http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 1:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 1:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 2:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 3:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 2:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 1:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 1:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 1:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 1:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 1:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 2:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 2:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/This is scary as sin. I know this all sounds cool, but i sure hope someone is keeping an eye on El Goog.]]>Oct 28th 2009 1:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 1:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/If Wal-Mart ran Craig's List, would it still hold no blame for draining the nation's newspaper revenue?

I have no problem with Google. But it's ironic how "cool" Google remains while gutting certain tech markets...and other corporations are viewed as the bane of the free world.]]>Oct 28th 2009 2:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 2:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Nor does Google brainwash their employees to hate unions, of course Google doesn't need to because their employees don't want to unionize because Google doesn't pay them crap wages with no benefits.]]>Oct 28th 2009 9:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 2:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/
Yeah, that's scary as shit if you ask me. Google's ad revenue cross-financing allows them to simply destroy competitors, by offering something for "free". It doesn't even have to be particularly great cause Google's offering is "free", so people won't invest in something just because it's somewhat better...that's the death of competition, cause no other company can collect enough information about you to successfully duplicate Google's business model.

So, right now we have Google aiming to completely control the communication landscape (Wave, GMail, Google Voice), the mapping/navigation industry (Maps, Navigation); the ebook market (Google Books), and they're already the de-facto standard for search, online video...

Really, I don't understand people that don't find Google's reach and aggressive movements at least a bit scary. I really don't.]]>Oct 28th 2009 2:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 3:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/
The thing is: competing with "free" is impossible.

TomTom or Garmin or who knows which company tomorrow might have better products, but with moves like this Google forces them into a niche market of paid products, which means less money for them, hence less R&D spending, hence slower product evolution, hence a slow death for the company. One less competitor.

Who cares about legislation in this? Of course legislators won't mess with Google anytime soon - and if they do split up Google, it's dead, cause it finances *everything* with their ad revenue (which made up 97% of their total income during 2008, if I'm not mistaken). Google is completely dependent on remaining one company.]]>Oct 28th 2009 3:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/
http://gizmodo.com/5391966/google-and-the-deadly-power-of-data]]>Oct 28th 2009 3:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 11:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 2:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 3:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 3:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 3:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/- Scrutinize their acquisitions closely. Personally, I believe that the DoubleClick acquisition is likely to prove to be damaging to media plurality, for example
- Identify areas where they have de facto monopoly (search, but more importantly, as an advertising network aggregating long-tail publishers with long-tail advertisers) and watch it like a hawk. Encourage competition and check every acquisition for anti-trust issues
- As consumers, consider other services, if they are better. (i.e. don't fall into the trap of just using Google because it's Google)

To use an analogy, an elephant that crushes bugs underfoot as it strides through the Savannah is not intentionally killing, but the bugs are dead nevertheless; Google's Do No Evil ethos starts to become tough to believe in as they get so big.]]>Oct 28th 2009 3:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 28th 2009 4:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/
Look at AT&T, Alico, Kodak... and so on.]]>Oct 28th 2009 6:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/
Then you will say...but I can opt out! That is the point that is being missed. The people who are google users, android users do not clearly identify themselves... If you navi to my address, google gets that destination, if I let your droid phone on my WiFi google gets my IP and router info (can you say Global WiFi map), if I call you google can reverse append my number to a postal address. You the google users are not only are the fodder for googles marketing machine, but you are the agents of google- their live human bots.

I guess us 30 somethings grew up with a greater notion of privacy and that we own our own life and it's content...not some marketing company.]]>Oct 29th 2009 6:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2009/10/26/ce-oh-no-he-didnt-part-xlv-symbians-lee-williams-rips-into-a/]]>Oct 28th 2009 3:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/
Excuse my long response to this

This article offers an interesting, very pro business viewpoint. And it makes valid points. When I look at google I don't see a "business destroyer." If anything quite the opposite. I'll explain that in a bit but first I will discuss the actual GPS software.

The end of Tom Tom and Garmin? Probably. Is it Google's fault? hardly. Look GPS units have been around for awhile. In their life span (which will probably last a few years still) very little innovation has been offered. They spit maps at you and tell you where you are. Some refine the UI a bit, others offer little bonuses here and there but for the most part a 4 year old GPS and a 1 year old GPS do the same.

I know it's easier said than done but why didn't Tom Tom, with it's mapping edge, offer something like google street view? If not with their own resources they could have partnered with some other company and brought their mapping expertise to the table. Instead they took one product, sat on it, and milked it for every cent until it was no longer profitable.

