Subscribe

Resources

« Google Spreadsheet and Google's Microsoft Obsession | Main | Battelle Calls BS on Google's "We're a Tech Co" Claim »

June 07, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451656f69e200d834c7b46569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sergey/Google Waffle on China?:

Comments

KING TROLL

FIRST FUCKERS!!!!

KING TROLL

How do I always do it?

Well folks, I wake up at 5:30 am to pray. Sleep for an hour after that. Go to work at 8. Read the news for an hour ad check the blogs.

Then I work throughout the day but refresh the blog every now and then. My work day stops around 5:30 and then I go eat, use toilet, pray and workout.

Come home and work on my website, or scanning documents, or selling on Ebay from 9:30 until about 12:00. I read the news and blogs at this time too. Then I shower, pray, eat, take vitamins, glutamine, protein... and read the news for about 1 hour until I get all that down. I do my magazine and book reading in the bathroom. About 10-15 pages per day. I'm off to sleep at about 1 -2 AM.

The Woman is scattered in throughout the day as well.

That fuckers is why I am always FIRST!!!

billy

well how do you explain your sorry ass performance last week.
you were like third or lower everyday.
i think you just love to brag how fucking dedicated you are yet you're not.

KING TROLL

Hey William you stupid hick fucker I cam in thrid twice. I was first in all other posts. Also, last week I upped my protein and had to shit like 4 times per day.

LOL at bragging about mysel while using the name KING TROLL.

Still Inside

Once again, we have a fundamental misunderstanding of politics and power.

The thing keeping the dictators in China in power is the Chinese Army, not the booming economy. The economy could go backwards a hundred years and the people would rise up in the streets... and then then get slaughtered or sent to re-education camps.

And to say that Google would have "leverage" if a few million Chinese people a day used the .com product is laughable. Once again, what are people going to do, write their congressman?

Censorship and violence keeps the Chinese regime in power. Profits are irrelevant to power.

Even the Google guys aren't stupid enough to get into a fight with the Chinese government.

As for hope for the Chinese people, our hope for them would be that they would at least see some of the benefits of our Western democracies (i.e. technology) and that the dictators there can figure out a way to stay in control while letting them use it. If they can't, it's the Western technology that will go, not the dictators.

SI

Henry Blodget

I'm not arguing that the army is irrelevant. My point is that people tend to be more tolerant of the status quo--and less eager to stand in front of tanks--when they're not starving and have significant control over their lives.

When I visited China last year (for Slate), I expected to hear everyone rant about the horrific and unjust censorship, one-party rule, etc. Instead what I heard was "As long as they don't screw up the economy, I have more important things to worry about than being able to write angry editorials."

Again, this is not to say that there aren't hundreds of millions of people in China who are, for all intents and purposes, enslaved. It is to say, however, that life (and the government) are getting better and that the censorship issue is a bigger deal over here than it is over there.

The economy matters a lot. So does public perception. Especially as China's economy gets more entwined with that of the rest of the world.

Jeremy Johnson

We can't see what's going on behind the scenes. It is possible that China is making additional demands and Google is continuing to see itself slip down the slope. At some point, even in strictly commercial terms, it stops making sense to do business in China if compromises have to continually be made. Maybe they are making the call that whether its now, or in five years, it doesn't matter in the end if the end result is that China doesn't look like a good market for them. Add in the "do the right thing" element and perhaps it becomes a lot clearer, at least to Google and its current customers.

Piyush Pant

Good blog.
Couple of comments.

Re: diversification, I'm not sure as an investor I necessarily want Google to diversify its revenue streams. I can get all the diversification I want in my portfolio by purchasing shares in companies in sectors that are uncorrelated to technology - that doesn't need to come from the company. It is far more important to me that google focus on what it does best i.e search
and selling net advertising where I believe the growth potential is grossly underestimated by the street.

Secondly, people are trying to overanalyse the spreadsheet thing. I think this is simply a technology playground product that has been conceptualised not by some brilliant business strategy behind it but by a group of nerds who thought they could do a full featured spreadsheet on the web and so they did. It could turn into a positive business opportunity or not - no one knows. What I do know is that most of the highly profitable technology breakthroughs ( including google) have come out of this mindset as opposed to working out a well thought out business strategy in advance. Any attempt to over analyse this process and trying to impute some grand business plan behind this is likely to lead to embarrassment and a severe case of 'way of the mark' itis in a few years time.

GOOG

In the bigger scheme of things , it's more important to establish a beachhead in China than to stick to a moral cause and watch everyone else get market share .... who is anyone to criticize Google when every multinational in the world does the same thing in all of these Third-world countries --- that most of us wouldn't even visit on a vacation for fear of being kidnapped or killed

jlb

We can't hold other countries to a higher standard and think we're so morally just ... we should just continue to expand our businesses as we've done for 100 years ---- profitable and a way to promote capitalism throughout the rest of the world

Neal S. Lachman

SI,

Great comment, and I agree with most of the issues you mentioned.

