Google: The Internet Company

(1)

Google: The Internet Company

MA Thesis

Sander van Haren

Student number: 5655862 Universiteit van Amsterdam Media en Cultuur: Nieuwe Media Supervisor: Bernhard Rieder

Sandervanharen@gmail.com

(2)

Introduction

In the present when we use the Internet we are accustomed to a wide array of

available services. These services offer the user a lot of different kinds of services and functionalities. These services are designed to be practical, user friendly and are capable of interacting with other services. In this time frame Google is one of the largest providers of these services. Because of the success and popularity of their services, Google is an important factor in our daily (Internet) lives. However, Google was not always in the position it is in at the present. When Google was founded it was in the middle of a struggle for the search market. In the late 1990’s this ‘battle’ was fought with search giants such as Yahoo!. Eventually Google was able to get a foothold and continued to grow. Because of the ‘relatively’ simplistic functionality of the Internet usage in that time, a proper search service was greatly needed. In this time frame the Internet grew enormously which also amplified the desirability of an actual search engine (instead of maintaining manual directories). With Google’s new introduced system it was able to gain a reasonable and continuously growing market share. This is how Google began with one of its first services. In the following years Google was able to expand its services while simultaneously increase its income, enabling the company to further expand. In the present, this expansion has led to environment where Google’s services are of key importance to todays Internet users. The services are also a reason why Google is in a state of omnipresence on the Internet.

The justification of this thesis is found in the facts stated above. Exactly because of Google’s services growing importance it is (and will continue to be) important in the future. This thesis will examine some of Google’s services individually. In addition to individual examination, it is the goal of this thesis to examine and point out one of Google’s major strengths: synergy. In this thesis I will investigate Google as a company and research its business approach, focusing on synergy tactics and the usage of walled garden techniques to further fortify its synergy approaches. I will divide this thesis in a few chapters.

(4)

The first chapter I will discuss will cover the current situation of Google; in this chapter I will discuss Google’s current state, some of Google’s history and some of the previous Google studies. In the second paragraph I will focus on Google’s historical expansion facts, as well as researching its acquisitions tactics. These tactics form a vital part to Google’s success. The third chapter will cover my research towards synergy and walled garden techniques used by Google. This chapter will individually examine some of Google’s most prominent features and will provide insights in the state of these techniques. In the last chapter I will connect my previous chapters with my findings and clarify the impact of my findings.

As mentioned, my goal in this thesis is to research Google and to provide information about the development of the Google Company and how this development could teach us about similar companies. In addition of providing information about the “Internet Company” I will also focus on synergy strategies and walled garden techniques used by the company and its services. The goal of this thesis is to find more about the unity between services and to provide more

information about such an important company in the present and quite likely, the future. Now finishing my introduction, I would like to introduce my research question, which I will answer during my research:

Research question:

What is the Google Internet Company? And how exactly does such a company develop through concentric diversification and the use of synergy/walled garden techniques?

(5)

Chapter 1

The current position of Google

In this first chapter my goal will be to provide more information about the current position of Google. With this information I will bring the reader up to date on some of Google’s general developments and some of its important statistics. These

statistics also indirectly justify the research again, showing how important it really is to investigate Google in the way I am doing in my thesis. With this relatively general information I will enable the reader to understand my approach better.

In the present, when looking for information a lot of people’s first reaction is to consult the Internet. A lot of these users use Google to browse the Internet to obtain the required information. In the present Google is one of the biggest (the biggest in most countries) search operators. Google published its first official annual search numbers in 1998. At that time Google processed 3.600.000 searches in 1998, with an average of 9.800 a day. In 2013 this number was increased to

2.161.530.000.000 Google searches a year, with an average of 5.922.000.000 per day1. According to studies towards search engines, Google is the undisputed number one, on second place Bing and the third place is held by Yahoo!2 But Google is much more than a simple search operator. Google also provides numerous of popular online services. When it comes to online services, Google is one of the most prominent service providers of the world. Because it is such a popular provider of services, Google’s services play a major part in a lot of the user experience. A lot of Internet users experience the web for a huge part through Google and its services. In this scenario, Google is an extremely important factor in mediating experiences of the Internet.

An important specific of Google’s services is its business model. Instead of the (in the past) classical business approach where you pay for the software, Google adopted a new business model: Free services.

1_{http://www.statisticbrain.com/google-‐‑searches/} 2 http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/search-‐‑engines 2 http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/search-‐‑engines

(6)

Google provides its services without a fee. In the time of Google’s ‘rise’ this was also one of the most important and defining features of Google. In short this means that the services Google provides are free of charge. The user does not have to pay to be able to use the services offered. At first, Google’s business model might sound like an ideal service; however Google’s business model comes with a cost. This cost becomes more dangerous with the increase of Google’s market share. Through various

services and its essential position in today’s search economy scholars have pointed out the risks of this cost. Unlike in earlier times, where the user would actually pay for the service, Google deploys a model that instead of charging its users with fees, it stores almost every action the users make. When a user clicks on something this information is stored, the same applies when a user watches a page, how long the user watches, and what exactly on the page the user is watching. Furthermore, the user’s search queries are saved.

