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

Sat Jan 31 16:59:35 CET 2009

Hi Marc,

this looks like excellent material for our blog, including this intro here
below ...

would appreciate if you could post it!!

do you have author status? if not, please ask James,

Michel

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:03 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 
The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
alternatives.

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p

Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU

KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090131/3a95125f/attachment-0001.html>