Sergey Brin: Facebook and Apple a threat to Internet freedom

Despite everyone else seemingly being on the opposite side here, I agree with Brin.<p>Google allow you basic functionality over your own data with them, such as the freedom to migrate to other services, which Facebook and Apple restrict (and profit from).<p>And he is right that when companies horde user information and then control access to it (for profit) rather than provide it freely, it stifles innovation [though Google themselves do a little of this too].<p>I'm sure that Google could be doing a lot more to screw everybody's personal information for profit if they chose to, but they dont because they have at least some respect for the common user (though they are not perfect either).<p>Also, as a side issue, the original (guardian) article is very poor in the sense that the journalist imposes their own narrative on top of what Brin is saying.

For a counterpoint, my company is one of the larger players in our field measured in terms of user numbers, but we have zero visibility in Google on anything but brand searches. We survive in part thanks to decent visibility through Apple and Facebook where word-of-mouth recommendation actually works because the recommendation networks are human-powered.<p>If the aim is promoting a healthy online ecosystem, Google is a greater threat to startups than either Apple or Facebook in the sense that it is heavily biased against new entrants, and encourages a competitive equilibrium in most markets which encourages the gaming of its search algorithms by actors working in bad faith. Google meanwhile insists that the ranking problems of good sites are the fault of webmasters rather than its own problems measuring site quality, focus and user engagement.<p>The problem here is with Google, not with Facebook or Apple.

After having my Google account suspended because I made a stupid mistake when creating a YOUTUBE account, and all my appeals (with my ID) denied until I chose to have my CC charged (what would happen if I had an Android ? ).<p>After having my Adsense banned without warning, with money cancelled and no (real) appeal feasible.<p>It opened my eyes and I really want to move away from Google more than Facebook (which has only stupid data about me) or Apple (which I don't use any product).<p>I use more than 10 Google services that are somewhat critical to me and now that I have the feeling that it can be blocked anytime it has become very uncomfortable.

Sure, let's all kill the messenger, he has selfish intentions. But let's also consider the message.<p>There would be no Wikipedia today if Microsoft would have control over its ecosystem back then in the way Apple does today.<p>Wikipedia was a direct competitor to one of Microsofts Products. They would have simply rejected it to make us buy Microsoft Encarta on DVD.<p>There would probably be no internet at all. Don't fight Netscape or Firefox. Just reject them.

Google could also be more open:<p>- They introduced 'rel author' HTML attribute to assign authors to web-content. Despite being an OpenID provider, they only allow you to 'verify' with a Google+ profile. This doesn't feel much like the 'open web'.<p>- Google+ isn't crawlable from the outside. (just like Facebook isn't).<p>- The Facebook API allow a user to 'connect' with a site so they can pass data back and forth. Google+ does not.<p>- Google search now strips your search term from the referrer header so webmasters cannot analyse the data. They state privacy as the reason, yet will sell you the data if you pay via Adsense!<p>Google are great company, who have done some awesome stuff and been a positive force for the internet. However, since Page took the helm they seem to have changed direction somewhat.

"First thing I'd say to Brin, if you're sincere in your concern for the open web, why aren't you leading it?" -- Dave Winer<p><a href="https://twitter.com/#!/davewiner/status/191579280034103296" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/#!/davewiner/status/191579280034103296</a>

Pot, kettle?<p>All popular internet services used to be designed in a distributed fashion, with no central servers, no single point of failure and no single organization to tell you whether you get access or not.<p>Then came Google.

Kinda sick of hearing this. I mean, you've been able to download an archive of everything you've posted to Facebook for awhile now. The Facebook APIs are way more built-out than the Google+ APIs. And here are like a billion other web sites out there that only make information available after logging in and so also qualify as walled gardens, but apparently aren't worthy of criticism.<p>Meh.

