Tagged / Business

Google: Sacrificing Traditional Business for a New Movement in Good Business and Transparency

06 Nov 09 / by Mark Bao / Analysis, Business, Essays / / Comments

Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt said yesterday on CNN an interesting view on their business:

“Hopefully we won’t repeat the mistakes that Microsoft made 10 years ago that ultimately led to all these things that happened to them.”

Some of these mistakes include a lot of anti-trust and monopolic actions, profit ploys gone awry ending in lawsuits, privacy failures, and refusal to cooperate with competitors. These, along with some instances of not-so-great software (looking in your direction, Vista), have tarnished Microsoft’s (MSFT) business.

Eric Schmidt is trying to portray Google as a Good Business. They’re not going to make the same mistakes as Microsoft: they’re going to be truthful and follow Don’t be Evil. They’re going to aim for transparency. Are they truthful about that, though?

Many businesses in the world, without lies and fraud, would be well out of business. This includes companies like Cash4Gold and MLM scams. So would a lot of financial institutions, if it weren’t for the bailout. I have a personal gripe on the bailout. Why? NASA 2009 budget is 17.2 billion. National Institutes of Health 2010 budget is $6 billion for cancer research. TARP: $700+ billion.

Good Business and Google

Good Business entails transparency. Mad, mad profits more likely than not entails some kind of fraud going on. Google says they’re going to forgo these mad profits—and fraud, for that matter—and focus on the customer. Making the customer the top priority is something that is—surprisingly, as well as irrationally—lost in some modern businesses.

And we’re seeing a lot of great strides from Google to this effect: Google Dashboard, a tool that allows Google Account users to see what kind of information is associated with their Google Account, was introduced on the Google Blog in an article called Transparency, choice and control — now complete with a Dashboard!

“Over the past 11 years, Google has focused on building innovative products for our users. Today, with hundreds of millions of people using those products around the world, we are very aware of the trust that you have placed in us, and our responsibility to protect your privacy and data.”

Or—Google’s Data Liberation Front: their homepage states their mission: “Users should be able to control the data they store in any of Google’s products. Our team’s goal is to make it easier to move data in and out.”

The risk is huge, too. It’s not just that Google participates in far fewer fraud than most businesses of similar influence. They take the risk of losing customers that realize how wide the gamut of knowledge Google knows about them. One notable example is Google Dashboard: many users responded with “wow—Google knows a lot about me. Should I be concerned?” And if they are—Google is making it that easy to check out of itself.

Others said that among the privacy issues and information issues Google has, the Google Dashboard is like British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s 1937 appeasement towards Nazi Germany: Google gives us a bit of what we want to see to make us think that they’re serious about their responsibility of protecting privacy and transparency, but in the long run they really, really want the data.

The great part about Google and Good Business? Customers get it. Customers appreciate the transparency, which makes it hurt just a bit less for Google on their balance sheet. In the long run, hopefully Good Business drives the following profit inequality: Bad Business < Business < Good Business.

Fantastic. One of the most important technology businesses is promoting Good Business through transparency and not being Evil. Google has its problems, and many, many instances that they have acted in an evil way. And whether this will hold for the next ten years is still up in the air. However, they’re taking a positive direction, and for a 10-year-old technology company with massive market share and massive influence, and massive profits and market capitalization, it’s pretty damn impressive.

When Business Alliances Become Ugly: Apple and Google Edition

28 Jul 09 / by Mark Bao / Business / / Comments

attappleA few days ago, Apple (AAPL) removed various Google Voice apps from their iPhone App Store, as well as (speculated) Google’s own official Google Voice iPhone app, as they created in conjunction with the Google Voice apps for BlackBerry. Google (GOOG) Voice allows users to have a single phone number with Google, that allows it to ring multiple phones at once, receive voicemail in audio and transcribed text form, SMS sent through, and more. Apple said that the applications were duplicating the iPhone’s own functionality.

This is when business relationships, and specifically friendships or alliances, become ugly. Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt serves on Apple’s Board of Directors, and the relationship between the companies have been historically amiable. The two collaborated on the iPhone’s Google Maps feature as well as countless other Apple/Google related escapades in the past.

Alliances between technology companies can become rocky, as been described here. The only other alliance related to Apple’s Board of Directors is probably Intuit, which has a fat chance of being offended by an Apple action. (The other executives on Apple’s Board of Directors are in the sectors of clothing, skin care, biotech, and the like.) Although Eric Schmidt’s interest and influence over Apple as part of their Board of Directors is most likely limited, Schmidt must not be the happiest with the decision to pull the application.

What’s more important is the big picture: Apple is fearing Google is becoming a competitor in the area, because of their seemingly competing interests in the voice space. (Which makes absolutely no sense, because Google Voice is not replacing voice communication, for the time being, but facilitating improvements to it, which increases use of the voice network.) But it’s not really Apple for the most part.

It all boils down to one important alliance that changed a lot of things: AT&T (NYSE:T). Apple’s alliance (read: exclusivity contract) with AT&T constricts it within the rules of AT&T to validate that agreement, which I imagine wasn’t an easy thing to pound out. AT&T’s influence over the iPhone product and Apple in general is immense, and essentially caused the conflict of interest with Google.

Recently, Apple shafted Google by forcing them to make their new Latitude iPhone application an iPhone web app only, instead of a full-fledged iPhone app. As such, the application is limited in functionality. Apple reported that it would be confused with the Maps app.

This is part of an ongoing, and ongrowing feud between Apple and Google: Google now has their own mobile operating system and is constantly venturing into Apple territory. Let’s see how Schmidt responds to this.

It’s hard to choose friends when the candidates are at war.