David Carr writes:
... If Google owns me, it's probably because I am in favor of what works.
"I'm glad to hear it," said Eric E. Schmidt, the chief executive of Google, who was in New York last week. "We want a little bit of Google in many parts of your life."
Mission accomplished, at least on my desktop, but I asked Mr. Schmidt if I shouldn't be worried that I am putting all of my digital eggs in one multicolored, goofy-lettered basket.
"That depends on what you think of our company and our values," he said. "Do you believe we have good values?"
Mr. Schmidt seems nice enough, but I sometimes wonder if I will come to regret the easier, softer road I have chosen. A record of my surfing lives on its servers for 18 months -- not by name, but still. Google continues to insist that my IP address is not me, but a motivated government with a subpoena in hand could find me, lots of me, on Google's servers.
Most data privacy experts would call me a fool to index my life into any one company so deeply, and diversification in all matters is just common sense.
Mr. Huber countered that I am free to come and go as I wish.
"The nice thing is that we don't force you to use only our stuff," he said. "It is not tied tightly together, and the content is all easily exportable. If you feel like we are letting you down, or you don't like our products or we are failing to innovate, you can pick up and go where you want."
But with video chat now enabled in my Gmail, how likely am I to click away? Some people worry that Google will take over the world. Through the sins of competence and innovation, the company has quietly and efficiently surrounded me.
"That's our business model," Mr. Schmidt said.
RSS Feed
Comments (1)
After reading Mr. Carr, I believe one word pretty well sums him up: sloth. I wonder if he would allow Google to take a dump for him and wipe his ass afterwards, if they offered. Have some pride in yourself Mr. Carr. Wave that little mouse around your
desktop. Find another service to do those super important web tasks you value so highly.
Free markets are supposed to reward the person who builds the better mousetrap. Free markets allow people to coexist without conflict whilst demanding different kinds of mousetraps. If you want a red mousetrap and I want a green mousetrap then we can both have our mousetraps. If more people want red than green then red will extract a higher price. No conflict or coercion there. Sometimes if you build a really good mousetrap you can dominate the whole market for mousetraps. A lot of people really worry about that. The solution is simple: The mousetrapper can offer to you but you don't have to buy a mousetrap at all. I never buy mousetraps or use Google.
No mousetrap manufacturer has dominated its market for any length of time. Dominating a market for a good is the kiss of death. In a competitive market the mousetrapper emulates and improves on the ideas his competitors come up with. Once he wipes out his competitors he loses those essential signals and ceases producing better mousetraps. People will look for alternatives; they always do(not Mr. Carr). There has never been a monopoly in the history of the world that was sustainable for that reason. The only monopolies that live past their expiration date are those that successfully obtain the sanction and support of the state.