I agree with Giles that having more services on which people rely helps draw in and keep users with one service provider. That was sort of implicit in the points I was making, but I can see how I should have articulated it directly to make that clear.

I disagree with Joseph that I’m making too much of what’s being done with the data. Sure, I am not suggesting that there are individuals assigned to check out X person’s exact communication patterns and networks on a regular basis, but I do think it’s a concern that the data are available and so if for some reason the company – or perhaps another entity that through some sort of means gained access to the data – wanted to figure out specifics about a user they could. The two areas where this is of biggest concern is political and health information.

A few comments seem to suggest that I’m not taking the privacy concerns seriously. I am taking them very seriously, which is why I am very conscious about how I use various services (and why I stick to using several of them). Of course, a lot of people don’t realize what’s going on and so their actions may not be as careful.

I think Rollo makes a good point that other companies are likely creating similarly detailed profiles of their users, they are just much less up front about it. However, I do think that the way Google has rolled out some of its services suggests that they have more network information than some others might, which puts them in a better position to create network profiles of their users.

This is exactly the same leverage that MS have been using to get people to use their software and services, but starting from the other end.

Wow, I was able to type that with a straight face. Scary.

The fact is that what motivates engineers (and the motive gets stronger as the engineer is better) is the chance to improve the world.

That may be true for a small percentage, but the large portion of engineers want a well-paying and steady position, just like any other group of workers. I agree that having managers that are engineers is immensely helpful for morale, as is shipping products. However, these tend to be true of most software companies that work on “pure technology” products like Google, Microsoft, Sun, etc. (compared to companies that work on more commercial products like Amazon, eBay, etc.)

This assumes, firstly, that stock options are awarded at a strike price equal to the stock price on the day of employment.

This was true of the options that Google offered to me. The price would have been like $300+. Maybe in ten years that would be valuable… I don’t know your brother, but he will have lucked out if he got hired in the last year or so and had is options priced differently.

First, the general model of an all-enveloping service has been tried many times before and failed just as many times, first with the private alternatives to the Internet, then with the AOL walled garden with a door to the Internet, then with various kinds of portal sites. I’ll try a longer post arguing why I don’t think this will work.

Second, the privacy concerns are huge in themselves but are just one instance of the general problem of inevitable conflict of interest raised by all this. Google was a smashing success as a search engine not just because it had a good algorithm but because it didn’t subvert the integrity of searches for ad placements, and when it did introduce ads was upfront about what it was doing, and non-intrusive This doesn’t seem to be the case any more.

“Combine that with google stock options that are now essentially worthless (who thinks that stock is still going up?) and I don’t see them having the same luck in hiring talented engineers, and I also think since they lack a greater broad vision for technology.”

Ah, the good old economist’s reductionist view that the only thing that motivates people is money.
The fact is that what motivates engineers (and the motive gets stronger as the engineer is better) is the chance to improve the world. Google has here such advantages as

• they have an existing base of smart engineers, and everyone in the valley knows that it’s nice to work with smart colleagues
• they have a management that are engineers, and that have (at least for now) an agenda that seems based on truly making the world a better place; to the extent that this is sustainable as a public company, they really do seem to believe that making a bigger pie is more important than putting in place legal and economic obstacles that give them a bigger slice of a smaller pie
• they ship. Every good engineer in the valley knows the heartbreak of spending three years working on a product you believe in, only to have management kill it, often for reasons you think are complete BS. While this may happen at Google, it doesn’t seem to have happened enough yet to make the place seem unhappy .

As for the actual economics: “Google stock options are essentially worthless…”. This assumes, firstly, that stock options are awarded at a strike price equal to the stock price on the day of employment. I don’t know if this is ever the case; it’s never been the case in the experience of myself (working at Apple for ten years), my brother (who works at Google), or any of my friends.
More subtly, it ignores the point that volatility increases the value of options. Most people don’t seem to get this point. Even if Google’s current fall is one-way to a more sustained lower valuation, it will remain a volatile stock. The options you were awarded on your day of hire may turn out to be worthless (although you probably have ten years or so for them to gain some value, assuming you stay there ten years), but there will be other options, especially if you are good and earn not just a perfunctory bonus but actually something pretty substantial as thanks for getting some cool new feature shipped.

“At some point”? Merely “disconcerting”? Surely the fact that Google knows who you send emails to and from, what you discuss in them, and which web-sites you visit should set major alarm bells ringing. It may not worry you, Eszter, but I would be scared witless by such personal intrusion and potential for actual, invasive harm. Will Google be selling me my children next?

If you don’t see this option then perhaps it hasn’t been rolled out to your account yet. When I first read about it yesterday I hadn’t been given the option yet.

This name at gmail will reach me.

Anyway to get in touch with you without posting my current email address?