Has Google Peaked? 332
nile_list writes "Robert X. Cringely's latest column explores just what the heck Google could be doing. 'Google likes to play the Black Box game. What are they DOING in all those buildings with all those PhDs?' He concludes that it's likely Google has peaked as a company: 'What if everyone is mainly wrong? What if search and PageRank and AdSense are Google's corporate apex. Most companies would be content with that, but Google isn't supposed to be like most companies. But what if they are?' His conclusion is that 'Microsoft's clearest threat still comes from Apple, though not the way most people expect.' It's an interesting read."
Has Cringely Peaked? (Score:5, Funny)
How do you know Google is telling the truth? (Score:5, Funny)
yawn (Score:4, Funny)
How to bring down Google - Do-Not-Search law. (Score:4, Funny)
This has led me to come up with the seeds of a compelling plan that will bring down Google. It involves making search engines respect privacy and copyright, by law.
Search engines like Google enable people to compile information from different sources about the same thing. So while one website might not provide enough information about some John Smith, using search engines it is very easy to find out a lot more about that person. And without the consent of that person. This compiled information could be harmful to that person in various ways. CNET was recently shunned by Google because one of it's reporters "googled" Google's CEO and found out some stuff about him. Google didn't like that. I don't like it either when someone else is able to "google me". I'm sure you don't like that as well, after all, it could be a potential employer, spouse, scammer, stalker, etc. who could be "googling" you.
I am sure most people and entities (companies, government, etc.) would not like to be "googled" because of various reasons. It could be about national security, competitive reasons, personal well-being, etc. They should be able to "opt-out" of internet searches.
This is what a proposed "Do-Not-Search" law would look like: There would be a national do-not-search registry which the search engines would have to check against before returning the results of each search. All items in the do-not-search registry would have to be excluded from the search results. If the search engine doesn't do that, then there would be penalties associated with it.
A person or entity, upon presenting some valid credentials, could add some terms to the do-not-search registry. For example, John Smith can exclude himself from being searched. Only problem is, how to ensure other John Smiths are not excluded as well ? This is a 'bug', and will be sorted out soon.
This is a work in progress, and only began a couple of days ago when all the hoopla surrounding Google Talk reached its height. Your comments/opinions on this would be helpful as well.
Google needs to be tamed because it is a threat to many of us. I am sure some lawmaker in the US, Canada or Europe would grab on to this and then it will begin. The stock price would tank and the searches would become increasingly complex, time-consuming and irrelevant as the do-not-search registry grows. That would be the end of Google as we know it, and we would have saved slashdot and ourselves.
Re:OSS Google Killer? (Score:5, Funny)
having to pay to search on Google is a real bummer... oh wait!
NEWS AT 11 (Score:2, Funny)
TAKE IT TO YOUR BLOGS, BLOGGERS.
He's right (Score:5, Funny)
There's nothing left to invent in the world. There's nothing more we want from computing. There are no more improvements possible. Rampant spam, spyware, crummy messaging protocols like email and primitive IM are all that we want. We don't need access to more information in other dimensions of our lives, and all the Ph.D.s in the world are not going to find ways to improve our lives through computing.
Google, if you're listening, please understand: there are no more efficiencies possible in human society, at least through information management. The annual improvement of efficiencies of 4-10% per year noted by macro economists is all smoke screen. Stop making maps, phone-related lookup services, and archives of all the world's libraries. We simply don't want this information, or need it. Please stop trying. K THXS.
Sincerely, B. Gates
How Apple can drive MS into a berserker frenzy: (Score:3, Funny)
I have only one comment on this: BWA-HA-HA-HA!
But it'll never happen.
Re:Of course Google has peaked (Score:5, Funny)
They're pretty slow off the mark then. Yahoo had the "X-Cam Pop-Under ad" feature years back, and Google *still* haven't implemented it.
Re:Google hasn't peaked. (Score:2, Funny)
Forget Netcraft (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Feeling Lucky (Score:2, Funny)
Is Cringely in cahoots with Roland? (Score:3, Funny)
Or better, are they the same person? Has anyone seen them in the same place at the same time (and survived with enough sanity intact to report the fact? I didn't think so). But both of them seem to subsist on pompously worded pointless "conventional wisdom challeging."
Is "T" actually a vowel? What if paper money was edible? Is it already? Dispite what most city dwellers think, most of the worlds buildings are still only one story tall! And made-up words--are they really neologisms, or is everyone just crumulous?
Is this tabloid journalism for the neo-technoploobi, or something...more sinister.
Inquiring minds want it to STOP.
--MarkusQ
Re:Blah blah (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently not!
They have now. (Score:2, Funny)
Has Google climaxed? (Score:5, Funny)
Then perhaps "peaked" is the wrong word to toss around here.
The porn market, eh? Now THAT'S an industry in which Google has the potential to experience large growth, but the road ahead would be long and hard. Any thoughts at this point would be premature, don't you think?
But if they do manage to penetrate that market, they should give themselves a hand--job well done!