Congressmen working on national intelligence and homeland security either don’t know how to secure their own home Wi-Fi networks (it’s easy!) or don’t understand why they should bother. If you live outside the Beltway, you might think the response to this problem would be to redouble efforts to educate everyone about the importance of personal responsibility for data security, starting with Congressmen and their staffs. But of course those who live inside the Beltway know that the solution isn’t education or self-help but… you guessed it… to excoriate Google for spying on members of Congress (and bigger government, of course)!

Consumer Watchdog (which doesn’t actually claim any consumers as members) held a press conference this morning about their latest anti-Google stunt, announced last night on their “Inside Google” blog: CWD drove by five Congressmen’s houses in the DC area last week looking for unencrypted Wi-Fi networks. At Jane Harman’s (D-CA) home, they found two unencrypted networks named “Harmanmbr” and “harmantheater” that suggest the networks are Harman’s. So they sent Harman a letter demanding that she hold hearings on Google’s collection of Wi-Fi data, charging Google with “WiSpying.” This is a classic technopanic and the most craven, cynical kind of tech politics—dressed in the “consumer” mantle.

The Wi-Fi/Street View Controversy

Rewind to mid-May, when Google voluntarily disclosed that the cars it used to build a photographic library of what’s visible from public streets for Google Maps Street View had been unintentionally collecting small amounts of information from unencrypted Wi-Fi hotspots like Harman’s. These hotspots can be accessed by anyone who might drive or walk by with a Wi-Fi device—thus potentially exposing data sent over those networks between, say, a laptop in the kitchen, and the wireless router plugged into the cable modem.

Google’s Street View allows you to virtually walk down any public street and check out the neighborhood—making it easier to navigate to your intended destination, explore a neighborhood you might be thinking of moving to from out of town, point out potential maintenance or streetscape problems to your city, and any number of other wonderfully useful, totally benign things that you could do anyway if you just walked down the street with a camera or a notepad! CWD’s letter tries to outrage Harman by telling her: “Your home is on display for the entire Internet with just a few clicks of a computer mouse.” So what? It’s on display to anyone walking or driving down the street, too! If you don’t like that, put up a fence or landscaping to block the view—or move out of the suburbs to a more remote location!

The Street View cars that take these photos from cameras on their roofs were also equipped with Wi-Fi devices that, much like any Wi-Fi device, look for Wi-Fi hotspots within range. (Just look for “available networks” the next time you’re at a laptop and you’ll see what I mean). This isn’t part of some evil Google conspiracy to “track consumers in their homes,” as CWD alleges. Rather, building a map of wireless hotspots allows any consumer using, say, Google Maps to determine their location more accurately and quickly than would otherwise be possible: If my phone sees 6 hotspots nearby and Google can correlate that data with the pre-existing map of Wi-Fi networks generated by Street View cars, this helps Google Maps pinpoint my location—which make directions and other location-based services work better for me in the future.

But the Street View Wi-Fi software was accidentally misconfigured to capture all wireless data packets (chunks of data) they picked up as Street View cars drove by hotspots, regardless of whether those packets are data packets (potentially containing data sent by users over their home networks) or “beacon” packets that simply announce the presence of a network, and regardless of whether the packets were sent from an unsecured or secured network. The software was designed to discard any data packets from encrypted networks, but not from unsecured networks. Google claims this was an accident, and some security experts agree. Google has promised dispose of all of the data accidentally collected (beyond SSID names).

In early June, Google commissioned an independent analysis, which confirmed that the Wi-Fi software “does not analyze or parse the body of Data frames, which contain user content” and that such data frame bodies would be stored only if sent over an unencrypted wireless network but discarded if sent over an encrypted network. Translation: Google didn’t use any of the packet data it collected.

Some have suggested that Google  should have collected only the network naems (“SSIDs”) from the beacon packets, or perhaps no Wi-Fi data at all. But as cyber-security consultant Robert Graham explained in detail shortly after this story first broke, building an accurate network map with fast-moving vehicles requires collecting as many packets as possible. Again, the better the map, the greater the accuracy of Google’s location-based services for consumers.

Bottom line: Google made a mistake in failing to discard user data after collection but otherwise had good pro-consumer reasons for what it was doing. But why let the facts get in the way of a good PR hit-job? CWD just did essentially the same thing Google’s Street View cars did, driving by Harman’s house to look for unencrypted hotspots. But they went a step further, actually publishing the names of two networks at Harman’s home. If any company had published network names tied to street addresses, privacy advocates would have thrown a fit. But when Consumer Watchdog actually publishes such information… hey, it’s an expose!

And if you were wondering where Rep. Harman lives, you could start by looking her up in publicly available databases, like the Huffington Post’s campaign finance donation database (she’s not in the white pages, that other Orwellian data set few seem to care about). It’s all fine and well for the government to put our name, address and employer online every time we make a donation to a political candidate (along with the donation recipient and amount) because that’s “Transparency.” (Never mind the constitutionally protected right of non-profits like CWD to keep their donor lists private, while other groups like my own think tank voluntarily disclose such info.) But if Google puts up photos of what anyone can see from the street or attempts to map wireless networks to help us all get better, faster free location-based services with our mobile devices… well, that‘s an outrage!

Cyber-Security Begins at Home

Even more galling is that the Senate is rushing to pass legislation giving government sweeping new powers to protect our “national assets” in cyberspace. But cyber-security truly begins at home—with taking a few minutes to secure our own Wi-Fi networks, and then dealing with the hassle of having to remember the password every time we want to authorize a new device. If members of Congress can’t be expected to take responsibility for that, why should we trust them with responsibility over cyber-security on a national level?

This controversy should highlight the need for consumers—especially Congressmen and other government employees—to secure their home Wi-Fi hotspots. While most people who log onto unsecure Wi-Fi networks are perfectly harmless, failing to secure your network could lead to real harms like identity theft—or perhaps even the theft of sensitive data. But those problems aren’t caused by, or even made worse by, Google’s efforts to map Wi-Fi networks. So haranguing Google won’t fix the problem.

But was national security compromised, as CWD claims? Ms. Harman and other Congressmen do have to follow established security procedures, like using encrypted data cards, before accessing sensitive—and, certainly, classified—information. So it seems pretty unlikely that Google could actually have gotten access to any sensitive data even if they had wanted to. Again, their cars were driving by houses, picking up only very small amounts of data from unencrypted networks (unlike the dedicated hacker who might park out front and log data for hours). But if truly sensitive information can be picked up that easily, the Federal government really needs to get its own house—and its telecommuting employee’s houses—in order! If that means sending out a nerd who can set up secure Wi-Fi networks in the Congresswoman’s home (or just follow these simple instructions), that’s probably a smart expenditure of tax dollars.

But that’s the kind of serious discussion we should be having—instead continually looking to breathe new life into a contrived controversy with further innuendo and fear-mongering.