Using this information the service can improve but, as earlier explained this user obtained data also services another purpose: to generate profits: the users activity is made profitable by Google by changing this activity into more precise advertisements. This information is what Google profits from.

With the collected information, the advertisements can be made more effective; with an increase of effectiveness, the advertisements spot themselves increase in value, which results in an increased income for Google on two different ways. The first is the increase in the price of the advertisements, the second is the increase of the effectiveness of the advertisements, implicating Google search becomes a better service, attracting even more users.

This approach has contributed to Google’s rapid expansion and market increase. In combination with this free to use business approach there was another feature that allowed Google to expand rapidly. Google has a sophisticated system that collects data, from searches and from the users (in the present). Exactly because of this obtained information Google is able to provide one of its most important services that generates its income: advertising. Internet advertising in general is a delicate business.

(7)

Studies have shown that when exposed to large amounts or irrelevant

advertisements, the target audience builds up advertisement resistance (Wojcicki 2007)3_{. With this advertisement resistance the audience no longer pays attention} towards the advertisements or actively pursuits ways of avoiding the unwanted advertisements. But, with Google’s, capabilities of data appliance, a new ‘ideology’ rose about the Internet advertisements: the idea that with betters data, more

accurate, matching and desired advertisements could be placed. Indirectly this also shows the interconnectivity of Google’s data. With this technology the placed advertisements were believed to be more successful and generate a higher click rate per impression rate. The final idea for the advertisements was for them to seemingly blend in the search results. Interestingly enough, when Google started out it made a very clear distinction between advertisements and search results. However, in the next years this distinction vanished and the goal changed to blending the search results together with the advertisements. Because of the general successful results of these techniques, Google created a valuable service for other companies. By using the collected search data and search queries Google could now connect user’s search queries (and history in the present) with an advertisement that could indeed be interesting to the user, while simultaneously lower the total amount of

advertisements. With the combination of this advertisement decrease but with the rise of advertisement effectiveness increase Google was now able to satisfy both the consumer and the companies looking for a place for their advertisements.

Later on, Google also made it possible for small businesses so place relevant and affordable advertisements on their websites, based upon their visitor and click data. Before these services they had limited possibilities of advertising mainly because the advertisements available were too expensive and therefore unaffordable.

(8)

In the period from 1994 till 1997, according to Van Couvering (Van Couvering 2008), the ‘battle’ was fought. Not long after, with Google’s official founding in 1998, Google and its search-‐‑based system eventually came out on top.

The triumph of this victory over the now, ‘old fashioned’ way of finding information would become a crucial step towards the increasing embrace of the potential of the computer and the Internet in general. With the triumph of query-‐‑based search and automatization, Google was enabled (in the future) to explore and master one of their most important qualities: the mastering of quantities. In Chapter two and tree I will clarify this statement and explain its importance for Google as company. Before ‘the rise of Google’ Internet users also used search engines and some of them used pages that listed other websites using a classification system full of directories. As van Couvering mentions (van Couvering 2008) this was also a time for

innovation. Searching in those days was a troublesome job (in comparison to the present) and was exponentially more difficult and tedious in comparison with some of the newer search queries. However, while this could be speculative, the main problem with the classification system was the idea of classification itself. A classification system depends on their classification. The first advantage that Google’s search techniques allowed was the power of automatization.

Automatization techniques allowed quick adaptations and led to a vast decrease in human resources. A second problem arose with the increase of information. New sub classifications became important to remain structured and searchable. This system runs into a problem every time it encounters an object that is not yet classified. Some of these objects are extremely difficult to classify because they can be dualistic for example and belong to multiple categories. In extreme cases certain objects could belong to many classes. In time and with the increase of

multiple classification objects the clear system becomes its own restriction. The multiple classes eventually create an unorganized, chaotic database.

(9)

Another reason why a classification system encountered difficulties is because the classifications need to be made. Unlike a search-‐‑based system that relies upon tags (which can be normalized and ‘out-‐‑sourced like Google does with its click count and its page layout) the classification system needs an expert in classification. This expert has the impossible task to classify new objects and reclassify old objects constantly. There are numerous of reasons why this becomes impossible with the increase of the database (Driscoll 2012), one of them is the sheer size of work, another would be the multiple classification object. Also, the classification system promotes the ‘classifier’ to an expert who is educated and makes responsible and logical decisions. However not all the users think in simultaneous ways and therefore finding some information may become more difficult with a classification system. Instead of using a small elite who classifies, which could also be problematic in the case where people do not agree or do not trust the classifier or raise questions of responsibility, a system that outsources these decisions to the people themselves is much more logical, simplistic and organic. The system is susceptible to changes and is continuously redefined or changed by the users. With the introduction of ‘search based’ results, the entire classification system was no longer needed and was slowly but surely replaced by indexing and connecting the results to ‘smart’ search engines, like Google. This fact alone had a huge impact on the user friendliness and the image of computers in general: no longer was the computer the object of professionals.

