Google, Just Cut The BS And Give The Gordon Gekko Speech Already

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/13/google-net-neutrality/

by blasdel • 16 years ago

109 55 16 years ago

moultano8• 16 years ago

Can someone explain to me how they think less than full net-neutrality benefits Google? I didn't understand that argument in this article, or any of the previous ones.

raganwald2• 16 years ago

Closing the door to the country club works if you're already inside when the door closes. Google's agreement with Verizon positions them inside. Startups and companies offering services we haven't even dreamt of yet are on the outside.

jemfinch• 16 years ago

Exactly which part of the proposal does that?

moultano8• 16 years ago

>Google's agreement with Verizon positions them inside.

No part of this agreement creates any business relationship between Verizon and Google. I'm still not understanding.

skymt2• 16 years ago

So you think Google's planning to offer prioritized services to Android users? YouTube seems a likely pick.

SandB0x• 16 years ago

It's all good, there's nothing to understand. The article is just fluff. A troll headline and no new information or insight.

skymt2• 16 years ago

Speculation: net-neutrality compromise in the wireless space could help Google's relationship with carriers. Google can't afford to fight with their Android partners while they have Apple to worry about.

grandalf3• 16 years ago

Google wanted to prevent Apple from signing a non-neutrality deal with Verizon.

Everyone always forgets how vulnerable Google is to competition. Best case for Google is net neutrality, second best case is to have signed deals with the top ISPs to prevent its competitors from signing google-harming deals with them.

grandalf3• 16 years ago

Not sure why all my comments about this and Google's China stuff are blindly modded down w/o any reply/argument. If you disagree, explain why, maybe you'll convince me!

txxxxd• 16 years ago

I don't follow the argument either. My understanding is:

Before agreement: - wired: unregulated - wireless: unregulated.

After agreement: - wired: net neutrality - wireless: unregulated but reviewed yearly

We all benefit from wired NN. Google didn't gain any special privilege here.

gamble3• 16 years ago

Except that the proposal for wired networks has giant loopholes, and one can easily interpret this deal as a fig leaf designed to get the issue off the table so that the network providers can create a reality on the ground that makes further legislation impossible.

gamble3• 16 years ago

Google's problem is not that net neutrality is bad for them, exactly, but that Verizon loathes it. And Google is utterly dependent on Verizon pushing Android. Half of all Android phones are Droids on Verizon, and you can ascribe a lot of that to Verizon's aggressive marketing campaign. In fact, I think you can argue that Android is more Verizon's brand now than Google's. So Google has a lot to lose by antagonizing the linchpin of its mobile strategy.

In addition, now that Android sales have taken off Google isn't an outsider looking in at an industry whose gatekeepers could easily shut them out from mobile search and advertising. They own the #2 platform, and they've got enough pull to ensure that Google gets a piece of the mobile pie - which means that net neutrality isn't worth as much to Google as it was two years ago.

This article is spot-on. Google was enthusiastic about net neutrality when it was essential to their financial success. Now that it has a cost, they're discovering the virtues of compromise... which wouldn't be an issue without the relentless Google PR about how principled they are. As pg said once, the trick with declaring that you're not evil is that people will hold you to it.

orangecat2• 16 years ago

Exactly correct. Google can afford to stand up to the Chinese government, but not Verizon. This should tell us something about what we've allowed the wireless "market" to come to.

nanairo• 16 years ago

It is true that anything less than net neutrality is not good for Google. But it's even worse for its competitors, especially future competitors.

Once you are at the top, and you got the majority of the market, your best actions (in monetary terms) is to stop entrants.

macrael3• 16 years ago

The idea is that a non-neutral net favors people with deep pockets. Google has deep pockets, therefore a non-neutral net benefits Google. Google can pay big money to prioritize their traffic to their devices over other traffic that cannot pay. That creates a barrier to entry and competition that does not exist today.

moultano8• 16 years ago

So your worry is that Google will start paying to prioritize traffic in the wireless space?

bobbyi• 16 years ago

Less than full net-neutrality is good for big players who can take advantage of the situation and negotiate deals that are favorable for themselves.

It is bad for small players and startups who would like to compete with the established players on equal terms.

moultano8• 16 years ago

Do you anticipate Google negotiating deals of this sort?

bryanh4• 16 years ago

It was about time someone said something to this effect. Net neutrality aside, Google is a public company. They have shareholders. From what it sounds like, Larry and Sergey are more or less full blown academics and therefore idealistic. Problem is, they aren't the parents of a Stanford project anymore but instead a multi-billion, multi-national corporation with thousands of shareholders, employees and customers.