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing lately about Google’s recent acquisitions of Teracent (ad-personalization) and AdMob (mobile ads), as well as Apple’s response, buying AdMob’s rival Quattro Wireless. Jeff Chester, true To form, quickly fired off an angry letter to FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, ranting about how the Google/AdMob deal would harm consumer privacy with the same vague fulminations as ever:

Google amasses a goldmine of data by tracking consumers’ behavior as they use its search engine and other online services. Combining this information with information collected by AdMob would give Google a massive amount of consumer data to exploit for its benefit.

Yup, that’s right, it’s all part of Google’s grand conspiracy to exploit (and eventually enslave) us all—and Apple is just a latecomer to this dastardly game. It’s not as if that data about users’ likely interests might, oh, I don’t know… actually help make advertising more relevant—and thus increase advertising revenues for the mobile applications/websites that depend on advertising revenues to make their business models work. No, of course not! Greedy capitalist scum like Google and Apple don’t care about anyone but themselves, and just want to extract every last drop of “surplus value” (as Marx taught us) from The Worker. (Never mind that in 4Q2009 Google generated $1.47 billion for website owners who use Google AdSense to sell ads on their sites—up 17% over 4Q2008—or that Apple has a strong incentive to maximize revenues for its iPhone app developers.) Internet users of the world, unite!  You have nothing to lose but all those “free” content and services thrown at your feet!

Anyway, the letter lambastes AdMob’s current privacy policy, claiming that it “provides inadequate notice and little ability to opt out of its data collection and targets children 13 and over” and asserts that things are only going to get worse once Google takes over. By contrast, our far more reasonable friends at PrivacyChoice raise some very fair questions about Teracent’s current privacy policies, decrying “The worst consumer opt-out“—but unlike Chester, an anti-advertising zealot, the PrivacyChoice folks realize that, when big companies like Google and Apple buy small companies like AdMob, Teracent and Quattro Wireless, they face enormous pressure bring their new acquisitions privacy practices up to their own standards.  And where the new acquisitions are operating in a new area, like location-advertising, big players will likely decide on higher, not lower, privacy standards. As PrivacyChoice notes:

No doubt Google is working to assimilate Teracent into its own (much better) consumer privacy practices. But Teracent’s shortcomings provide a good reminder of the chasm in quality between the best and worst consumer privacy practices of ad-targeting companies. Until websites and advertisers start to attend to these matters in their own choices, this disparity in commitment to best practices will remain a central challenge to effective self-regulation.

Much as it annoys the Big-is-Bad crowd, consolidation can often reduce that that “privacy practice chasm” by raising the bar for all players. Google and Apple have spent years (in Apple’s case, decades) building trusted brands, which gives them a much stronger incentives to protect users’ privacy than a scrappy start-up under intense pressure from VCs to make their investment work—and quickly.

Google today unveiled the Data Liberation Front, a team of engineers in Chicago dedicated to ensuring that Google build “liberated products”—ones that have “built in features that make it easy (and free) to remove your data from the product in the event that you’d like to take it elsewhere.” We’ve spent a lot of time here warning about the dangers of Googlephobia, but now that Google has brazenly appropriated the TLF’s unique mock-Communist iconography, we’re starting to think that Jeff Chester and Scott Cleland may be right: Maybe Google really is trying to take over the world!

So we regret to announce our filing of a lawsuit in the Twelfth Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge Google’s infringement of our mark. We demand 50% of the $0.00 Google earns every time they “allow” users to port their application data out of Google to a competitor’s services! We will, of course, dedicate these royalties to the important project of educating and empowering users about how they can determine their own destiny online.

But seriously… We heartily agree with our Data Liberation Front comrades that users should be fully empowered to switch from one service to another online. This kind of competition is clearly the best protection for consumers in the Digital Age. Making switching easy should assuage not just antitrust concerns, but also concerns about how much privacy or security each web service offers to its users, no matter how big its market share: If you don’t like what a service offers, just take your data and leave! Who needs the government micro-managing the Internet when users have that kind of control?

Viva la (Technology) Revolution!

P.S. In case you haven’t seen it the Monty Python video we’re all riffing on:

http://www.youtube.com/v/gb_qHP7VaZE

Interesting piece from Jeff Jarvis about “Google Bigotry,” or his belief that “media people are going after Google’s success for no good reason other than their own jealousy.”  Jarvis argues that reporters penning hard-nosed stories about Google are, in reality, just a bunch of envious cry-babies:

newspaper people will use their last drops of ink to complain about Google’s success and try to blame it for their own failures rather than changing their own businesses. ..  It’s not just that they dislike the competition – and they do, for it is a new experience for too many of them. If they were smart, they’d use Google to get more audience and make more money but they don’t know how to (or rather, they’d prefer not to change). No, the problem is that Google represents change and a new world they’ve refused to understand.

Well, yes and no.  I don’t believe that every story penned about Google by a mainstream media reporter is rooted in envy, and certainly not the one that Jarvis alludes to as prompting him to pen this piece.  Jarvis apparently received an inquiry from a French journalist at Le Monde asking for comment about “an article about Google facing a rising tide of discontent concerning privacy and monopoly.”  That doesn’t necessarily sound like an unreasonable journalistic inquiry to me. So, I’m not sure it’s fair to accuse every journalist who calls with a hard-nosed question about privacy and antitrust as being guilty of “Google bigotry.”

That being said, some journalists are likely feeling a bit miffed about Google’s recent success, thinking it comes at their expense, and, therefore, their envy might be prompting some of them to pen attack stories on the company.  I think Jarvis in on stronger ground, however, in asserting that most privacy and antitrust complaints about Google are unfounded, and also based on envy. Indeed, Berin Szoka and I have have been cataloging the complaints that we believe are driven by an irrational form of corporate envy we call “Googlephobia.”  And in prior years we saw a similar form of Microsoft-bashing at work that we still have with us today. That’s why I think Jarvis is on to something when he notes that Google-bashing represents a broader sociological phenomenon:

Do some people complain about Google? Yes, it is often the same people who complain about the internet and about change and technology and simply use Google as their target simply because it is so big and so innovative.

In one sense, this gets back to my ongoing discussion of the debate between “Internet optimists &  pessimists” regarding  the impact of the Internet and digital technology on our lives.  I’m what you might call a “pragmatic Internet optimist” because I generally believe the Internet is reshaping our culture, economy, and society in most ways for the better, but not without some heartburn along the way. But there are plenty of Internet pessimists out there who have a deep sense of unease with the Digital Revolution and life in the Information Age and only focus on the disruptions caused by this transition.  Thus, because Google is in so many ways intertwined and identified with this digital revolution, it is more likely they will become the scapegoat for every supposed problem the Internet skeptics identify.

But, let’s not lose sight of the broader psychological or sociological phenomenon at work here when we talk about corporate-bashing more generally.  The root of this problem really is envy.  In his great book, Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour (1966), the German sociologist Helmut Schoeck noted that, although it is part of life, when taken to extremes, “Envy can also turn man to destruction.” “The envious man thinks that if his neighbor breaks a leg, he will be able to walk better himself,” he noted. Schoeck also discussed the “harm envy, or its institutionalized consideration, can do to the process of economic growth” and pointed out how market success almost always breeds bitter reactions and responses:

It is virtually impossible to undertake innovations in a society, to improve or even to to develop an economy process, without becoming unequal. But when can a leader or innovator ever be sure that he will not incur the ill-will of those who do not immediately benefit from his activity?