With Google’s services, the search query results became quite popular and enabled a lot of non-‐‑specialists to operate and successfully find new information on the Internet. This change in the already growing market was another step in the direction of the Personal Computer (PC). Because of this early ‘breakthrough’ in search and accessing of the Internet in general, Google gained an advantage to rapidly obtain an important position in the search market (van Couvering 2008). The fact that Google search was released at almost a perfecting time and place scenario led to the fact that a lot of the new users were bound to Google early on. This would play a crucial part in Google’s future strategy of expansion and branching out to different kind of markets. With the future releases of Google’s services Google was able to retain their ‘won’ search users and expand.

(10)

Exactly because of their effective services, based upon a lot of crowd sourcing techniques the users were, in a way, able to shape their own services while Google provided the tools. The technology empowered the users by offering possibilities to utilize the Internet in an accessible way. Google provided a good service and attracted users, with a positive association to Google’s services in the future, which helped the company in the future. By using such a strategy as a basis for most of their services Google ensured itself of a user base in the present and in the future.

While Google being one of the (currently) largest Internet companies in the market, I should also make a reference towards the general ‘playing field’ of the search engines. Concerning the story of dominance Yahoo! also plays a crucial part in the story of the rising dominance of Google. In the period of technical

entrepreneurship as Van Couvering coins it (Van Couvering 2008), there were multiple companies researching the possibilities that this ‘new’ Internet platform provided. With Google being a search query based driven search engine Google also played a crucial role in the adaptation of this new search driven system, instead of the old hierarchical and structured way of indexing information.

(11)

With the increase of Google’s ‘free’ services, it was able to expand the possibilities of its data income and focus to include everybody. Exactly because Google continues to offer new services to the Internet users, chances are high that new users are attracted to these services. In addition to new users providing information, there is also the possibility of a new service acquiring a different kind of information. The increase in information and its type leads to an increase of inclusion. Google slowly expands its territory in which it can gather different kinds of information. Through the

introduction of various services such as Google Search, Google +, Google News and Google Maps, Google was expanding beyond its original focus: search. These services are made possible by income generated through several techniques and practices. Google employs several techniques and services that enable it to make money of the obtained data. With Google’s vast data collections Google is able to keep on developing and expanding into new territories.

(12)

With this continuously increasing territorial expansion Google is able to increase the incoming data flow, which enables new investments and expansions. Through the years Google has been successful in obtaining a central position in the search (and internet) market. ComScore4_{, a leader in measuring the digital world, provided a} graph that shows the dominance in the US.

Fig.1

comScore Explicit Core Search Share Report* February 2014 vs. January 2014

Total U.S. – Home & Work Locations Source: comScore qSearch

Core Search Entity Explicit Core Search Share (%)

Feb-14

Total Explicit Core Search 100.0%

Google Sites 67.5% Microsoft Sites 18.4% Yahoo Sites 10.3% Ask Network 2.4% AOL, Inc. 1.3% 4

https://www.comscore.com/Products/Audience_Analytics/qSearch

(13)

The second graph also shows the global dominance of Google’s services, using the techniques provided by Netmarketshare5_.

Fig.2 April, 2014

Search Engine Total Market Share

Google - Global 68.65% Baidu 16.99% Yahoo - Global 6.56% Bing 6.41% AOL - Global 0.26% Ask - Global 0.17% Excite - Global 0.16%

This central position of Google was accompanied by an increasing importance in the research into this relatively new element in society. Because of it’s wide usage the relevance for these multiple studies was justified by the increasing market share of Google. The current position Google has makes it one of the largest search/Internet companies in the world. The Internet Company stands for a company that has specialized in the handling of large amounts of data and information. Exactly because of this ‘talent’ to interact with information, an Internet Company is able to expand horizontally and to venture in different branches of services / companies. Because of its talent it seems that such a company will be successful with any enterprise as long as it has their core skill: data handling.

(14)

With this increase in market share also raised an increasing responsibility. This responsibility is created through the fact that numerous of Internet users experience The Internet often through the interaction with Google, or in a situation where Google is a (key) determining faction. Those services can also shape the users Internet experience. By using search browsers, such as Google Search, we now have a way to request specific information out of a giant database. The search engines function as gateways to our stored knowledge and therefore, becomes more important as has been argued by academics (Zimmer 2009). However, with the appointment or emergence of such gateways certain dangers also arise as has been indicated by previous studies.

