. Capturing more information of a highly-specific nature is something that is an obvious benefit to the Google.
- Users have zero awareness of how the data interactions work and most don’t want to know to try to understand cross correlation.
- Google’s goals are not particularized. This type of “fingerprint” just makes sense.
The motto could be “Leave no data unslurped.” What’s this mean? Every Google service will require verification. The more one verifies, the fresher the identify information and the items that tag along and can be extracted. I think of this as similar to the process of rendering slaughtered livestock. The animal is dead, so what’s the harm.
None, of course. Google is busy explaining how little its data centers use to provide those helpful AI overview things.
Stephen E Arnold, August x, 2025
Stephen E Arnold, August 25, 2025
News Flash: Google Does Not Care about Publishers
August 21, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby working the old-fashioned way.
I read another Google is bad story. This one is titled “Google Might Not Believe It, But Its AI Summaries Are Bad News for Publishers.” The “news” service reports that a publishing industry group spokesperson said:
“We must ensure that the same AI ‘answers’ users see at the top of Google Search don’t become a free substitute for the original work they’re based on.”
When this sentence was spoken was the industry representative’s voice trembling? Were there tears in his or her eyes? Did the person sniff to avoid the embarrassment of a runny nose?
No idea.
The issue is that Google looks at its metrics, fiddles with its knobs and dials on its ad sales system, and launches AI summaries. Those clicks that used to go to individual sites now provide the “summary space” which is a great place for more expensive, big advertising accounts to slap their message. Yep, it is the return to the go-go days of television. Google is the only channel and one of the few places to offer a deal.
What does Google say? Here’s a snip from the “news” story:
"Overall, total organic click volume from Google Search to websites has been relatively stable year-over-year," Liz Reid, VP and Head of Google Search, said earlier this month. "Additionally, average click quality has increased, and we’re actually sending slightly more quality clicks to websites than a year ago (by quality clicks, we mean those where users don’t quickly click back — typically a signal that a user is interested in the website). Reid suggested that reports like the ones from Pew and DCN are "often based on flawed methodologies, isolated examples, or traffic changes that occurred prior to the rollout of AI features in Search."
Translation: Haven’t you yokels figured out after 20 years of responding to us, we are in control now. We don’t care about you. If we need content, we can [a] pay people to create it, [b] use our smart software to write it, and [c] offer inducements to non profits, government agencies, and outfits with lots of writers desperate for recognition a deal. TikTok has changed video, but TikTok just inspired us to do our own TikTok. Now publishers can either get with the program or get out.
PC News apparently does not know how to translate Googlese.
It’s been 20 plus years and Google has not changed. It is doing more of the game plan. Adapt or end up prowling LinkedIn for work.
Stephen E Arnold, August 21, 2025
Cyber Security: Evidence That Performance Is Different from Marketing
August 20, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
In 2022, Google bought a cyber security outfit named Mandiant. The firm had been around since 2004, but when Google floated more than $5 billion for the company, it was time to sell.
If you don’t recall, Google operates a large cloud business and is trying diligently to sell to Microsoft customers in the commercial and government sector. A cyber security outfit would allow Google to argue that it would offer better security for its customers and their users.
Mandiant’s business was threat intelligence. The idea is that Mandiant would monitor forums, the Web, and any other online information about malware and other criminal cyber operations. As an added bonus, Mandiant would blend automated security functions with its technology. Wham, bam! Slam dunk, right?
I read “Google Confirms Major Security Breach After Hackers Linked To ShinyHunters Steal Sensitive Corporate Data, Including Business Contact Information, In Coordinated Cyberattack.” First, a disclaimer. I have no idea if this WCCF Tech story is 100 percent accurate. It could be one of those Microsoft 1,000 Russian programmers are attacking us” plays. On the other hand, it will be fun to assume that some of the information in the cited article is accurate.
With that as background, I noted this passage:
The tech giant has recently confirmed a data breach linked to the ShinyHunters ransomware group, which targeted Google’s corporate Salesforce database systems containing business contact information.
Okay. Google’s security did not work. A cloud customer’s data were compromised. The assertion that Google’s security is better than or equal to Microsoft’s is tough for me to swallow.
Here’s another passage:
As per Google’s Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG), the hackers used a voice phishing technique that involved calling employees while pretending to be members of the internal IT team, in order to have them install an altered version of Salesforce’s Data Loader. By using this technique, the attackers were able to access the database before their intrusion was detected.
A human fooled another human. The automated systems were flummoxed. The breach allegedly took place.
Several observations are warranted:
- This is security until a breach occurs. I am not sure that customers expect this type of “footnote” to their cyber security licensing mumbo jumbo. The idea is that Google should deliver a secure service.
- Mandiant, like other threat intelligence services, allows the customer to assume that the systems and methods generally work. That’s true until they don’t.
- Bad actors have an advantage. Armed with smart software and tools that can emulate my dead grandfather, the humans remain a chink in the otherwise much-hyped armor of an outfit like Google.
