The Financial Times reports on some revealing comments that Google CEO Eric Schmidt made to the press in London:
Asked how Google might look in five years’ time, Mr Schmidt said: “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?’ ”
That should make life a lot easier for all of us.
On a related note, there was a blurb in Technology Review about how “reality mining” scientists at MIT Media Lab are able to predict how the rest of your day will go based on your early morning activities.
After analyzing 350,000 hours of behavioral data collected from 100 volunteers’ cell phones, they’re able to forecast where you’ll go and what you’ll do with 79% accuracy. They can also tell who you’ll get along with with 96% accuracy.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/17729/page2/
Google’s move reminds me of the classic British movie, The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer, where an opinion pollster rapidly rises up the business and then political ranks. He’s finally elected Prime Minister on the promise of letting voters vote for everything from day to day. Naturally voters soon get tired of this and agree to leave all decision making to Rimmer.
He’s now been appointed dictator. The movie closes with a shot suggesting this was an outcome Rimmer had been working towards from the start.
Hello Google.
I guess I can throw away my Farmers Almanac, horoscopes, fortune cookies, tarot cards and get some collagen for my palms too. SEO for baby names will be sooo 2007. Instead we’ll just be able to ask Google what the best name would be. How about Google Foreman the 20th?
Schmidt’s comment is another anecdote of arrogance to add to my book, “The Google Bubble,” which will be timed to come out when Google’s slide gets under way in two or three years.
His quote is especially funny in light of the fact that Google is still in many ways a one-hit wonder: web search coupled to Adwords. A huge hit, to be sure, but surrounded by other products that are either outright duds or yet-to-be-hits. Considering Google’s ability to promote its other products cost-free, and the weakness of the competition in some areas, this is actually astonishing.
Kendall, there might be arrogance aplenty at Google, but pride doesn’t always precede a fall, as much as we might want it to. Think IBM, Cisco, Microsoft and lots more. Google has a sustainable, broad advantage with deep hooks in the market. Yes, others can do search (and there is a large boneyard of them already) but pride is insufficient as a cause of failure. There are many extremely talented kids at Google who aren’t proud yet and want very badly to be known for something. Many will have their day in the sun and Google will continue to soar as long as it can attract sufficient talent.
Manual trackback: Google is Me.
Tend to agree w/ MarcFarley — even if click fraud schemes and networks become widely known, an advertiser may allow his/her adwords account to contribute part of John Wanamaker’s classic “wasted half” of advertising. It’s google’s job to do “just enough” combating fraud (and issuing press releases) to convince advertisers there’s still value (while still profiting on the transaction fraud or not).
But is the transaction really fraud if no party to it (google, advertiser, scammer) thinks it is? (I’m being ironic: because google does something to combat fraud means it really believes there is fraud).
Think of it more like the I Ching … “G Ching”?
Good to know there is something out there giving us the last answers.
See my small cartoon.
Bye,
Oliver
Sid:
Do you really want to bring China into this? I mean, besides the fact that they’re here.