Sergey Brin wanted to test a job applicant, so he gave her a snap assignment, writes Ken Auletta in his new book, Googled.
“I need you to draw me a contract,” the Google Inc cofounder told the Harvard Law graduate. “I need the contract to be for me to sell my soul to the devil.”
As far as I know, Brin never signed that satanic bargain. Yet the anecdote reflects a question at the core of Auletta’s thoughtful inside look at the engineers who say “don’t be evil” even as they upend what he calls the world as we know it.
Is Google, the owner of the world’s favorite search engine, a force for good — or for ill? Is it a friend to the fourth estate, on which democracy depends, or an enemy?
The answer found in this journey through Google’s history of breakthroughs, boundless ambitions and free massages on its campus in Mountain View, California, can be summed up in a word used by advertising executive Martin Sorrell: Google is a “frenemy” — neither a friend nor an enemy “but a rival power to guard against,” as the author puts it.
Auletta, who writes the Annals of Communications column for the New Yorker, says he spent two-and-a-half years reporting this, his 11th book. Granted extensive access to the company’s founders and executives, he emerged with an account that neither idolizes nor demonizes the cash machine it has become.
“Making money is not a dirty goal; nor is it a philanthropic activity,” he writes. “Any company with Google’s power needs to be scrutinized.”
Yet he also “came away impatient with companies that spend too much time whining about Google and too little time devising an offense.” Most established media companies, he says, “were inexcusably slow to wake to the digital disruption.”
It’s hard not to bellyache about an opponent who piggybacks on your content. Google vacuums up more than US$20 billion a year in revenue — 97 percent of it from advertising — even as newspaper circulation slides, network television viewing erodes, and movie studios and book publishers look besieged.
Much of the material in Googled will be familiar to investors who’ve tracked the company’s ascent. For those less familiar with the story, Auletta traces the full arc — from the days when Brin and Larry Page hogged Stanford University’s computer system while creating the engine they originally called BackRub to Google’s initial public offering in 2004, which produced more than 900 Google millionaires, including the company’s first masseuse, he writes.
The IPO also marked the moment when content producers learned how much money the upstart was making at their expense.
“The evidence was now visible that Google was attracting more Internet advertising than anyone else, and these dollars were being siphoned from traditional media,” we read.
Auletta makes the case that Google’s clashes with media companies and advocates of privacy protection often reflect the mindset of its engineers: “They naively believe that most mysteries, including the mysteries of human behavior, are unlocked with data,” he says.
Many media executives quoted here question that. One is Tom Curley, chief executive officer of the Associated Press, which claimed Google was commoditizing AP content and demanded a license agreement, Auletta says.
“No, there is nothing naive about these guys,” Curley tells Auletta. “They are taking everybody else’s work and they are figuring out how to do a deal with most other people in which heads, they win, and tails, most everyone else loses.”
Yet “old media” can’t blame Google alone for the digital devastation, Auletta reminds us. Craig Newmark, for one, didn’t set out to swamp newspapers when he started craigslist.org, a site where people post job openings, apartments for rent, goods for sale and more. Only later was it clear how this ate into newspapers’ classified sections, which generated about a third of their advertising revenue, Auletta says.
The author works hard — sometimes too hard — to tell both sides of the story, making a vital contribution to the debate as Google continues to expand into other media, from books to telephones. There’s Google News, Google Earth, Google Maps, Google Videos, Google Docs — the list goes on and on.
Auletta also offers a tip to anyone eager to protect his or her privacy: You can “opt out” of allowing Google advertising cookies to track you by clicking on the word “Privacy” at the bottom of the engine’s home page and following the instructions.
I did so immediately. There will be no Google Me.
April 28 to May 4 During the Japanese colonial era, a city’s “first” high school typically served Japanese students, while Taiwanese attended the “second” high school. Only in Taichung was this reversed. That’s because when Taichung First High School opened its doors on May 1, 1915 to serve Taiwanese students who were previously barred from secondary education, it was the only high school in town. Former principal Hideo Azukisawa threatened to quit when the government in 1922 attempted to transfer the “first” designation to a new local high school for Japanese students, leading to this unusual situation. Prior to the Taichung First
The Ministry of Education last month proposed a nationwide ban on mobile devices in schools, aiming to curb concerns over student phone addiction. Under the revised regulation, which will take effect in August, teachers and schools will be required to collect mobile devices — including phones, laptops and wearables devices — for safekeeping during school hours, unless they are being used for educational purposes. For Chang Fong-ching (張鳳琴), the ban will have a positive impact. “It’s a good move,” says the professor in the department of
On April 17, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) launched a bold campaign to revive and revitalize the KMT base by calling for an impromptu rally at the Taipei prosecutor’s offices to protest recent arrests of KMT recall campaigners over allegations of forgery and fraud involving signatures of dead voters. The protest had no time to apply for permits and was illegal, but that played into the sense of opposition grievance at alleged weaponization of the judiciary by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to “annihilate” the opposition parties. Blamed for faltering recall campaigns and faced with a KMT chair
Article 2 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (中華民國憲法增修條文) stipulates that upon a vote of no confidence in the premier, the president can dissolve the legislature within 10 days. If the legislature is dissolved, a new legislative election must be held within 60 days, and the legislators’ terms will then be reckoned from that election. Two weeks ago Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) proposed that the legislature hold a vote of no confidence in the premier and dare the president to dissolve the legislature. The legislature is currently controlled
RSS