Media Wonk

Link This | Email this | Comments (0)

Eric Schmidt still out of his mind - May 20, 2008

Slightly off topic but right right astride my hobby horse: Had to chuckle over comments by chief Googlers Eric Schmidt and Larry Page as reported today on the BBC News web site. Apparently, Eric and the boys are over in Hertfordshire for the company's European "Zeitgeist" meeting where reporters asked them to respond to Microsoft's latest proposal to Yahoo.

Although the Googlies begged off making a statement on Yahoo until they'd had time to confer, the comments they did make were certainly... how should I put it? Creative?

From the BBC:

The three also insisted there was no reason for any concern about Google's dominant position in search advertising, which is the reason Microsoft has cited for its interest in acquiring Yahoo.
"Google is doing very well in what is a very small part of a very large industry," Mr. Schmidt said.

Search, a very small part of the business? Really? When it's the principal means by which users navigate the web? And one of the principal means by which publishers monetize their content on the web? And has become the de facto means by which subject-matter authority is established in the society? And is hoovering up advertising dollars that used to go to traditional media? And has given Google a bigger market cap than the U.S. auto industry? A small part?

I can understand, of course, why Schmidt would want to downplay the importance of search and Google's dominance of the category, at least publicly. It can't do Google any good to draw attention to its increasingly decisive role in the web economy.

But "a very small part" of the industry? Please.

Google co-founder Larry Page then added this gem:

Questioned about privacy, the two Google founders insisted that it was social networks, not search engines, which were the main cause for concern.
"Social networking is the big problem," said Larry Page, explaining that when it came to search data, "there's been very little evidence of damage."

Um, last I looked, social networking was still optional. Lot's of people put all kinds of personal information on Facebook--for reasons Media Wonk is probably too generationally challenged to understand--but no one forces them to do it.

Search, on the other hand, is for all practical purposes, essential. It's possible to use the web without availing yourself of a search engine. You could, for instance, restrict yourself to bookmarked URLs and email. But it would be pretty limiting. Nearly everyone who uses the web uses a search engine to one degree or another every time their online.

Each time they do, the search engine is collecting information about them and their interests. Unlike Facebook and MySpace, the user has no choice. There may, as yet, be "little evidence of damage," but the point is that the potential for damage is enormous.

Again, I can understand why Google would want to downplay its own potential for evil. The collection and use of search data cries out for regulation, which, as a practical matter, would mean regulation of Google.

But c'mon guys. It's getting old.



[Consumer Trends]  [Content Protection & Management]  [Deals & Dealmakers]  [Regulation & Legislation]   LEAVE A COMMENT