Oracle: A Gentle, Dulcet Reminder of What It Takes to Survive in the Digital Jungle
March 12, 2020
“Before It Sued Google for Copying from Java, Oracle Got Rich Copying IBM’s SQL” is a deerskin moccasin stroll through a dark, dangerous thicket. A company with a penchant for oatmeal container architecture and renaming roadways should serve as a flashing yellow light.
The write up uses phrases like those favored by DarkCyber; for example:
Oracle’s history highlights a possible downside to its stance on API copyrights.
Yeah, but history is a consequence of bright individuals who seize on a particular molecule from the event stream. History does not highlight anything. Humans like lawyers, analysts, and writers do. The “possible downside” is a hedge against a former Marine who can be — ah, what is the word, — “frisky”.
The write-up says:
Oracle got its start in the 1970s selling a database product based on the then-new structured query language (SQL). SQL was invented by IBM. And Oracle doesn’t seem to have gotten a license to use it.
Yikes. What’s this mean? DarkCyber turns to the article for guidance:
Oracle got its start copying IBM’s software interface.
Yes, that’s clear.
Plus, there’s a molecule from the event stream; specifically:
Around 1977, Larry Ellison and his co-founders spotted an opportunity. They had recently started a software consulting company called Software Development Laboratories, but they wanted to transition to selling a software product. Ellison realized there was enough detail in IBM’s white papers to clone IBM’s database technology. He also realized that it would provide a credibility boost if he could say that their new Oracle database was fully compatible with IBM’s SQL standard. According to one of SQL’s designers, Donald Chamberlin, Ellison was so determined to achieve compatibility with IBM’s technology that he called Chamberlin in 1978 seeking more details about IBM’s implementation of SQL.
The digital equivalent of the two largest blocks in the former Soviet union sat down to talk turkey about Java. Oracle “owned” it; Google had some Sun Microsystems’ employees who had a bit of experience with the “write once, run anywhere” methods.
The write up states:
Google claims that “negotiations broke down over issues unrelated to money.” Google says Sun sought more control over the evolution of the Android platform than Google was willing to offer. So Google decided to build its own version of Java without a license from Sun.
The river flowed, and the rushing waters are behaving with the oddball physics of fluid dynamics. Oracle was thrashed; Google was cyclonic.
The roaring river of legal fees has reached the Supreme Court. Will the legal dam of the copyright crowd hold, or will the “let the digital water flow” of the Google crowd prevail?
The write up creeps quietly away, offering this statement:
…fair use is a notoriously complex and subjective legal standard. Any company wanting to make its software interoperable with a competitor’s product would have to worry that the competitor could sue, arguing that this use wasn’t as fair as Google’s use of Java. Most software companies don’t have Google’s legal resources or staying power, so the prospect of a lawsuit—even one they’re likely to win—could be a major deterrent to building interoperable software.
The shadow of no or reduced interoperability falls. On the other hand, consultants, integrators, resellers, and innovators see a new dawn rising.
Go with history. The sun comes up every day, at least so far.
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2020
Google Stadia: Google Wood or Just Recycled Cardboard?
March 12, 2020
DarkCyber does not play games. Sure, there are some young-at-heart DarkCyber games, but I ignore them. One of these hard-working individuals spotted “Google Stadia Hits an All-Time Low With This Embarrassing Tweet.” I am not much of a tweeter.
Apparently someone at Google does read tweets and noted one that contained this high school cheer / acrostic thing:
Note that there is no game for I.
A Googler replied, with a tweet, of course: “Why would you bring attention to this?”
I assume the answer is one of these choices:
a. It’s millennial or Gen X, Y, or Z humor
b. Stadia is not performing
c. Someone actually cares about Stadia to try to spell a word using the first letter of games on the service
d. There is a game on Stadia which uses the “what’s up” emoji instead of words.
The write up states:
Clearly, whoever is in charge of the Google Stadia Twitter account has stopped caring. It’s probably for the best since everyone else stopped caring about it months ago.
Google Stadia seemed doomed from the start, and things haven’t gotten much better. It lacks games, has a terrible monetization system, and generally isn’t all that convenient. It even pales in comparison to other similar systems like GeForce Now and Project xCloud. If the state of their social media is anything to go by, Google is already well on its way to just checking out and letting the system die. It’s hard to blame them. So far, Google Stadia seems like it was just a horrible idea.
DarkCyber has little insight to how things work at Google. I would surmise that whoever worked on Stadia has made an effort to catch on with a hot project team. No, not solving Death. Solving Stadia, however, may be a comparable challenge.