That’s essentially the problem Google faces today, just as Microsoft did before them. They’ve built better mousetraps and the world beat a path to their doors to use them — and damn quick. And they got big and rich quick, too.  What isn’t there to envy about their success!  Who wouldn’t want to be in their shoes? And when that envy incentivizes further innovation to knock them off their perches, that’s a great thing.  But far too often envy just breeds contempt for success and leads to calls to — as Schoeck put it — “institutionalize envy”  by having the government confiscate wealth or innovations “for the public good.”  Microsoft has been living with this nightmare for over a decade, and Google is now facing similar regulatory problems as its enemies list growing longer by the day.  Antitrust simply becomes the club to deliver the envious blow.

Finally, speaking of antitrust, Jarvis has some things to say in his essay about the substantive accusations of monopoly and privacy violations by Google that I think are generally correct:

Google is not a monopoly. It is a competitive company and it took advertising dollars for one simple reason: because advertisers found a better deal there – buying performance, not scarcity, with Google sharing their risk – than they ever found in our old media… Privacy? That is an overused word. The issue is not privacy, as I say in my book. It is control. You should also look at the benefits of publicness, which come when we share things about ourselves and find others like us. If you have problems with privacy then you have problems with every member of Facebook and its clones across the world and the entire generation that made social sites huge.

The Google juggernaut’s revenue growth has slowed steadily in the last five years, causing the Wall Street Journal to caution investors about buying Google stock. While much of the slow-down in Google’s revenue may be attributed to the recession, the WSJ cautions that:

• Microsoft is offering stiffer competition in search, which will only intensify once antitrust regulators approve its partnership with Yahoo! and the two companies actually implement their partnership (which could take another year);
• YouTube’s promise as an ad platform remains uncertain;
• Google lags behind Apple and Research in Motion in developing mobile phone operating systems, with Android still unproven;
• It remains unclear how successful the company will be in expanding beyond its existing lead in small text  ads into the potentially lucrative realm of banner ads.

Somehow I doubt Google’s fall to Earth will do much to allay the concerns of those who see Google as the kind of evil monopolist Microsoft was made out to be in the 90s.

As the Journal concludes, “It would be foolish to predict that Google won’t have another business success, of course… Google may itself discover the next Google-like business.” As long as someone’s out there working to turn today’s idle fantasies into tomorrow’s multi-billion dollar businesses, consumers win—whoever that bold innovator might be.

We’ve just published an op-ed over at Forbes.com about today’s big Yahoo!-Microsoft deal.

Searching For Success: Web 1.0 Titans Struggle to Reinvent Themselves by Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer

Yahoo! and Microsoft on Wednesday announced a partnership in which Microsoft’s Bing search engine technology will power search for both companies, but Yahoo! will manage advertising sales and content creation.

This should be cause for celebration as a good thing for consumers. By providing a strong competitor with a combined 28% market share, the deal should also be a source of relief at Google, which has come under increasing attack for its supposed market dominance. But if recent concerns about online search, advertising, competition and privacy are any guide, many will fail to appreciate why the deal is pro-consumer, or what it says about the rapid evolution of the Internet.

It’s easy to forget that just a decade ago most of us still hadn’t done our first Google search, Microsoft was still focused on the desktop and Yahoo! was still serving up the online equivalent of the Yellow Pages. AltaVista, AOL, CompuServe and Geocities still ruled the roost.

Today, as we enjoy the fruits of a true cyber-renaissance, cyberspace circa 1999 increasingly looks like the Digital Dark Ages: The old online walled gardens have crumbled, desktop applications have migrated to the cloud and search has redefined our experience of the Web.

Oh, and did we mention just about all of it is “free“? Sounds like exactly the sort of vigorous innovation, expanding consumer choice, falling prices and cut-throat competition that policymakers should want, right?

Alas, regulators seem stuck in the past. European officials in particular seem hell-bent on continuing the antitrust crusade of the ’90s against Microsoft, myopically focused on fading paradigms (desktop operating systems and Web browsers). But instead of narrowly defining high-tech markets based on yesterday’s technologies or market structures, policymakers should embrace the one constant of the Internet economy: dynamic, disruptive and irrepressible change.

Innovation isn’t just transforming the way we use the Web, it’s rapidly changing the competitive landscape too. Some of the predictions of the ’90s are finally coming true: Browsers have morphed into platforms for applications including e-mail, word processing and real-time collaboration. A decade ago, few would have predicted Google would build its own browser, turn that browser into an operating system, build an OS for smart phones, or go head-to-head with Microsoft Office. And the idea that Microsoft would ever take Office into the cloud was at one point unthinkable, but that’s happening now too. Meanwhile Google, and more recently Microsoft, have become full-fledged advertising companies–in competition with traditional media giants. Again, no one saw this coming.

The Yahoo!/Microsoft pact is just the latest pairing of Web 1.0 titans struggling to reinvent themselves and compete with Google, a titan that still thinks of itself as a start-up. All three companies will struggle to meet new challenges as search evolves toward the social (reflecting what your friends like), the semantic (reflecting the precise, rather than presumed, meanings of Web content), the personalized (reflecting your own preferences) and the interactive (including user-generated comments or reviews).

Even the business model of search is changing, with Microsoft offering consumers cash back for their searches. Meanwhile, new paradigms of social networking like Facebook and Twitter are emerging with business models whose potential remains both unclear and unlimited.

Despite this whirlwind of change, the Yahoo!/Microsoft deal is bound to lead to some hand-wringing from lawmakers and antitrust officials in Washington and Brussels. Regulators already blocked a somewhat similar advertising partnership between Google and Yahoo last year. What unites these regulatory responses is the belief that rapidly evolving digital technologies can be regulated like the static utilities of the analog era–and the failure to understand that antitrust is just another form of regulation.

Instead, policymakers should recognize that the business, user and technological paradigms of the Web are constantly being re-invented and replaced. They shouldn’t delay approving this deal, especially as any delay would lengthen an awkward period of uncertainty for the corporate couple at the antitrust altar. Moreover, they should avoid micro-managing the transaction through regulatory blackmail: demanding “voluntary concessions” before giving their blessing.

For many of the same reasons, policymakers should exercise great care and humility when listening to the growing cacophony of calls for antitrust intervention against Google. “Googlephobia” has reached a fever pitch in recent months with plenty of critics in both government and industry hinting that they’d like to see the company crippled with new restrictions or obligations–much as Microsoft was in the ’90s. The idea of antitrust regulators becoming a veritable “Federal Search Commission” for such a rapidly evolving sector seems highly problematic. America’s high-tech sector is the envy of the world precisely because, generally speaking, the U.S. has rejected heavy-handed regulation of the Information Economy. Indeed, no one knows better than Microsoft how much “antitrust oversight” can hamstring a company’s ability to stay ahead of transformative change.

