[AI] In Google we trust - but should we?

Wael wael_syntax at yahoo.com
Thu May 22 15:01:16 EDT 2008

When it comes to talk about google and google search
engine, we may feel confused because we may speak at
various levels of technicality and usability.

it is not a matter of achieving high profits only by
adWords. it is the idea of adopting all facinating
brand new ideas that might strike an internet surfer's

google language tools works to break the language
obsticles, with ver'r'r'ry few clicks i can now visit
a chinese content assuming the validity of google

google images, google mail, google print, google
earth, google everything is coming up.

google is considered to be the first in many things,
one of which is google accessible search which
provides you with search results free of flash movies
and inaccessible content!

I am ready to defend google as far as technicality and
usability is concerned, disregarding privacy issues!

--- renuka warriar <erenuka at gmail.com> wrote:

> The Hindu News Update Service
> default/empty  
> News Update Service
> Thursday, May 22, 2008 : 0955 Hrs       
> Sci. & Tech.
> In Google we trust - but should we? 
> By Victor Keegan 
> Google is more vulnerable than people think. If a
> nimble startup delivers a more intelligent engine,
> people will soon change 
> A question increasingly asked is whether Google is
> becoming a dangerous monopoly. It is a very serious
> question. If we end up with one company controlling
> search - the gateway to information - it could be
> catastrophic if it abused its position. Google is
> already technically a monopoly with nearly 70% of US
> search and as much as 90% in the UK on some surveys.
> But it is highly unusual for two reasons. First, it
> lacks the typical symptom - charging excessively
> for its products. Nearly all of Google's products
> from search to document storage are free. What kind
> of monopoly is that? 
> Second, Google is unusual in that unlike Microsoft,
> which controls over 90% of PC operating systems and
> associated software, or even Cisco with over 90%
> of enterprise routers, there are no insurmountable
> barriers for new entrants. It is true that Google
> makes vast profits from search-linked adverts that
> it exploits ruthlessly - and the more it appears as
> the default search engine on users' toolbars, the
> more it risks abusing its power. But even so, you
> only have to switch to another bookmark. For Yahoo,
> at least on my computer, simply type "Y" into the
> URL field and up it comes. If you tried Yahoo in
> a blind tasting, could you tell the difference? I
> can't. Type in part of a distinctive sentence from a
> particular day's newspaper and see for yourself.
> Others, such as Microsoft's revamped Live Search and
> Ask.com, seem less good. 
> So why is Google popular and is it dislodge-able? It
> all comes down to that frightful word "brand". But
> Google is unprecedented because it built up its
> brand without any paid advertising. We did it for
> them. It became a verb in record time. It became one
> of the world's most profitable brands in barely
> a decade. Think Coca-Cola versus Pepsi (leaving
> aside the hundreds of millions spent preserving
> their brands). The story is that Coke's ill-fated
> Classic
> was planned to taste more like Pepsi which used to
> win in blind tastings - though Coke would win if
> samplers knew what drinks they were tasting. There
> is a fatalism shared by the likes of Wall Street's
> Henry Blodget that it is inevitable that internet
> companies gain market shares of over 90% because
> they
> are "natural monopolies". Piffle. New search
> companies don't have to spend hundreds of millions
> on marketing and branding as they would for a soft
> drink
> or an operating system. 
> Google is more vulnerable than people think. It is
> brilliant at displaying the answers most linked to -
> but not if what you want is buried deep in the
> search
> pile. If a nimble startup delivers a more
> intelligent engine, people will soon change, as they
> did when they ditched AltaVista for Google a decade
> ago.
> Yahoo, Microsoft and Google have all been upstaged
> in video and networking sites by brand new startups.
> Why not search as well? Google could also be dented
> by paid-for ads (tinyurl.com/4gufcr) or if it
> started abusing its monopoly enough to provoke
> coordinated opposition on sites such as Facebook.
> The company's
> "Don't be Evil" motto is part of its brand despite
> its failure to stand up to Chinese censorship. If it
> had, other companies might have followed its lead
> and eaten into Chinese obduracy. 
> Google is still a one-product company with
> search-related ads generating nearly all of its
> profits. This could change if a better engine
> emerges or if it
> becomes the latest victim to Lord Acton's dictum:
> "All power tends to corrupt." If that happened I
> could retain all the Google products I treasure
> (maps,
> documents, Gmail etc) and spend a few seconds
> changing my default search engine. Is there a
> solution? Sooner or later, Google's founders will
> hand over
> their fortunes to a foundation. Americans do that.
> Perhaps, since its leaders still have voting
> control, they should do it now. It could carry on as
> a
> stock market company governed by an independent
> trust, mandated to ensure that "Don't be Evil" is
> never abused. Now where did I get that idea from? 
> To unsubscribe send a message to
> accessindia-request at accessindia.org.in with the
> subject unsubscribe.
> To change your subscription to digest mode or make
> any other changes, please visit the list home page
> at

Wael Zakareya
skype: m0100649426
msn: turtlelike at hotmail.com
google: wael.zein at gMail.com
mobile: 0100649426


More information about the AccessIndia mailing list