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2020
WhatsApp: Indexed by Google
March 11, 2020
The Orissa Post reports, “Google Indexes Private WhatsApp Group Chat Links.” As a result of the search indexing, assorted private chat groups were summarily forced open for anyone to join. Writer Ians reports,
“According to a report in Motherboard, invitations to WhatsApp group chats were being indexed by Google. The team found private groups using specific Google searches and even joined a group intended for NGOs accredited by the UN and had access to all the participants and their phone numbers. Journalist Jordan Wildon said on Twitter that he discovered that WhatsApp’s ‘Invite to Group Link’ feature lets Google index groups, making them available across the internet since the links are being shared outside of WhatsApp’s secure private messaging service. ‘Your WhatsApp groups may not be as secure as you think they are,’ Wildon tweeted Friday, adding that using particular Google searches, people can discover links to the chats. According to app reverse-engineer Jane Wong, Google has around 470,000 results for a simple search of ‘chat.whatsapp.com’, part of the URL that makes up invites to WhatsApp groups.”
A spokesperson for WhatsApp confirmed that publicly posted invite links would be available to other WhatsApp users, and insists folks should not have to worry their private invites may be made public in this way. On the other hand, Google’s public search liaison seemed to place the blame squarely on WhatsApp. He tweets:
“Search engines like Google & others list pages from the open web. That’s what’s happening here. It’s no different than any case where a site allows URLs to be publicly listed. We do offer tools allowing sites to block content being listed in our results.”
Perhaps both companies could have handled this issue with more consideration. We wonder whether WhatsApp has since taken advantage of those content-blocking tools.
Cynthia Murrell, March 11, 2020
Factoids about the Cloud Battles
March 10, 2020
DarkCyber noted “Stress Test the Cloud: Alibaba Cloud, AWS, Azure, GCP.” The write up presents “factoids” and observations based on these factoids in a helpful way. Here are the points which captured DarkCyber’s attention:
The cloud will be the way of the future in computing. The meltdown of Robinhood’s trading platform was pegged on stress. When a cloud system is stressed, it may and will fail.
Amazon Web Services
- “Amazon’s e-commerce business is the market leader in the U.S., Europe, and close to number 1 in India”
- “AWS is very much battle-tested and constantly “stressed out” by its parent company’s core e-commerce operation. It has moved all of its businesses onto AWS, and off of other systems like Oracle, after a multi-year effort.”
- Amazon’s businesses are generally not prone to unexpected spikes in traffic, which happens more to social networks like Facebook, Twitter, and Weibo.”
Amazon’s system may not be optimal for surprise spikes.
Alibaba Cloud
- “Alibaba’s core e-commerce business has many similarities to Amazon’s…”
- “This accomplishment is well-deserved; Alibaba has basically created and survived the mother of all stress tests.” The reference is to the large volume of sales on Singles Day.
- “Alibaba Cloud’s technical and operational expertise can certainly be applied in regions outside of China, but only until there’s customer demand and the data centers to serve it.”
Alibaba dumped American vendors as part of its journey.
Google Cloud
- “Google has arguably the only, truly global infrastructure, because its services and users are global.”
- “Google‘s services cannot anticipate traffic spikes, unlike a planned shopping holiday, and must be ready wherever, whenever it happens.”
- “Google’s products do not naturally lead to processing many complex transactions, like online shopping orders, offline delivery, or payments.”
Google can accommodate stress, but it’s not so good in Amazon-style transaction complexity.
Microsoft Azure
- “None of these [Microsoft] businesses have to be “always on”, in the same way that an e-commerce marketplace or a search engine needs to be on.”
- “Azure is still doing amazingly well from a revenue and market share standpoint. This success has more to do with Microsoft’s years of experience in selling products into large enterprises and aggressively moving users of its non-cloud license-based products onto the same products that are now on-cloud and subscription-based. Microsoft is very good at being “enterprise ready”, but not that good at being “Internet ready”.”
- “It [Microsoft] has by far the most number of Single-AZ Regions, which has led to outages and issues that could’ve been avoided with a multi-AZ design. Multi-AZ Region is the default in AWS, GCP, and most of Alibaba Cloud.”
Microsoft is good at sales, not so good at the cloud.
Net Net
Alibaba is darned good. At any time the company can push into other markets and create some pain for the American companies it seems.
Stephen E Arnold, March 10, 2020
SEO Alert: A New Way to Rank Number One on a Google Search Results Output?