Am I missing something here? All the pontifications around threats to Internet Freedom and the oft-referenced perils of walled gardens aside, where is Google going here? Where's the revenue?<p>How is Google going to compete going forward, and with what? With Google+? Google Wallet? GMail? Google Play? Google Glasses? Are these offerings growing (fast) enough to support Google? How do they recoup their investments in these and other projects?<p>What will Google do as the search market becomes increasingly commoditized and specialized and, yes, fragmented? The ever-present walled gardens are just one part of this. It appears likely that the flagship Google apps and services will become increasing commoditized, and available from existing providers such as Rackspace and Amazon, or entrants such as HP Cloud and Microsoft Windows Azure? By providers that might choose to offer better customer support, for instance.<p>How is Google going to continue to provide a platform for their advertisements, when queries are being fed (from apps and tools and walled gardens) more directly to specific (and tailored) hosts and search engines; with queries directly connected into Yelp, LinkedIn, Wolfram Alpha?<p>How are they going to recoup their investments in the Android platform? Chrome? With their investments in browser search boxes?<p>Certainly this whole effort involves speeches and press releases and related marketing, but I don't see the platforms and the updates and the new sources of revenues that the Google folks need to be investing in; not at the scale that they need to maintain themselves. Walled gardens have and will continue to happen and tech markets can and will fragment, particularly if the results cater to the end-users and provide sufficient the revenues for the vendors.<p>TL;DR: What's Google doing about their risk for disintermediation?

He may have a valid point to certain extent regarding a controlling nature of those two firms, but if I look at last 10 years, I see more innovation out of Apple than Google, and even in it's controlled way Apple through iOS has driven more innovation (Instagram?)<p>Some of you may be a fan of Apple but I do not think one can deny the quality of innovation that has come from Apple vs. lack there from Google. I am talking about innovation that change the way we live.

I think Brin is being somewhat of a hypocrite.<p>User data should roam freely between services and shouldn't be locked-in.<p>But asking Facebook and Apple to open-up their core products is like asking Google to publish their search algorithm or publish the profiles of all their advertisers.

How is Apple a threat to the open web? They don't even DO web... At worst they make it possible to write (walled in) native clients that perform better than a browser for specific tasks.

You know who I feel sorry for? Microsoft -- who doesn't even rate as being a threat to the internet...

Openness and freedom are really subjective terms to people.<p>The common person doesn't give two hoots about all this. Just like how we don't give a damn about openness in the design of car or a truck engine or the chemical composition of engine oil.<p>I don't get this cry at all. Your data was never personal. The day you used your cell phone your location could be tracked and was tracked I suppose(Even if for merely billing reasons). The day you shopped you were giving away information on your buying habits, spending trends and contributing data to larger data sets used by corporates. All that happened by merely using a credit card.<p>Nearly everything related to a person is track-able.<p>But do you know what is bigger threat today? Its massively big monopolies controlling everything about a particular business like online advertising, payments and access to information(search).<p>According to me that is a bigger threat. Coming to openness of computers in terms of hack ability. For a common man a computer is no different compared to a washing machine. And people don't tear down their washing machines to hack on it. Just like how we don't hack our cars and mixer grinders.<p>And there is basically nothing wrong with that.

I find this funny considering you need to login with a google account to view public Google+ posts (even though they appear in the SERPs).

Oh, and, incidentally, to Google, too ;-)

I think this title is not what Brin was saying. He said government, Apple and Facebook are threats to the 'Open Web'. The web and the internet are totally different things.

Brin acknowledges that the data is valuable. It belongs to other people. Google makes enormous revenue from it. Perhaps it's time for them to start paying for it.

and google is not?

"You have to play by their rules, which are really restrictive."<p>Applies to Google just as well. The more they talk, the more disrespect they earn, seriously.<p>When Android companies like HTC, Samsung were on a losing side of patent litigations, Google claimed "patents are wrong, hurt innovation" -- and look at the very same people squeezing every last dollar out of their patent portfolio now, when they have some.<p>Announcing Google+? "Sharing on the web is broken". Yeah, right.<p>Now this, too. IMO Google poses much more substantial threat to the Interwebs than Apple, while also being 20% more assholes.