If you look at other products that Google is taking profit margins from it's the same trend. Microsoft office has remained relatively unchanged for years (until Google docs came along). Yahoo mail remained generally unchanged (until Gmail came along). Hell even Firefox (yes blasphemy I know) has remained generally unchanged until Chrome came along.

The point is, while individual businesses may be destroyed by googles innovation, the actual market of that business will thrive. The actual product will thrive. Mail now has higher standards to live up to for it to attract users, Microsoft Office is finally getting Cloud computing features it should have had years ago, The browser is going from a simple window to the web, to an actual software launching platform.

So for me the question isn't "why is Google destroying all these businesses." The real question is why didn't these businesses, with their huge head starts, not elevate these products to the level that Google elevates them and beyond.

Google takes things, that have been around forever, that everyone uses, that is so ubiquitous and stagnant that no one thinks to improve them, and improves them! And then on top of that they offer it for free. And that forces businesses to get their heads out of their asses, and realize that they cant offer the same old product with the current year attached to the end of the name and resell it every year. The result is either businesses innovate, create new products, or fold. And frankly I'll take those options over stagnation any day.]]>Oct 28th 2009 4:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/
So you're going from home to the restaurant. Google's app is going to calculate the route. The app calculates that you can go down either Elm street or Maple street with no ipact to your route or time to destination. Google has 1 client on Elm street and 5 clients on Maple street, which way will the app send you? This form of customer manipulation is very simple. Next step for google is that they tie your route into your recent searches. If you have been searching for UGG boots on the web, the app will calculate that it is better for you to go down Elm street since googles client on ELM is a shoe shop that sells UGG's. The next step is that navigation is tied into your g-mail account. google knows that you bought a coffee maker from Amazon for $79.00 with shipping. On Maple street one of the clients is Bed, Bath & Beyond. As you are a mile away an ad with a coupon for 20% off pops up for that same coffee maker netting the price to $63.75 including tax – and now you see what integrated marketing can deliver. This is the holy grail of marketing and total manipulation based on your own self reported data.
]]>Oct 30th 2009 7:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 29th 2009 5:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/
5 years ago I had the option to screen my calls the same way, and choose between getting my voicemail delivered to my email as either mp3 or wav. I could also have personalized greetings as many as I wanted and for whomever I wished. This european carrier did not charge a dime for that service extra, I was not charged a penny for calling my voicemail if I chose to and my monthly bills were 1/3 of what I pay in the US for lesser service.

It´s just that the US market is so screwed up, not that google is necessarily so awesome.]]>Oct 28th 2009 4:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/
I agree with L 100%...You cant compete with free. Its something where just like Wal-mart (minus the bad practice and cut throat treatment to employees) You know its wrong but because its so convieninet its hard to do otherwise.

If you have two identical products or services Company A's offering is $10. Company B's offering is FREE its obvious which one most would go for. I look at it like this as the simple story of the Do-er and the Dabbler. In this case Google is the Dabbler where as TomTom & Garmin are the Doer's. The dabbler simply toys with something on occasion; where as the Doer does it all in; Someone who dabbles in something isn't going to put all there time energy and resource in turning out something top notch like a doer would. Not to say Google would do there own R&D but not the same way others would. But you ultimately get an inferior offering. If I was a Droid user I'd go for this app. I have an ipod I DONT use because I have the same functionality from my phone. Why carry an extra device around if I dont need to.

I'd like to say I prefer quality over anything but I've never used a navigation service before so I'd be okay with something of less quality especially if I dont have to pay for it. Now this will sound extra peachy and gay but as an olive branch If I was an exec at Google I'd offer these services using the parts of the industries product & service..At least lable the service as "powered by."

example: Google Nav powerd by TomTom etc. and split revenue however
Because long term it does cripple progress.

The key here is INTEGRATION. Like I said I have an ipod I dont use because the functionality of the ipod is covered by my phone. I have navigation functionality from my phone, why buy a seperate piece of hardware? The only way for the navigation companies to survive is by INTEGRATING there hardware into the vehicles as OEM like another poster commented. None the less the thing with Google is they are able to leverage there money from other projects and work it from a different angle. To offer free, what others are charging for there has to be another angle for Google that isn't seen. (Sorry if that sounded sinister)]]>Oct 29th 2009 1:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/Oct 29th 2009 12:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/the-game-has-changed/
They have had this market cornered, and they never ran with the ball. Now they got eclipsed, and all I can say is, its about time. I have 0 sympathy.]]>Oct 29th 2009 1:21AM