Some will protest that this is just a case of the big getting bigger, but there have always been big fish in the high-tech pond. The difference today is that there are new fish jumping in the pond more rapidly than ever before, and today’s pond probably won’t be tomorrow’s evolutionary battleground.

Lacking a technological crystal ball with which to predict the future of this fast-paced sector, there’s no way to know which of those players or technologies will thrive or what the digital paradigms of the next decade will look like. But heavy-handed antitrust regulation based on static thinking will lock us into an “industrial policy” for the Internet. Treating America’s tech titans like smokestack-era utilities won’t benefit consumers or enhance America’s competitive standing in the world.

Cory Doctorow has called for a Wikipedia-style effort to build an open source, non-profit search engine. From his column in The Guardian:

What’s more, the way that search engines determine the ranking and relevance of any given website has become more critical than the editorial berth at the New York Times combined with the chief spots at the major TV networks. Good search engine placement is make-or-break advertising. It’s ideological mindshare. It’s relevance… It’s a terrible idea to vest this much power with one company, even one as fun, user-centered and technologically excellent as Google. It’s too much power for a handful of companies to wield. The question of what we can and can’t see when we go hunting for answers demands a transparent, participatory solution. There’s no dictator benevolent enough to entrust with the power to determine our political, commercial, social and ideological agenda. This is one for The People. Put that way, it’s obvious: if search engines set the public agenda, they should be public.

He goes on to claim that “Google’s algorithms are editorial decisions.”   For Doctorow, this is an outrage: “so much editorial power is better vested in big, transparent, public entities than a few giant private concerns.”

I wish Doctorow well in his effort to crowdsource a Google-killer, but I’m more than a little skeptical that anyone would actually want to use his search engine of The People.  My guess is that, like most things produced in the name of “The People” (Soviet toilet paper comes to mind), it will probably won’t be much fun to use, and will likely chafe noticeably. (For the record, I love and regularly use Wikipedia; I just don’t think that model is unlikely to produce a particularly useful search engine.  As Doctorow himself has noted of Google, “they make incredibly awesome search tools.”)

But I’m glad to see that Doctorow has conceded an important point of constitutional law: The First Amendment protects the editorial discretion of search engines, like all private companies, to decide what to content to communicate.  For a newspaper, that means deciding which articles or editorials to run.  For a library or bookstore, it means which books to carry.  For search engines, it means how to write their search algorithims.

Doctorow’s “We’ll build our own darn rocket ship in the backyard!” response  to his deep concerns about Google’s dominance of search does not, of course, impinge on Google’s editorial discretion—and for that, I commend him.  But others, most notably Frank Pasquale, have indeed proposed government action to address such concerns in ways that most surely would impinge on the First Amendment rights of all search engines.

Pasquale’s comlpaint about Google is essentially the same as Doctorow’s, but rather than proposing an innovative (if unrealistic) alternative (like Doctorow), he  has called (PDF) for the “creation of a Federal Search Commission to parallel the Federal Communications Commission” and declared that ” In order to reduce opportunities for clickfraud and unfair treatment of indexed entities, qualified transparency will be needed in order to open up the ‘black box’ of search engine operations to at least some third parties.”   He focuses on search algorithms because:

The heart of a search engine and the key to its success is its search algorithm. Effective algorithms are protected by a veil of secrecy and by various intellectual property rights. As a result, new entrants cannot easily appropriate existing algorithms. Moreover, many algorithms are trade secrets. Unlike patents, which the patent holder must disclose and which eventually expire, these trade secrets may never enter the public domain. Search algorithms may be analogous to the high-cost infrastructure required for entry into the utility or railroad markets.

He diagnoses the problem as follows:

given the emphasis on secrecy in the search engine business model, no one can verify that such rankings have not been manipulated or that subtler biases in favor of search engines’ partners are not being worked into the search algorithm… If search engines are to be accountable at all, if their interest is to be balanced against those of the various other claimants involved in search-related disputes, and if social values are to be given any weight, some governmental agent should be able to peer into the black box of search and determine whether or not illegitimate manipulation has occurred.

But what about editorial discretion?  Why should Google be forced to change its PageRank algorithms any more than The New York Times should be forced to change how it decides which stories to run?  Moreover, why should Google be forced to disclose how this process works?  Assigning a government monitor to sit in on meetings of the Times‘ editorial board “to detect bias” would clearly impinge on their editorial discretion.  Similarly, I don’t see why forcing a Yahoo!, Microsoft or any other search engine to disclose their equivalent processes for ranking search results should pass constitutional muster.

Editorial discretion means getting to make your own decisions, even if they might seem biased to those wise elites who “know better” because, well, it’s your decision and not the government’s!  Saying that speakers can make whatever decisions they want as long as they’re not biased means speakers don’t really have editorial discretion after all.

So, if recognizing that search algorithms are a form of editorial discretion is a problem (as Doctorow implies), it’s only insofar as this might frustrate the desires of those who would regulate search.

It seems Microsoft is facing much the same problem Pepsi faced in the 70s, when it created the Pepsi challenge (a blind taste test between Coke and Pepsi):

A stark sign of the challenge Yusuf Mehdi faces as a point man for Microsoft in the company’s battle with Google comes from the company’s own research into the habits of consumers online. During regular “blind taste tests,” in which Microsoft asks randomly-selected consumers to score the quality of results from various Internet search engines, the quality of Microsoft’s search results have so improved that people can’t tell the difference between Microsoft and Google search results, says Mr. Mehdi, senior vice president of Microsoft’s online audience business group. But when Microsoft slaps the Google brand name on the results from Microsoft’s own search engine during another portion of its tests, users invariably score them highest. “Just by putting the name up, people think it’s more relevant,” he says. … Microsoft still faces the problem of the strong association in consumers’ minds between Google and Internet search. In theory, it’s far easier for a consumer to switch Internet search engines than it is for them to switch other forms of software. But Mr. Mehdi–a veteran of the Web browser wars of the late 90s in which Microsoft managed to overtake the pioneer in the category, Netscape Communications–says in reality it’s very hard to convince consumers to change their search behavior.

So, Microsoft faces an uphill battle.  Happily for the Internet marketplace, it seems they’re embracing the challenge cheerily by attempting to kill two birds with one stone:  launching an innovative new semantic search engine capable of answering users’ questions more directly while also creating a fresh new brand for what Microsoft acknowledges is a “confusing jumble of brand names for its search efforts.”  I, for one am looking forward to Microsoft’s forthcoming search engine, dubbed “Kumo.”

But I think there’s a bigger lesson here:  Google’s most valuable asset is its brand. Sure, much of the strength of its brand may lie in the intangible irrationalities of human psychology:  Microsoft’s search engine will probably have to be significantly better than Google’s before the software giant can begin regrowing its 8% share of the search market.  However unfair this might seem to Microsoft, consider how Google reached this height of brand power:  by offering consumers a number of terrific products (for free!) and by carefully cultivating a reputation not just of coolness (think Google Lunar X-Prize) but of “Don’t be evil“-ness.  Many ridicule that motto and attack Google for trying to take over the world, as we’ve detailed in our ongoing Googlephobia series.  But consider what Google stands to loose by offending consumers:  the brand power that makes consumers keep coming back to its search engine.  Google’s reputation as helpful, cool and “non-evil” is perhaps just as valuable as Coke’s secret formula.  So why would Google risk throwing that away by offending real sensitivities about, say, its privacy practices?

