Reluctant Blogger

I received what was, to me, some pretty remarkable feedback on this post. Aside from linked discussions, I also exchanged email with Barry Ritholtz, got commentary (albeit very short! :-) )from Craig Newmark, and saw this discussed in languages I don’t speak and behind doors I can’t open. Oh - and it turns out that at least one person blogged a similar idea before me (thx for the email, Naval.)

All things considered, a pretty impressive showing from the Live Web for a n00b blogger’s one-off post that he wrote before going to bed last Tuesday. Thanks very much to everyone - the discussion was fun! I had hoped to do all of this attention justice with a proper post-mortem write up, but work and a minor family crisis conspired to keep me otherwise occupied, so a quick-and-dirty one will have to do for now.

Most basic feedback broke down along fairly standard - you’re an evil genius/you’re an utter moron lines (I’m paraphrasing) The utter moron line of argument is more or less as follows:

• It’s illegal
• It would never work
• It’s evil

I thought I would tackle these in a FAQ format as a wrap-up:

You’re a moron - Google would just start promoting Firefox as an alternative.

This is undoubtedly true, not least because Google is already promoting Firefox as an alternative to IE - but it’s not a rebuttal of my point, because I was talking about ad-blocking at the OS level. The example I provided, Admuncher (one of my all time favorite productivity apps) is not a browser plug-in, but rather an application that blocks ads across apps (even non-browsers - - for example, it blocks advertising within the P2P client Kazaa, and other software that contains banner ads.)

Fine, but Google is smart, so they would just find a way around this - there’s no way it would be permanent.

Of course it wouldn’t be permanent - there is no “permanent” in technology - and there would no doubt be some sort of an arms-race between ad-blocking and anti-ad-blocking technology. However, it need not be permanent to confer business advantage. To quote from the aforementioned JoelonSoftware “Fire and Motion” essay:

“…the end result is just cover fire. The competition has no choice but to spend all their time porting and keeping up…”

Wouldn’t it still be illegal?

Quite possibly, though as stated in the original post, I have neither the expertise nor the time to adequately interpret the nuances here. I would note that this is not exactly the same as the searchbox-tying issue that so many people highlighted for me, and which prompted action from Google previously. In this case, the product being tied is not a competing product, it’s merely one that if it happened to gain broad acceptance, would potentially cramp Google’s style in a big way.

If it made a difference, Microsoft wouldn’t necessarily even need to own it, just use their marketing clout to promote it. I don’t know that any of that changes anything, but it seemed like a distinction worth highlighting.

That would be evil
I agree - and in fact I said so in my original post. Though in retrospect I might have chosen another word.

Like what?

I used “evil” in the informal , geek sense that’s been adopted since the inception of Google’s “Don’t be evil” motto, but I think “nefarious,” “underhanded,” or “cutthroat” might have been a better choice.

I understand why Google used it - slogans need to be succinct - that’s what makes them slogans. The danger, of course, is that you lose accuracy. Words mean things. There is evil in the world, and it has little, if anything, to do with Adwords or pay-for-placement search engines, and I’d personally prefer not to confuse the two.
The only way to win is to make the best products, and besides, Microsoft is not in the business of ‘killing’ companies (from a Microsoft employee.)

I responded: I certainly admire this outlook, even though I’m not 100% certain it’s supported by history. As to Microsoft not being in the business of “killing” companies - OK, I will take your word for it - but somebody should perhaps tell your boss? :-)

Joking aside, I should end by noting that I’m not arguing for ANY of this, just playing devil’s advocate.

So why write this if you don’t think it’s a good idea?

2 reasons, I guess. The first is purely personal - I have a strong tendency to be overly diplomatic, and I made a resolution to blog that includes writing and publishing ideas faster and with less self-censorship. I thought of it, so I wrote it. The second is a bit more grandiose:

As I said above, I simply noticed a growing assumption in a lot of quarters that Microsoft is a toothless giant, and that Google runs the table for the next decade (An observation since vindicated by Paul Graham’s essay and subsequent Techmemeswarm.)

Personally, I kind of miss the old Mister Softee, killer instinct and all – – and I say this as somebody who had one of his companies killed by that very same Microsoft, and had to compete with them head-to-head for a number of years. Apparently I’m not the only one who feels this way.

I *like* Google, the search engine, and I have nothing against Google, the company - as multinational corporations go, they seem like good people. Nevertheless, I also have to confess that they make me nervous. Changes like this are a big step in the right direction, but usefulness alone is not a sufficient criteria for wielding power, and Google wields previously unimaginable and growing power. I’ve also heard this nervousness echoed frequently by people who know the company far better than I ever will, including the guy who wrote the book on it.

Even Eric Schmidt agrees that dissent is valuable; so too are checks and balances on power. Enormous concentration of power should always give us pause, no matter how much we respect the person(s) wielding it. This is particularly true with regard to the creation of tools and datasets that will continue to exist and be put to use far after their well-intentioned creators have retired to private islands. I simply wouldn’t mind having someone around to keep them honest, and Microsoft currently feels like one of the few credible contenders.

Whew. That was unintentionally heavy. Mindless entertainment anyone? :-)

Oh - and on the off chance anyone is still reading - next up in my “unsolicited business advice” series is IBM. If you put up with this all the way through, you might enjoy that too, so stay tuned.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 12th, 2007 at 4:59 am and is filed under , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.