Henry,

You wrote in your reply to SI"

"My point is that people tend to be more tolerant of the status quo--and less eager to stand in front of tanks--when they're not starving and have significant control over their lives."

The one single guy who is immortalized in the famous picture where he stood all alone before a tank had a shopping bag in each hand. The eagerness he had to stand in front of the tank was not because of poverty or control, it was because he wanted to make a statement. He showed that people can stop giants who could waltz over them, by appealing to the other person (inside the tank). That is what will change China.

If SI is right when he says that the army has control, history has shown us major revolutions wherein the army has made itself subserviant to the people. It takes a dictator to ruin a country (look at the known ones) and it takes a selfless man to make a country (look at Gandhi but also Musharraf of Pakistan for example- he comes from the army).

Google is maybe backpaddling, and I am the last to say it is a bad thing to leave China. But as Tommy Hilfiger and Louis Vuitton and other consumer product companies cannot resist the lure of Chinese "consumerism" Google shouldn't too quick try to bend over and be kicked out of the country. They may be keeping the honor to themselves, but is it wise to basically say fuck off to such a major market? I am confident the Chinese people will see this more as a desertion than a "political statement" on their behalf.
If that's the case, Google is missing out on the world's most important emerging market.

Thus, while Google is maybe opting for backpaddling and selfstyled moralist exiting the Chinese market they may piss off their largest potential market and in the process leave lots of money on the table for their investors/shareholders. Again, by simply entering the market Google has put its balls on the block and now it is going to be chopped anyway whether they will stay or go. Great management!

joe

i'm finding this whole "net neutrality" issue kinda 'china-esq' in nature.

how can our levels of gov. seriously consider this issue?!?!

so much for the little guy. the bloggers, the independent web sites that were to compete with all major media will suffer. the purpose of the web is being corrupted and our gov is allowing it to happen.

The country that has brought life (IMO) to the single greatest invention in my generation, is now slowly destroying it. HOW SAD!

when we start destroying innovation, and a part of our ability to innovate, i worry.

all these senators are bashing google and yahoo for accomidating to china's laws, yet they just stand by while our the senators themselves begin to re-write our laws... deteriorating the signle greatest means toward freedom-of-expression.

way to go congress.

Still Inside

Joe,

Like a lot of people, you seem to have only read a few of the headlines and let the name "net neutrality" make up your mind for you. In other words, like so many people, you are FOR anything called "net neutrality" even if it means harsh new regulations that will create government-protected monopolies, and would create a system that is anything but "neutral" in the sense of a free and open market.

Net Neutrality is a push by major content players (MSFT, EBAY, GOOG, etc.) to DISALLOW telecoms like Comcast from creating new services and charging for them. In other words, no matter how much money they pour into creating new, optimized high-speed pipes for services we don't have now (the full on-demand streaming HD video, etc.) they would NOT be, under "net neutrality" able to charge anything different for them. As such, these investments will never take place, and these services will never be offered. We will have the Internet we have now, forever, by Law. (Recall how well this worked for the original Bell system before the 80s).

This bill went down in flames, thanks to many law makers objecting to the A PRIORI nature of this campaign by content providers. In other words, there is no problem right now, not even on the horizon. Most of the lawmakers said in effect, "if there's a problem, we'll fix it, but if it ain't broke...".

I've heard several confused people around me say to the effect, "hurray, the bill in congress failed, so we'll continue to have Net Neutrality". Like you, most assumed that it is the LACK of regulations that keeps the Net "neutral", successful, free, and innovative. They couldn't imagine "non evil" players like GOOG and EBAY being FOR a bunch of new regulations that we don't need.

SI

Victor

GBuy revolutionary?

http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/09/google-0609markets09.html

henry, your take?

Victor

And I'm also interested on your opinion on the House passing this new Net Neutrality law. Seems like it's unequivocally bad for all the internet companies out there. Score 1: Telcos!

joe

SI,

come back down to earth.

telcos have been living in a monopoly for far too long. only recently destructive technologies and competition have pushed them to upgrade their networks and produce FTTx. Why must the greatest economic nation be behind canada, south korea, japan...etc in transimtion speeds?

your right, i'm just naive to the fact and only read the head lines.NOT... get off your high horse!

the cost will most likely get swallowed by the little guys 'web-site hosting company', but it still is a kick to the purpuse of the web.

the upgrade to the networks will have the capability to transmit HD quality data (to an extent), if the telcos build it. (ATT is building an already inferior network due to the lack of competition and push by the existing competition.)

