Google: We Can Be Avis, National Car Rental or an Off Airport Outfit Too
December 18, 2019
Quite a goal. Google wants to beat Amazon and Microsoft in the cloud. Err, isn’t Google a cloud centric outfit, or at least since it morphed from the cutesy Backrub into the behemoth it is today? What if Google doesn’t think it is a cloud business? Hmm.
The answer, of course, is Googley. Google has waffled a bit. The phones, the home helpers, and the mouse pads. But the company operates “out there”, from data centers in regular buildings to wonky containers which can be towed to a location where power is cheap and skills are hard to come by.
A series of stories is zipping around about Google’s new desire to become the big dog in cloud computing. Just like the PR program featuring Jeff Dean, the Google is starting to realize that it may have more in common with the low rent business of scalping tickets than with high technology outfits changing the way business does business.
That’s an interesting thought because it runs counter to the received wisdom that Google is the font of technology. Like the fountains in Rome, lots of work is needed to keep the fountains spouting water. Tourists don’t see Rome’s plumbing, and for good reasons.
The goal of knocking off Amazon and / or Microsoft (love that lawyer conjunction, don’t you?) will be achieved by 2023. That works out to 24 months. Microsoft’s NT project turned into a death march, and I think this goal is likely to follow the same trajectory.
First, Amazon and Microsoft are not standing still. Good old Microsoft is working overtime to make Azure stable and semi-coherent. How many search engines does one desktop software company need? How many analytics solutions? How many servers? These are questions Microsoft engineers are rushing to answer. The airplane is aloft, and making adjustments to an engine when the plane in in flight can be difficult when it has to operate in a hybrid mode and the ground stations can be crashed by a software update. Cool?
Plus, Amazon is moving along a different trajectory. The company is engaged in a multi front war, and it is less and less a cloud company. That bookstore in Nashville and the undoing of FedEx make clear that not even a mid tier state like Tennessee is exempt from the Bezos bulldozer.
Second, Google has not been particularly adept at sticking with projects over time. Examples range from the social media attempts, to the Alon Halevy semantic tools, and to some as simple as messaging services. The culture of incompleteness is a hurdle. Managers can fiddle with incentives and tweak the hiring processes. But the company is a bit like a flotilla of sailboats generally heading toward port when a bad storm presents itself. Everyone knows where to go, but there may be some delays. Delays when trying to knock off Amazon and Microsoft may not be desirable.
Third, there are lots of other companies which want to be the Avis and National to the Uber business. Oracle, down but not out. IBM, a bit of a clueless geriatric but still capable of surprises like its sales success in India, and dozens upon dozens of other companies.
Net net: The write up “Google Brass Set 2023 as Deadline to Beat Amazon, Microsoft in Cloud” is useful, but it contains one telling statement:
Google shifted headcount growth to its cloud platform sales and engineering teams.
What’s going to be the Google equivalent of Windows 10 updates which don’t work, arrive late, and kill some data? If it is ad systems, Amazon is going to get the best location in the airport to serve rental car customers.
Stephen E Arnold, December 18, 2019
Build a Business on Google Technology” Maybe
December 16, 2019
We have found a resource that illustrates the folly of betting one’s business on free services from Google. The Google Cemetery shares an eye-opening chart of the “Average Product Lifespan of Google Products Before It Kills Them.” We learn that the Total Death Count, or number of products that have been discontinued, is 164. Also, according to data from AcquiredBy, Google has made a total of 212 acquisitions. The description states:
“Average product lifespan of Google products based on discontinued products listed on our website which were hacked to death by Google. Google has killed over 150 products since 2006. The average lifespan of a discontinued Google product is 4 years and 1 month.”
The chart simply lists the years from 2006 to 2019 and the number of products that were quashed each year. 2019 ties only with 2011 for the highest death toll at 25 canceled products. At the bottom the most “recent deaths,” with G Suite Training (2013-2019), YouTube Messages (2017-2019), YT for Nintendo 3DS (2013-2019), and Google Jump (2015-2019) currently displayed. Free can be great, but consider carefully and have a back up plan before choosing any free Google service.
