Google to Envelope All Knowledge on November 5th, 2007
Michael Arrington has convinced several high level sources to disclose discussion at a top secret Google meeting where the company discussed plans to release on November 5th a new set of APIs. Those APIs will make access to the data it holds fundamentally open to outside parties, starting with a limited number of Google applications and expanding. Arrington framed the discussion as aimed at making Google more open than Facebook but I'm not so sure that's what's going on. There's good reason to feel positive about this move, but there are also a number of reasons to be very concerned. This is about putting Google all the more at the center of our lives by plugging outside applications into it and making it the key reference point for applications that want access to us.
I don't think that a meeting like this was held 6 weeks before launch in order to develop the plans; I think they got industry luminaries together to talk messaging. That's something Google needs some help with.
Recall the words of Google CEO Eric Schmidt in a May interview with the Financial Times:
We are very early in the total information we have within Google. The algorithms will get better and we will get better at personalisation...The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as ‘What shall I do tomorrow?’ and ‘What job shall I take?’ 
What's at Stake
Google holds our search histories, our email, our calendars, the view of earth from the heavens (soon sharper than ever!) and the meaning of our spoken words. Google's invested in Sergey Brin's wife's gene cataloging startup and they've prototyped software that will serve up content online that's contextual to the ambient audio from the room your computer is sitting in. Steve Hodson pulls out the requisite Cory Doctorow dystopia excerpts in a post on his blog.
The Openness
So bring on the new openness! We and others have long called on Google to open up our own data to our own access. These new APIs may be a way to do that. Will they be read-only APIs, limited to letting 3rd party applications leverage (with our permission) the information that Google holds about us? Or will they be read/write APIs that allow outside third parties to write to our Google profiles as well?
That Brad Fitzpatrick, the Father of OpenID, is said to be a guiding force behind Google's efforts is a good sign. Google's activities in China, like Yahoo! and Microsoft's recent self-discipline pact, is not a good sign. Ultimately, Google's only responsibility is to its share holders.
Is Facebook Really The Issue?
Michael Arrington says that the analogy literal target here is Facebook, but I'm not so sure. (Update: He says that was very clear, so it sounds like I'm in part wrong here.) The recent opening of Facebook to outside applications stirred no end of excitement, but in reality the vast majority of those applications so far have been of objects of trivia sitting unused on public profile pages. There's a lot more at stake with Google than a couple of pokes and some music sharing. Facebook's momentum with huge amounts of users is because of privacy controls (so far) and the brilliance of the news feeds - almost in spite of the applications, which have been widely derided as MySpace-ish.
We Need OpenID, Not GoogID
Arrington says that Google's social networking software Orkut is what will lay over the top of all its services. I think what's needed is a federated ID system like OpenID to tie everything together, not one corporate body that can already claim near omniscience. We need the attitudes of Brad Fitzgerald's old employer, Six Apart, not the arrogance of Google.
I don't want to ask Google, "What shall I do tomorrow?" Ultimately, even with all my own shortcomings in data processing and rational thought, I only want to ask that of myself.
2 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1640
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Well you've certainly piqued my interest. I also think that it's true that it's not all about competing with what FB is.
Marshall,
I completely agree, re: Facebook. I do not believe that Google perceives it as a threat. What is the threat, that Google will loose eyeballs to it? There is no way that people will be searching the web through anything but Google in the near future.
Secondly, this is a TOTALLY different kind of opening up. Facebook created plugin infrastructure. Google, according to this article, is going to create developer API. This is not the same and is just not such a big deal anyways.
>>"We Need OpenID, Not GoogID"
sorry marshall, i vehemently disagree.
"we" (users) don't need either. we need better websites, services & applications. and maybe we need something to help us remember/recover passwords better, but we don't need convoluted technology with confusing UI. until my grandmother understands how to use OpenID, it may be that a Google, Yahoo, Hotmail, or AOL (or Facebook?) username/password combination serves her better.
"we" (developers) might also need better APIs & services that enable rich features & incorporate the social graph, but the opportunity there is based on rich feature set, and less upon web standards for identity that are adopted by a less than critical few.
if/when OpenID is both a) in larger use, and b) easier to use, then it may well be an option.
until then, i'll take the better feature set, whether it be "open" or "closed". Open is not better. Better is Better.
- dave mcclure
Typo: should be "Cory Doctorow"
Sounds like a very interesting situation that Google is creating. I would have written more, but it's past my beer time!
Rex
I hope RDF ends up being a preferred standard for portable and interoperable social network data. It's a good fit and RDF has a solid collection of tools and related standards, like SPARQL.
Some how or other I've ended up with two GMail accounts and 3 other Google accounts linked to non-Gmail email addresses. These "own" multiple profiles across Google's properties from Analytics to Adsense to Orkut to Calendar to GoogleGroups, and on and on. I spent some time last night trying to rationalise this mess and merge the accounts and totally failed. I could have recreated the same user profile several times in different properties *even though* they were linked to the same Google Account.
So forgive me if I'm a little skeptical about Google's ability to rationalise this stuff any time soon.
thanks..
Marshall said: "Ultimately, Google's only responsibility is to its share holders. "
From where do you get this concept? By US law, Google board members and officers have a FIDUCIARY DUTY to the shareholders. That is vastly different from what you imply. No lucid person, or the law, says share holders are a corporations "ONLY responsibility."
@julian: i won't disagree with you that Google (& Yahoo & Microsoft) have disambiguation issues to resolve re: multiple accounts, however this is also a result of those services being more widely used than others... which is exactly why i think they're more likely to offer a solution as well.
in fact, disambiguation of accounts isn't necessarily something OpenID solves either -- i'm just as likely to create multiple accounts in OpenID as i am with any of the other services out there. again, this is a user education issue more than a technical detail.
- dave mcclure
Yeah for openness.
There's no way that "they" will ever be able put every single piece of data together on one profile. Each move in that direction will be fought by those who go off the grid, create multiple personalities, etc.
1984 has come and gone. More openness is how we keep Big Brother at bay.
when they say "what should I do tomorrow", I think they're coming at this from the perspective of "awareness" I.e. That google (with it's extensive info on you) will make you aware of all relevant and interesting events, movies, books, music etc etc... Dont worry mrshal, the decision of what to do will still be up to you... They'll just save you some time and show you the best options for you...its not like its the end of free will ... Yet :)