Japan Is Getting its Foot in the Door

Japan Begins Government-led Search Research [SearchEngineWatch]

This is an interesting development. Normally, I would be saying that any government-led foray into anything business is probably going to go very slowly and not do nearly as well as a private establishment could.

It's my opinion that governments are supposed to take us in directions that businesses will not be able to. There are several reasons that business communities don't do things - usually the reason is that there is not a good way to make a profit from providing a service. Other times, the service is something that everyone needs, and there is no business big enough to take on the task. Public transportation is a good example of a service that, in most areas where it is provided, fits these two characteristics.

However, governments all over the world actively direct their own economies. America has farm subsidies. There is OPEC. And Japan looks like it is trying to push its economy forward in the area of search. I think it's a good thing for them, because, at least from the looks of it, someone in the Japanese government has sat down and taken a good look at where the technology market is going. This is an intelligent move by government, and I hope it does well for Japanese businesses.

The Real Big Brother

FTC Town Hall Meeting To Examine 'Behavioral Advertising'

It is very nice that the government itself is actually turning its eye to the world of search. This article from SELand is about the upcoming FTC open forum to be held this November about the so-called "Behavioral targeting." However, as we have often seen, the government usually only complicates things and generally slows the progress of innovation. What is a town-hall meeting going to accomplish anyway?

White Paper by Scott Cleland on the Proposed Google/Doubleclick Merger

Googleopoly.net

Yeah... I don't really know what to say about the whole anti-trust aspect of the Google/Doubleclick merger. This, even though I did minor in Economics in school, and Anti-trust Econ was my favorite class.

Scott Cleland has taken the time to give us a whitepaper on the proposed merger, basically detailing why he thinks that the FTC is going to beat Google down. I have not finished reading the entire report, but the gist of his outlook for the future is that Google is the next Microsoft: Cleland thinks that Google will displace Microsoft as the leading concern of the Anti-trust community.

While he may be right in saying that Google will get beaten down on this one, I don't know if we're going to see the displacement of Microsoft as the most evil monopolizer of the tech world. Basically, I think that everyone jumped on top of Microsoft because their actions were very obviously anti-competitive, and everyone could understand how. Microsoft had become the number 1 OS in the world, and it was actively trying to use that position to strongarm Dell and other computer manufacturers into placing other MS software on computers that came with Windows pre-installed, thereby reducing the chance that users would use software developed by smaller start-ups once they got their computers. It's obvious. Microsoft was the devil for doing this, especially since the software they were pushing was far from being the best out there.

However, I doubt that the public understands the anti-competitive aspects of Google's activities, and so my guess is that they won't care as much. Yes, some out there realize that Google is getting really big - they are presently the world's largest media company, valued at over $130 billion at the time of the YouTube merger. However, I doubt that most people really understand just how Google makes all of its cash. With Microsoft, it was easy - though they did pay millions to develop Windows, each unit costs them pennies to produce (the cost of a CD... and case... and that good-for-nothing manual... and a box), and they continually get hundreds of dollars per unit. With Google, nobody really sees them selling anything at all, except for the advertisers that buy ads. And, I think it's going to hard to convince the average person that someone can really make 100 billion dollars, just from the little ads on the side of a SERP, which really don't even... exist.

Basically, I'm not saying that Google isn't behaving in an anti-competitive manner, but I am saying that Cleland is wrong: Google will not displace Microsoft as the biggest concern of the anti-trust community. Why? Because I think Google will reach monopoly status before anyone realizes it, and will stay there without the public understanding. Without an outcry from a group that is at least somewhat representative of the general public, there will be no praise for bringing down Google. Without the public praise, there's no incentive, which means there will be more incentive to go do something else... like bring down Microsoft. Or, go fly fishing. That's what those DC-politician-types like to do, anyway, isn't it?

Because the anti-trust world is a political world - at least in some sense - the lack of public outcry over Google means that the anti-trust world will not be able to devote the time that will be necessary to bring down Google in the future. Though they might bring down this merger, Google will be fine. Doubleclick may be fine. Both will continue on, and Google in particular will continue to weave its lengthy fingers around us even further, waiting for the day when we may realize the control they have over us, but also realize that we actually gave them that control long ago, quickly and without consideration, and that dismantling it now would mean dismantling the whole world we have come to know.

Sounds like an old movie. That could never really happen!

FYI - This is what Google had to say about their proposed merger with Doubleclick back in April:
GoogleBlog: The next step in Google Advertising

Big Brother Google

From SE Watch Blog:

Google Is Big Brother

Looks like Frank Watson has it in for Google. Still. He has a point, yes. Google still seems to enjoy this "golden" status that it had before it was publicly traded. Some interesting points about Google:

Though everyone seems to know that Google is a giant, nobody seems to view Google as being "out to get" the little guys in the business world. This is different from, say, Microsoft, for instance, who seems to be the software world's bad guy for everything.

People don't seem to be averse to giving personal information to Google, as they might be to other personal networking/information portals on the web. Google's tools are increasingly powerful (i.e., checkout, book search, picasa, analytics), but the controversies about invasion of privacy don't seem to stick for Google. Some may disagree, but I don't see Google suffering in the public eye from the insecurities surrounding the proposed DoubleClick deal.

Google seems to be bent toward sincere pursuit of knowledge and advancement in computing. Of course, we all know that they have to make a buck, just like the rest of us, but their continued initiatives seem to be directed more toward advancing their overall field, rather than just their company. This too is different from the perception surrounding most other large software firms.

With all of that said, if things were to suddenly change, and Google were to suddenly seek their own interests above all else, it is feasible that we could see the Big Brother incarnation that Watson is prophesying.

But... C'MON!!!

Google As Big Brother?

From the Search Engine Watch Blog...

Google Submits Patent for Psychological Profiling

Frank Watson at Search Engine Watch is really voicing his opinion in this post, claiming "it's all over," as Google ventures closer to becoming the incarnation of Big Brother.

Let me say first that this is an impressive new use of technology, and the only real surprise to it is that Google did not do this sooner. If it behooves them to know people's tendencies (obviously, it would behoove any marketer), and they are able to do this from using the existing technology, then how do we know they haven't already been doing this for some time now, and are just now submitting the patent for it? Perhaps they've been doing it with imperfect methods until now, and now that they've got everything down, they're trying to patent it. Makes sense to me.

However, this does come with something of a "slippery slope" realization. Is this the "slippery slope," from which it would be difficult - disasterous, even - to return? Remember our current dependence on foreign oil, as an example of another slippery slope, up from which it would be possible, but economically disastrous at our current point, to climb. Only when it is economically less feasible in the short run to continue in our current dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels will be change course.

So, apply this to a Big Brother concept. Certainly, as the science fiction writer said, when and if we ever let ourselves me overtaken by our machines, we will quite possibly look back on the time when the takeover initially occurred, and recall that it happened so fast, and with so much initial advantage to us, that it was irresistible, and even unrecognizable, unanticipated. At that point, it will most likely be possible to revert, at least theoretically, but so costly and disadvantageous that to do so would be certain economic disaster.