Cynthia Murrell, December 16, 2019
The Kinder, Gentler Google: Not Since 2006
December 16, 2019
A number of people spoke with me after my lecture in Washington, DC, last week. Surprisingly quite a few people had questions about the three Google monographs I wrote. These were published by an eccentric and now defunct British publishing house. The printed versions of my research are no longer available. One question, posed to me at lunch was, “When did Google stop being Googley?”
My answer was 2006. In that year, the last vestiges of Google’s friendly old self were under assault. Who and what changed the company? The answer is an easy one, “Quarterly expectations from Wall Street and the accelerating snowball of advertising revenues.”
For me, 2006 is the pivot year. When I read “Why NUKEMAP Isn’t on Google Maps Anymore,” I knew I had spotted a Google user who did not read my monographs. No surprise there. I recycle information developed for commercial clients, and my approach is best described as Okay, Boomer.
The article explains several insights the author obtained when using Google Maps and associated technology for what I would describe as a public service project; specifically, making clear the ground level impact of a nuclear explosion. There are atmosphere impacts as well, but these remain in the hands of nuclear effects modelers at specialized firms.
What did the write up’s author learn about the “new” Google. Here’s a selection of his somewhat painful discoveries:
- Google does not “care about” small developers. That is correct. Big money comes from big outfits. This applies to advertisers and to programmers. Why? Money is needed to keep the good ship Google afloat. Costs are rising like water in glacial lakes fed with snow melt.
- Google changes its mind. Well, not really. What happens is that Googlers want to hook on the hot and well funded projects, products, and services. Promotions and money go with winner projects. Without the best and the brightest, how can a product or service get better? Answer: Slowly or not at all.
- Google’s free products and services are going the way of cable television fees: Up and up. Why? Money.
I recommend the article. It contains a very important point:
Today there are perfectly viable alternatives.
That means Google faces more pressure than ever: Wall Street, rising costs, anti trust investigations, and developers who don’t want to be Googley.
Stephen E Arnold, December 16, 2019
Googley Philanthropy
December 13, 2019
We are treated to more Google executive PR speak in the ABC News story, “Google’s Do-Good Arm Tries to Make Up for Everything Else.” AP Reporter Angela Charlton cites a Paris interview with Google VP Jacqueline Fuller, where she announced some grant awards. The winning projects aspire to teach digital literacy to the poor, the elderly, immigrants, and rural users. Other emphases of Fuller’s division include working to keep children safe online and using AI to increase access to health care, build better emergency services, and boost access to job opportunities. Charlton writes:
“The philanthropic arm she runs, Google.org, is like the company’s conscience, spending $100 million a year on non-profit groups that use technology to try to counteract problems the tech world is accused of creating, abetting or exacerbating. ‘Across the world we want to make sure we’re a responsible citizen,’ she said. But can Google’s do-good arm make up for everything else? At least it’s trying, she argues.”
So, they want an A for effort? That would take more than a measly $100 million per year. Fuller insists the company is having vigorous internal “conversations” around the topics of their controversies, for whatever that is worth. Issues like privacy and the misuse of user data, algorithmic bias, the perpetuation of hate speech, employee sexual misconduct allegations, weapons development (Project Maven, in cooperation with the Pentagon), and potential human rights violations are not so easily counteracted. There may be hope for change, however, due to external pressure. The article reminds us:
“Public outrage has grown over Google’s use of consumer data and domination of the online search market, with governments stepping up scrutiny of the company. … Former Google design ethicist Tristan Harris argues technology is shortening our attention spans and pushing people toward more extreme views. He couldn’t get Google to tackle these problems when he was there, so he quit and is pushing for change through his Center for Human Technologies. He says companies like Google won’t change voluntarily but that the tech world has undergone a ‘sea change’ in awareness of problems it’s caused, thanks in part to pressure from a frustrated public.”
We shall see where that awareness leads.
Cynthia Murrell, December 13, 2019
Google Faces Anti-Trust Allegations in Georgia
December 9, 2019
Countries large and small are thinking about Google.
