Disenchantment with Google is growing

By April 5, 2009Google

This is from the Guardian earlier today:

Despite the aura of heroic young enterprise that still miraculously attaches to the web, what we are seeing is a much older and toxic capitalist model – the classic monopoly that destroys industries and individual enterprise in its bid for ever greater profits. Despite its diversification, Google is in the final analysis a parasite that creates nothing, merely offering little aggregation, lists and the ordering of information generated by people who have invested their capital, skill and time. On the back of the labour of others it makes vast advertising revenues – in the final quarter of last year its revenues were $5.7bn, and it currently sits on a cash pile of $8.6bn.

I’m not sure I buy this, but it is interesting to see the disillusionment and vitriol building.

I will be off grid for most of the next week so there won’t be much that’s new on The Equity Kicker until after Easter.

  • It's a depressingly anti-capitalist statement: “Google is in the final analysis a parasite that creates nothing”.

    Since what it really does is connect people who are looking for something with people who are selling something Google is “in the final analysis” a market.

    And to extend the analogy, farmers grow things, and sell them in markets – which are just parasites that create nothing. But to argue that the farmer's world would be a better place without the markets that connect buyers and sellers would be pretty hard.

  • I agree. To me the argument that Google creates nothing and therefore adds no value is clearly nonsense.

  • Very true and the recent bid for Twitter, if successful, will only hurt them further and may actually kill Twitter in the process. When I mentioned on Twitter recently that I’ll be writing a story for Techcrunch about Microsoft’s new ‘Adsense’ type product, it opened up a river of stories from web publishers about nightmare experiences in dealing with Google. The anticipation and interest in Microsoft’s product is impressive. People are desperate for an alternative.

  • coldbrew

    Some how you entirely missed the tone of this post, and found, astonishingly, that it confirmed some belief that you hold. MS is in no better position than GOOG to do anything for these people that failed to understand and adapt to the age of digital distribution; MS is in a worse position because they too failed to understand what networked computing is capable of on a global scale. The M.O. of MS would be to offer better compensation in the short-term (loss leader) and then gauge, to an extent even greater than GOOG, the content producers. People are desperate for $, and that probably will lead to making bad decisions.

  • martinowen

    At a futures of education meeting for the EU last week we did some scenario painting. We had some axes and at one end of one was “monopoly provider”. A few years ago that would have been Microsoft – this time around it was Google. This does indicate an image shift – which looks even grimmer if you add in that most of the folks in the group had Apple in front of them.

  • martinowen

    At a futures of education meeting for the EU last week we did some scenario painting. We had some axes and at one end of one was “monopoly provider”. A few years ago that would have been Microsoft – this time around it was Google. This does indicate an image shift – which looks even grimmer if you add in that most of the folks in the group had Apple in front of them.