When Will People Stop Exploiting Google?
from the time-to-pay-up dept
I assume you've been hearing all about how sites like the Huffington Post are exploiting workers like a slave master by having them work for free. It's all, as Nick Carr has noted, digital sharecropping, as "free" is really all about exploiting others. And, of course, what it comes down to -- as Billy Bragg pointed out a few years ago -- is about who profits from all of that "free" stuff. According to Jonathan Tasini, that's "unjust enrichment."Since we've established all of that, I have to ask the big question that really represents the elephant in the internet room:
You see, I recently read on Kevin Kelly's site about how Google provides about $500 worth of value to the average searcher. And we got it all for free. But, but, but... you say: we're paying for that in the advertising we see. Oh, how naive. Why, that's just like saying that Tasini got paid in exposure (how do you measure that?!?) or that Bragg got paid in getting a free platform to promote his music. Others will point out that Google made the choice to offer its service for free -- but, again, that applies to the people screaming about being "exploited" by Arianna Huffington as well. Then, of course, some will say that those situations are different because they involved companies cashing out. Yet, according to the Kevin Kelly piece, there's approximately $65 billion in consumer surplus from Google that the company is not capturing. $65 Billion. How can the company possibly go on knowing that the public has made so much money off of its hard work?
So, all of you using Google without paying your $500 directly to Google, when will you stop exploiting that poor company?
Okay, got that out of the system. A bit more seriously, you really should read the Kevin Kelly article which combines a few different studies to determine how much Google is worth to users. The really key point in all of this is the pure economic growth created by this. It's not in Google's bottom line (though, that's part of it), but in the massive consumer surplus created by tools like Google that allow people to do things they simply couldn't do before and do other things much more efficiently. If you understand how economic growth works, this is a perfect example. What are sometimes called "spillover effects" or "consumer surplus" is really economic growth in action. It's when the sum is greater than the parts, and that value can be more widely distributed. This is a good thing, and it would be nice if people stopped getting confused by "free" and thinking that it means an economic disaster, rather than an economic multiplier, as it often is...
In terms of the specifics, this also really does a nice job of demonstrating the difference between price and value. The technical "price" of using Google is free, but we value it a lot more than that. Google offering up search for free doesn't "devalue" search, as some suggest. It does the opposite. It creates more value. Kelly asks what would happen if Google decided to try to "capture" that excess value by charging. I'm sure a ton of people would pay. But, really, the question is would that be sustainable? The second Google did something like that, you could bet that Microsoft would suddenly jump to being the number one search engine, and it would open up all sorts of opportunities for new upstarts trying to enter the market. And, really, that's the key point we keep making. Certain things can't really succeed at a long-term price over zero, because the competition will just eat them alive. But, a la Google, it doesn't mean there isn't a ton of money to be made. You just have to figure out what to charge for. There's no exploitation going on here. Just economics.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, economic growth, exploitation, free
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Mike...
Then I come to find out that I did not need to write one at all. Thanks. I'm sending you a bill for a new check and some ink for my pen - and it's an expensive pen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has search become a right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has search become a right?
Aren't they the ones molesting Miss America, lying to us about not wanting to divulge information about international agreements, censoring the internet, searching our computers without cause?
I think we have handed enough of our "rights" over to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has search become a right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has search become a right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has search become a right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Has search become a right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Has search become a right?
yeah it was pretty bad but we get worse than that from AC's all the time around here, just keep reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bigger question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The bigger question...
I hear it's etiquette to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The bigger question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And...then how could they track us all and give the information to the government?
I'm not much on conspiracies but...you think maybe the government has been making up at least part of that missed income?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Likewise, I've seriously considered Microsoft's Action Packs and MSDN subscriptions. The products I use would make it a deal.
Course, Google doesn't ask for my cash, and MS no longer merits it, IMO, so I'm good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free parking is stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free parking is stealing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like it.