As previously mentioned, the Internet Companies will most likely become even more important because of the continuous growth of databases. This increasing importance can be explained through the fact that the available databases keep growing exponentially. Not only the size and amount of the available data plays an important role in the success of Google, but also the necessity of extraction and filtering becomes increasingly important. Google appears to be a company that handles enormous amounts of data very well and is able to transform this data in (increasingly important) information about the world around and about its users, in a way this classifies the Internet Company.

In a society where data and information obtained through data play a crucial role, the vast data centers become increasingly important. In the present people have been ‘converted’ by numbers. In a way, numbers and statistics make up for the main material to make decisions. In this society we continuously try to calculate the future based upon data and decisions are made based upon data. As Hacking describes in his work, The Taming of Chance: the realization grew that the world was not

predetermined (Hacking 1990). This realization caused the need for control and enabled a new more ‘scientific’ way of reasoning based upon chance. This new realization is extremely important for the present, since people started to exclude coincidence by determining chances and by putting their faith in those numbers. As stated in the work by Cohen, about the rise of statistics there has been a change in the way we think and ‘operate’ through the work of Quetelet (Cohen 2005).

(15)

In the present this trust in numbers has become the natural attitude, where

everything revolves around numbers. This trust in technology and numbers is also essential to Google’s businesses and income. (Porter 1995). While at first, this trust may seem irrelevant; it represents the current attitude towards technology in

general. As previously mentioned this trust in technology seems to work in Google’s case. With the increase of data, Google is able to increase its successful

advertisements by increasing their effectiveness and their placement. Through the collected data a more appropriate advertisement can be found and placed. The idea that with the increase of data, as previously described in the rise of the statistic’s part, Google can continuously improve the effectiveness of the advertisements and therefore guarantee a higher chance of income for the respective companies who are interested in advertising. By using these database methods, Google is able to increase its own efficiency and therefore increases in value for both the users and the

companies. This increase in value is then translated in increased income through advertisements increases or potential stock market increases. In a way, Google seems to represent a perfect example of the last stage of this increase in quantification. This increase in quantification seems to be a vital part of Internet Companies in general and enable them to expand their services, as I will show in my first case study.

With that said, the rapid increase in Google’s popularity and its available services and data enabled the central position Google is in at the moment. With this position of importance also comes the need for extensive studies and research. Because of the growing importance of Google and the (data centric) changes in the society more questions were raised that needed to be investigated. Through the time Google has been the subject of numerous of studies that all investigate certain aspects of Google which I will expand on in the next section.

(16)

Previous studies affecting Google

As mentioned in my previous section, Google has quite often been an object of study. Through out the year there have been several studies with all varying subject angles. Most of the performed research focused on specific parts or aspects of Google. The reason for this is Google’s current position in today’s society and the importance it holds in it. In his work Cohen mentions the growing importance of statistics and ‘numbers’ in general in the future (Cohen 2005). Google seems to be an exquisite example of this reasoning, being a company that thrives in the present society, through its finesse with large quantities of information. Through algorithm refinement Google has a working method where it provides the users with the required information or services. With the society of ‘numbers’ as mentioned by Hacking, most of the processed information is being ‘reduced’ to data (Hacking 1990). The society thrives through the embrace of numbers, but is also dependent on the new system of information at the same time.

In the coming paragraphs I will discuss several research angles that devoted their study to Google and are in some way related to my own thesis. Exactly because of the multiple components and the diversity of the Google Company, a combination of different material is required to research such a complex company on various levels. All of these studies researched Google in different ways using multiple

angles. The justification for these particular focus points can be found in the multiple levels a company such as Google operates on. As I will argument later on in my thesis, most of these loose components are working together to create the company and service Google is known for, this justifies the need for an approach that covers both ideological angles and more technical ones.

(17)

The angles I will cover are the:

-‐‑ Market and current viewpoints on Google’s concentric diversification -‐‑ User centered critique

-‐‑ Platform studies -‐‑ Platform policy studies

The first research angle I will discuss contains an ideological critique on Google’s services. The first work I would like to emphasize is the work by Introna and

Nissenbaum (Introna 2006). In this article they explain that the search engines do not only raise technical issues but also political ones. These political issues are also closely connected to my own thesis since I will research the company itself but also a possible walled garden structure. This walled garden structure relies heavily on accessing and creating differences. In the article the author’s identify the current problematic relations of the search engines. They are also searching for ways of addressing these problems. One of these problems is the ranking of the search results. The ranking of search engines such as Google, has become a vital area of business in the present (Pasquinelli 2009). In the present it has become mandatory for a company to pay attention to the findability of its own company in these search engines. If the companies neglect this part of their business, they are taking a tremendous risk (Introna 2006). Introna also argues that there is a lot at stake concerning the Internet in general. It is important for a lot of different parties to ensure the ‘proper’ functioning of the Internet. Exactly because of these stakes we should be aware of the choices made by search engines. The search engines create their rankings through their own rules, which results in the eventual ranking. With these difficult decisions in mind, they problematize the relationship of search engines and the abilities of powerful websites or companies to influence their ranking

(Introna 2006). In their work the authors focus on search results alone, however in the present, many of Google’s services function in a way where information gathering and algorithmic decision-‐‑making are essential.