Once again, Google is being charged with anti-competitive behavior. We have grown used to seeing such lawsuits proceed in the EU, but this time the allegations come from a company based in Atlanta. The Hindu Business Line reports, “Google Accused by Rival of Anti-Trust Violations in Ad Market.” The write-up specifies:
“Advertising technology company Inform Inc alleges that Google has used its monopoly power in internet search and mobile operating systems to undermine competition in the ad market. Inform claims that while it posted revenue of more than $100 million from 2014 to 2016 from its online ad services, Google’s conduct effectively put Inform out of business, according to the complaint filed Monday in federal court in Atlanta. The totality of Google’s illegal and anti-competitive conduct across multiple, inter-related markets demonstrates a frightening march to online and digital dominance, the company said in the suit. The lawsuit comes on the heels of antitrust investigations into Google by state attorneys general, the Justice Department and Congress. Google’s control over the technology that delivers ads across the web are a focus of all the probes.”
Inform provides online video ad services to publishers and advertisers, so it is in direct competition with those services from Google. Interesting timing—earlier this year, Inform agreed to a merger with digital advertising firm Bright Mountain Media, based in Boca Raton, Florida.
Cynthia Murrell, December 9, 2019
Has Google Trashed Christmas for Kids?
December 6, 2019
Christmas? Ruined by the Google? I don’t believe it, but Metro UK may.
I learned in “Google Ruins Christmas for 1.1 Million Children Every Year Claim Teachers.” If the story is online, isn’t it true?
The write up states:
Research carried out by Exam Papers Plus suggests that each year over a million children are typing into Google whether or not Father Christmas is real.
How is this possible?
1,116,500 children ask Google “Is Santa Real” each year.
Google’s smart search system obviously knows the answer. Kids who do research are informed of the truth delivered by an objective, ad supported online service.
One tip: Don’t make a video for children that espouses untruths or put links in comments sections of video for children. A lump of coal may be placed in one’s stocking. Not just any coal. The lignite stuff.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2019
Alphabet Google: Bail Out Time
December 5, 2019
The future of Alphabet Google is online advertising. Oh, there’s one other challenge rushing toward the company: Litigation.
Who is the new face for lawyers from most of the US states and a clutch of other countries? Sundar Pichai. You can get the Googley story in “A Letter from Larry and Sergey.”
Several observations:
- The legal scrutiny is not likely to be gentle and sweet. The good night may not be so good.
- The likelihood a change from high school science club management to a more McKinsey-like approach will produce some interesting disruptions. Fire people before Thanksgiving? Just a warm up, gentle reader.
- The “new” Google will be stripped of its down home Backrub charm. The influence of Indian high school and IIT will be significant.
Exciting? Probably. Good for lawyers. Absolutely? What about those mom and pop businesses that depend on Google for revenue? Amazon and TikTok are looking better each day.
Stephen E Arnold, December 5, 2019
Do It Yourself Surgery: An Unexpected YouTube Consequence
December 5, 2019
DarkCyber noted the CNBC real news story “Doctors Are Turning to YouTube to Learn How to Do Surgical Procedures, But There’s No Quality Control.”
Quality control. What a quaint concept.
The write up states:
YouTube has become a fixture of medical education.
Fix a broken lamp? YouTube. Take out an appendix? YouTube.
DarkCyber learned:
CNBC found tens of thousands of videos showing a wide variety of medical procedures on the Google-owned video platform, some of them hovering around a million views. People have live streamed giving birth and broadcast their face-lifts. One video, which shows the removal of a dense, white cataract, has gone somewhat viral and now has more than 1.7 million views. Others seem to have found crossover appeal with nonmedical viewers…
Maybe there’s an opportunity for Google:
Google’s vice president of health, David Feinberg, noted at a recent medical conference in the fall that a lot of surgeons are flocking to YouTube. He implied, without sharing specifics, that his team would look to do a better job of managing the content as part of its broader focus on combating health misinformation across Google. Medical experts say they’re more than willing to work with YouTube to help curate medical content.
The advertising model seems ideal for this type of “professional” curation. Will medical device manufacturers sponsor curated videos?
Opportunity beckons for:
- Do it yourselfers
- Medical product and service providers
- Google itself.
