Skip to main content

For Google, The Meaning Of Open Is When It’s Convenient For Them




Yesterday, Google published a long manifesto on the "meaning of open" in the form of an email to all employees republished as a blog post. In it, senior VP of product management Jonathan Rosenberg, makes an eloquent argument for why open systems always win and urges Google's employees to always strive to be open when designing products. An open Internet spurs innovation and brings more consumers on board, which ultimately means more searches and increased use of Web applications.

The gist of his argument is that a bigger, better Internet is good for Google. It all sounds great and Google certainly is a champion of open systems with Android and Chrome and countless other projects. Google is making a very public effort to claim the mantle of openness. But the battle for this mantle has been going on for a long time.

door.jpg


Yesterday, Google published a long manifesto on the “meaning of open” in the form of an email to all employees republished as a blog post. In it, senior VP of product management Jonathan Rosenberg, makes an eloquent argument for why open systems always win and urges Google’s employees to always strive to be open when designing products. An open Internet spurs innovation and brings more consumers on board, which ultimately means more searches and increased use of Web applications.


The gist of his argument is that a bigger, better Internet is good for Google. He writes that Google employees should resist the impulse to create closed products and systems, and even makes a swipe at Apple for doing so (bold added for emphasis):


. . . open systems win. This is counter-intuitive to the traditionally trained MBA who is taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle. The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors. . . . a well-managed closed system can deliver plenty of profits. They can also deliver well-designed products in the short run — the iPod and iPhone being the obvious examples — but eventually innovation in a closed system tends towards being incremental at best (is a four blade razor really that much better than a three blade one?) because the whole point is to preserve the status quo. Complacency is the hallmark of any closed system. If you don’t have to work that hard to keep your customers, you won’t.


It all sounds great and Google certainly is a champion of open systems with Android and Chrome and countless other projects. Google is making a very public effort to claim the mantle of openness. But the battle for this mantle has been going on for a long time. Two years ago, I wrote a post titled “Who Is The Opennest Of Them All?”. What I noted then bears repeating:


But don’t be fooled. Companies are very selective about the areas where they choose to be open, and they very rarely open up their core source of profits voluntarily. . . . So the next time a company touts how open it is, ask yourself how that will help it make more money. Don’t confuse openness with altruism.


Google is only open when it is convenient for them. Google will never open up the source code to its search algorithms or its advertising system, or share the core data which gives it a competitive advantage in those areas because that is where it makes all of its money. Again, I pointed this out in that post two years ago:


Just because industry pressures and increased interconnectedness are forcing companies to embrace open technologies, don’t confuse openness with profitability. Open standards tend to be good for spurring the adoption of new technologies, but not so good for generating profits directly. That is why companies choose to be open along axes where they don’t compete. Google, for instance, is a big proponent of open standards in social networking, mobile networks, Web applications, and practically everywhere —except the one place it makes money. Its advertising system is a black box. You also never hear any talk coming out of Google about opening up the search algorithms that drive all of those advertising revenues. In contrast, Google has no problem championing open standards in industries that it is hoping to disrupt (by commoditizing existing business models with open standards, and making money with advertising instead).


Rosenberg realizes there is an incongruity between what he is saying and what Google is doing. He takes a stab at rationalizing this huge exception to Google’s embrace of everything open:


While we are committed to opening the code for our developer tools, not all Google products are open source. Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in. In many cases, most notably our search and ads products, opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users.


Maybe, but it is more likely it would hurt Google. The company has good reasons for keeping those things closed tight. Opening up those black boxes would make it easier to spam search and game AdWords and give competitors valuable data to make their own search engines and advertising systems better. If it opened all of that stuff up, it would have to work harder to keep its customers.


And really nobody should begrudge them the right to keep products they’ve spent a lot of time, energy, and money building to themselves. But don’t give us this song and dance about how everything should be open and how Google is the opennest company in the world. Google has nothing to lose if operating systems, mobile phones, browsers, books, news, and every other industry becomes open and free, as long it can make money from search and advertising. That is exactly why Google is so disruptive. It can offer products for free that other industries charge for, as long as those products result in more searches or other advertising opportunities.