(18)

These qualities also form a crucial piece of walled garden strategies and through networks of synergy these networks also decide the rules (Diaz 2008).

An interesting study to use as a starting point to offer a market perspective is the open letter written in 2014 by Mathias Dopfner6_{, the CEO of Axel Springer, a} large publishing house to one of the founders of Google: Eric Schmidt. In this open letter, which he named: “Why we fear Google,” he explains his point of view and doing so he provides a valuable insight into the market perspective, considering Google. In this letter he states that the (publishing) industry is in a difficult position, a position of dependency. Through the Google algorithm a lot of users access their listings and Google helps to generate revenue for the publishing company. Relying on this algorithm creates a possible dangerous situation, since if there is a sudden algorithm change some of the listings may no longer be found. Dopfner continues by discussing potential ideologies of empowerment. Through Google’s services users and businesses may empower themselves, however they may soon find themselves powerless. This powerlessness is expressed in a long-‐‑term situation.

As various of scholars have argued the original vantage point of Google, ‘to make the world a better place’ is problematized by the fact that a huge part of this worldview depends and relies on the ownership of the data. Continuing from this point, this question will become crucial in the future according to Dopfner. This is exact the point why the scales are not particularly balanced. As displayed in some of the visualizations of the previous pages, Google is the dominant factor in the search engine industry. With this dominancy comes the power to define the market. All of this takes place in an environment where the user is not made aware of the

circumstances and the way the search results are presented. Dopfner mentions that Google is (close to) a global network monopoly and argues that this fact is exactly why there should be a transparent Google policy regarding the search results and search criteria.

6_{http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/mathias-‐‑doepfner-‐‑s-‐‑open-‐‑letter-‐‑to-‐‑eric-‐‑} schmidt-‐‑12900860.html

(19)

These crucial criteria are lacking at the moment and become even more important since Google lists its own products as well. In most cases, according to Dopfner, Google lists its products higher than those of its competitors. As mentioned earlier on, the importance of Google’s search engine services turned out to be of crucial importance in their synergy strategies. Discussing the competition field

automatically results in a question where we should ask ourselves if competition is still possible in the present situation. As Dopfner mentions, “eventually there will be a winner”. However this winner, in the form of Google, also brings new questions of independency with it, on a national level. Because of the current dominance of Google, other services are struggling to create a foothold and a possible alternative. Problematic as these will only increase through time and through the expansion of Google’s services, as Matthias states. In these new markets, such as the robotic market or the self-‐‑driving car market new alliances can quickly be made preventing other companies from joining.

In his open letter Dopfner clearly shows his concerns for the consequences of Google’s services for the market. Exactly the strategy sketched by Dopfner seems to form an essential part of Google’s power in the present, and forms a crucial part of its development. Through concentric diversification as shortly mentioned by

Dopfner when discussing the competition field, Google is able to control the field as Levy (Levy 2011) confirms. This open letter is of great importance portraying a market view on Google’s network of services and its concentric diverse expansions.

According to Dopfner the society is in a crucial time and place. Is the creation of a ‘super company’ possible with Google’s expansions in combination with the lack of legislation: a company that surpasses national laws and services specific interests? Matthias provides valuable insights from a business perspective on Google’s

behavior and strategies that are in a strong relation with my own discussed topics. Discussing the arguments as the ones discussed in the page before may become inevitable at some point. To clarify Google’s current situation I will also (shortly) discuss the expansion history of Google’s advertising services. With Google’s services, companies are now able to place advertisements on Google’s services. However, Google also functions in another way.

(20)

Google also provides websites based upon through its own rankings. In addition to the first situation it also provides the best possible advertisement matches for certain websites using Adsense7_{. It is important to make this distinction between its core} business search (findability) and secondly (the most likely first real expansion), the advertising delivery network. By expanding in both the possibility to list sites to advertise themselves and in addition to provide those sites with matching

advertisements, they took both sides of the advertisement market: the platform for advertisements and the advertisements themselves. To continue with the studies relevant for my research I will now discuss the present situation of the society according to Lovink and address the state of “Googelization”.