Some might fear that the equation of the term “google” with “Search” could permanently entrench Google in a position of dominance in the search market (think “Kleenex” in the market for facial tissue).  Such worriers might be surprised to learn that Google actively discourages the “genericization” of the term “Google”—the use of “google” as a synonym for all search, just as Kleenex is commonly used for tissue paper, Xerox for copying and Coke for soda.  The reason?  Under trademark law, a company can lose its unique rights to its trademark if that term becomes sufficiently generic—a catastrophe for a corporation commonly referred to as “genericide.”  Thus, Google is actively working to check the very phenomenon that gives its products special appeal.

It’s by no means a perfect solution.  Microsoft, Yahoo! and others will still have to work extra-hard to overcome Google’s brand appeal.  But there is a certain elegance to the fact that existing laws provide some competitive check on the marketplace without the need for government regulation or an antitrust lawsuit.

Leave it to the English—famous for their superior fluency in the language that bears their name—to reach unparalleled heights of hysteria in the war of words being waged against Google. The Guardian’s Henry Porter claims that “Google is just an amoral menace: The ever-growing empire produces nothing but seems determined to control everything.”

Porter declares that Google is the world’s “most prominent WWM,” his acronym for the “worldwide monopolies that sweep all before them with exuberant contempt for people’s rights, their property and the past.”

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.

Let’s review Google’s 2008 Annual Report. Of Google’s 2008 Revenue ($21.78 billion), two-thirds ($14.41 billion) came from advertising on Google sites and just under one-third ($6.71 billion) came from advertising on Google Content Network (GCN) web sites (made up of publishers that sell their ad space to advertisers through Google AdSense). On this revenue, Google made a net profit of $4.2 billion after taxes. To put these numbers in context, Microsoft (Google’s closest peer) earned three times ($60.42 billion) Google’s revenue and produced 4.21 times ($17.68 billion) Google’s profit. Google’s revenue was just 0.1528% of 2008 U.S. GDP and its net income, 0.0294%.

So what does Google actually create with all that revenue? The answer is free content and services.

First, Google cross-subsidizes dozens of its own free services—starting with its search engine but also including email, a free browser, YouTube, a word processing suite, IM, maps, news, and much more.

Second, as the world’s leading ad network, Google supports a significant percentage of the free content and services offered by others. In 2008, Google paid out $5.28 billion (24.22% of revenue) to GCN publishers—significantly more than the $4.2 billion Google earned in net income (19.3% of revenue).

At a time when politicians think nothing of spending hundreds of billions of dollars at a time and even the word “trillion” no longer shocks our pre-hyperinflationary ears, $5.28 billion may not seem like much. Indeed, it’s just 30% of NASA’s 2008 budget. But, spread across the “Long Tail,” these dollars go a lot farther than even NASA’s deep space probes: They fund hundreds of thousands of GCN websites, ranging from traditional newspapers like the New York Times to social networks to countless community sites—including the Technology Liberation Front.

Wired Magazine editor-in-chief Chris Anderson has brilliantly described the “Long Tail” and explained how advertising plays a critical role in funding “Free!” But nothing puts the Long Tail of ad-supported Internet content into human terms like the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s video, “I Am the Long Tail:”

Check out IAB’s gallery of small publishers, too. Or, to get a sense of the amazing variety of the “Long Tail” of web services, check out Go2Web20.net’s famously overwhelming display of the logos for roughly 2726 apps “Web 2.0” applications. While it can be harder to support web apps with advertising revenue than content sites, recent estimates indicate that over a third of all web applications rely on advertising.

But Porter says not a word about Google’s role as an economic fountainhead of online innovation and creativity. He simply dismisses Google as “delinquent and sociopathic.” One might dismiss Porter as just another crank in the “Long Tail of Googlephobia,” but his 188-year-old newspaper, The Guardian, is among the world’s most respected. With a circulation 1/3 that of the New York Times and 1/2 that of The Washington Post (in a nation five times smaller than the U.S.), The Guardian is serious when it claims to be “the world’s leading liberal voice.” For those unimpressed by any newspaper, note that Porter’s rant topped Techmeme today.

So rants like Porter’s are being heard—no matter how unfounded they are.

In terms of both credibility and exaggeration, Porter’s piece deserves a place at the very head of the “Long Tail” of hyperbole published by “serious” publications like The Guardian. While Porter doesn’t actually play the Reductio ad Hitlerum card (just about the only card he has left), his attack is, for sheer unfairness, strongly reminiscent of Whittaker Chambers’ infamous 1957 review of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged in the normally-dignified National Review. The conservative Chambers, horrified by Rand’s atheism, equated her radical individualism to Hitler’s Holocaust, declaring: “From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: ‘To a gas chamber — go!'”

Will anyone be surprised when papers like The Guardian give space to a modern-day Chambers to rant about how Google is the Third Reich reborn—or how Google is The Matrix made real? Every rant like Porter’s makes it just a little harder to have a serious, rational conversation about Google and its impact on society—both good and ill. If that’s the kind of “journalism” Porter thinks Google is killing, it’s not worth saving. The only thing more ironic than Porter’s attack on Google for undermining serious journalism—something of which he himself seems incapable—is the juxtaposition of Google’s ads with Porter’s official profile on The Guardian:

Monday’s USA TODAY ran a long article discussing the tracking capabilities of the T-Mobile G1 smartphone, which is currently the only mobile device available that ships with Google’s Android operating system. I have a different take on the G1 phone, as I explain in a letter to the editor that appeared in today’s USA TODAY:

USA TODAY’s story on the G1 phone, which describes Google’s “surveillance” capabilities, does not do justice to the relationship that online service providers need to maintain with their users (“Feel like someone’s watching you?,” Cover story, Money, Monday). Google cannot freely use the data it collects from owners of its G1 phone. Far from it, the G1’s privacy policy describes clearly what Google can and cannot do with user information. And the policy is legally binding. Google has everything to lose and nothing to gain from a data breach. A single privacy flub can send consumers fleeing from not only the G1 but also from Google’s other online services. This is why Google maintains robust privacy safeguards. Google’s innovations in search, mail and other applications have helped make the Web a far more accessible and useful resource. Online users need to be careful with their information, but hyping privacy fears is unwarranted.

To be sure, using the G1 phone is not without risks, and some especially risk-averse individuals might want to steer clear of Android entirely. But when you consider the privacy risks many of us live with every day, Android’s privacy risks don’t seem all that great. In fact, the ubiquitous personal computer is probably the most vulnerable device owned by the average person–Internet architect Vint Cerf  has estimated that up to 1 in 4 PCs worldwide is infected with malware. The G1 may be a marketer’s goldmine, but that doesn’t mean it can’t also offer strong privacy assurances.