I like this example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charge the Author for my time
PS Maybe Mozilla and Explorer should be charging us. I should charge the author for the time it took me to read this trash and write a response.
Do us all a favor and don't write any more articles.
CS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Charge the Author for my time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Charge the Author for my time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Charge the Author for my time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Charge the Author for my time
They just read your whole content in your inbox, for the reason, and that's the most crazy thing of all, TO SPAM YOU WITH THEIR ADDS??? I heard if they see an individual puts a couple of links to many on blogs on one day, you'll be punished by banning you from their database's ... Unbelievable... And then I have to pay them maffia-boys for a place in their search-results...?
I am going to stop commenting on this now, because i do not want to step on anyone's toes, or place something hurtfull, but seriously dude, if i we're you, i would take a few weeks off, and get myself a good thorough check-up at the doctor's, because really, i think you completly lost your contact with reality.... In ten years or so,when they dictate EVERYTHING what we as individuals can and cannot do online, we'll talk again....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Charge the Author for my time
http://investor.google.com/earnings/2011/Q1_google_earnings.html
they made a revenue of 8. something BILLION, in 3 months!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not arguing that searching isn't great, just saying if you were given the same option to give data on your habits, what you read, where you bank, when you're at work, at home, let them read your emails, etc, to an individual in exchange for them looking things up in a library for you, you would say no without hesitation. We give all this information to google who in turn uses it to make Billions of dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That seems like a bit of an exaggeration. Admittedly Google is able to collect quite a bit of data, but most of it is used in aggregate and is difficult to link to a specific person.
For instance, I don't think Google could tell when you are at work or at home. Also, while many people have G-mail accounts not everyone does.
I'm not accusing you specifically but people really put on the tinfoil hats when they start talking about Google, which is amusing because there are many entities in a much better position to have much more personal data. The post office for instance could probably learn and share a great deal more about people than almost internet search company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now I'm not offended because I could easily fall into the 'tinfoil' hat crowd I suppose, which things to be what happens when you point out all the data google is actually gathering. I'm not saying that Google is evil or that you shouldn't use them, I'm just saying the service isn't free. Just because we personally can be ignorant to the true cost doesn't mean it cost nothing, or that we should feel indebted for that matter.
I use google, but it scares the shit out of me when I look in aggregate at the analytic page of a large e commerce company, my own web history (which proves they can link it back to an individual), the fact that the gmail user agreement says they will read your email, or the fact that street view collected my wifi information and tied all of this back to accurate lat/long coords, or the recent harassment scam that proved google links multiple gmail accounts to an individual for internal tracking purposes, that they can access all of your google voice and chat history, or the implications of all that when combined with GoogleTV or the fact they are in bed with the DoJ.
As I said, I'm ok with these things and continue to use google and have no plans to change, I make no suggestion that you should change your habits. I just think it's naive to think you give nothing away. We intrinsically trust the little white box, when really we shouldn't.
I think the full thing is on there, but there are a few very insightful portions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFL5tLYyZ_U
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I copied your YouTube link and it was unavailable. did I copy it wrong or is it an old link?
I appreciate your well formed comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can go to youtube and search for 'Inside The Mind of Google', that should pull up all the parts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well okay, I'm using Youtube. But that's about it. And Youtube sadly has no viable alternatives. Pretty much everything else that Google provides does.
And besides, DuckDuckGo is, you know, just BETTER than Google's Search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google 'reads' your email?
Google's SYSTEM looks for patterns in the content of your emails as it displays them to you - they have to read your emails of disk to display them to you in the first place, so they might as well automatically see if there's any hints in there that you might be interested in a particular advert. Hardly a major invasion of privacy, and certainly one that isn't very costly anyway... and you never know when the right advert will turn up just when YOU need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google 'reads' your email?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google 'reads' your email?
Really though Ben, your post is agreeing with what I have said and only attempts to engage in name calling based on your misconception of the point being conveyed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you must be joking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you must be joking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]