In the present we seem to be in a state of Googelization, according to Lovink (Lovink 2008). In his work he examines the state of our society and our grave needs for techniques such as “Googeling”. He also critiques the current society and its position and dependence towards data systems, such as Google (Lovink 2008). Through the usage of search engines like Google, we have as a society changed our behavior in favor of the search engine. Vaidhyanathan also recognizes the danger we have placed ourselves in, relying on these (opaque) services (Vaidhyanathan 2012). Vaidhyanathan directs his work towards the dangers for the users in this

relationship. He mentions the problematic relationship with companies such as Google and the transformation of the human individual into a profitable product for Google. Exactly because a lot of users are not completely aware of the used practices, it is difficult for them to become conscious of their position. In addition to this

problematic relation come several questions of reliability. Connecting to this framework, Van Dijck researched the creation of knowledge through the usage of search engines. As mentioned before the transformation of the human being into a profitable product also leads to the change of the users individual knowledge, into a ‘common’ knowledge, accessible by Google (Van Dijck 2010). Van Dijck connects the user and its input to the creation of knowledge in general.

7

http://adsense.blogspot.nl/

(21)

User centered critique

I will now shortly make a connection to a more user capitalistic centered critique. Google’s services actively and continuously generate data and information through user ‘movement’. Because of this movement information can be generated which Google can turn into a profit. In this thesis the focus lies on the development through concentric diversification. This implies that a vital part of the success of Google is its user activity. Indirectly this justifies the need for researches that focus on the user perspective when engaging with Google’s services. Mager discussed the implications of the transformation of the users into a unit of profit (Mager 2012). Mager discusses the paristic relation of Google towards its users. Google seems to be ‘harnessing’ the common knowledge for its own profits and growth. The user in this scenario is put into a particular situation. With this being said the connection to another researched angle of Google must be made. This connection regards the exploitation of the users, with the users in the center of attention. In this situation the user is being put into a situation of ‘free labor’ (Terranova 2004). Terranova discusses this position in her research. However, as Terranova approaches this situation with an angle of exploitation, there have been studies as well regarding the exact opposite: the empowering of the users and studies of gained user value.

I will now discuss a more general approach taken by previous studies, focusing on the role and consequences of Google’s algorithms and the ideology of algorithms and the Google services in general. Another approach taken by previous studies raises questions regarding the used algorithms, and its consequences, as Gillespie discusses in this work (Gillespie 2010 ). The algorithms are often an overlooked part of Google services. Interestingly enough, it is the algorithm in the end that decides the content and is therefore a vital part that needs to be researched.

As Bing Pan et al. and Grimmelmann discuss, the algorithm is not in a state of neutrality (Bing pan 2007) (Grimmelmann 2009). During the creation and usage of the algorithm, there are human factors present that determine the functionality and outcome of the algorithm. While functioning, these algorithms may seem neutral.

(22)

However, they are subject to policy and politics and raise questions of gatekeeping (Rogers 2009). The databases and the algorithms seem to have the power and have gained a central position. Power is expressed through the algorithms and its owners. The algorithms do tell us something about what is important in the world at the moment and can form a reflection of the world (Grimmelmann 2009). For example, the perceived democratization given by Google’s services (and the Internet in general) “transforms” the users into a single super processor. However, in this state the role of the algorithm is often overlooked.

As scholars have argued, algorithms appear to function in a perceived sphere of neutrality; but they do have concrete consequences in reality (Fuchs 2011). Having discussed the role of the studies done in the fields concerning algorithms and their consequences in Google’s services, I will now discuss another important angle regarding the personalization of Google’s services (Feuz 2011). In the previously paragraph I have discussed the algorithms and their relation to Google’s services. When the algorithms are functioning, they also create a state of filtering. Google filters their search results and service results based upon several factors. This personalization plays a crucial part in the outcome of a search query as well as in Google’s other services. Because of this crucial part in Google’s services this justifies the need for more information about Google’s personalization techniques, regarding its services and user experience.

The research of Pariser and Parramore, (Parramore 2010) (Pariser 2011) investigates the creation of a filtered reality: The Filter Bubble. In their research they describe the dangers for society on a social level where users no longer live in a shared reality, but in a personalized one. In this personalized reality the users (through personalization techniques) no longer share the same experience as other users, Pariser mentions the undesirability of such a state and its potential

(23)

Platforms

In this part of the chapter I will discuss a vital part of Google’s progress which is also an important technique used in services in specific and between all the services: the creation of a ‘platform’. With the creation of the platform there is also the need for a policy of the platforms and the consequences it creates. With the increase of the services, provided by Google (and others), we can speak of ‘the platform’. The platform is a hub where several services and possibilities are connected to each other and interact with several elements. In this web of services, questions are raised about the politics of platforms and the potential creation of walled gardens (Fuller 2012) (Gillespie 2010). One of the most important elements about Google’s services is that together they provide a ‘fully’ digitalized information environment, where multiple services are connected to each other and support each other in information gathering and processing (Rieder 2013). In this information environment a service attracts attention that can be used and guided towards another service where new

information can be found through the collaboration of services. Exactly this created synergy between services forms a vital part for Google.