I finally got around to reading Planet Google: One Company’s Audacious Plan to Organize Everything We Know, by Randall Stross. It’s very well done. Stross is a frequently contributor to the New York Times and the author of several other interesting books on the technology industry. He knows how to weave a story together, and it helps that Google’s story is a pretty amazing one.

Each chapter discusses a different part of Google’s growing family of services — GMail, Google Maps, Google Earth, Book Search, and YouTube. Of course, it all started with search and Stross does a good job explaining how the ingenious Google search algorithm has grown from dorm room project to the greatest aggregator of human knowledge that the world has ever known. This, in turn, has powered Google’s hugely successful online advertising system. The real secret of their success with online advertising, Stross argues, is that “Google’s impersonal, mathematical approach search also provides you with the ability to serve advertisements that are tailored to a search, rather than to the person submitting the search request, whose identity would have to be known.”

Despite the benefits of such generally anonymous searching, as Google has grown and added new services and capabilities, concerns about the sheer volume of data that the company collects have led to heightened privacy concerns. Indeed, privacy is a core theme that Stross uses in the book to tie many of the chapters and issues together. Google is constantly struggling to strike the right balance between providing more access to the world’s information while also being careful not to raise privacy concerns. But it’s unclear exactly how much more information collection that users (or public officials) will tolerate before advocating stricter limits on Google’s reach.  As Stross points out:

Guided by its founding mission, to organize all the world’s information, Google has created storage capacity that allows it to gain control of what its users are you doing in a comprehensive way that no other company has done, and to preserve those records indefinitely, without the need to clear out old records to make way for new ones. Moreover, Google differentiates its service by refining its own proprietary software formula to mine and massage the data, technology that it zealously protects from the sight of rivals. This sets up a conflict between Google’s wish to operate a “black box” (completely opaque to the outside) and its users’ wish for transparency.

At the very least, users would like Google to disclose what protections are in place to safeguard their privacy. It is also natural that users would be curious about the machines that hold their personal data, as well as about which employees within Google have access to that data, and about the risks that it might be leaked, stolen, or transferred, for example, to a government agency that requests it. (p. 62)

Personally, I think most of these privacy fears are overblown. The mundane, trivial aspects of our daily lives aren’t really of much interest to Google. And to the extent users are concerned about their privacy, there are plenty of ways they can take steps to better protect their personal information or web-surfing habits.  Blocking ads, rejecting cookies, and using encryption are three steps that privacy-sensitive users can take to better shield the personal info or surfing habits. Finally, the concern about government access to data is best remedied by limits on what government can access in the first place. We shouldn’t be regulating Google or other companies to limit information collection based on a fear of government access; we just need to tightly limit the government’s ability to enlist private companies as agents of the state.

Still, as Stross points out, privacy concerns persist:

How can users be certain that their personal information won’t be put to uses to which an individual would never willingly consent? Privacy concerns extend across all Internet companies, but those concerns of our greatest where personal information is gathered in the largest pool. This makes the stewardship of Google’s machine a subject of public interest. Whatever is behind a door that is intentionally kept closed will appear sinister, whether deservedly so or not. For the sake of improving its public image, it’s possible that Google may relent and open its doors, at least enough to afford a peek inside. (p. 62)

I think that’s a fair point and this is something Google is really going to struggle with in coming years, especially as its search algorithm and other applications grow more powerful and comprehensive.  A good example of that is already seen with Google’s amazing “Street View” technology, which provides panoramic street-level views of maps searched via Google Maps. “What neither Google nor its critics realized,” Stross says, “was that our anonymity while walking about in public space in the predigital age was protected not by law but by the crude state of technology–we felt invisible only because cameras were not in place to capture our images.” (p. 145)

As a society, we had better get used to this because Street View is just the beginning of what will eventually grow into a far more sophisticated set of technologies as geo-mapping, geo-location, and image retrieval are married to virtual reality technologies. We’re really not that far away from Star Trek “holodecks” being projected into our living rooms, and once those holodecks let us walk down any street in the world, things are going to get both really exciting and a little bit creepy at the same time. But even if Google abandoned Street View tomorrow, somebody else would pick it up and run with it. Innovation in this space cannot be frozen. (Microsoft’s recent launch of Photosynth shows us that).  Google has already taken steps to protect privacy on Street View by blurring facial images and letting users flag “inappropriate or sensitive imagery for blurring or removal.”  That’s about all we can ask for.

Another theme that Stross develops nicely in the book is the ongoing war between Google and Microsoft. He argues that “Google’s ascendance has been accompanied by Microsoft’s decline.” (p. 195)  But that does not mean Google will be able to hold their current lead. As Stross rightly points out:

No computer company has ever been able to enjoy pre-eminence that spans two successive technological eras. IBM in the mainframe era could not head off the ascent of Digital Equipment Corporation in the minicomputer era, which, in turn, could not head off the ascent of Microsoft in the personal computer era.

And now Google has “succeeded in pushing Microsoft into a defensive crouch” and made life very difficult for that supposed “monopolist” of the PC era.  As a result, some Google critics claim this latest King of the Tech Hill cannot be toppled and that Google is the new “monopoly” we need to worry about.  But these fears are also overblown. Google faces threats today from many different providers and doesn’t really even have its act together in other areas. For example, Stross points out how Facebook and other social networking sites have been a real pain for Google. Facebook, in particular, is creating a massive walled garden that is largely outside Google’s search and information retrieval capabilities. “In a twinkling,” Stross argues, “Facebook became a miniature Web universe–behind a wall, inaccessible to Google.” (p. 30)  Meanwhile, in recent months, Google has annouced layoffs and has scuttled a variety of programs and projects which haven’t panned out, including experiments in social networking, virtual worlds, and a Twitter competitor.

But it is tomorrow’s providers and technologies that will pose the most serious challenge to Google’s current hegemony. No one can predict what big application(s) or competitor(s) will emerge next, but it all could happen faster than you think.  After all, let’s not forget that most of us hadn’t even conducted our first Google search 10 years ago, and no one considered Google a serious threat to Microsoft back in 1999.  Just a decade later, Google has Microsoft wondering if they have a future at all. Things can change that rapidly in the digital world and it should make us question the wisdom of government intervention into such a fast-moving field.

Moreover, government micromanagement of the services Google provides–especially search–is troubling to imagine. I don’t even want to think about how a DOJ consent decree would seek to control Google’s algorithm or the search business in general. But some critics are already speaking of “Googleopoly” and calling for a “Federal Search Commission,” foreshadowing the fight to come.  Google’s rapid growth and sheer size may end up tilting both policymakers and public opinion against them more and more in coming years as such “Googlephobia” increases. Stross notes that:

Google’s future will be determined to no small degree by the view that its users hold of the company itself. Google has enjoyed mostly favorable public notice in its first ten years, but maintaining a cuddly, anticorporate image when it stands among the U.S. companies with the largest market capitalization may pose an increasingly difficult challenge. (p. 18)

Indeed, Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” motto is already wearing a little thin in some quarters. And some of us still aren’t even sure what it means. As Google grows bigger and makes buckets more money in coming years–and they likely will–I think Stross is correct in arguing that Google’s honeymoon with the public and policymakers will likely come to an end. That doesn’t mean they won’t still be a great company doing great things, it’s just that they’ll be antagonizing even more competitors, lawmakers, and other groups than they already do today. And that will likely spell serious trouble for them. It’s never good to have so many enemies. Just ask Microsoft!

