On Google, Their Newest Venture, and Their Monopoly

When it comes to company expansion and innovation, Google has always been all over the map. Starting as an internet search browser, gaining dominance over the markets of search and advertising, and now delving into such projects as self-driving cars, high-speed internet services, and even a ubiquitous computer product known as Google glass, it’s no doubt that the company has become a giant technological force over the years, pushing for new innovations and improvements in technologies in numerous fields. As their latest endeavor, Google has announced a surprising new project named Calico, a company focused on health and well-being, particularly in challenging disorders and diseases associated with the aging process. The project has only just been announced, so there are few details on the new company or its endeavors as of yet, though Google CEO Larry Page has added in a post on his Google Plus page, "OK ... so you're probably thinking wow! That's a lot different from what Google does today […] But as we explained in our first letter to shareholders, there's tremendous potential for technology more generally to improve people's lives," later adding in a Time magazine interview: "Maybe we should shoot for the things that are really, really important so ten or 20 years from now we have those things done," leaving it still unclear exactly what their plans will be, though perhaps may involve introducing new technologies and research into the industry.

While Calico will be set up as a separate company, it’s indubitable that Google has grown into a near monopoly of technology and innovation. We discussed in class briefly about how companies such as Google and Steam hold monopolies on their respective ventures. Certainly both have their competitors, Yahoo and Bing to rival Google, the PC gaming service Origin to rival Steam. We discussed a bit how monopolies and closed systems may stifle innovation and progress in favor of stagnation and stifling competition. One thing that comes to mind in this issue is that the competitors of each company don’t offer services nearly as well as they do. Google is quite often better able to find things you might search for, while Steam offers PC gaming in a concise, cheap system while their competitor has gained notoriety for poor UI, customer service, and a number of other complaints. The reason they’ve made so much head way in their industries is because what they’ve set out to do, they’ve done well, and users have come to trust a certain level of quality from them that few can match.

But on the subject of monopolies stifling innovation and improvement, where do we fit companies like Google? Google’s many different projects seem to be the opposite: providing internet quality in areas where companies like Comcast or Verizon provide substantially less, or new ventures entirely such as self-driving cars, and their Glass project that push the boundaries of commercially-available technology entirely. They don’t take competition’s cue to innovate and improve, they do it on their own.

Yet, can it be a terribly good thing that one company holds so much power? Google has had a long running unofficial motto of “Don’t be evil,” and certainly we can hope that the company never goes back on that ideal. However, considering the recent NSA happenings, and their coercion of cooperation from several companies, including google, there’s a question of how much personal information they could gain from just one source. Perhaps even more from their self-driving car and Google Glass projects. Even if they are mostly benevolent and do innovate, is it really a comfortable thought that they control so much? I have to say though, it is nice to see a company pushing for new technologies being made available to the public.