Huh? Yes, google is the usual way that people search for sites on the internet, but in the end it's just an index and search engine for other people's content.
You've posted before about your troubles with SEO and google, but remember that ranking is inherently unfair, and there's no reason that new entrants should have any ranking advantage just because they are new. Word of mouth is also heavily biased against new entrants but there is no bad actor there.
I still think there's no such thing as a perfect ranking algorithm. There is an argument here about the internet becoming ossified, but it's not clear to me that google is being an active bad actor here.
I'm not sure I understand your point. I was just trying to point out what I think is obvious to a lot of founders but was missing from the article: right now both Facebook and Apple offer a much better distribution channel than Google for products and services that compete on merit and word-of-mouth.
As long as Google is putting sites with no word-of-mouth or inbound links on its front page and positioning itself as a champion of the imperiled developer, I don't see what is wrong with developers pointing out that Facebook and Apple are in fact more supportive. There are much greater and more opaque barriers to getting traffic from Google than from either Apple or Facebook.
If Google wants a healthier Internet, it should figure out how it is contributing and retarding the dynamism of the sector. As is, this piece is feel-good self-puffery and Sergey and the Guardian deserve to be called out on it.
Google is not just an index and search engine for other people's content.
It also provides a range of services e.g. news, maps, social networking which it preferentially sorts above others. If you were trying to compete in these markets you would be at a disadvantage.
What does it do? Given a music sound input it will give you the exact and song and all metadata related to it.
This kind of apps are the biggest threat to Google. Because they do vertical search far too well. And too many apps like this cut off oxygen bit by bit on the longer run making you vulnerable. Facebook realized this, hence they acquired Instagram.
The thing about Apple and Facebook is they allow such kind of apps to not just thrive but also remain profitable through their platform. I am sure a lot of iPhone apps have eaten into the potential of Google products. Apple's platforms are becoming start up incubators. The same with Facebook. This is the biggest threat. Because they are setting the momentum in a very different direction.
Now imagine, if something like Apple consumer TV brings this platform to every living room. I bet that is going to really hurt Google a lot.
Again, there's an argument there for reinforcing incumbency, but just because something is the second result on a page and so doesn't get the traffic it would if it were first is not equivalent to removing it from the internet (in terms of this topic, at least).
You've posted before about your troubles with SEO and google, but remember that ranking is inherently unfair, and there's no reason that new entrants should have any ranking advantage just because they are new. Word of mouth is also heavily biased against new entrants but there is no bad actor there.
I still think there's no such thing as a perfect ranking algorithm. There is an argument here about the internet becoming ossified, but it's not clear to me that google is being an active bad actor here.