In 'The Meaning of Open,' Google's SVP, Product Management, Jonathan Rosenberg, simultaneously acknowledges the fuzziness of what exactly "being open" means and owns up to the fact that Google isn't all the way there.
Give him credit, though; he actually attempts to provide some definitive table stakes for how Google is trying to walk the talk (his communication originated from an internal memo to Google staffers; it's definitely worth a read):
There are two components to our definition of open: open technology and open information. Open technology includes open source, meaning we release and actively support code that helps grow the Internet, and open standards, meaning we adhere to accepted standards and, if none exist, work to create standards that improve the entire Internet (and not just benefit Google).
Open information means that when we have information about users we use it to provide something that is valuable to them, we are transparent about what information we have about them, and we give them ultimate control over their information. These are the things we should be doing. In many cases we aren't there, but I hope that with this note we can start working to close the gap between reality and aspiration.
First, let's give the company props, as they deserve major kudos for even being willing to open up their proprietary core as much as they do (think how a company like Yelp avoided having to re-create the wheel or throw a sinkhole of costs to incorporate rich mapping functionality into their service, thanks to the relative openness of Google Maps).
At the same time, I have to roll the eyes a bit, as it all feels like selective adherence to the openness credo.
After all, it’s not like crown jewels like the search index are white boxes for consumers to granularly control or repurpose, or for brands/publishers to do the same.
And of course, the company exercises fairly tight control over what data is shared and what is proprietary to Google. For example, all of these years later, nobody really knows what “open” Google makes in the AdSense/AdWord model (an arbitrage of asymmetric control of information, if there ever was one), yet by contrast, “closed” Apple’s 70/30 split with developers is pretty transparent in the realm of App Store.
And while Android is open source – because, if Android marketing is to be believed, it just makes sense, leading to more diversity and more consumer choice – the Google apps that ride on top of it are not open source, which to me fits the old mantra of “be open where commoditization is the goal, be closed where proprietary differentiation is the goal.”
The ends justify the means, with a touch of 'do no evil' (or not too much).
All that said, a great company relative to the rest, and the dialog on openness is certainly one worth having.
UPDATE 1: John Gruber of Daring Fireball chimes in re Google's openness manifesto, and is less charitable than I, saying, "It’s the biggest pile of horseshit I’ve ever seen from Google. Basically, he’s spewed 4,000 words to say that “open” is always good and always wins, Google is always open, therefore Google is always good and will always win. And please don’t worry your pretty little minds about things like Google’s search or ad algorithms or the specific details of how its data centers work, all of which things Google could not possibly be more secretive about. Because if you think about these things, you’ll see that Google isn’t open at all about certain financially lucrative areas where it has built huge technical advantages over its competitors, and that’s not possible, because Google is always open." In a word, "ouch." What do you REALLY think, John. :-)
UPDATE 2: Great piece in Gawker that argues that Google is becoming a bit delusional in believing their own PR a wee too much.
UPDATE 3: While some will understandably quibble about the fuzziness of Google's announcement (HERE and HERE), give Google credit for finally revealing their rev share with Publishers on AdSense (68% to the publisher for content ads and 51% for search ads). If I am gonna challenge their selective approach to openness, I have to acknowledge when they share data on the crown jewels. Way to go, guys!
UPDATE 4: Can you say, "Do as I say, not as I do?" Today, word leaks out from the court documents in Oracle v. Google patent case, that Google advises its rank and file NOT to develop in the open, and favors Android developers that play by Google sanctioned rules with early access to Android SDKs, builds and what not. The cherry on top of this shit sundae is that HTC sues Apple today for patent infringement based on ownership of patents obtained just last week from...wait for it...Google. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning...It reminds me of...Google.
Related Posts:
- Android vs. iPhone: Why Openness May Not Be Best
- Holy Shit! Apple’s Halo Effect
- The Chess Masters: Apple v. Google
- Android’s ‘Inevitability’ and the Missing Leg
- Built-to-Thrive - The Standard Bearers: Apple, Google, Amazon
