<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The &quot;Creeping Googlization&quot; Meme</title>
	<atom:link href="http://battellemedia.com/archives/2003/12/the_creeping_googlization_meme.php/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://battellemedia.com/archives/2003/12/the_creeping_googlization_meme.php?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the_creeping_googlization_meme</link>
	<description>Thoughts on the intersection of search, media, technology, and more.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:18:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sarah</title>
		<link>http://battellemedia.com/archives/2003/12/the_creeping_googlization_meme.php#comment-25304</link>
		<dc:creator>Sarah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:32:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://battellemedia.com/archives/2003/12/the_creeping_googlization_meme.php#comment-25304</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Though experts may argue over whether the googlization of the world is a good or bad process, it is honest to say that most people want it to happen (though this desire maybe unconscious). People want all aspects of their life (including the Internet) to be easy. People are also creatures of habbit. The key to both the success of companies like AOL and Yahoo is the fact that people find it easy to stay on a page that is familar to them. It is easy. It is comfortable. Most people don&#039;t know how to use anything else. Why should they go anywhere else?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Googles advantage is that they have a better search feature. Yahoo and AOL customers that sneak over to search on Google might stay if the features of the other sites are present at Google too. In the past month alone, I have noticed a huge increase of email addresses that have the gmail ending on them. This shows that people are already migrating over to Google. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Where will this lead? Microsoft&#039;s Operating System dominates computers. This will never change. The fringe complains but the mostly computer illerate users of the world are happy to only have one choice. The same will eventually happen will Search. The biggest company will slowly wipe out everyone else. People won&#039;t complain that Google is the only search engine as long as it is easy to use, comfortable and popular. Like everything in the consumer world, using what is popular is more important than using what is small and unknown.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thanks, Sarah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.googlization.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;www.googlization.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;PS&lt;br /&gt;
Why do I add AOL to the list of Yahoo and Google. I watch people. I am outside of the expert community (which gives me the advantage of not having preprogrammed opinions fed into me by whatever agenda I am representing). I just watch how people (family, friends, fellow students, etc...) use their computers and the Internet. Most of these people don&#039;t even realize the difference between AOL and the Internet at large. Everything is done within the AOL universe. I see people typing domain names into the AOL search box and wondering why the site doesn&#039;t show up, assuming that it doesn&#039;t exist and then going to some other site with similar services. That&#039;s power to control the flow of commerce. If Google can get these same people to stay in the Google universe, not only will Google eventually wipe out the other search engines and services, most people won&#039;t understand that there is a difference between Google and the Internet. They will become one, syonymous. The googlization of the cyberworld will then be complete.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Though experts may argue over whether the googlization of the world is a good or bad process, it is honest to say that most people want it to happen (though this desire maybe unconscious). People want all aspects of their life (including the Internet) to be easy. People are also creatures of habbit. The key to both the success of companies like AOL and Yahoo is the fact that people find it easy to stay on a page that is familar to them. It is easy. It is comfortable. Most people don&#8217;t know how to use anything else. Why should they go anywhere else?</p>
<p>Googles advantage is that they have a better search feature. Yahoo and AOL customers that sneak over to search on Google might stay if the features of the other sites are present at Google too. In the past month alone, I have noticed a huge increase of email addresses that have the gmail ending on them. This shows that people are already migrating over to Google. </p>
<p>Where will this lead? Microsoft&#8217;s Operating System dominates computers. This will never change. The fringe complains but the mostly computer illerate users of the world are happy to only have one choice. The same will eventually happen will Search. The biggest company will slowly wipe out everyone else. People won&#8217;t complain that Google is the only search engine as long as it is easy to use, comfortable and popular. Like everything in the consumer world, using what is popular is more important than using what is small and unknown.</p>
<p>Thanks, Sarah<br />
<a href="http://www.googlization.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.googlization.com</a></p>
<p>PS<br />