A management challenge? Nothing Google cannot overcome with assistance. Think the flying car tapping Boeing for expertise.
Stephen E Arnold, December 5, 2019
Google Avoids a Prince Andrew Like Interview
December 5, 2019
Yep, prime time. After a football game. A hard hitting interview with a PR message. You can read and watch some of the talk in the self referential, Google indexing friendly news story “How Does YouTube Handle the Site’s Misinformation, Conspiracy Theories and Hate? YouTube’s Mission Is to Give Everyone a Voice, But the Site’s Open Platform Has Opened the Door to Hate. YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki Tells Lesley Stahl What the Company’s Doing about It.”
Now that’s a headline.
A couple words in this 43 word headline caught my attention. First the word “mission”, the phrase “everyone a voice,” “tells,” and “company’s doing.” Interview? More like a sales pitch, perhaps?
Very PR like. Almost Prince Andrewish.
The main point: The quantity of video is a problem, an excuse. The numbers sure sound impressive.
What’s the fix? Limit the video uploads. Presto. No more cost challenges. Editorial guidelines. Responsibility. Conformance to the laws of nation states. (Think how silly Apple looks changing the maps to make the Russian government happy. Crimea? Just upload a YouTube video and make your voice heard, right?)
Users are, after all is said and done, the point of the service.
Here’s a telling comment in response to a question about providing a YouTube video of murders in New Zealand:
Susan Wojcicki: This event was unique because it was really a made-for-Internet type of crisis. Every second there was a new upload. And so our teams around the world were working on this to remove this content. We had just never seen such a huge volume.
Yep, unique plus the fact that Google/YouTube was obviously unprepared. Like this sign:
Prince Andrewish or not? You decide:
- A lack of awareness of the situation Google sustains?
- Is there a “certain blindness” to examine the content findable by individuals who know where to look for stolen software’s unlock codes, images of interest to bad actors, and content designed to promote activities which can harm a person?
- Is a slow waltz required to mute the perception that advertising revenue is more important than Austrian concert master virtues?
- Why not explain that the goal of YouTube is engagement is to keep children and the young at heart clicking, viewing, and sticking. The more engagement, the greater the real estate for ads. (See item 3 above, please.)
Prince Andrew’s train wreck interview underscored his interesting behavior and caused the Queen to take away his flag. (Yep, he had his own flag!) Google still has its flag for the sovereign state of Google, just a new and beloved leader.
Did the CBS news team get a Google mouse pad before leaving the Google office? Probably but the big numbers about the YouTube videos may have left the team addled. Big is good. PR is gooder. Google advertising? The absolute goodest.
This interview was not Andrewesque; it was Googley.
Stephen E Arnold, December 5, 2019
Kitty Hawk: Dreaming Is Different from Doing When One Seeks Management Guidance
December 4, 2019
I read in the capitalist’s tool this story: “Inside Larry Page’s Turbulent Kitty Hawk: Returned Deposits, Battery Fires And A Boeing Shakeup.” The business story as a business school case study is an interesting journalistic niche.
The main idea is that Larry Page, founder of Google and all-around business Lionel Messi, has scored an own goal with its flying car business. Kitty Hawk has suffered a couple of minor setbacks; for example, battery fires and disenchanted supporters.
To add insult to injury, Forbes, the capitalist’s tool, sagely observes:
Kitty Hawk’s promise to bring personal flying to the masses has failed to take wing yet amid technical problems and safety issues with Flyer and unresolved questions about its practical use, according to four former Kitty Hawk employees who were among six who spoke to Forbes on the condition of anonymity due to non-disclosure agreements.
Yep, management of a science club project underscores the difference between thinking about a flying car and actually building one are different. Just a tiny bit.
Which company can “save” Kitty Hawk. What about Boeing (the 737 Max outfit) for business guidance?
Amazing.
Something a Hollywood screenwriter might struggle to conceive. Faulty software and burning batteries managed by Boeing and Google.
Here’s a summary of this interesting case study from the hollows of Kentucky: Another Googley DNW or “did not work.”
Stephen E Arnold, December 4, 2019
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
