Comments on: The Google brand: what would Simmel say? http://cultureby.com/2007/07/the-google-bran.html This Blog Sits At the Intersection of Anthropology and Economics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:43:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ken http://cultureby.com/2007/07/the-google-bran.html/comment-page-1#comment-2710 ken Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:34:19 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=441#comment-2710 I read this right after reading the post on "front stage" and "Back stage", and notions of privacy changing. I was an EARLY Google rejector, seeing them for the money hungry capitalists that we all want to be. But one of the curious things to me was how some techies so quickly adopted everything Google, in particular because they capture your content (in e-mail, web pages, etc) things that if Microsoft did these same techies would bash all over the blogosphere/YouTubavision. Go figure. Google just offere the USA govt a 4.5B "bribe" to change their spectrum offering rules. Again, if ATT had done something like that, tech protests would be happening on screens everywhere. But like you, I find more people I talk with these days to not be quite so taken with Google. Apple, unlike Google, at least flew a pirate flag outside to let people know where they stood. This garnered very little large investor interest, corporate use or second stage adopters. The flag no longer flies and they have partnerships with Disney and ATT, and a market cap that surpasses HP. Who would have guessed that! What is funny to me is it seems that the first people down the python were the same ones as in 1998. Not sure what that means, except maybe those in first and out first are better equiped to twitter (is it still alive) around more. I read this right after reading the post on “front stage” and “Back stage”, and notions of privacy changing. I was an EARLY Google rejector, seeing them for the money hungry capitalists that we all want to be. But one of the curious things to me was how some techies so quickly adopted everything Google, in particular because they capture your content (in e-mail, web pages, etc) things that if Microsoft did these same techies would bash all over the blogosphere/YouTubavision. Go figure.

Google just offere the USA govt a 4.5B “bribe” to change their spectrum offering rules. Again, if ATT had done something like that, tech protests would be happening on screens everywhere.

But like you, I find more people I talk with these days to not be quite so taken with Google.

Apple, unlike Google, at least flew a pirate flag outside to let people know where they stood. This garnered very little large investor interest, corporate use or second stage adopters. The flag no longer flies and they have partnerships with Disney and ATT, and a market cap that surpasses HP. Who would have guessed that!

What is funny to me is it seems that the first people down the python were the same ones as in 1998. Not sure what that means, except maybe those in first and out first are better equiped to twitter (is it still alive) around more.

]]> By: Peter http://cultureby.com/2007/07/the-google-bran.html/comment-page-1#comment-2709 Peter Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:30:59 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=441#comment-2709 Good post, Grant - a summary of one of the very big ideas of your book. I think most commentators would agree these ideas apply to fashion (clothing), and to hi-tech products. What I believe is interesting is the fact that they apply to every other product and service as well. Even tomatos, for goodness' sake, I have heard discussed at dinner parties in terms of their varieties and provenance, as if they were fine wines. And the purchase of raw materials such as coal, as studies have shown, is subject to fads among buyers. Purchasers of absolutely everything are influenced by peer-group pressures, it seems. But, of course, we marketers should delight in this behavior! If there were no product lifecycles, there would not be many decisions for marketers to make. Good post, Grant – a summary of one of the very big ideas of your book.

I think most commentators would agree these ideas apply to fashion (clothing), and to hi-tech products. What I believe is interesting is the fact that they apply to every other product and service as well. Even tomatos, for goodness’ sake, I have heard discussed at dinner parties in terms of their varieties and provenance, as if they were fine wines. And the purchase of raw materials such as coal, as studies have shown, is subject to fads among buyers. Purchasers of absolutely everything are influenced by peer-group pressures, it seems.

But, of course, we marketers should delight in this behavior! If there were no product lifecycles, there would not be many decisions for marketers to make.