In the meantime, we shouldn’t lose sight of what an amazing capitalist success story Google has been and how lucky we are that they have been at least a little bit successful in their mission “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”  It’s an incredible story, and Planet Google is a fine early history of the company and the new era of computing it has ushered in.

Those who criticize Google as a “monopoly” usually focus on the search and advertising markets.  Google may indeed have a huge lead in those markets, but it is by no means a “monopoly” in the strict sense of the word as the only (“mono-“) seller in that market.  

If the critics are concerned about about true “monopoly” or at least something close to it, perhaps they ought to focus on Feedburner, the free service Google acquired back in 2007.  If one takes a very narrow definition of the service Feedburner offers, one could argue that there is no real alternative to Feedburner.  But on the other hand:

I have a very simple solution. I use my own RSS feed I don’t need some other company providing a enhanced solution. I have never understood why people used feedburner at all. Getting statistics from a feed is elementary. There are several services out their that provide podcast statistics. Stupidity in giving someone else control over ones feed is something I will never get. I have no sympathy for those having feedburner issues.

Regardless, some leading bloggers have expressed outrage over Feedburner’s less-than-perfect reliability—see this recent rant by Michael Arrington.  But we call in the federales to “fix” the “problem”—if one properly apply that term to a free service beloved by (nearly all) bloggers everywhere just because it’s not absolutely, positively 100% reliable or instantaneous or simply because some people don’t like the idea of using yet another Google product, no matter how good it is—let’s see what Feedsqueezer, a soon-to-be-launched service, will offer.

Note:  The word “monopoly” is now commonly used to mean “control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.”  It’s not obvious what that would mean in the case of those Google services, that are both free to the user and not directly related to any price paid by, say an advertiser—as distinct from, say, Adwords or Adsense, where there are at least prices that might, in theory, be controlled.

Over the past year or so, many market-oriented critics of Google, like Scott Cleland and Richard Bennett, have criticized the company for aligning itself with Left-leaning causes and intellectuals. Lately, however, what I find interesting is how many leading leftist intellectuals and organizations have begun turning on the company and becoming far more critical of the America’s greatest capitalist success story of the past decade. The reason this concerns me is that I see a unholy Right-Left alliance slowly forming that could lead to more calls for regulation not just of Google, but the entire search marketplace.  In other words,  “Googlephobia” could bubble over into something truly ugly.

Consider the comments of Tim Wu and Lawrence Lessig in Jeff Rosen’s huge New York Times Magazine article this weekend, “Google’s Gatekeepers.” Along with Yochai Benkler, Lessig and Wu form the Holy Trinity of the Digital Left; they set the intellectual agenda for the Left on information technology policy issues. Rosen quotes both Wu and Lessig in his piece going negative on Google. Wu tells Rosen that “To love Google, you have to be a little bit of a monarchist, you have to have faith in the way people traditionally felt about the king.” Moreover:

“The idea that the user is sovereign has transformed the meaning of free speech,” Wu said enthusiastically about the Internet age. But Google is not just a neutral platform for sovereign users; it is also a company in the advertising and media business. In the future, Wu said, it might slant its search results to favor its own media applications or to bury its competitors. If Google allowed its search results to be biased for economic reasons, it would transform the way we think about Google as a neutral free-speech tool. The only editor is supposed to be a neutral algorithm. But that would make it all the more insidious if the search algorithm were to become biased. “During the heyday of Microsoft, people feared that the owners of the operating systems could leverage their monopolies to protect their own products against competitors,” says the Internet scholar Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School. “That dynamic is tiny compared to what people fear about Google. They have enormous control over a platform of all the world’s data, and everything they do is designed to improve their control of the underlying data. If your whole game is to increase market share, it’s hard to do good, and to gather data in ways that don’t raise privacy concerns or that might help repressive governments to block controversial content.”

So, here we have Wu raising the specter of search engine bias and Lessig raising the specter of Google-as-panopticon. And this comes on top of groups like EPIC and CDT calling for more regulation of the online advertising marketplace in the name of protecting privacy.  Alarm bells must be going off at the Googleplex. But we all have reason to be concerned because greater regulation of Google would mean greater regulation of the entire code / application layer of the Net.  It’s bad enough that we likely have greater regulation of the infrastructure layer on the way thanks to Net neutrality mandates. We need to work hard to contain the damage of increased calls for government to get its hands all over every other layer of the Net.

By Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer

As we noted in our intro to this ongoing series, Google’s tenth anniversary has passed with Googlephobia reaching new heights of hysteria.

But is Google really too big and dangerous, or are people just too lazy to find other alternatives to each of the wonderful services that Google offers?  If one is truly paranoid about the firm’s supposed dominance, it doesn’t take much effort to live a Google-free life. To prove it, we set out to find alternatives to each of the services that Google provides.  After awhile, we got a little tired of compiling alternatives in each category and just provided links for the additional choices at your disposal.  It’s tough to see what the fuss is about with the cornucopia of choices at our disposal.  If you don’t like Google, then just don’t use it or any of its services.  The choice is yours.

In each case, we’ve listed Google first, even though Google may not be the market leader ( e.g., Google’s relatively unknown social network Orkut).

Search Engines

• Google
• Microsoft Live Search
• Yahoo!
• Ask.com
• AltaVista
• Cuil
• others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines

eMail

• Google Gmail
• MSN Hotmail
• Apple .Mac/MobileMe
• Yahoo!
• AOL
• others: www.emailaddresses.com/email_web.htm

Encyclopedia

• Knol (Google)
• Wikipedia
• Citizendium
• Microsoft Encarta
• Britannica Online
• World Book Online
• others: www.surfnetkids.com/encyclopedia.htm

Instant Messaging

• Google Talk
• Yahoo Messenger
• Windows Live Messenger (Microsoft)
• AOL AIM
• Jabber
• others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_messaging#User_base

Web Browsers

• Chrome (Google)
• Firefox (Mozilla Foundation)
• Internet Explorer (Microsoft)
• Safari (Apple)
• Opera
• Flock
• others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers

Social Networks

• Orkut (Google) – (not popular in the U.S.)
• Facebook
• Myspace
• Bebo
• LinkedIn
• Friendster
• LiveJournal
• others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Social_network_service

Mapping

• Google Maps
• Microsoft Live Search Maps
• MapQuest
• WikiMapia
• Google Earth
• Virtual Earth (Microsoft)
• others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_map_services

Mobile Search / Portal Services

• Google mobile
• Yahoo! mobile
• Microsoft Windows mobile & Mobile Live Search
• AOL Mobile

Video Hosting

• YouTube (Google)
• Google Video
• Flickr (Yahoo!)
• Yahoo Video
• Vimeo
• Photobucket
• BlipTV
• others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_sharing_websites