Could they have approached net-neutrality with a "cut off your nose to spite your face" approach? Absolutely. Could they have won out in the face of adversity? Maybe. Would it have been good business? Most assuredly not.

Google in acting in self-preservation; nothing more, nothing less. They aren't martyrs. I can understand if you are upset about them not admitting this fact, but anything else is naive.

pbz• 16 years ago

That depends on how this outrage develops. If it turns out that it hurts recruiting in the future, damages morale, or flat out pisses off a sizable number of people who now have a beef with Google, then it may hurt them more than it helps them. Granted, all these side-effects are intangibles; hard to measure and mostly ignored. However, the question of does it make business sense is a bit more complex than tallying up the balance sheet.

Pahalial• 16 years ago

Actually, the "most assuredly not" in your post is debatable. One could put forward the argument that they've had the buy-in they've had -despite brouhahas like the gmail context-sensitive ads- largely because the tech/expert community at large understood they were headed by idealists. That trickled down through op-eds and family/friends recommendations.

Would an "all or nothing" net neutrality position be, erm, unconventional business? Absolutely. Would anyone have believed before Google's arrival that an ad company would be the single biggest name on the Internet? Again, debatable.

bryanh4• 16 years ago

Good point, but I think Google sees the writing on the wall. Would they like pure net-neutrality? I am sure they would, but I think they are realists and know that in the end, profits win. They want a piece of those profits and are trying to compromise a lesser of evils.

Just my guess.

gruseom2• 16 years ago

From what it sounds like, Larry and Sergey are more or less full blown academics and therefore idealistic. Problem is, they aren't the parents of a Stanford project anymore but instead a multi-billion, multi-national corporation

Patronizing comments about "academics" and "idealism" ought typically to be delivered before the target's company has attained megasuccess. Larry and Sergey's competency to lead a multibillion-dollar corporation has been proven for many years. More to the point, so has their ability to do it in a less evil way, a way that raised the bar for everyone. The issue is not whether it's possible for Google to be Google; we have an existence proof for that. The issue is whether Google is breaking its own values, and if so what the consequences will be.

Would it have been good business? Most assuredly not.

This wretched argument, so sure of its own hard-nosed realistic businessism, is just what people were saying 10 years ago to prove that Google should sell banner ads. Oh sure, that home page was cute. But look at all the money they were leaving on the table! Well let's just remember how things turned out: by sticking to their guns, rejecting that thinking, and putting users first, Google made orders of magnitude more money than they would have had they followed that path. (How do we know this? Because countless counterexamples ended up in the dotcom garbage bin.) Oh yeah, and they changed the world and the industry forever.

So what was really good for business?

bryanh4• 16 years ago

I definitely believe the agreement is necessary for Google to have regular access to its current channels looking forward (both across the net and especially with Android through Verizon). Yes, it is good for business.

There may be a huge outrage over it, but I tend to doubt it.

Furthermore, the anecdote "Sergey Brin did not want to cave to any of the Chinese demands to operate inside of mainland China, but Eric Schmidt talked him into it", if true, is pretty good evidence that the founders are more idealistic. I don't think that is patronizing.

_ouxp• 16 years ago

With respect to corporate governance, you can basically ignore the public shareholders in this case.

In addition to the fact that the law affords managements a lot of leeway in determining how to maximize shareholder value, Larry, Sergey, and Eric hold voting control due to the dual share class structure that public shareholders agreed to when they bid for shares in the IPO.

You can think of it as a limited partnership with three general partners.

TotlolRon• 16 years ago

What makes people think Google is capable of delivering a well-versed argument in a charismatic manner?

toddh• 16 years ago

Since cellphones are merely a convenient connection to a backbone network, would it make sense to develop and promote a wifi system with automated handoff between access points that can bypass cell protocols altogether? Being in the clutches of Verizon and ATT doesn't sound like a good strategy.

gruseom2• 16 years ago

I found this the most interesting part of the article:

In private conversations with Googlers and ex-Googlers over the past couple of days, the vast majority of them seem to be disturbed by what Google is doing here as well.

If that's accurate, it's significant: it means this isn't all a big misunderstanding, and hints at how much damage Google could potentially do to itself here.

I still think they're smart enough not to let that happen, though it does look like they've painted themselves into a corner. I wonder if they realized how tremendous an asset their standing up for net neutrality was.

Google, Just Cut The BS And Give The Gordon Gekko Speech Already

Related Stories