Charlie Rose

REMant  01/12/2010 10:44 PM Report

Well, Google is successful for three reasons, only one of which is really beneficial: 1. it searches well; 2. it has therefore cornered the online ad mkt and is likely to control the entire ad mkt before long; and 3. as a result it has attracted an undue amount of investor interest. For the rest it does them pretty badly, or no better than anyone else, and as Auletta said, it derives little income from them. In essence most of what Google has done is to skim the other media, like Federal Express skimmed the Post Office. But I am not at all unhappy with the collapse of most of the old media cos and am looking forward to seeing it include some of the giants created in recent yrs. What we have to be wary of is seeing these same ppl, or the same sort of ppl, take control of the Internet, etc, and so I am definitely in favor of net neutrality. I am not at all sure that Google, itself, does no evil, even intentionally, tho I'm sure not as much as Amazon or M$. I think it possible that with more user sophistication other sites may be able to take some of the ad business away. Right now all a lot of ppl seem to know how to do online is Google. Microsoft has always been blind to the Internet, and especially stuff like You Tube and Facebook, and always interested in serving business, recently, however, showing a tad of interest in do-it-yourselfers, tho personally I think You Tube and Facebook of less value than Days of Our Lives. Google, on the other hand, has made clear to many, who didn't see it before, the financial aspects of media. Journalists are concerned about objectivity and content, but the real issue with the media has always been its control of advertising, and the implications that has for the economy as a whole. Twitter could, of course, undermine it, as really could the Web, itself, if ppl ever learn to use it. I think it is fair to say that there would be fewer monopolies, if ppl would stop allowing themselves to be monopolized.