[p2p-research] Google: Is P2P on the Menu?

[marc fawzi]

Hi all,

I was updating an article I had written in 2006 about Google's then-emerging
status as a monopoly-by-innovation (which to this remains as the #1 search
result when people type any combination of keywords containing "google" and
"monopoly" on google.com) and I started thinking of Google's recent launch
of their own browser and more recently offline versions of their online
applications (e.g. Gmail offline) and if that means anything to the P2P
movement.

I've known for some time now that it's easily possible for Google to build
into their browser certain key P2P capabilities for application developers
(e.g. secure, reliable UDP protocol, DHT) that depend on some of their
centralized services like Google Account, Google Friend Connect, BigTable,
etc, thereby making popular P2P application development dependent on their
services.

In updating the "Is Google a Monopoly?" article I have not spectualted about
Google's recent moves in the context of P2P but I have started to think
about it and how a grassroot technology like P2P can be used to extend the
power of those already in control (like Google.) ....

In fact, I have not made up my mind as to whether a Google developed 'open
source' P2P-Enabling Platform would be a bad thing. I think anything that
extends the power of those who already have too much power is a bad thing,
but at the same time the fact that we don't see many P2P-enabled
applications (i.e. PC to PC, not web based) points to the difficulty of
developing such applications, which I can summarize if anyone is
interested.

But I really can't say if that's where they're going for sure. I just know
that they CAN go there if they wish, at any time, and I haven't figured out
how I should feel about it, but I'm generally of the opinion that growing
dependent on one company or supplier is a bad thing.

The article in question remains #1 on Google's search results (for
"monopoly" AND "google") 3 years after it was written despite recent
articles from Washington post and CNN about the same subject, which is a
little strange since the article barely gets more than 5 hits a day.

The just-updated version of the Is Google a Monopoly article is pasted
below...

Is Google a Monopoly? (Updated Jan 27, 2009) In
Uncategorized<http://evolvingtrends.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/>on
*July 10, 2006* at *6:13 am*

*Author: Marc Fawzi*
*License: *Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/>

(first published on July 10th, 2006, updated Jan 27, 2009)

~~

Given the growing feeling that Google holds too much power over the future
of the Web, without any proof that they can use that power for real change,
and with sufficient proof of their true character as a profit seeking
entity, that has put profits ahead of morals1, it is easy to see why some of
us are growing increasingly concerned about Google's drive to embed itself
in all aspects of the Web and our lives.

In the software industry, economies of scale do not derive from production
capacity but rather from the size of the installed user base, and that's
because software is made of electrical pulses that can be replicated in bits
and downloaded by the users, at a relatively small cost to the producer.
This means that the size of the installed user base replaces production
capacity in classical economic terms. The exception to this observation is
software that can be used from within a standard Web browser, e.g.  Google
search.

So far Google has been building its dominant market share in search based
mostly on the strength of their technology, and not by leveraging an
installed base as Microsoft had done, so they were not considered an actual
monopoly.

However, this is changing as Google leverages its 80% market share and brand
to move into the browser space, first by funding Firefox (where Google
search is the default search engine) and now by launching their own browser,
Google Chrome, which uses Google as the default search engine, and, more
importantly, provides a platform for Google services which are beginning to
be available in both online versions, e.g. Google search, Gmail, Google
Apps, and offline versions, e.g.: Gmail Offline, which was just announced
yesterday, and presumably others in the future.  This represents a fork in
the road for the Web, with Google moving to leverage its dominant market
share and brand to created an installed base (just as Microsoft had done
with Windows) on the desktop and mobile devices (see: Google Android, and,
more specifically, the anticipated Google Chrome for Android,) with which it
can dominate every application category it wishes to dominate, just as
Microsoft did with MS Office in the office productivity space, which
strangled Corel's Wordperfect, Lotus 1-2-3 and similar competing products.
Thus, Google's move into the browser and offline application space, which
happened almost at once, is troubling in that it gives Google the same
position Microsoft had with Windows on the desktop, which it established
through illegal agreements with PC manufacturers, and for which it was fined
in the billions of dollars. So while the means by which Google is securing
this unfair position is legal, i.e. by leveraging its market share and
brand, the advantage itself remains an unfair one, with the consequence
being that Google is working to dominate the the mobile phone, the desktop
and the Web, which would greatly stifle innovation, which depends strongly
on the existence of a diverse and healthy market with many producers,
without any one producer having an unfair position.

For companies competing against Google , it's not any better or worse than
it used to be under the Microsoft monopoly for companies that have to
compete with Google .

But it's much worse for us the people because what is at stake now is much
bigger. It's no longer about our PCs and LANs, it's about the future of the
entire Web.

You could argue that the patent system protects smaller companies from
having their products and innovations copied and co-opted by bigger
competitors like Google. However, during the Microsoft dominated era, very
few companies succeeded in suing them for patent infringement. I happen to
know of one former PC software company and their ex CEO who succeeded in
suing Microsoft for $120M. But that's a rare exception to a common rule: the
one with the deeper pockets always has the advantage in court (they can drag
the lawsuit for years and make it too costly for others to sue them.)

Thus, given that Google is perceived as a growing monopoly, which many see
as having acquired too much power, too fast, without the wisdom to use that
power responsibly, I'm not too surprised, in retrospect, that so many people
had welcomed the Web 3.0 <http://evolvingtrends.wordpress.com/web-30/>vision.

–
1. What leaps to mind as far as Google's lack of wisdom is their cooperation
with the Chinese government, not in something positive and of benefit to the
people, but in oppressing the already-oppressed (see: Google Chinese
censorship.)

*Related *

   1. Beyond Google: The Road To a P2P
Economy<http://evolvingtrends.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/the-road-to-a-p2p-economy/>
   2. P2P Energy Economy (active
project)<http://evolvingtrends.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/p2p-social-currency-money-20/>

*Update *
Google's shareholders, on advice from Google's Board of Directors, have voted
against<http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1767888348;fp;;fpid;;pf;1>two
proposals that would have compelled Google to change its human rights
policies (for the better.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090129/479d56ff/attachment.html>