These search result counts threw me for a loop:
- "microsoft's arrogance" - 1,380 results
- "yahoo's arrogance" - 7,980 results
- "google's arrogance" - 26,500 results
That's not to say that these search counts have any real meaning - Microsoft has more counts for hubris than Google does (although many of these seem to be pre-2000). Numbers in the search results can be skewed any which way a blogger/reporter/publisher chooses. But, after some talks today with folks who deal with Google on a business level (and used to work with them in the investment sphere), it's clear that the sentiment is largely the same. Google's defining characteristics for many professionals in the web search, Internet, business and investing fields is not a positive one.
While we all admire Google's progress and continued dominance of their sector, it's hard not to predict a fallout reminiscient of the dot-com's, given the industry perception. I can't think of a firm that's survived a rise like Google's without some karmic retribution for internal arrogance. If anyone can break the mold, they can, and it may well be that this is a carefully orchestrated (though inexplicable) PR move, but those slimy know-it-all smiles on product managers really seem to piss off the folks I talk to...
Rand, anyone in particular you want to call out? I can go and hit them over the head. :)
Not me so much as the VCs and entrepreneurs down in the Bay Area. I think Google has not been tending to their sense of entitlement and since I'm in a related industry, I hear all about it.
Probably not as much as you do, though... :) Kudos for trying to break out of that culture and create something else, Matt. It can't be easy to fight the status quo.
Here's my definition of Google's arrogance:
Google asks you to share a lot of information about yourself and your business with it. For example, depending on the Google products you use, you share:
All of the sites you surf (if you use the Google Toolbar, Google places a cookie on your computer that won't expire for 50 years!)
The contents of your emails (if you use GMail)
The files on your computer (Google Desktop)
Your best keywords (AdWords)
The behavior of people going to your Web site (Urchin)
The structure of your Web site (Google SiteMaps)
Which people actually convert for you (Conversion Counter) How you intend to use Google's API (Google now wants to visit you three times a year to make sure you are using the API properly)
On the other hand, Google doesn't like to share with you. Among the things Google refuses to share:
How they determine whether your site is relevant for organic results
How much you have to pay for top position on AdWords
How the content network works (how do you know when you are going to show up)
How quota for the AdWords API is determined
How Google determines whether a click is click fraud
What your overall clickthrough rate is (Unbeknownst to most people, the CTR that shows up on the AdWords API is Google-only, it does not factor in the CTR on the Google distribution network.
Why certain ads get rejected
Financial projections (if you are shareholder)
If you live in China, Google has decided not to share all relevant information with you at the behest of the Chinese government
Originally, Google didn't even tell consumers that PPC ads were ads - until the FTC threatened to sue, hence the "sponsored listing" tag you see today.
More on my blog (ironically, from blogger) - blogation.blogspot.com
I think Matt Cutts saves Google's image hehe
The interesting thing is the counts have radically changed in six weeks. Microsoft (originally 1,380) has gone up slightly to 1,500; Yahoo! (originally 7,980) has dropped to 8 (16 if you count duplicates); and Google (originally 26,500) has plunged to 403.
I just wanted to chime in and say that Batelle's book was one of the best I've read... ever. I learned so much about search engines, googles and technology in general.
Back on topic, I haven't been impressed with anything google has been doing lately. With AJ being purchased and redone and MSN launching its new version somewhat recently, you would expect the search-giant to do a little flexing.
When high profile guys like Jeremy call Google on double standards (https://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/006727.html)you know it isn't just a few webmasters with knotted panties.
Rand, you read Batelle's book right? I found it interesting how difficult it was/is for other companies to deal with Google at even a strategic level; in my opinion there, it seems like Yahoo has the formula right, just not the product.
"XXXX defining characteristics for many professionals in the YYYY and ZZZZ fields is not a positive one."
I think that XXXX could be filled in with a lot of different values. These would be any occupation who sits in an assessment capacity over YYYY or ZZZZ. This is because YYYY and ZZZZ are populations that contain individuals that are out to gain undeserved assessment scores. Teachers, judges, inspectors, search engines, etc would fit as XXXX. In general they know that the average member of the YYYY and ZZZZ population is a great individual - but the minority give them much grief.
How they apply this is the key and it makes me think of Bob Dylan's song... "You Gotta Serve Somebody"... You could be the President, the Chief, or the Heavyweight Champion of the World, or Google, but you still must perform for others at some level and that is where you lose total control. And when you lose it, you are in trouble.
I think that Google is performing well and with any large or small enterprise there are opportunities for us to judge or complain. But the bottom line is are they serving the important people properly - and doing it better than their competitors. A lot of the rest is irrelevant.
Excellent example of good title writing. ;)
Feeling a little boxed in today rand? :)
ha.