With this new information, profits can be made. This information is, obviously, also used to enable third party companies to target their customers and thus provides Google with its income and its relevancy. The individual elements that make up Google, are much more when structured and organized together. Because they dynamically work together, they are able to support Google and are responsible for its success in the present and in the future. These different kinds of services also work together in more ways. One of these other ways is the attraction of attention in general. When a specific element of a platform is used, traffic commodity is created (Van Couvering 2008). When using the traffic commodity in combination with other techniques such as AdWords or DoubleClick, new insights can be learned about relevancy and potential profits.

(24)

Van Couvering also describes multiple periods in her work (Van Couvering 2008). She discusses the growth and development of the search engine industry. One of the first periods she distinguishes is the period from 1994 to the late 1997. She coins this period as the period of the technical entrepreneurship. This period is a period of competitiveness in the search industry. In this period there are multiple companies that are mainly focused on technological innovation in search technology. With the second period the focus of the main search engine companies shifts slightly to non-‐‑ traditional media and telecommunication owners. In this period the focus is on expansion and acquisitions, becoming larger. As Van Couvering discusses the search factor of the business was no longer the key advantage of the company, but became one of the many elements the companies needed to expand in. In the final period, Van Couvering describes the attitude shifting towards revenue generation through click per search advertisements and in this period the larger companies were able to buy other, smaller companies.

The collaboration and synergy between services also tells us something about the attitude towards information gathering in a perceived system of walled gardens. Through the usage of walled garden theories, combinations of certain techniques and services can be explained (O’Reilly 2005). In this enormous assemblage (the

information environment), there are multiple elements and techniques that form an assemblage with a common goal; hold the user and obtain information (Gillespie 2010). Elements that enable this mode of information gathering can be identified. One of them is the universal account for example. Google makes it possible to

(automatically) log into all its services using the same universal account (which I will elaborate more in my ‘experiment chapter’). A feature like this makes sure that the user never truly leaves the platform, and is always signed in. Another of these elements is the number of different services. The ultimate goal is to provide all the services the users need, preventing the user from leaving and providing information somewhere else. The combination of such elements creates a state of information capture that tries to hold the user within set boundaries. In my own research I will make use of the previously presented Walled Garden theories to promote and explain the general synergy between services.

(25)

In the present the users experience the web in a web 2.0 style: every experience is guided by visual themes and user activity is crucial (Langlois 2009). However, there was no clean break between web “1.0” and “2.0”. Some of the features we now associate with Google were already around, they were inherent parts of the web, tools of communication: file transfer protocols. Collectively the change of these protocols changed the way of the web and how we use it. The future became more about ecommerce. In this web 1.0 era discussions how value was generated became dominant. After the market crashed it was time for a new approach: web 2.0.

New ideas were generated how to make the web profitable for business again. This new business model was centered on consumers and smart marketing. A new era of optimism was born: a time where consumer research and consumer profiling became central: consumers became the market (O’Reilly 2005).

Web 2.0 was seen as a network and as a platform. In this period users were extracted of information. A network of platforms emerged. A lot of large service providers like Google started creating multiple webs of software. The services were compatible with each other. All software ran on one platform: the Internet. This platform worked as one giant universal operating system. In this operating system

interoperability became a key factor as well as using/discovering the value of the user. A great timeframe of capitalism emerged.

Bruce Sterling8_{introduced a new idea of the stacks together with Benjamin} Bratton “the stack software sovereignty”. This new business was centered around a couple of powerful and recourse full companies. In the present it is all about Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and Facebook. These companies started to create stacks (Bratton 2013). The stacks represent an oligopoly that has been build and has been expanded on through vertical and horizontal expansions. The idea of stacks is crucial to today’s software and today’s companies.

Stacks imply that software is built on software. The present situation of the web as platform is fragmented in a web ecology dominated by a few powerful companies. The interoperability between software is really important and it is only (fully) realized with these few companies.

(26)

Most of the gathered data by these companies are closed off. These stacks operate together, on top of each other. Combined these stacks can create an environment. The stacks, together, can create walled gardens that keep users in certain system domains.

This also creates the introduction for the System Theory (Bertalanffy 1968). Companies creating systems of certain services led to the acquisitions of different kinds of companies. They all want the user to be in their walled garden and control the information provided by the users. They want the user to remain in their environment and to keep supplying information and to keep doing this in their environment. By doing so, the system becomes self-‐‑sustaining, generating income and services. In return the users receive a good service, a personalized service. In this service system it is quite possible that the user only needs to create a single account, which is accepted in all of the other services provided. The idea behind the walled garden techniques is that the users give all their information to one provider,

allowing the provider to provide useful and personalized services. Companies try to provide all the services available to retain their users and to draw new users in. The companies dive fully into data commerce. Nowadays information is bought. The current companies are continuously seeking new layers; they want to own every possible layer. This creates a deep tension between freedom of the users and the desire of companies to make money (Goldman 2010).

In the present there are several companies that have gotten so extremely powerful that they have become very influential on the state of the Internet. Through the smart reversal of the investments from companies to individuals they have profited enormously (O Reilly 2005). In this time frame the long tail is created: a situation where a few own the most and where this exponentially continued9_.