Why do I add AOL to the list of Yahoo and Google. I watch people. I am outside of the expert community (which gives me the advantage of not having preprogrammed opinions fed into me by whatever agenda I am representing). I just watch how people (family, friends, fellow students, etc&#8230;) use their computers and the Internet. Most of these people don&#8217;t even realize the difference between AOL and the Internet at large. Everything is done within the AOL universe. I see people typing domain names into the AOL search box and wondering why the site doesn&#8217;t show up, assuming that it doesn&#8217;t exist and then going to some other site with similar services. That&#8217;s power to control the flow of commerce. If Google can get these same people to stay in the Google universe, not only will Google eventually wipe out the other search engines and services, most people won&#8217;t understand that there is a difference between Google and the Internet. They will become one, syonymous. The googlization of the cyberworld will then be complete.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Salkever</title>
		<link>http://battellemedia.com/archives/2003/12/the_creeping_googlization_meme.php#comment-25303</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Salkever</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2004 06:42:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://battellemedia.com/archives/2003/12/the_creeping_googlization_meme.php#comment-25303</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;It will certainly be an interesting quarter around this. Google is starting to look more and more like a portal. They introduced a raft of new services similar to the ones I wrote about -- flight number search, zip code maps, etc. And if the Reuters rumor of Web mail turns out to be true, then chalk that up. At the same time, new entries keep coming at them offering AdWords types of functionality for less money. With Yahoo! shortly bailing and MSN coming out with a similar game, I can only imagine margins will start to take a big hit in the next six months. Should that happen, the pressure on Google to do something else to make money would become enormous. I am looking forward to your book.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Alex&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It will certainly be an interesting quarter around this. Google is starting to look more and more like a portal. They introduced a raft of new services similar to the ones I wrote about &#8212; flight number search, zip code maps, etc. And if the Reuters rumor of Web mail turns out to be true, then chalk that up. At the same time, new entries keep coming at them offering AdWords types of functionality for less money. With Yahoo! shortly bailing and MSN coming out with a similar game, I can only imagine margins will start to take a big hit in the next six months. Should that happen, the pressure on Google to do something else to make money would become enormous. I am looking forward to your book.</p>
<p>Alex</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Battelle</title>
		<link>http://battellemedia.com/archives/2003/12/the_creeping_googlization_meme.php#comment-25302</link>
		<dc:creator>John Battelle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:04:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://battellemedia.com/archives/2003/12/the_creeping_googlization_meme.php#comment-25302</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Hey Alex, thanks for commenting. I think if Yahoo et al see the wind blowing one way, they&#039;ll go that way. It&#039;s happened again and again in this young business. Whereever there is more money (or strategic advantage), they&#039;ll go. The difference being they&#039;ll do a deal where they in fact DO sell referrals, as they are already (essentially) in that business. &lt;br /&gt;
The question of the IPO and its effect on the Googlopoly is a very very central one, and I respect your opinions on that. But I think they have a rasonable claim of differentiation based on the &quot;purity&quot; play, and will maintain that distance for as long as they can. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Alex, thanks for commenting. I think if Yahoo et al see the wind blowing one way, they&#8217;ll go that way. It&#8217;s happened again and again in this young business. Whereever there is more money (or strategic advantage), they&#8217;ll go. The difference being they&#8217;ll do a deal where they in fact DO sell referrals, as they are already (essentially) in that business. <br />
The question of the IPO and its effect on the Googlopoly is a very very central one, and I respect your opinions on that. But I think they have a rasonable claim of differentiation based on the &#8220;purity&#8221; play, and will maintain that distance for as long as they can. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Salkever</title>
		<link>http://battellemedia.com/archives/2003/12/the_creeping_googlization_meme.php#comment-25301</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Salkever</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:56:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://battellemedia.com/archives/2003/12/the_creeping_googlization_meme.php#comment-25301</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;John, I disagree with your contentions on several points. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;First, I am doubtful of Google&#039;s ability to remain so &quot;pure&quot; after the IPO. They will have effectively lost control of the company and will, to a degree, be at the whims of Wall Street investors. Of course, they might do a class of preferred stock to let Larry and Sergey keep control but that&#039;s not a heck of a succession strategy. Public companies are very different, as you well know. Sure, they try to balance long-term reputation with short-term gains. But few face the same kind of conflict in that area that Google faces. I respect Larry and Sergey for trying to do this. But I believe that many investors would not be so patient. Tanking stock affects a company in myriad ways, few of them good. Between the devil and the deep blue see, they&#039;d have to take the devil or really risk losing control of the company.