March 13, 2007

The POWER of Google - Topix edition

Echo: Rick Skrenta of Topix, about worries regarding How Search-Engine Rules Cause Sites to Go Missing:

To say that a content site should not rely on search engine traffic -- most of which comes from Google -- is naive. The web is 10 billion pages now, with a single point of entry. That's the web the way works. If you want to have a web business, you have to acknowledge this reality. ...

Sometimes retailers get hosed because the city decides to re-pave the street their business is on. The street is infrastructure. Like it or not, Google is infrastructure on the net now. They're the source of all the foot traffic. The three words in retail are "location, location, location." The three words online are "search engine optimization." It means the same thing.

The point I want to make in echoing that, is both another proof (if any were needed) that the monopoly effect is quite real, and further that it has substantial implications way beyond web business, to what gets heard in society in general. This is repetitive, but it's worth emphasizing from the monetary angle to establish the reality.

By Seth Finkelstein | posted in google | on March 13, 2007 10:26 PM (Infothought permalink)
Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog (Wikipedia, Google, censorware, and an inside view of net-politics) - Syndicate site (subscribe, RSS)

Subscribe with Bloglines      Subscribe in NewsGator Online  Google Reader or Homepage


Did someone say monopoly?

I love monopolies and the money they can make.

Let's see if this idea draws some fire:
Ripping myself off from here:
"Someone was bitching about MS's potential control - easy fix as for every other natural monopoly - regulate it, as they do with electricty, water, etc. But do you really want the government deciding what functionality is or isn't important and what standards all software should or shouldn't support? There is enough case law, that the gov could probably get away with this. I actually don't understand from a purely financial perspective why MS don't do this. The typical calculation is calculate the asset base of replacement (technical term the DORC) [XXX million lines of code * dev cost per line] * a rate of return - pure GUARANTEED cashflow. As per the UK TV licence, gov taxes people and passes on the cash, gov appointed people controls what you see on the channels. There is some independence and there have been major runins between the UK gov and the BBC, but the gov can appoint the people who hire the people who do the work, so the gov will win in the end. So MS could get a guaranteed cashflow and summarily fire 1000's as not needed as they only need to meet the gov standard to get their cash. Gates and Balmer on a power trip? To get the cash they would have to relinquish their power. It's not like they are busking to get beer money. Oh and the gov could order ISP's to refuse service to anyone not running their software which declares your ID (given over when you pay your computer tax) and make it illegal to run a darknet (eg a BBS). "

Would people bitching about Google monopoly really be happy if someone else other than themselves was deciding how Page Rank was determined? All (in California at least) cigarette and alcohol searches automatically directed to health warning [or wherever the lobby $$$ say] sites?

Bitching about transparency is useless as well - if you want to make money have a site with useful information that people use, if not you are a going to lose your money. If you think you have done this and you are still are upset maybe the person you should be angry at is yourself.

Posted by: tqft at March 14, 2007 06:53 AM