A picture is worth a thousand words.

I think that it's in my best interest that Google keep it's search and advertising code closed just for the reason that he mentioned. I want the ads in my browser to be for things that I'm interested in. Google is doing a good job with that right now. People need to quit freaking out about privacy and whatnot. Google's not gonna rob your bank account and rape your daughters. Relax.

Look at it like this. Imagine Google is a bartender at your favorite bar. You go there often. He knows what you drink because he serves it to you every time. Sometimes he serves up a new drink that he thinks you might like. Ah. It's good! He's right. You appreciate that in a good bartender. Why not on the internet?

James:

I agree. But for every one of us, there are a dozen people who feel violated and view Google through a Big Brother lens.

James:

I like that bartender metaphor. It fits right in.

Google won't harm users with its knowledge about them, it's for the users benefit. Otherwise they would be out of business, soon.

The 'uproar' about targeted ads is simply another manifestation of this generation's feelings of 'entitlement'. They want all the freebies, but they want NO strings of any sort attached. They refuse to understand that life simply does not, and CAN not, work that way. Google has a LOT of 'overhead' that must be paid. If they can't pay, then we, as consumers, lose all of the great free things they (and others) offer. It is certainly fair, but the spoiled brats we have raised up over the past 20+ years don't care what's 'fair' and/or equitable, they simply want things their own way, and will continue throwing tantrums when they can't get everything they want. I simply try to ignore them, but I AM afraid they will NEVER grow up. In many of them we see a combination of pettiness combined with a lot of technical knowledge, which can be a dangerous combination. Part of their 'tantrums' often include causing random harm to others. So, we DO have to take them seriously, and find a way to control them without caving to their demands. Again, we have, sadly, raised an entire generation of spoiled brats. (No,I'm not saying that, of course, there AREN'T many good ones, however they aren't the ones causing all the brouhahas. They aren't the ones we must be 'on guard' against.) It's just sad. For now, all we can do is let them complain and hope to God they will, someday, really become mature adults.

" But for every one of us, there are a dozen people who feel violated and view Google through a Big Brother lens"
Really? Where?..., Judging from growth and market share that's ...rot.
I believe my data SHOULD be locked down, and I WANT relevant results. If they screw me, I will leave, so will everyone else. THAT is the great pressure relief valve with their omnipresence, and one which will keep them essentially honest as a commercial necessity. I don't think most consumers are even aware of the issues, and don't care, as long as
1. they get the product they want
2. it is cheap or free
3. They are not sold out or compromised...
OH! Commercial reality hits again.
There is NO lock-in, No investment, and exportable data...
Therefore, Google CANNOT afford to damage their reputation,
Again....COMMERCIAL Necessity. The business model is based on 2 way trust!
And they are a commercial animal!

Clint, I was attracted to this article by seeing somewhere that you'd written "Don't be fooled by the spin that Google would stymie competition or even destroy its search engine by open-sourcing it" -- yet you seem nowhere in this article to substantiate the implied claim that open-sourcing the search system would not destroy it. Your following sentence that "From a capitalism standpoint, it's the closed and proprietary search and advertising that enable Google to rake in the bulk of its $20 billion-plus per year" seems irrelevant.

The common argument is that, if Google (or anyone) open-sourced its algorithms and methods, spammers and other would be able to so game the system that search results would be useless. Why is this not so? I'd love it to not be so, but I can't figure how it wouldn't be so. I'd hoped that you might have some insight, but there's none to be found in this piece.

Mike:

It's not that what Google claims that open sourcing its search engine would make it susceptible to malicious hacks and screwy results is false -- it's that Google glosses over the fact that the search is where it makes its money and it won't have that threatened. It would be like Microsoft open sourcing Windows.

Thanks, Clint. I had assumed that by "spin" you meant that the claim was false. I'm not entirely convinced that opening up the methods *would* destroy the search engine, but it does seem intuitively likely and different from, say, open-sourced code.

As for the larger point, I agree entirely. In the immortal words of Deep Throat, "Follow the money." Google is on that basis neither a search company nor an internet services company, but rather an advertising agency that provides ancillary services as a means of mining its primary input. None of Google's user-facing services (Google search, Gmail, etc.) are Google's true product, at least not from an accounting/economic standpoint. Google's users and their data profiles are, essentially, Google's product, which it sells to advertisers (albeit in an attenuated fashion that does not, so far as we know, expose those user data to the advertisers).