Welcome to Google: The friendly monopolist
YES, but it isn't Feedburner that tilted the scale. Upon the first rumors of Google-DoubleClick, I headlined "Google (to be) a Monopoly." When the deal was officially announced, I updated my story to headline: "Google: $3.1 billion cash for Web monopoly!"
I reported the Feedburner acquisition yesterday: Google gets Feedburner and in the Web’s private business.
It actually has been a Googley given for some time that Google is determined to CONTROL (NOT ORGANIZE) ALL the world's information, and profit from all the world's advertising.
So what? Would sum up the world's reaction.
I opined earlier this week (before Google Gears): Why Google is more dangerous than Microsoft, underscoring that Google has learned a thing or two from Microsoft, NOT in a good way.
I wrote:
Microsoft’s “Evil Empire” financial success was derived from cunning ecosystem manipulation and brutal industry intimidation aimed solely at creating and extending Microsoft monopoly pricing power.
What really sealed Microsoft’s monopoly fate, however, was a no holds barred, take no prisoners modus operandi. Thanks to Bill Gates’ dogged persistence and shrewd maneuvering, Microsoft achieved the industry domination he sought, no matter who or what tried to cross Microsoft en route to unrivaled economic power and world glory.
Today’s technology power house, ”Do No Evil” Google, is no different, in desire or effect. In fact, Google power is even more insidious, because Google has the “consumer” on it side.
Just one day after I pitted Google's intentions against those of Microsoft, Google announced Google Gears: The world then immediately came tumbling down, overwhelmingly against Microsoft and near unamimously cheering for Google.
I (no surprise to readers of this Digital Markets Blog) had a different take on things.
SEE: Google Gears: NOT a Microsoft killer
What gives now, post Feedburner?
Ostrow starts out appropriately noting "are there any parts of our online lives that don’t reside somewhere within the Googleplex?" So what though, it seems from the Mashable post.
Ostrow goes on to point out a few Google services he uses, and that's that. Ostrow provides neither Google outrage, nor Googley cheer; In fact, he doesn't offer any conclusion or summation whatsoever.
What are we to conclude then? Google owns our souls, and that is a good thing?
Seemingly. The first commenter to the post, Kevin Keating, cheeringly affirms:
Sounds good to me! I also tell Google where I want to go on the internet, and let them remember where I’ve been so I don’t have to. And I’m more than okay will ALL of this because what’s private to me is and will always be private. And that, my friend, is the secret love I harbor for…
Oh, I totally almost gave it away.
WELCOME, MY FRIENDS, TO THE GOOGLE WORLD, WHERE THE "FRIENDLY" MONOPOLIST RULES (in a not so friendly fashion).
SEE: Google security alert: Universal Search scarier than Google Maps