What this example, even if only partly accurate, makes it clear than cyber security marketing performs better than the systems some of the firms sell. Consider that the victim was Google. That company has touted its technical superiority for decades. Then Google buys extra security. The combo delivers what? Evidence that believing the cyber security marketing may do little to reduce the vulnerability of an organization. What’s notable is that the missteps were Google’s. Microsoft may enshrine this breach case and mount it on the walls of every cyber security employees’ cubicles.
I can imagine hearing a computer-generated voice emulating Bill Gates’, saying, “It wasn’t us this time.”
Stephen E Arnold, August 20, 2025
Google: Simplicity Is Not a Core Competency
August 18, 2025
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. Sorry. No smart software can help this reptilian thinker.
Telegram Messenger is reasonably easy to use messaging application. People believe that it is bulletproof, but I want to ask, “Are you sure?” Then there is WhatsApp, now part of Darth Zuck’s empire. However, both of these outfits appear to be viewed as obtuse and problematic by Kremlin officials. The fix? Just ban these service. Banning online services is a popular way for a government to “control” information flow.
I read a Russian language article about an option some Russians may want to consider. The write up’s title is “How to Replace Calls on WhatsApp and Telegram. Review of the Google Meet Application for Android and iOS.”
I worked through the write up and noted this statement:
Due to the need to send invitation links Meet is not very convenient for regular calls— and most importantly it belongs to the American company Google, whose products, by definition, are under threat of blocking. Moreover, several months ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin himself called for «stifling» Western services operating in Russia, and instructed the Government to prepare a list of measures to limit them by September 1, 2025.
The bulk of the write up is a how to. In order to explain the process of placing a voice call via the Google system, PCNews presented:
- Nine screenshots
- These required seven arrows
- One rectangular box in red to call attention to something. (I couldn’t figure out what, however.)
- Seven separate steps.
How does one “do” a voice call in Telegram Messenger. Here are the steps:
- I opened Telegram mini app and select the contact with whom I want to speak
- I tap on my contact’s name
- I look for the phone call icon and tap it
- I choose “Voice Call” from the options to start an audio call. If I want to make a video call instead, I select “Video Call”
One would think that when a big company wants to do a knock off of a service, someone would check out what Telegram does. (It is a Russian audience due to the censorship in the country.) Then the savvy wizard would figure out how to make the process better and faster and easier. Instead the clever Googlers add steps. That’s the way of the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Show.
Stephen E Arnold, August 18, 2025
Google! Manipulating Search Results? No Kidding
August 15, 2025
The Federal Trade Commission has just determined something the EU has been saying (and litigating) for years. The International Business Times tells us, “Google Manipulated Search Results to Bolster Own Products, FTC Report Finds.” Writer Luke Villapaz reports:
“For Internet searches over the past few years, if you typed ‘Google’ into Google, you probably got the exact result you wanted, but if you were searching for products or services offered by Google’s competitors, chances are those offerings were found further down the page, beneath those offered by Google. That’s what the U.S. Federal Trade Commission disclosed on Thursday, in an extensive 160-page report, which was obtained by the Wall Street Journal as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. FTC staffers found evidence that Google’s algorithm was demoting the search results of competing services while placing its own higher on the search results page, according to excerpts from the report. Among the websites affected: shopping comparison, restaurant review and travel.”
Villapaz notes Yelp has made similar allegations, estimating Google’s manipulation of search results may have captured some 20% of its potential users. So, after catching the big tech firm red handed, what will the FTC do about it? Nothing, apparently. We learn:
“Despite the findings, the FTC staffers tasked with investigating Google did not recommend that the commission issue a formal complaint against the company. However, Google agreed to some changes to its search result practices when the commission ended its investigation in 2013.”
Well OK then. We suppose that will have to suffice.
Cynthia Murrell, August 15, 2025
Google Reorganizes Search With Web Guides
August 14, 2025
Google gets more clicks with AI than with relevant results. Believe this? We have a small bridge for sale in Brooklyn if you are interested. But AI is just not enough. Google is fixing that up.
Google used to deliver top search results. Despite being a verb for searching the Web, Google’s first page of search results are overrun with paid links and advertising. Another problem is that while its AI feature answers basic questions, the information needs doesn’t always come from verified sources. Google wants to shake things up says the Search Engine Journal with Web Guides in the article: “Web Guide: Google’s New AI Search Experiment.”
Here is what Web Guides are described as:
“Web Guide replaces the traditional list of search results with AI-generated clusters. Each group focuses on a different aspect of your query, making it easier to dive deeper into specific areas. According to Austin Wu, Group Product Manager for Search at Google, Web Guide uses a custom version of Gemini to understand both your query and relevant web content. This allows it to surface pages you might not find through standard search.”
Maybe it will be a return to old-fashioned, decent Google results. The Web Guides use the “query fan-out” technique in which multiple searches are run at once. The results are then curated to the search query. It is supposed to provide a broader overview of the topic without refinement.
Google explains that Web Guides are helpful for exploratory searches and multi-part questions. Web Guides differed from AI because it reorganizes traditional Web searches according to groups and explore content from multiple perspectives without new information. AI Mode is more intuitive and acts like a conversation. It simplifies information and supports follow-up questions and other features.
Are Web guides just another test. Google cannot be in the AI race. The company has to win.
Whitney Grace, August 14, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
