Google It.

The whole Google story is really amazing when you go back to where it all started. Isn't it amazing that Google is now used as a verb?

Google pretty much saved the internet from a huge random mess that no one would be able to navigate without "search." Even today there is a genius behind the fact that it's all about networking and who you link up with. As in page links anyway. And again, it was all thought up by two measly college students.

Yahoo! and Excite were fairly similar, but what they lacked, Google had; with simplicity at the top of the list. Just comparing home pages shows you the major difference. They also didn't have the factor that someone passed them up for around a million back when they were first starting and today are worth billions! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Google's taking over the world

Google is one of those innovative companies that comes along only every so often. While its constantly introducing cutting-edge information searches, Google is also becoming somewhat of a monopoly in the search engine business.

Since the company announced OpenSocial, which will provide a common set of APIs for social applications across multiple Web sites such as Friendster, MySpace, orkut and a multitude of other social sites. This means users can create web content that can be used in each of these Web sites as seamlessly as possible. Users will have only one profile versus having to join each site.

Google is getting a lot of sites under its umbrella and has the chance to make the company even more money through advertisements, which is its main source of revenue. It is asserting its web influence and dominance, which will be difficult to follow. Google was ahead of the game a long time ago and now it will be hard to stop this giant.

And here I though MySpace was just about telling people what I did this weekend.

The Breakup: My Love Affair with Google

It started out innocently enough. I was tired of Yahoo's sad little search engine. It wasn't bringing me what I needed in the relationship, and so I went looking for something else, something more confident, more hip, more streamlined. That's when I found Google. To say it was love at first sight (site?) was putting it lightly. I was hooked.

I signed up for the Gmail beta waaay back in the day. I loved the storage capacity, the design, and the ease of use. When Google came out with Maps, I knew I'd never need MapQuest again. I was already a Blogger user, but when Google took that over, I was elated. "It's going to be so easy.. I just have to log in once and Google will remember everything about me. No more running from page to page, remembering passwords, etc...," I thought.

That is until recently, when Google announced its OpenSource campaign. Basically, Google is combining three Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that will allow developers to access information based on social networks. This includes:

• Profile Information (user data)
• Friends Information (social graph)
• Activities (things that happen, News Feed type stuff) (source)
  

Now, this bothers me. A lot. Beforehand, I always had the ability to log off of Google. I could step away. I could log into my social networks, and only the people I knew on there would know what I was up to. For example, I know every single one of my friends on Facebook, but would I necessarily want them to know what I'm looking at on the web? More importantly, do I want to be so ingrained that I know what all my friends are looking at? Not really, no.

Google has partnered with social networks Orkut, Salesforce, LinkedIn, Ning, Hi5, Plaxo, Friendster, Viadeo and Oracle and developers Flixster, iLike, RockYou and Slide.

Does all this mean I'm going to stop using Google? No.. we've gone too far at this point. There's too much history, too much at stake. But will I be skeptical, privatize all my information, and fake a headache when Google asks for more? Yes; on more than one night per week.

The honeymoon is over.

Google introduces OpenSocial:

Social Networking: The New Frontier

Recently, Google has announced details regarding its social networking project Open Social. History has shown thus far, that all of Google's innovations and applications have been successful. Shortly after emerging on the scene, Google quickly became the most popular search engine. But they didn't stop there. Google didn't just want Yahoo!'s place on the internet, it wanted Mapquest's, Hotmail's, Drudgereport's, and now Facebook's as well. It seems like Google has aspirations of making all other sites obsolete. It's ambition to make it's site a one stop shop for all internet activity has now led the company to try its hand on the social networking scene.

I personally use Google on a daily basis. I started using Google as a search engine, and as they added new features, slowly I started going to the site to check my mail, read the news, get directions, etc. People have encouraged Google's growth by using new it's new features and applications. Whether they will do the same with Open Social, we'll have to wait and see.

I think with everything Google has set its sights on doing, every feature they've introduced, they had to make improvements to already existing applications to compete with an already existent provider. It had to give Gmail accounts more space then Hotmail, otherwise why switch? So if Google thinks it can make improvements to or expand upon the social networking scene, by all means go ahead. If its better, innovative, more convenient, people will use it. If it's not, they won't, and they'll stick to what they know.

Google has aligned Myspace, Orkut, Salesforce, LinkedIn, Ning, Hi5, Plaxo, Friendster, Viadeo and Oracle to participate on Open Social. All the big players, except Facebook. I think it will be interesting to see if people will embrace Open Social. I personally am content keeping my internet activity separate from my Social Networking. I don't mind visiting multiple sites for different things. I don't need to get my text books from a friend of a friend of a friend on a social network. I can go to Amazon. Google might be getting to ambitious in its endeavors. They can't be the entire internet. I mean, thats why they created windows with multiple tabs.

After watching the Google documentary, I'm less trusting of the company. Some of the employees interview really didn't have good answers to privacy concerns, at times offering little more than "I just don't see it that way," or something of that nature. I shared a lot of the same concerns that Ian Brown did from the Open Rights Group.