]]> By: Rodney Tanner http://cultureby.com/2007/07/the-google-bran.html/comment-page-1#comment-2708 Rodney Tanner Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:11:30 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=441#comment-2708 Good post Grant. Perhaps there different facets in the Google-good/Google-bad discussion. At the user interface, I would have to say it´s still mostly Google good. It´s at the commercial interface that the "Google-bad" talk is most voluble. I have come across a disturbing (for some) tone in their recruitment adds (coming out on LinkedIn). Very MBAish, Google practices etc. A different culture emerging: a confident (some would say arrogant) dominant market leader. Microsoft parallels? Could be. Good post Grant.
Perhaps there different facets in the Google-good/Google-bad discussion.
At the user interface, I would have to say it´s still mostly Google good.
It´s at the commercial interface that the “Google-bad” talk is most voluble.
I have come across a disturbing (for some) tone in their recruitment adds (coming out on LinkedIn). Very MBAish, Google practices etc. A different culture emerging: a confident (some would say arrogant) dominant market leader. Microsoft parallels? Could be.

]]> By: Tom Asacker http://cultureby.com/2007/07/the-google-bran.html/comment-page-1#comment-2707 Tom Asacker Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:48:27 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=441#comment-2707 Grant, I'm not sure that "users" identify themselves with applications the way that "techies" do. They have no vested interest in being an early adopter and influencer, and few people walk around displaying their software allegiances. I couldn't care less if the mainstream has adopted Quickbooks, Word, Gmail, or whatever other application I happen to be using at the moment. If I switch, like I recently did from Act! to Highrise for contact management and task scheduling, it's because I found better value despite the switching costs. Grant, I’m not sure that “users” identify themselves with applications the way that “techies” do. They have no vested interest in being an early adopter and influencer, and few people walk around displaying their software allegiances.

I couldn’t care less if the mainstream has adopted Quickbooks, Word, Gmail, or whatever other application I happen to be using at the moment. If I switch, like I recently did from Act! to Highrise for contact management and task scheduling, it’s because I found better value despite the switching costs.

]]> By: collyn http://cultureby.com/2007/07/the-google-bran.html/comment-page-1#comment-2706 collyn Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:49:09 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=441#comment-2706 Hi Grant. Fabulous post. A few thoughts... I've been thinking about the way programs like Flex that are going to change our relationship to Google et al. Apparently, a lot of programmers are already creating 'google applications' that don't actually require a browser... but rather just run a straight connection between a computer and the internet. So my question, I suppose is if ditching browsers is going to change the way we use google and ebay and ..... whatever. And especially if people (through the apparently simplicity of Flex) can build their own personalised search engines - perhaps a composit engine, will Google become somewhat invisible? Still running, but as much a brand as your company's local server is a brand. What does invisibility do to a brand? Does this reach further into the bowels of brand austerity and authenticity trends? I certainly prefer my food unpackaged, why not have an unpackaged Google as well? This all makes sense to me for some strange reason... I hope you're doing well... enjoying a proper summer climate! -collyn Hi Grant. Fabulous post. A few thoughts… I’ve been thinking about the way programs like Flex that are going to change our relationship to Google et al. Apparently, a lot of programmers are already creating ‘google applications’ that don’t actually require a browser… but rather just run a straight connection between a computer and the internet. So my question, I suppose is if ditching browsers is going to change the way we use google and ebay and ….. whatever. And especially if people (through the apparently simplicity of Flex) can build their own personalised search engines – perhaps a composit engine, will Google become somewhat invisible? Still running, but as much a brand as your company’s local server is a brand. What does invisibility do to a brand? Does this reach further into the bowels of brand austerity and authenticity trends? I certainly prefer my food unpackaged, why not have an unpackaged Google as well? This all makes sense to me for some strange reason…

I hope you’re doing well… enjoying a proper summer climate!
-collyn

]]> By: Venu Gopal Nair http://cultureby.com/2007/07/the-google-bran.html/comment-page-1#comment-2705 Venu Gopal Nair Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:39:09 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=441#comment-2705 The strange thing is that Google has done so little in Search over the last couple of years. They've built a money-making Ad Sense platform, they've bought out the biggest video delivery service over the net - You Tube, they've expanded their 'experiment' with newspapers to sell excess inventory and they're making efforts to take over radio as well. From search to media aggregation has been a quick transition. The strange thing is that Google has done so little in Search over the last couple of years. They’ve built a money-making Ad Sense platform, they’ve bought out the biggest video delivery service over the net – You Tube, they’ve expanded their ‘experiment’ with newspapers to sell excess inventory and they’re making efforts to take over radio as well. From search to media aggregation has been a quick transition.