March 8, 2020
The search engine optimization crowd may find “Spanish Court: Google Search Must Show Man’s Acquittal First” useful. Those who wonder about Google’s ability to structure search results to put certain citations in a specific place in the results list will find the article suggestive.
The story concerns an individual’s effort to return search results from a Google query that accurately reflected legal facts. I don’t want to go down the rat hole of “legal facts,” “accurately,” or bias in search engines.
I circled this statement in the article:
A [Spanish] National Court decision Friday said that freedom of expression took precedence over personal data protection in this case. However, given the case’s special circumstances, the person’s acquittal must appear in first place in internet searches, it ruled.
Will Google comply? Will the Spanish court be satisfied? Will the person acquitted of a criminal charge become a happy camper?
Several observations:
- The Spanish court does not know or does not care that Google’s search results are objective, determined by a black box algorithm. If manipulated results are displayed, does that question Google’s objectivity?
- If Google can tweak court results to conform, will search engine optimization experts have a new path to influence search results?
- Does the Google system have other search results which create that a fact like an acquittal is effectively buried, thus distorting reality?
DarkCyber does not have answers to these questions. Could this Spanish court order create another crack in the online ad giant’s objective algorithmic system?
Worth monitoring the outcome.
Stephen E Arnold, March 8, 2020
Google: Feeling the Competitive Heat
February 28, 2020
Google, DarkCyber assumes, thought that Microsoft’s decision to convert the Chrome browser into Credge was a victory. “Google Is Now Warning Millions Of Microsoft Edge Users To Switch To Chrome: Here’s Why” tries to explain Googley thinking.
We learn from the capitalist tool:
Google has been found “abusing user agents,” the identifying code that enables websites to identify the browser type and version, to detect and warn Microsoft Edge users visiting the Chrome web store that when it comes to extensions they should switch to Chrome. The reason for the warning is that Microsoft Edge doesn’t integrate with the Safe Browsing protections Google uses to remove threats—so when an extension presents a risk, Google can’t act in the same way to protect users.
Is this the only reason?
DarkCyber thinks a bit of context will explain some of the Googley thinking.
Consider Google and Amazon.
Google does not like Amazon, especially when Amazon stepped away from solely being a retailer to offering software services to customers. Google wants some of Amazon’s cloud business, so they are telling retailers to chuck Amazon and check out their tools. ZDNet rolls out the gossip in the article, “Google’s Pitch To Retailers: We’ll Help You, From Search To Supply Chain.”
At the National Retail Federation, Google introduced retailers to a new line of tools available via its cloud. The tools range from product discovery, supply chain optimization, and hybrid application management. Thomas Kurian, Google Cloud CEO, explained that the retailers who innovate with their business plans are the most successful. Google wants to grab these forward thinking retailers with new tools like:
“Among the new offerings for retailers is a new tool called Google Cloud Search for Retail, which Google is piloting now and will introduce to the broader market throughout the year. The tool helps retailers improve search results for their own websites and mobile apps using cloud AI and Google Search algorithms.
Kurian’s blog post also served as a reminder to retailers that they can buy Google Ads to surface their products when customers use Google’s many consumer tools like Search, YouTube, Shopping, Google Assistant or Maps.
We noted:
Google also announced Google Cloud 1:1 Engagement for Retail, a set of best practices that can help retailers build data-driven strategies for personalized customer services. This should make it easier for customers to use Google’s BigQuery data analytics platform to build personalization and recommendation models.
That is just the beginning! Google is also developing a Buy Optimization and Demand Forecasting service that assisted retailers plan and manage supply changes. There is also a new retail version of Anthos, Google’s platform for managing services on site or the cloud environment. It will allow retailers to roll our and manage applications across all stores.
What happens if we try to add 1 + 1. DarkCyber thinks that the task reveals several facets of Googley thinking:
- Microsoft has lots of Windows 10 users who just use Credge. The browser works, is there, and why hunt for a different way to look at Web pages. But what if Credge gets traction on a mobile phone? What if Microsoft, the long time drone target of the Google, gets eyeballs on Android devices? Yep, those victory cheers are likely to become verbal and physical tics.
- Amazon is selling ads. Selling lots of ads is not good for the Google, a company for more than 20 years has had one revenue stream of significance. The Google wants to put some sand in the fuel tank of Bezos bulldozer. Thus, Googley behavior dictates action.
