Don't think Danny Sullivan is saying anything that different than what I've been saying for some time about Google - The Google Hive Mind - does that mean Google sees the world in a multifacted matrix, like a bug?
Certainly it's a new term and Danny Sullivan has come up with a summary of Google's Hive Mind activities over the last 10 years.
'.... when Google views products in isolation, it seems to justify to itself that it makes sense to do them. "Look at this new bed of flowers â€" we should go here, it makes complete sense!" But it fails to understand that the move into that new flower bed makes the hive even more threatening to others. That more and more flower beds now have Google going into them, making others wonder if they're next."
I almost feel, that in reading this detailed product evolution and acquisition strategy, I'm reading more about Empire Building (like Napoleon's First French Empire e and the justifications that go along with it); but, maybe the story of Google could be put in terms more like A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, which just happened to end up producing the world's smartest company, via The Google Hive Mind.
"...Search is where Google started, and even though the mission was back then was (and officially still is) to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful," no one at Google was really putting many of today's non-search services into a blueprint for success. Many of these products emerged from Google's own internal needs, opportunistic purchases, ideas that curious Googlers with "20% time" suggested and sudden departures into areas not envisioned at first but which made sense as Google evolved."
According to Sullivan, Blogger and Gmail fit in with Google, as a search engine, even less than AdSense did:
"....If it was a stretch to say AdSense was part of search, Blogger was even a bigger stretch. Google acquired Blogger a month before AdSense was rolled out, in February 2003. At best, Google could argue that Blogger allowed it to provide tools for publishers to use â€" which in turn meant information it could help organize."
"...With Gmail, the hive grew into yet another new area, without that move really having been mapped out in advance. It was a natural evolution of letting people develop things that made sense.
Then Google got involved with offline ads, radio ads, in game advertising, satelight ads, newspaper ads, cable TV ads, etc:
"...Suddenly, Google's dabbling in offline ads. It also offers radio ads and TV ads through other deals and acquisitions that have been made. This fits with the "Ad" mission of the tagline. But it also has caused print, radio and TV publishers â€" along with agencies that serve them â€" to worry if this is part of Google's plan to take over key offline areas and dominate as it has online."
"...Or when dMarc approached them, was it yet another case of Google looking in isolation at the purchase and thinking "ads, make sense â€" we'll figure out the exact details on how it fits later." I suspect the latter."
Google Checkout, Knol and Chrome are further expansions, based on the Hive Mind, according to Sulllivan".
But here's what I think, on Google's 10th Birthday, that Government intervention is unlikely anytime soon, even though Google has repeatedly invited it. Why?
The Government has it's hands full with an economy that is contracting rapidly, where we are moving, perhaps the world is moving, into a deep, deep recession.
The last thing any Government wants to do, now, is attack Google, believe it or not. That's not to say that Google and other search engines, but mainly Google, ought to be regulated - it should be, at least, aspects of what Google does ought to be regulated - but as far as having Government crackdown on Google for being monopolistic which it's Hive Mind Strategy, it's probably not going to happen anytime soon.
On thing that Google does provide - and I wrote about it yesterday, is Leverage (see Search Engine Leverage); Google, if you want to view it that way, could be like "AIG" the firm that was bailed out on Wall Street last week.
Actually, I figured out what Google's real mission was earlier this year - their mission has nothing to do with search, not any longer; Google's real mission - to re-organize, retool and dominate any business process, any market, that Google feels it can make a valuable contribution.
Google has become so interlinked with Web 2.0 and the Internet Economy, the Economy of the 21st Century, that it is the Wall Street of the Internet, if I might term it that way - all the information of the world, and much of it's money, runs though it.
Google can't be allowed to slow down much, or suffer too mcy, because it's one of the main engines of internet growth and economy for all of us - Google is the single most powerful engine of prosperity that now exists - countless businesses have built, for better or worse, businesses around Google Search, around Google Advertising.
And let's not forget that Google has, in a few short years, accomplished what no government could, to create an almost complete record of what everyone is doing online - Google is far closer than anyone else in archiving a 360 view of most of it's users with Search History, Web History and it's DoubleClick acquisition.
Sure, if Google were reigned in than something else would take it's place, but the disruption would be as devastating as the events leading up to the $700 Billion Bailout is proving to be, and Google's role has been as an enabler that made it much easier for many SMB's to succeed - which also enabled a lot more taxes to be generated - and more money that got leveraged around in the world economy.
Now, it can be argued, and Danny Sullivan has masterfully made the case in The Google Hive Mind that Google didn't really plan all the acquisitions and moves it made over the last 10 years, many of the moves Google made came out of a strategy that let product groups within Google determine what made sense for the company, as a whole.
And while Google's "Hive" sorta stumbled to the top of the Internet food chain, almost without a plan, almost by accident, in a "fuzzy" way - that is so typical of "Web 2.0″ is is also the most paradoxical of all Web 2.0 companies. Why?
Here's why .... the "transparency" that is the hallmark of Web 2.0, of Social Media, of the way companies are being to operate, in a way, doesn't apply to Google. While they promote "transparency" for others, Google, itself, is often opaque in it's intentions and actions - that is it's paradox.
I know Google did pick up on one of my earlier objections about Search Engines, and, via Google Webmaster Tools, allow webmasters to download detailed search and impression stats for their Google Verified Websites - in this they followed the letter of the law, but not it's spirit, for they did nothing much to make any sense of the data for the individual site owners - you could download Gigabytes of detailed query logs for your site - but the data is raw - you'd need a large database and programming effort to effectively use the data - and who's got that? (hint: Google).
So..., while fragmenting the landscape for services might be in the consumers immediate interest ... I don't think Google really has to worry that much about a Government crackdown, anytime soon - our Government is too occupied now trying to avoid a Depression to worry much about how and if to police Google - and the next administration, hopefully run by Barack Obama, will, most likely be Google Friendly.
As much as I and others criticize and even fear Google (I'm still pissed at them for the Google Penalty they have yet to lift), Google is neccessary and vital as an engine of growth for us all, and must be allowed to continue, for better or worse, on it's course (until something better comes along).
Yeah, Google is a habit, alright, and one we can't really do with out, or shake.
Link to original post