Category: Internet Big Five

How Google Can Win the Future

[Second in a series, first post here]

This past week, Wall Street caught up with the rest of us and realized that Google has lost its monopoly grip on search. The trigger wasn’t Google losing an anti-trust case – that happened last summer. Nor was it the first ten days of Google’s ongoing search remedies trial. Instead, it was a statement just two days ago by an Apple executive, Eddie Cue, which led to an almost instantaneous panic amongst investors.

Cue told the court that consumers’ preference for using AI agents had led to a decline in search traffic inside Apple’s Safari browser (Google pays Apple more than $20 billion a year to secure that traffic – a major focal point of the government’s case).

Read More
2 Comments on How Google Can Win the Future

SIGN UP FOR THE NEWSLETTER

Stay up to date on the latest from BattelleMedia.com

Free the Database of Intentions: Could Google Thrive If It Gives Away Its Data?

Over the past 25 or so years, I’ve argued that Google has built a massive database of intentions – the aggregate result of every search ever entered, every page of results ever tendered, and every path taken (there’s a lot more to it, but that’s the key stuff). I’ve tracked this extraordinary artifact since 2003, and have come to believe that Google’s control over it has become a inhibitor to innovation and flourishing in our society.

The US government – yes, even this one – agrees with me. In the nearly three decades since Google first launched, the company has gone from champion of the open Internet to established monopolist whose principle business is protecting its profits. With the advent of consumer AI, that principle business is imperiled. Google is protecting a revenue stream that it must understand is no longer defensible, either by law or by practice.

Read More
1 Comment on Free the Database of Intentions: Could Google Thrive If It Gives Away Its Data?

How On Earth Will OpenAI Hit $129 Billion in Four Years?!

Chart The Information

I’ve been traveling for the past week, and ignoring the news as best as one can while on the road. But when The Information posted this doozy of a story – OpenAI Forecasts Revenue Topping $125 Billion in 2029 as Agents, New Products Gain – I made a note to myself: Grok those numbers, and see what on earth is going on.

By the time I got home, Ed Zitron, currently the tech world’s most fervid antagonist – had beat me to it. Zitron dissembled The Information’s reporting, noting that the piece takes “great pains to accept literally everything that OpenAI says as perfectly reasonable, if not gospel, even if said things make absolutely no sense.”

Read More
1 Comment on How On Earth Will OpenAI Hit $129 Billion in Four Years?!

Who Owns Your AI Identity? (Hint: Not You)

As generative AI reaches a fever pitch of investment, product releases, and hype, most of us have ignored a profound flaw as we march relentlessly toward The Next Big Thing. Our most dominant AI products and services (those from OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft, for example) are deployed in the cloud via a “client-server” architecture – “a computing model where resources, such as applications, data, and services, are provided by a central server, and clients request access to these resources from the server.”

Now, what’s wrong with that? Technically, nothing.  A client-server approach isn’t controversial; in fact, it’s an efficient and productive approach for a company offering data-processing products and services.  The client – that’s be you and your device – provides input (a prompt, for example) which is relayed to the server. The server takes that input, processes it, and delivers an output back to the client.

Non-controversial, right? Well, sure, if the “server” in question is a neutral platform that’s only in the business of processing your data so you can use the services it offers. Banks, for example, use neutral client-server architectures to provide online financial services, as do most health care providers. The data you share with them isn’t used for anything other than the provision of services.

Read More
3 Comments on Who Owns Your AI Identity? (Hint: Not You)

“Ready Later This Year”

After I write my annual predictions, I keep a little file of stories that relate to my prognostications. The most active one so far – if you tune out my opening line that “this is not going to be a normal year” – is #3: “2025 will not be the year AI agents take off.” It may be hard to recall, but by the end of last year, AI agents and “the agentic web” were all the rage, pushed as the Next Big Thing by just about everyone who had a stake in tech’s Numbers Go Up economy.

But it struck me that there was a lot of wood to chop between the hand waving of tech optimists and the reality of how complex systems actually work. I noted that the most significant structural impediment was Big Tech’s business model, which is reliant on consumer advertising and enterprise subscriptions and sales. Agents, as I pointed out in Where’s The Business Model in Chat-Based Search?, will likely undermine traditional consumer advertising models employed by Google and Meta. As for the enterprise, well, inter-operability been the bugaboo and the holy grail of enterprise software for as long as enterprise software has existed. Without protocols that allow developers to integrate across diverse systems, agents are never going to take off.