- Google itself faces a problem few companies have: Indexing the Web and changes to Web pages is expensive. How does one cut costs when Microsoft may blindly wreck havoc in the browser revenue flow or put a dent in the quite robust mobile ad business? How does Google protect existing ad revenue and possibly cause the Bezos bulldozer to go down for an engine overhaul? Aggressive actions seems to be the order of the day.
If DarkCyber steps back or in the lingo of a University of Chicago philosopher “go up a meta lever”, the actions of today’s Googlers reflect some changes which may give pause. Marketing has never been a Googley strength. Now it has to be competitive marketing. Is Google’s marketing elegant? Yeah, not too elegant.
Can Google control costs without further compromising its search service, its wonky innovations, and its increasingly contentious employee-management interactions?
DarkCyber finds the Credge and Bezos bulldozer “plays” interesting and entertaining.
Stephen E Arnold, February 27, 2020
Did 2012 Mark the Beginning of the End for the Google?
February 24, 2020
A colleague sent me a link to “Google’s Best Days Are Behind Them.” I don’t have much hope for a write up with a grammatical error in the headline. The viewpoint is that of a search engine optimization professional. For a member of this elite and relevance destroying group, Google is good if it returns a specific Web page in response to a user’s query. In my experience, the query matters less than putting a particular page at the top of a first page of result. To achieve this, gamesmanship, deceptive practices, and social engineering are the norm.
The write up pegs 2012 as the beginning of the end of Google. I prefer to think of Google beginning a stroll toward sundowning, not death, and not for a long time. The write up asserts:
Google first started making major changes in its long-existing algorithm in 2012, when it came up with the Penguin update. With each subsequent algorithm update, the company focused on key areas like building links, improving content, or technical SEO aspects.
What’s happening is that SEO experts find themselves with less room to fiddle and fool Mother Google. In reality, Google has taken the fooling around into its own hands. The write up touches upon one example:
But recently, Google has started paying more attention to the way it displays its search results, i.e., the UI/UX. And this sole factor has cost multiple websites the entirety of their business, if not more.
Instead of a list, Google has experimented with making the pages into showcases, digital fruit salads, and odd mixes of content from its silos of indexes. But that disguised a core problem for the Google: The rise of the mobile phone and the shift from desktop search to small form factor search. The article identifies one consequence of this shift:
While Google had a 20% volume of advertisements on its SERPS before, Google-owned features now tend to occupy almost 80% of the page. In most search results, the first fold is completely taken over by features like Google ads, a Google Maps pack, or Google Shopping ads.
For the author, this means that getting a site to appear at the top of a results list is a difficult task. For certain types of content, the SEO efforts – usually a hit and miss effort – became outright failure.
The write up does point out that Google made more than 3,000 changes to its search algorithm in 2019. That’s sort of right. The plumbing is still in place at the Google. The fixes take place in the layers upon layers of wrappers which enhance search with the advertising revenue objective. What Google’s algorithm is now resembles a giant tar ball with leaves, sticks, plastic water bottles, and other detritus embedded in its surface. Changes require changes. Revenue objectives require changes. Users doing something Google did not predict requires changes. To make matters more interesting, the changes follow the sun; that is, search engineers make changes around the world, across time zones. DarkCyber is not sure there is a single person working at Google who knows what is generating a particular search result. That’s not going to change.
When did this situation begin? Was 2012 the Golden Year?
No. That’s like pinpointing the specific date of the Stone Age.
Google’s transformation began the day the Yahoo litigation was resolved. For those unaware that Google was accused of improper use of Yahoo owned systems and methods, you can get up to speed at this paywalled (of course) story in the New York Times by the ever sharp Saul Hansell: “Google and Yahoo Settle Dispute Over Search Patent.”
Search is expensive. Google’s approach to business is expensive. Google’s assumptions about Android advertising are expensive. In short, no matter how much money Google sucks in and carves out for profit there will never be enough. As a result, Google has to reduce costs and increase revenue.
The changes Google has been implementing since 2004 are not visible to even the least aware SEO professional. To those who have used Web search systems since before the inception of Google, the changes in the quality, timeliness, relevance, precision, and recall in Google search results have been deteriorating for — let’s do the math 2020 – 2004 = 16 years — yes, more than 15 years.
There’s nothing like an SEO expert who is on top of search, what’s been going on for 180 months.
DarkCyber’s key insight into search: Run those queries across available systems. Relying on one is going to produce results that may deceive, mislead, and disappoint.
That’s work. Yep, so is understanding that information retrieval is a serious business. Advertising is a money business. SEO is a deception business.