Amazon is a perfect example of the reversal of investment. Through algorithms they let the customer do most of the work. This labor is connected to a smart algorithm that is able to offer services, such as recommendations.

9

http://www.longtail.com/about.html

(27)

Information is the main value for these companies, such as Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook. The value of the software is proportional to the scale and dynamism of the data it helps to manage. This triggered and convinced a lot of developers to use software. Software became less like a product and more like a service: constantly updated services: they become an environment. In this

environment it is the users data that become the commodity. Users add value to your application: information income. This attitude can be investigated by exploring the default settings of the services; the default settings are to share everything. This also creates a strong connection to the original protocols, since they are also about accepting, to be inclusive.

The goal of modern (Internet) software engineering used by Google seems to be to retain as much data and information as possible within a platform or service ( preferably in the same stack). Indirectly this eventually can create an Oligopoly: a situation where a few companies own a large portion of the information and can determine and shape parts of the market. Because of the tremendous costs, there can only be a few of these actors in this playing field, as predicted by the theory of multi-‐‑ sided markets (2011). Some of these companies have become powerful enough to let them buy all the others, as can be seen with Google and its services (O reilly 2005). These (companies), software platforms, have several consequences: they can empower individuals, by creating new powerful applications or tools. But these companies can also shape our behavior. The services (stacks) not only serve as intermediary of content but also as an actor. Certain possibilities provided by Google’s services are also responsible for the eventual output. The platforms also function as constructors of the social. They also co-‐‑create our culture of connectivity (Van Dijck 2010). The services transform the user’s personal and professional lives. This transformation also enables a double logic. On the one side this could be

experienced as empowering: being connected all the time and the user can do things he could not before but on the other side a possible exploitive relation.

The infrastructure, enabled by concentric diversification, is created by Google and other powerful companies such as Facebook. This infrastructure can also create other economies, for example the like economy (Gerlitz 2013).

(28)

Through the implementation of a button, which is capable of ‘transforming’ the user’s input, the activity is transformed into a mathematically calculable unit.

Feelings and desires are made digital, standardized through + or – options (in case of YouTube). The ‘likeability’ for objects and for certain information can be translated in an actual value. The companies continue to expand their available services and by doing so they are creating new possibilities for information income: web

colonization. Most of the used techniques are balancing between openness and inclusion. Google also serves as a great example, by adding share buttons onto their services and onto general websites. By doing so they actively engage in vertical and horizontal expansion. This expansion is horizontal in a way that they increase the amount of the possible services available and vertical in a way that they enable other developers to build upon their platform: in exchange for a price, letting them profit of their information.

To end this conclusion I would like to address the overall change of the present and the market field because of companies like Google, as described in the previous paragraphs. The company itself and its services change the world around them. As Battelle (Battelle 2006) describes in his work, these ‘new’ species of

companies have truly changed the playing field and with the playing field, the rules. As Dopfner (Dopfner also mentions slowly but steady they ‘force’ the existing market to operate at their terms. With companies like Google, we should be really aware of the stakes and consequences of using their services. Interestingly enough Google’s services are designed in a way that makes the user unaware of anything else but the practical usage of the service. This is achieved through smart usage and design, putting the user usability on an extremely high priority (Krug 2005).

(29)

Justification and relevancy own approach

Before I start stating the differences between the already discussed and researched angles by the authors discussed in the previous paragraph and my own research, I again would like to stress the importance of further research into Google. With Google continuing to be one of the largest Internet companies in the present, and even increasing in size, the society increased their reliance on its services. Because of this growing reliance on the availability and functioning of this service it should always be in the scope of further research, using or combining different angles. Secondly, with the continued studies in Google in combination with my own research angle it seems there is some sort of ‘internet-‐‑blueprint’ emerging. Not only Google, but also multiple other companies, such as Amazon, use similar techniques to expand and to obtain a dominant market position. To provide further insight in this ‘blueprint’ would be beneficial for an increased understanding in the functioning for these Internet companies and could benefit the society to anticipate certain

changes in these companies. With the developing understanding of these “Internet companies” we might be able to solve issues caused by the same companies in the society.

In the previously discussed studies, most of the studies focused on a specific critique or focus point. While it is important to thoroughly investigate specific parts of Google’s services or societal consequences, it can also form a limitation. When research concerns such a large company such as Google, it is crucial to look at the company from multiple perspectives and to attempt to combine theories. With the combination of these theories new insights can be learned especially when it concerns synergy research.

In my own research I will combine several studies previously done and try to combine them to provide a further understanding of Google. Since Google is a giant and complex company, it should be obvious that a research that focuses on synergy should contain multiple research angles. By combining some of the previously mentioned studies and combining them in my research of Google’s synergy and synergy tactics and consequences, I am contributing to the field of research regarding

Google: The Internet Company