Flipping through my feeds this morning I came across two articles that portray search giant Goolge in almost polar opposite ways. The first is a Business Week cover story headlined “Is Google Too Powerful?”
Written in breathless and slightly purple prose, it’s a fascinating meditation on the all-encompassing nature of Google. From national security to media industry upheaval, Google is characterized as a crucible for all knowledge, for all communications and entertainment. When it comes to the media world, Google is the force of evil (despite the company’s famous motto), according to the piece.
And something bigger. Google is ground zero in a battle among traditional media and tech industry leaders and startups alike for the hearts and minds of the world’s consumers—or at least their eyeballs and wallets. To an extent that none of the first generation of dot-coms did, Google has come to represent all our hopes, dreams, and fears about the disruptive promise and dangers of the Internet. As this clash plays out over the next couple of years, the outcome could determine the way we’ll entertain ourselves, shop, socialize, and do business on the Internet. The overriding question: Will the vast commercial landscape of the Net, like so many other tech markets in the past, condense to one dominant force for the foreseeable future? Will we just Google everything?
Marketwatch’s Bambi Francisco, on the other hand, has a write-up of a VC panel discussion hosted by the Churchill Club in San Jose Tuesday. One message by the assembled money-men is that Google is yesterday’s news.
Roger McNamee, founder of Elevation Partners said “With all respect to Google, it is Web 1.0.” McNamee thinks that Google is “vulnerable by saying that the search engine was the early version of the Internet, and not innovating like the Web 2.0 companies.”
Francisco had to make sure she understood McNamee correctly, so she followed up with a phone interview. McNamee backpedaled a bit but still stuck to his guns.
His response: “Google is the zenith of Web 1.0, and it’s important to understand that Web 1.0 isn’t going away,” said McNamee. “Interactivity doesn’t replace it [Web 1.0], it complements it… Google is incredibly well positioned.”
That said, McNamee added: “Nothing is forever. Microsoft’s Windows is not forever. Google is not forever.”
The Washington Post’s Jose Antonio Vargas has this piece today about Democratic candidate John Edwards’ saturation strategy when it comes to social networking. The campaign has a presence on Flickr, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace and the article even mentions two cool companies, blip.tv and 43things.com as venues covered by the candidate.
And, of course, the candidate has his own social networking site, John Edwards One Corps, which claims to have 20,000 members and 1,200 local chapters. But it’s not at all clear just what kind of impact this outreach will have because online social networking is so new.
One “social network analyst” quoted in the article points out that 2004 Democratic candidate Howard Dean, who pioneered the use of the Internet in political organizing, misjudged the importance of local, face-to-face social connections in Iowa. The importation of Internet-recruited volunteers into that all-important state primary resulted in “strangers talking to strangers.”
Still, Edwards, is exploiting the Internet to the hilt, which can’t hurt as long as the old-fashioned methods aren’t ignored. Another presidential contender, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), isn’t up to Edwards’ level of Internet sophistication, but according to TechPresident’s David All, McCain is coming up the learning curve.
He’s reaching out to bloggers in a big way — he even jumped onto a conference call with a group of bloggers yesterday, becoming the first GOP candidate to reach out to the blogosphere in this way.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 8:48 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