And Google is consistent and sundowning. No matter how flawed the service, it is a monopoly. Monopolies take a long time to go away.
Stephen E Arnold, February 24, 2020
Google: Information Is for Us (Us Is the Google)
February 22, 2020
I won’t write about the alleged Google murder. Plus, I won’t run through the allegations related to this story: “Google Secretly Monitors Millions of School Kids, Lawsuit Alleges.” Google has many facets, and I find advertising Google style fascinating.
DarkCyber thinks the multi state investigation into Google’s possible violation of of antitrust law is philosophically challenging. The case involves information, consultants, Texas, and a tendril reaches Microsoft, an outfit skilled in software updates.
Let’s start with a Wall Street Journal (a story protected by a pay walls) revealed an interesting Google stance.
“Google Resists State Demands in Ad Probe” (February 22, 2020) reported that the company’s resistance to requests for information, in the words of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton:
They don’t believe that they’re clean because they don’t act in any way like they are.
Those involved is the Texas-led legal action want more than email. Google has balked. Google has groused about c0onsultants working on the case.
Why the hassle over ads? According to the Murdoch owned WSJ:
News Corp has complained that Google and other digital companies siphon ad revenue from content creators.
DarkCyber finds the pivot point in this multi state tug of war is information.
Google is an information company. Some believe that Google sought to index the world’s information. Then allow people to access the content.
But advertising revenue and a mostly ignored lawsuit about ad technology have altered the definition of information.
Google has information about its ad business. Some of that information has been requested via appropriate legal vehicles by the states’ taking Google to court. Google does not want to make that information available.
If the data were made available, presumably attorneys would be able to:
- Perform text analytics; for example, display statistical information about word occurrences, generate clusters of like data, etc.
- Generate indexed entities and tag them. Once tagged, these entities can be graphed so relationships become visible
- Output timelines of events and link those events to entities
- Search the content using key words and use the tags to reveal tough to discern items of information; who influenced what action when the words used to describe the activities were ambiguous to a non Googler.
There are other functions enabled by the corpus and current content processing technology.
DarkCyber noted these thoughts:
- Google is an information company and does not want that information disclosed
- Tools, some of which may run on Google’s cloud infrastructure, can reveal important nuances in the ad matter, nuances which otherwise may be impossible to discern by reading and human note taking
- The legal system, which has been most ineffectual in dealing with Google lacks laws and regulations which have not be enacted in the US to deal with digital monopolies.
Net net: Google may have the upper hand… again.
Stephen E Arnold, February 22, 2020
Google and Its Trajectory from Dorm to Domination
February 21, 2020
I read the capitalist’s tool essay/opinion/analysis article called “From Exceptionalism To Unrest: Why Google’s Culture Is Changing.” The idea that Google and its change is an obvious one. The reason for the change, according to the write up, is relative deprivation. Here’s a bit of color on this interesting, MBA-meets-yoga-babble concept:
Insights on relative deprivation shed light on the dynamics Googlers may face in this respect. The research shows that when, for reasons outside of their control, people are denied opportunities that others possess and they desire or feel entitled to and equipped for, they will feel personally deprived, and grow not only dissatisfied, but also resentful.
What happens if a Googler perceives himself/herself/whatever self as being treated unfairly? Here’s the outcome:
The combination of feeling personally deprived as a result of a culture of exceptionalism and that progressive growth of sensitivity to or awareness of fairness components due to sustained uncertainty is an explosive recipe for Google.
You know that most people want an official Google mouse pad. The mouse pad says, “I am beloved by the Google.”
Why aren’t today’s Googlers protesting in front of the building and not doing handstands of happiness?
Googlers don’t want to solely be part of a cool club. They, too, as most humans, are looking for a work environment in which people can enjoy working with others and making a difference without having to think first and foremost about where they fall on the ‘excellence’ curve.
Keep in mind that I am old (75 this year to be exact) and I live in rural Kentucky, which is to some who live in fantasy the epicenter of technology, fair dealing in health care and bourbon, and political acumen. (You know the track record of Senator McConnell perhaps?)
From my vantage point, the write up is like an Instagram story: Selected moments, a filter, and difficult to figure out for those not in the Instagram flow.
The Google has changed and maybe there are a few other factors at work:
- Lack of regulation allowed the company to do whatever it wanted with zero consequences. Google was not quite anything goes, but it was able to deal with issues because everyone wanted a Google mouse pad, work at Google, or wear a T shirt with the Google logo. The Disneyland for the technically adept has aged. Check out theme parks that have been around for more than two decades. Paint doesn’t bring the zing of the good old days. The zero consequence mode has begun to rundown, and Googlers, Xooglers, and others using the company’s services know that the roller coaster is being pulled downhill.