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Second, Yahoo! and MSN could not replicate this extension strategy easily. They have chosen another course and can&#039;t go back. They try to keep the content on their own site and partner deals that way. To change that model wholesale would be excruciatingly painful. They would have to unwind vast numbers of deals and explain to partners that, in fact, the way that the partner had originally wanted to do it was a better idea. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Third, I disagree with your context assertion. The trouble with the Web is it provides so little context. Take Moviefone. The average user may or may not remember the name correctly. Or if they live in New York City they may run into the reality that a lot of cinemas there are not in the Moviefone system. Or they may punch movie times into Yahoo and see a bunch of stuff on the page but perhaps not realize they can simply enter their zip code in the top box for movie times. There are too many variables. What Google has done very well and others have not done is reduce variables to the greatest degree possible.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I do agree with what you say about Google trying to sell referals. I meant that more as a hypothetical and as a definite temptation. Their whole cachet to date is in not selling referrals or not &quot;selling out&quot;. Again, that will be harder to maintain when they go public. All IMHO.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John, I disagree with your contentions on several points. </p>
<p>First, I am doubtful of Google&#8217;s ability to remain so &#8220;pure&#8221; after the IPO. They will have effectively lost control of the company and will, to a degree, be at the whims of Wall Street investors. Of course, they might do a class of preferred stock to let Larry and Sergey keep control but that&#8217;s not a heck of a succession strategy. Public companies are very different, as you well know. Sure, they try to balance long-term reputation with short-term gains. But few face the same kind of conflict in that area that Google faces. I respect Larry and Sergey for trying to do this. But I believe that many investors would not be so patient. Tanking stock affects a company in myriad ways, few of them good. Between the devil and the deep blue see, they&#8217;d have to take the devil or really risk losing control of the company.</p>
<p>Second, Yahoo! and MSN could not replicate this extension strategy easily. They have chosen another course and can&#8217;t go back. They try to keep the content on their own site and partner deals that way. To change that model wholesale would be excruciatingly painful. They would have to unwind vast numbers of deals and explain to partners that, in fact, the way that the partner had originally wanted to do it was a better idea. </p>
<p>Third, I disagree with your context assertion. The trouble with the Web is it provides so little context. Take Moviefone. The average user may or may not remember the name correctly. Or if they live in New York City they may run into the reality that a lot of cinemas there are not in the Moviefone system. Or they may punch movie times into Yahoo and see a bunch of stuff on the page but perhaps not realize they can simply enter their zip code in the top box for movie times. There are too many variables. What Google has done very well and others have not done is reduce variables to the greatest degree possible.</p>
<p>I do agree with what you say about Google trying to sell referals. I meant that more as a hypothetical and as a definite temptation. Their whole cachet to date is in not selling referrals or not &#8220;selling out&#8221;. Again, that will be harder to maintain when they go public. All IMHO.</p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tim</title>
		<link>http://battellemedia.com/archives/2003/12/the_creeping_googlization_meme.php#comment-25300</link>
		<dc:creator>tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://battellemedia.com/archives/2003/12/the_creeping_googlization_meme.php#comment-25300</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;While I think the referrals issue is interesting to ponder as a &quot;slippery slope&quot;, the writer&#039;s fedex and moviefone arguments are unfounded.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The Fedex functionality, along with UPS and the USPS, is driven by those companies&#039; adoption of open Web-based APIs -- for the primary benefit of the world&#039;s online stores. Everyone, everyone, everyone can use them.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;As for moviefone losing a page view, how is that different than every other online search? What I want to know is this: would my bookmarking of that page be a bad thing for moviefone?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I think the referrals issue is interesting to ponder as a &#8220;slippery slope&#8221;, the writer&#8217;s fedex and moviefone arguments are unfounded.</p>
<p>The Fedex functionality, along with UPS and the USPS, is driven by those companies&#8217; adoption of open Web-based APIs &#8212; for the primary benefit of the world&#8217;s online stores. Everyone, everyone, everyone can use them.</p>
<p>As for moviefone losing a page view, how is that different than every other online search? What I want to know is this: would my bookmarking of that page be a bad thing for moviefone?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
