Every day I visit a handfull of sites, some forums, email, etc.. Among these is my
personalised Google homepage that lists a number of feeds, along with the content listing of my
Gmail inbox, and the Google
search field. Some other feeds that don't update so regularly are watched by my Google desktop search sidebar, along with my system performance, again my email, the latest news and somthing Google calls: what's hot (as I understand it, they check which news stories are most frequently visited and discussed). The sidebar also has a small pane for my Gtalk agent, but I haven't added any other users yet, so it's isn't really active. Almost every day, I type the character g into my
Opera adress bar followed by some search terms and 9 out of 10 times I find what I need immediately on Google search. At least once a week, I check in to
Google Labs to see what they've come with now. As you can see, I've made ample use of Google's enormous amounts of offered services.
But it seems I'm not alone in taking such an active interest in Google. It seems to me that every day when I check the Tech news feed on my Google homepage, Google itself is mentioned.
Building a research park for NASA,
providing San Francisco with free Wi-Fi internet,
trying to scan books and upload them, an so on and so forth. A sutdent journalist could easily write his thesis on how Google has developed over the past few years.
So what is it that makes Google so special? I'll just come out and say what I think is the unmentioned, underground reason they've accumulated users in such enormous ammounts: they're free (hold in mind I'm Dutch). They don't distort their pages with huge ammounts of advertising (they're very discreet with their adverts) and yet they never charge anything. Frnkly I'm stumped how they can afford to provide SF with free internet access and build a research park for NASA and provide millions of users with their services without having to charge anyone anytime. And the other thing is: they work. Most free stuff you get on the web is mediocre at best. Google Earth for example could easily be sold at $50 a copy, but they don't. Most of all, they're centralised. Once you know where to look (Google's own site could use some more accesabillity) you can see Google's dozens of services in one or two pages.
But there is also a more idillic side to Google. Their mission statement
"to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" is well known to those that watch the news. Could anyone for example tell me if Yahoo or Microsoft have a similar statement? And Google seems to live up to their promise. I for me think their search engine is now almost indespensible to keep the internet halfway organised. When I worked for
Wikinews, my standard approach to each story I worked on was to first of all search it on
Google news, which allways yielded results. As I said earlier, Google has become part of my daily internet routine.
But whenever I hear that statement, it reminds me of another statement: "
The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is an international non-profit organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge." Here are two compatible goals, those of Google and of the
Wikipedia. I'm not the only one who has noticed. I know for a fact there have been
plans for collaborations between Google and wikimedia, including Google providing them with server bandwith, of which there is a chronical shortage in the rapidly growing wikimedia projects. Any other plans of collaboration may be unclear, but
would not be surprising to many people.
Some reference to the strugle between
Microsoft and Google almost as a strugle between good and evil (evil of course being the monopolist evil emprie Microsoft).
The classic epic facedown of the two great rivals promises to be an interesting battle. What I find interesting when comparing the two, is the similarities in how the companies were founded: Windows (even DOS at first) and the Google search engine: great innovative ideas that had massive potential and appeals to millions, probably even billions of users worldwide. The difference is what happened next. While Google framed it's new found power in a idealistic goal, Bill Gates went corporal. It's difficult not seeing the world's richest man, in charge of a company that has the monopoly and isn't afraid to use it, to milk it for every cent it's got, as the classic evil villain, sitting in his mansion laughing and saying: "Soon the world shall belong to me!". And then comes Google: concepted, developed and run by intelligent but uncharismatic nerds. In a feat of unexpected growth, these underdogs rise to the challenge of defeating the megalomaniac. If only the reality were such a simple, black and white world.
Google is one of the greatest things to have happened to the internet since its inception. It has inspired by its efforts discussion, innovation and growth. Therefor I see it as one of the greatest sources of forward motion on the net today. It gives corporates, such as Yahoo and Microsoft, a run for their money, forcing them to be better, faster, cheaper. No matter who might win in the end, if any, the race will have been enough to give internet a decent launch in to the 21st century.
Labels: internet