- The management method is what I call high school science club management which I abbreviate to HSSCMM (the final m means method). Science clubs were when I was in high school a place for a small number of people who like science, math, electronics, and mostly one another. It was an “us” versus “them” place. Decisions were made by members who looked at the world through a lens calibrated differently. Prom? Nope, physics. Sports? Nope, statistics. Dates? Nope, derivatives. The HSSCMM tolerated heroin addiction, crazy behaviors like wearing roller blades to a meeting with Sumner Redstone, and sexual fiddling around. Procedures, policies, and a mainstream culture were not part of the game plan. And when these were required, the founders and some original Googlers distanced themselves. The result was a wonky miasma of HSSCMM and what was “required.”
- The arrival of money created an elite among the elite. Google, chock full of interesting people with some interesting ideas, migrated from the intricacies of just being clever to having to make stuff work. Lots of smart people want to come up with ideas and then move on. That’s why products and services disappear overnight. No clued in Googler wants to work on something like enterprise search or a loser social network. Google is less like a real science club and more like a group of people who repair ATMs and set up mobile phones. Google faces class war. Sexual improprieties is just part of the annoyances. Money talks, and in Google’s present position, shouts loudly.
There are other factors as well; for example, Wall Street’s need for more and more financial performance. Also, competition from outfits like Amazon, Apple, and Facebook which make it more difficult to make Google the way it was in its first five years of existence. Plus, the slow realization that advertising is not just annoying, it fuels an approach to information that requires comprehensive data about individual’s conscious and unconscious behavior on a 24/7 basis.
The analysis of Google by a culture architect is, as I suggested, interesting. It is, however, a small part of the Google ethos. Reducing Google to grousing employees concerned about fairness misses the mark. Google’s culture is changing, but the changes pivot on the post IPO world, the lack of government regulation, the lust for colorful tchotchkes, and a failure to look at the distinct phases through which Google moved. The calculus of these data combined with the real time information about the “now” Google leads to oversimplifications and fundamental misunderstandings about what Google set out to do, did, and is now doing.
Stephen E Arnold, February 21, 2020
Innovators and Innovation: Is Google in the Me Too Business?
February 21, 2020
Ah, Google Plus. One could get a bonus for doing Plus things. Yes, Google Plus, the wanna be Facebook. And using the Orkut experience only made Google Plus better. How could a plus become a minus? It happened. Keep in mind that Google Plus could at any moment vivify if a Googler with time on his/her hands enters the “circle.” Why? How? What?
Hey, that’s just Googley.
Cult of Mac is circulating what may be a delicious digital cupcake. Now the confection could be a real treat like those at Philz Coffee, or it could be one of the pipe dreams about job security in the Google Cloud unit. Who knows?
The write up’s title is “Google Is Readying Its Own Apple News Competitor.” Now Apple News is different from Facebook, the alleged target of the Google Plus service. There’s insufficient information to figure out if the Apple News service is making publishers and users happy. DarkCyber has heard that some of those ink stained wretches are not ready to shout “Hurrah” from the watering holes near the great publishing facilities in Manhattan and trailer courts in Kansas-like locations.
The write up states:
Google has been in talks with multiple publishers about paying a licensing fee for content used in its upcoming news product. So far it sounds like the company is mostly talking to publishers outside the US, but the company says it views the initiative as an important tool for an informed democracy.
Ah, democracy. Google allegedly phrased its idea this way:
“We want to help people find quality journalism – it’s important to informed democracy and helps support a sustainable news industry,” said Richard Gingras, VP of news at Google. We care deeply about this and are talking with partners and looking at more ways to expand our ongoing work with publishers, building on programs like our Google News Initiative.”
Let’s reflect a moment on these questions:
- What me too product from Google has been the equivalent of Amazon’s AWS or Apple’s ear bud things?
- What happens when the Googlers working on the alleged product decide to shift to a product that will earn the workers bonuses and niftier work?
- What’s the plan for differentiating the service from for fee competitors, original sources and their pay walls and begging for dollars messages, or ad supported services like Newsnow.co.uk?
There are other questions, but this is a rumor. When it becomes a reality like Google Plus, then we will have “real” news or AF as some young folks say.
Stephen E Arnold, February 21, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