whatever the case... u MISSED MY POINT! the big players will not be affected by this. it will eat away at very little of the profits, but the independent blog and the very essence of the internet is destroyed. a teired system. the internet's purpose is to NOT HAVE A TIERED SYSTEM. the knowledge of the masses evenly flowing through cyber space for everyone to see. but now that will be distorted.

i'm not saying to regulate the telcoms... FAR FROM IT. if the telcoms want to increase their cost due to bandwidth issues, fine. Web site owners do this NOW w/their host. (ie if i want to transmit more than allowed via my web-host package, i must upgrade to the more expensive package... start a website u'll see what i mean.) BUT the telcoms SHOULD NOT allow a certain site's traffic to flow freer or quicker through their networks because they are being paid more. THAT SHOULD BE PREVENTED, to maintain the essence of the internet.

Still Inside

I've heard the "this will hurt the little guys" argument again and again to attempt to bolster the argument for increased regulation for the Internet.

But it just doesn't add up. If the "little guys" are going to be the only ones to pay the price for the new Thing (what it is, nobody knows, but the failed law essentially said, "anything you can possibly ever think up"), then why is it that the "big guys" (MSFT, GOOG, YHOO, EBAY, etc.) spent $millions attempting to push this law through congress? The answer is, because they wanted to plunder the currently in-progress investments by the major telecoms and don't give a crap about any future beyond that.

Meanwhile, if the "little guys" are offered a service they don't want or cannot afford, then they don't have to buy. Nobody forced you to buy a cell phone back when all they had were land lines. Since no force was involve, the free market drove the price down.

The reality is that all business already pay for tiered Internet services on some level (i.e. bandwidth). Businesses already pay for different capacity lines, for more aggregate bandwidth, and so on. Like all usage-based services, there is no victimization of the "little guy" because the "little guy" will have a corresponding "little usage" of said usage-based service. It's the difference between your home phone bill and GM's.

This law was an attempt to create some vague rules around limiting the ability of any company (including, but not limited to, the major telecoms) to offer services that are "different" than "what we have now".

I agree that "the telecoms" are not a pure example of a free market (they liveth by the sword to some extent), and as such certain oversight is what they deserve. However, adding even more regulation and repeating the mistakes of the past is not the way to solve the problem.


SI

joe

SI

"The reality is that all business already pay for tiered Internet services on some level (i.e. bandwidth)."
-I understand what u mean here, but u must understand the difference between a consumer choosing a product due to their indended use... verse a telcom essencially filtering its network for a price.

we have never played around w/the traffic of the public network (internet) before, that is why this is significant, imo.

the consumer pays for what they need. but no matter what entry to the internet they have (ie dial-up, dsl, cable, wifi... etc) once the IP traffic enters the public network it travels w/out bias (excluding self enflicting VPNs). this will now change.

i worry because if we start playing around with the public network, when do we say stop? when are we not allowed to tamper w/the network? will justified filtering of sites by network providers be allowed? (no matter what the material is, it is essencially a form of cencership.)

the public network should not be touched. period. just think of the implication when pandora's box is open.

ps... if i have to side with the telcoms or the internets, i would undoubtably side with the internets. The Google, yahoo, msft provide services and innovations that I consiently use and enjoy. But the telcoms have kepted this country with a 2nd rate network for years, and only now they are barely catching up with other parts of the world. IMO, the telcom have done a huge disservice in my eyes, because they were able to. no one pushed them to innovate, so they didn't. But i just admitted my bias... i really dislike the telcoms due to their lack of unforced innovation. whatever the case, i try to look at the issue w/a unbiased eye, and i believe my point above still stands.

Gee

Maybe some of you can help me out here. What concerns me about China and the companies doing business there is the lack of protection of intellectual property rights. This, at least to my mind, should be a serious problem since many companies doing business there are essentially creating Chinese competitors who later on will be able to produce the same products (using technology stolen from their non-Chinese business partners)at a much lower price (since they are not paying for any of the original R&D costs associated with developing new products). I'm not sure that companies wanting to do business there have much of a choice on that matter, but I'd like to hear what you all know about this. The second problem that I've heard about is the easy transfer of advanced technology from civilian sectors to the Chinese military. Anyone have any thoughts on these two topics? I hope this is not too far away from some of the topics touched on during this string.

Gee

China Law Blog

Google is big, but let's face it, Google needs China a lot more than China needs Google. For the last few weeks China has been turning Google on and off in China as a way of letting Google now who wields the power. Sad but true.

TallTroll

>> a way of letting Google now who wields the power

LOL, yup, the users.... Google.cn is censored, Google.com is blocked.... no-one cares, it's REALLY easy to get around it, and the Chinese 'Net using public knows it. No-one loses access to any information, really, those who want to find the truth, can

The comments to this entry are closed.

Sponsors