]]> By: srp http://cultureby.com/2007/07/the-google-bran.html/comment-page-1#comment-2704 srp Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:51:59 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=441#comment-2704 The problem for Google is that they are becoming a utility, like the phone company and the gas company and yes, like Microsoft Windows and Office. Nobody likes their utility provider. It always seems big and powerful, making decisions that affect everyone else. When it changes something, it screws up all the things that depend on it; when it doesn't change enough, people who feel locked in get antsy. I wrote a little post on strategy issues for "new-style" utilities at http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/03/19/utility-strategy/. The problem for Google is that they are becoming a utility, like the phone company and the gas company and yes, like Microsoft Windows and Office. Nobody likes their utility provider. It always seems big and powerful, making decisions that affect everyone else. When it changes something, it screws up all the things that depend on it; when it doesn’t change enough, people who feel locked in get antsy. I wrote a little post on strategy issues for “new-style” utilities at http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/03/19/utility-strategy/.

]]> By: Tom Guarriello http://cultureby.com/2007/07/the-google-bran.html/comment-page-1#comment-2703 Tom Guarriello Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:40:33 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=441#comment-2703 Sounds like the grapes were rather tart at the gathering you describe, Grant. As for an innovative start-up coming along to replace Google...they better have lots and lots and lots of money, 'cause it ain't gonna be easy to find something to fill the space occupied by that pig. Sounds like the grapes were rather tart at the gathering you describe, Grant.

As for an innovative start-up coming along to replace Google…they better have lots and lots and lots of money, ’cause it ain’t gonna be easy to find something to fill the space occupied by that pig.

]]> By: jens http://cultureby.com/2007/07/the-google-bran.html/comment-page-1#comment-2702 jens Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:40:44 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=441#comment-2702 simmel would agree with patricia. simmel would agree with patricia.

]]> By: Matt http://cultureby.com/2007/07/the-google-bran.html/comment-page-1#comment-2701 Matt Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:07:51 +0000 http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=441#comment-2701 Great thoughts. You have me thinking. I wonder if this might not be as true for Google. I just recently added Google Earth functionality to google maps. It's almost like Google Earth without the application. I feel like Google is offering me something quite often that makes me appreciate them. However, I think that for the longest time, Microsoft didn't care about advances in technology. Whether that was true or not, that was the brand personality. They didn't need to care because they owned the desktop. Now though, they are fighting for their lives. So you get things like SeaDragon. Check this: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/129 It makes me want to like Microsoft, perhaps for the first time ever. My point, while I think I agree with your premise, I'll suggest that obviously further innovation can act as more pig. If Google continues to innovate, perhaps they won't lose everyone. And Microsoft, doing something really cool? That sure seems off my brand impression. Great thoughts. You have me thinking.

I wonder if this might not be as true for Google. I just recently added Google Earth functionality to google maps. It’s almost like Google Earth without the application. I feel like Google is offering me something quite often that makes me appreciate them.

However, I think that for the longest time, Microsoft didn’t care about advances in technology. Whether that was true or not, that was the brand personality. They didn’t need to care because they owned the desktop. Now though, they are fighting for their lives. So you get things like SeaDragon. Check this: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/129
It makes me want to like Microsoft, perhaps for the first time ever.

My point, while I think I agree with your premise, I’ll suggest that obviously further innovation can act as more pig. If Google continues to innovate, perhaps they won’t lose everyone.

And Microsoft, doing something really cool? That sure seems off my brand impression.

]]>