It takes years, not weeks, for such protocols to emerge and gain widespread support. Earlier this year I wrote about Anthropic’s MCP, which addresses a core issue: data connectivity (OpenAI recently announced support for MCP.) But MCP doesn’t address a host of other integration issues, including user interface, directory services, communication handling, and many other dull-but-important tasks. Aware of this problem, Google this week announced another protocol: A2A.

Read More
1 Comment on “Ready Later This Year”

Facebook Goes Backward. Why?

Earlier this week I met a fellow who, among very many other things, is a member of a bicycling group based where I live. Given that I live in a pretty small community, I was stunned I’d never heard of the club, which has 900 active members and runs four or five organized rides a week. How’d I miss it?

Well, the fellow told me, it’s a Facebook group. You should join! For the first time in ages, I fired up Facebook with the intention of actually doing something useful. I applied to join the group, then promptly forgot about it. I lost the habit of checking into Facebook more than a decade ago, and I have all notifications from the app turned off.

Read More
Leave a comment on Facebook Goes Backward. Why?

Google (And all of Tech) to News: Shove It.

There’s an old maxim in the news business: Stories in which a dog bites a man are uninteresting. But a man biting a dog? Now that’s worth writing up!

Last week Google released a report on the value of news to its business. Its conclusions minced no words. Here’s the money quote: “…news content in Search has no measurable impact on ad revenue for Google.”

On first glance, Google’s experiment feels like a Dog Bites Man story – everyone knows news doesn’t drive advertising revenue – hell, I lived that truth most of my career, most recently with The Recount, which attempted to convince advertisers to support high-quality news coverage across video and social media (we couldn’t). But look a bit closer, and you might just see a Man Bites Dog story after all.

Read More
1 Comment on Google (And all of Tech) to News: Shove It.

Where’s The Business Model in Chat-Based Search?

 

Google’s AI Overviews feature in its main search service.

Two years ago I wrote a series of posts exploring the business model and interface implications of generative AI-based search. At the time, it was not clear how Google would respond to the existential threat that ChatGPT and its peers seemed to present. If it took root, a chat-like interface to search would fundamentally disrupt Google’s core revenue model. What was the company going to do about that?

I noted that six months into the GPT revolution, Google’s response seemed to be overly cautious. I encouraged the famously slow-moving company to go on offense: “It’s time to push something out to market, it’s time to declare yourself the leader in this new market, and it’s time to lay out a vision for what the future of computing will look like,” I wrote. “Imagine if they had waited until they figured out how to make money before launching Google Search?”

Read More
2 Comments on Where’s The Business Model in Chat-Based Search?

Data Everywhere, But Not a Drop to Drink

This is not the network standard we’re looking for.

Three months ago I published my annual predictions, and while I rarely revisit them in the middle of the year, I do want to note an interesting development related to prediction #3, which states: “2025 will not be the year AI agents take off.”

Here’s what I said back in January:

Read More
1 Comment on Data Everywhere, But Not a Drop to Drink

When Tech Gets Too Big To Fail

I opened my annual predictions last week by noting that the technology industry had leapfrogged finance as the most powerful political force in the business world. But the news today that Meta is all but abandoning content moderation in favor of a decidedly Trump-friendly “let them say whatever the f*ck” approach has prompted me to revise that sentiment a bit.

It’s not that Tech has overtaken Finance. It’s that Tech has…become Finance. It’s become the most rapacious, amoral, win-at-all costs industry in the world. Consider:

  • Meta not only abandoned its content moderation practices (which, in turn, will allow it to supercharge its business model), it’s also building AI engagement chatbots aimed at juicing its bottom line, hired a Trump loyalist (and proponent of violence as entertainment) to join its board, and elevated a Trump devotee as its head of policy and communications. The company has pulled out every possible stop to ensure it profits from the next four years of Trump rule.
  • The global financial system is now dominated by the stock performance of tech companies. Nine of the top 10 S&P stocks by weight are tech companies. The entire S&P 500 is, in the words of one economist, “simply NVIDIA in drag.” When this is the case, finance becomes beholden to tech; now it’s tech companies, not banks, that are “too big to fail.”
  • The CEOs or founders of OpenAI, Apple, Amazon, Meta, Ripple, Robinhood, and countless others have given large sums of money to Trump in recent weeks. It’s difficult to see this payola as anything more than bribes and down payments meant to protect Tech’s position in a new world order built on … Tech.
Read More
2 Comments on When Tech Gets Too Big To Fail