I think Google is invaluable to how the world operates today; it's the only search engine I use on a consistent basis, and being able to log in once to use several applications (such as this one, iGoogle and Gmail) is convenient. But it is good to ask if this one company should really be spearheading so much of the information collection in the future. It is, after all, a company, not a philanthropic group or something similar. I agree that it is ignorant of us to trust a company and hand over the reigns to this new way of making classic books available. I know Google has a good track record with free services, but some non-profit or government organization should still be tasked simultaneously with archiving books. A lot of business in media today deals with exclusive information/content, and it would be a problem if a company tried to do that with books throughout history.

A lot of what they have already done is useful, whether its Google Maps, docs, and from what I've read people are welcoming the introduction of Open Social, but I'm skeptical as to whether or not it actually is of great importance. I know social networking is a growing part of today's business and intellect, but not everyone out there is using this aspect of the Internet for any real uses of importance. Updating a Top Eight isn't part of that movement.

That being said, I wouldn't mind working for Google. From the documentary the employees seem like good-natured, forward-thinking people. I just was a bit unimpressed by the lack of concern shown with some of the questions raised against their company.

Googled: Google and OpenSocia

The New York Times reported Nov. 2 that MySpace and Bebo, two of the world’s largest social-networking Web sites, recently signed onto a collaboration led by Google to link all the social-networking sites together — at least all but one.

Facebook isn’t a part of this group. It’s given Google the cold shoulder, and now the search engine seems to be fighting back with a mega-social partnership. Google says Facebook was allowed in what is the OpenSocial project.

The selling point of OpenSocial is that it can save companies time. It allows third-party companies and programs to create one set programs that will work across the most popular social networks online. So they won’t have to make separate programs for MySpace, Friendster and Orkut. But they will for Facebook.

“The alliance now presents a powerful counterweight to Facebook, which, after opening up its site to developers last spring, has persuaded thousands of them to create programs for its users,” the Times story states. “The addition of MySpace, the world’s largest social network with 110 million active members, and Bebo, the No. 1 site in Britain with 39 million active users, could also put pressure on Facebook to drop its own standard and join the alliance, called OpenSocial.”

Maybe Facebook thinks it doesn’t need Google. Or maybe Google thinks it can team up with everyone but Facebook. Both are popular, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Sure, Facebook is the default go-to network right now. But that doesn’t mean much in a long-term sense. That doesn’t mean the OpenSource collaboration will really bring about its destruction either.

But let’s face it. Whenever Google does anything, it is likely an effort to get even richer.

The Times story points out that exposure may not be the benefit for the search engine. Google can use the sites it collaborates with to sell more advertising. “The Internet search giant already has a $900 million advertising partnership with MySpace, and sells advertising on various other social networks. Its ads sometimes appear inside the applications created by third-party developers,” the story states.

Google specializes in advertising, but I don’t think this is widely acknowledged. Our main perception of Google is that it is a search engine, which it also is.

Think about how Google has made so much money.

Its advertising revenue is enough to make any newspaper jealous. A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission report states that during the last fiscal year, Google reported $10.492 billion in total advertising revenues and only $112 million in licensing and other revenues.

Google is a wealthy Internet tool. The Times also published a recent story on Google stock. The Nov. 12 story reported that Google’s “stock has risen more than 44 percent, or $203 a share, this year.”

I sometimes think Google has too much money and power, and that my dependency on Google should be limited. But then again, I just “googled” Google.

We depend on Google for maps, videos, images, news and even e-mail accounts. Google’s power is prevalent, and we must look at it closely to explore the future of the Web.

Did You Mean: domination

Is Google the evil, giant corporation some are making it out to be?

Or is Google the fun, playful corporation creating applications that make life better on the internet?

A little of both if you ask me.

Google is easily the most talked about corporation on campus, and in a lot of other places. They are the go-to search engine when you need to find some quick information.

They also make some of the most innovative web-based applications ever seen. I still remember the first time I used Google Maps and saw a satellite image of my house in San Antonio.

It's one of those almost-mind-blowing events. How can they have an actual picture of my house?

Google positioned themselves as the most important company in the Internet. But with that position, comes responsibility (I tried my best to avoid the "With great power comes great responsibility" cliché).

In the Google Documentary, Ian Brown of the Open Rights Group is very skeptical of Google and their motives. While he agrees that they have done some amazing things for the Internet, they have inched closer into becoming a "Big Brother" type of corporation.

One of his fears is that Google is gaining so much access to people's personal information that they run the risk of endangering people's privacy, whether through their own doing or someone else's. And with the recent announcement of Google forming the OpenSocial network, Google stands to gain even more access to people's personal information.

But what would happen if, down the line, this ultimately led to the demise of Google? What if this company became too powerful, and abused that power to the point where it was destroyed?

What if the company that created and owns some of the most used Internet applications was no more?

What would we do?