• Google is not a well-rounded company (it does search well and little else)
• Wall Street calls Google a "one-trick stallion" since 99% of its revenue comes from search
• Google's market value and search domination aren't sustainable
• PageRank is not "democratic" as Google professes
• Google makes money off of its customers lack of ROI
• Google's long-term goals are unrealizable and dangerous
• Google knows more about us than we know about ourselves, in part to its ability to tap into our private information
• Google's business model is based on selling ads against intellectual property that it doesn't own, does not compensate publishers for, and does not have explicit legal rights to monetize
• Corporate customers are challenging Google's "toll keeper" status over their brands and the control they exert over other company's brand image

• On product is fine if it grows with little competition (look at the not-so-well-rounded TV stations)
• Google's "one-trick" is growing in new directions into new devices
• Competing with Google is difficult (as Sullivan says… "Ask Microsoft")
• The undemocratic nature of PageRank isn't a Google-specific issue.  All search engines operate in a similar way
• Google's results are good and people trust Google - they won't seek out alternatives that they don't know
• Search ad ROI is higher than other forms of advertising
• Google's ability to collect so much data makes it very commercializable
• Despite privacy concerns, Google helps people find things on the web - and those people voluntarily provide information for Google to index
• Google isn't a law-making body - it can't do anything about privacy concerns until new laws are enacted
• Google supplies the publishers of the content they're "free riding" on with huge amounts of traffic and, in some cases, are the "lifeblood" of those businesses
• The vast majority of corporate customers are on "the Google bus"
• Google operates a partnership:  publishers provide the content and, in return, Google provides them with traffic that they can use to sustain their business (like a billboard system)

Of the two arguments, I think Bogatin's is generally more sound.  That's not to say I agree with what she's saying.  But Sullivan's case is more defensive than anything and he offers little to make his point outside of a few analogies (which are actually pretty good).  He also tries to dismiss Bogatin's concerns about Google's power and influence as unrelated to this debate.  And while it's true that an entire debate could be had over Google's power, I think the points she makes are not only relevant to this debate, but also a fairly strong part of her argument.  Despite his opinion that the comments aren't relevant, he talks about Google as a trustworthy company… and the inability of other companies to compete with the search giant… both of which actually further support Bogatin's argument that Google's position makes it dangerous.  So he kind of helps her out there.

 

This comment by Sullivan also stood out.  First of all, again he's helping Bogatin's argument here.  He's saying that Google doesn't do much to address privacy concerns.  He's also insinuating that government regulation is required to guarantee that those concerns are addressed.  And second of all, if I could interject my own opinion here for a moment, Google could address those concerns in a more proactive way without laws.  But it chooses not to.  And Sullivan's comments even hint at the same thing.  Not a good debate strategy if you ask me.

 

Bogatin's argument isn't water proof, either.  Google might not be a "well-rounded" company yet.  But look at all of the branches coming out of the Googleplex.  They're investing all those billions of dollars into new ways to make money.  And they'll probably find some.  Bogatin knows just as well as the rest of us that it's only a matter of time before Google finds a way to capitalize on some of those branches.  And I have to take Sullivan's side on the whole 'Google free-ride' part of the debate.  It's true that Google doesn't generate the majority of the content that it monetizes.  And if the Google SERPs offered entire pages of monetized third-party content it'd be a different story.  But as-is, Google is simply a compass to find things.  If content publishers want to monetize their own works, there are numerous ways to do it (including some from Google).  Without the traffic being generated by Google, more than a few websites wouldn't generate half the revenue they do now.

 

Overall I think both debaters make some good points.  As I said at the beginning of the post,  there's no clear-cut answer to the question.  Maybe you agree with one side or the other.  Maybe your opinion is completely different.  I'd love to hear what some of you have to say about the topic, the debate, or my analysis of it.

 

And since I was on the debate team in high school, and had a specialization in rhetoric in college, I have an overwhelming desire to crown a winner of the debate.  But I'll resist that urge for now.