Photohosting

• Picasa (Google)
• Flickr (Yahoo!)
• Apple .Mac/MobileMe
• Photobucket
• Snapfish
• Shutterfly
• Imageshack
• AOL Pictures
• others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_sharing#Online_photo_sharing_websites

Document / Spreadsheet Creation

• Google Docs
• Microsoft Office
• OpenOffice
• ThinkFree Office
• EditGrid
• NumSum
• Zoho Sheet
• Zoho Writer
• ajaxWrite
• Glide Write
• others: www.editgrid.com/user/siulung/Web-based_Spreadsheets_Comparison_Matrix

Online File Storage

• Google Docs
• Windows Live SkyDrive (Microsoft)
• Apple .Mac/MobileMe
• Mozy
• Buzzword (Adobe)
• Xdrive
• Box.net
• others: http://www.listible.com/list/online-file-storage

Blog hosting services

• Blogger (Google)
• Wordpress
• Windows Live Spaces (Microsoft)
• Skyrock (based in France, but bigger than WordPress and almost as big as Blogger)
• LiveJournal
• Note: many social networking services also have a blogging component
• others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog_hosting_service#Developer-hosted

RSS blog feed aggregators

• Google Reader
• My MSN
• My Yahoo!
• NewsGator Online
• Bloglines
• FeedBucket
• others: dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Internet/Clients/WWW/Feed_Readers/Web_Based
• others: www.newsonfeeds.com/faq/aggregators

WebClipping Services

• Google Notebook
• Digg
• Del.icio.us (Yahoo)
• Reddit
• Clipmarks
• Zotero
• WebResearch
• ScrapBook
• Diigo

News Aggregators

• Google News
• Yahoo News
• MSN News & MSNBC (Microsoft)
• News Directory.com
• Reuters
• CNN.com
• Digg
• Topix
• others: news.nettop20.com
• others: newsonfeeds.com/faq/aggregators

Calendar Services

• Google Calendar
• Microsoft Outlook
• Lotus Notes
• Lightning/Sunbird (Mozilla Foundation)
• Apple .Mac/MobileMe
• others: www.calendarzone.com

By Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer as part of an ongoing series

With Google celebrating its 10th anniversary this week, many panicky pundits are using the occasion to claim that Google has become the Great “Satan” of the Internet.  Nick Carr wonders what the future holds for “The OmniGoogle.” The normally level-headed Mike Malone worries that Google is “turning into Big Brother.”  And Washington Post’s Rob Dubbin says that he can’t escape Google’s “tentacles,” even for just 24 hours.  Meanwhile, speculation abounds that the Justice Department is preparing a major antitrust lawsuit against Google concerning its advertising partnership with Yahoo! or perhaps even a broader suit concerning Google’s “dominance” of online advertising generally.

Carr quotes Google co-founder Sergey Brin’s now-famous 2003 interview:

I think people tend to exaggerate Google’s significance in both directions.  Some say Google is God.  Others say Google is Satan.  But if they think Google is too powerful, remember that with search engines, unlike other companies, all it takes is a single click to go to another search engine. People come to Google because they choose to.  We don’t trick them.

In the last five years, Google has become far more than just a search engine.  As Google’s suite of suite of complementary products continues to grow, so too does the specter of Google as an all-knowing and therefore all-powerful economic colossus.  Yet Google isn’t even close to being the sort of nefarious monopolist out to destroy user privacy at every turn, as some seem to imply—if not exclaim.  Indeed, in our view, the Net is overall a far better place because of the existence of Google and the many free services it provides consumers.

Our point is not that Google should be immune from criticism.  Indeed, healthy criticism of corporate actions plays a vital role in the free market by disciplining corporate policies and behavior—often thus providing an effective alternative to government regulation.  This is particularly important in the area of consumer privacy protection, as demonstrated by Google’s quick response to public concern about its Chrome EULA.

We hold no brief for Google and our aim is not to be Google apologists.  In fact, we’ve had more than a few run-ins with Google on many important policy issues in the past ( e.g., on net neutrality, spectrum policy, and the need for “baseline Federal privacy legislation”) and will likely continue to do so in the future.  We are always willing to engage serious, rational discussions about other policy issues involving Google, such as concerns about its alleged market power, but it seems to us that the hysteria about Google’s supposed dominance of the Internet is clouding rational discussion of the policy issues raised by Google, its innovations and its success.  Indeed, the creeping paranoia about all things Google-related that is most evident throughout the blogosphere (but that reaches far beyond it) has produced an environment that resembles nothing so much as a lynch mob:  Angry, short-tempered, out for corporate blood, and unwilling to engage in reasoned discussion.

The specter of Google’s market power driving—and confusing—so many of today’s Internet policy debates is reminiscent of the previous generation of conspiracy theories about how Microsoft, like the Borg (perhaps sci-fi’s scariest villains), would assimilate all in its path—forever controlling the digital revolution.  We don’t want Google to become the victim of the same regulatory & antitrust ordeal that Microsoft has endured over the past decade, with the kind of hysterical claims of Chicken Little-ism that drove a ten-year crusade against Microsoft.  Short-sighted, heavy-handed government intervention can cripple a creative company while doing little to actually benefit consumers because regulators cannot keep pace with technological change—perhaps the only constant fact in the every-changing digital world.

Of course, like all temporal things, Microsoft’s seemingly permanent “monopoly” has faded, and the bulk of the criticism it once faced has shifted focus to Google.  Microsoft continues to be the subject of many unfair attacks because of its success (a/k/a “dominance”) in the OS, office product, and browser markets.  Other companies have experienced similar attacks on a smaller scale:  Facebook and the once-angelic Apple have both been subject to increasing criticism for their success in certain sectors of the digital economy, customer complaints about openness ( e.g., “locked” devices or portability of social networking data) and privacy policies.  The hysteria surrounding Google is not unique in kind, yet it is clear that the mantle of “Great (digital) Satan” has clearly passed from Microsoft to Google.

Thus, we have decided to start a new series of essays on “Googlephobia” (a term that seems to have taken off in the spring of 2005, when the French government seriously proposed creating its own alternative to the Google search engine).  We’ve already penned a few essays on the topic here (as have a number of our TLF colleagues) and, therefore, our next installment in the series will be #5—in which we will outline the many competitors to Google’s many products.

But here are a few of our past essays on the topic, which clearly belong on the list even though they weren’t part of a series at the time:

• Market Forces At Work: The PR Backlash Against Google Chrome’s EULA, by Berin Szoka, September 4, 2008.
• “Cry [Censorship] and Let Slip the Dogs of [Regulation]!” – A Lesson in the Dangers of Googlephobia, by Berin Szoka, July 14, 2008.
• Google, California’s Privacy Policy Law & Our Sci-Fi Future, by Berin Szoka, June 4, 2008
• Is Google Evil? The Never-Ending Search for High-Tech Villainy, by Adam Thierer, June 30, 2005.

And here’s an oldie on the same topic:

• “Google as a Public Utility? No Results in This Search for Monopoly,” by Adam Thierer and Wayne Crews, November 14, 2003.