There is nothing wrong with this strategy. The fact that Google is pushing openness in so many industries is generally a good thing for startups and consumers alike. But Google should just be honest and say that they think everything should be open—except for search and advertising.


(Image via j/f/photos).


Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0










Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to find ideas to post new article in your blog

How to find ideas to post new article in your blog    阅读原文»   It is true that sometimes being a blogger may face situations where I would personally like to call it your brain juices got dried up as you have pretty much ran out of topic to blog and you are in crisis as your readers are anxiously waiting for your new posts but you are unable to give in. That’s when you will probably come with excuses like I just posted last week although that post was more directly towards the newbies who stop themselves from making money but it’s still pretty much the same even though you consider yourself not a newbie. The fact is that ideas are everywhere and I mean everywhere if you know where to find it and know how to leverage it. You may be surprised that sometimes these ideas are just right in front of you but you are not observant enough to convert these ideas and turn it into your blog post. Today I will share some tips on where to get these ideas and most of it is part of your dai

Lindsay Lohan Breakup Confirmed by Lohan, Locksmith, Police [Gossip Roundup]

Farewell, last season's Suri Cruise fashions. Goodbye, Amy Winehouse's bathing suit. Adieu, humanoid version of Lauren Conrad. And so long, LiLo and SamRon's fairytale romance. Lindsay Lohan confirmed her split with Samantha Ronson and insisted the decision was part of a very healthy and mature effort to " focus on myself ." Upon hearing this, Ronson changed her locks and discussed a restraining order with police, so confident was she in Lohan's ability to turn productively inward. Lohan promptly had a run-in with the police . Who would have imagined such a messy breakup for this model relationship? Courtney Love's lawyer, on her client's drug-fueled plunge into broke-ness: ""Courtney noticed the money was gone when there wasn't any left." Deadpan gallows humor: the only possible response to having Courtney Love as a client. (Besides asking for a hefty retainer.) [ P6 ] Before Lauren Conrad's contract expired in March, MT

部门心脏?

i.am.weihua.1234您好!!              生产计划与物料控制PMC高级研修班 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 课程背景: 生产计划和物料控制(PMC)部门是一个企业"心脏", 掌握着企业生产及物料运作的总调度 和命脉,统筹营运资金、物流、信息等动脉,直接涉及影响生产部、生产工程部、采购、货仓、品 控部、开发与设计部、设备工程、人力资源及财务成本预算控制等,其制度和流程决定公司盈利成 败.因此PMC部门和相关管理层必须充分了解:物料计划、请购、物料调度、物料控制(收、发、退、 借、备料等)、生产计划与生产进度控制,并谙熟运用这门管理技术来解决问题,学习拉动计划价 值流(VSM)图,从拉动计划价值流切入剖析工厂制造成本和缩短制造周期 ,提高物流过程循环效 率(库存、资金的周转率)及客户满意率;为降低或消除物流过程中的非增值活动. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 课程目标: 1、建立制定完善的生产与物控运作体系?提升准时交货和降低库存成本 2、预测及制定合理的短、中、长期销售计划?达成公司策略管理目标 3、对自身的生产能力负荷预先进行详细分析并建立完善产品数据机制协助公司建立产品工程数据 4、生产前期做好完整的生产排程和周生产计划?提高备料准确率,保持生产顺畅 5、配合生产计划做到良好物料损耗控制和备料?完善降低物料损耗机制和停工待料工时 6、对生产进度及物料进度及时跟进和沟通协调?缩短生产周期,提高企业竞争力 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 报名详情: 培训时间:2012年11月 3- 4深圳 11月15-16上海 11月22-23北京 12月 1- 2广州 承办单位:新 活 力 顾 问 培训对象:生产计划部门、物料计划部门、采购部门、 生产部门、销售部门、物流、研发部门、 PIE、IT 培训费用:3200元/人(包括资料费、午餐及上下午茶点等) 报名热线:400-623-8399 (免长途话费) 电邮: maomao@xhlpx.com QQ:120915