| 谷歌能否唱新歌 | |
 | |
| 作者：英国《金融时报》理查德•沃特斯(Richard Waters)旧金山报道 | |
| 2007年9月24日 星期一 | |
五 个月前，当谷歌(Google)同意收购互联网广告公司DoubleClick时，它遇到了许多反对之声。 从微软(Microsoft)到美国电话电报公司(AT&T)，众多美国企业巨头对该集团的新威力表示出担忧；反垄断监管机构收到了警报；消费者群体怨声载道。该交易也是迄今为止最明确的证据之一，表明谷歌已经发生了怎么样的变化。 两年前放弃收购DoubleClick |
随着谷歌在今年春季进行了这笔交易，此举显示出它自己如何难以将其倍加珍视的商业原则付诸实际，其中包括该公司著名的内部格言：“不要作恶”(Don't be evil)。
谷歌创始人曾公开标榜自己秉持超常标准，而他们现在仍然坚信，长期来看，其理想将会改变世界。“在我们之前，没有大公司制定这样的道德规范，”拉里•佩奇(Larry Page)最近表示。“我认为我们能够成为一股积极的力量。”
但事情的发展不像一些人所想象的那样。DoubleClick交易使人们更加抱怨，谷歌一方面没有善待其用户（侵犯他们的数据隐私，还在搜索结果中加入越来越多的广告），另一方面不尊重潜在的商业伙伴。
谷歌的前任高管和其他观察人士辩称，谷歌的经营活动日益复杂，尤其是它进入了一些新的市场（如DoubleClick所在的市场），这种情况迫使它去适应环境，有时候还需要在创始原则方面做出妥协。
与微软相提并论
随着谷歌面对越来越多的商业同行，以及版权和其它问题方面的法律对手，有一件事也就自然而然了：近来，我们时常听到人们把谷歌与硅谷许多人喜欢憎恨的另一家公司相提并论——微软。
一方面，这与印象有关。佩奇表示：“随着你越来越强，人们自然就会这么去想。”
但这种不满情绪也有实质内容。哈佛商学院(Harvard Business School)教授大卫•尤费(David Yoffie)表示：“当你是一家发展成熟的公司时，‘不要作恶'就过于简单了。你必须对它加以演变和提升。”
谷歌去年初决定在中国推出经过审查的搜索引擎，成为人们最初批评它的理由，因为其立场显然有悖于其宣称的使命——“整合全球信息，使人人皆可访问并从中受益”。
即 便是反对该决定的一些人也承认，这很难怪罪于谷歌。牛津大学(Oxford University)互联网治理及监管教授乔纳森•齐特林(Jonathan Zittrain)表示：“我认为这个绝对很合理，也合乎道德，（在与中国打交道时）采取哪种方式最好，人们在这个问题上可以有不同意见。”齐特林个人也 反对谷歌这一举措。
但是，越来越多的证据证明，谷歌在道德准则方面的模糊主张正在带来负面效果——四处树敌，尤其是那些认为这些主张不合理的企业和那些发现这些主张与自身商业利益相冲突的企业。
“认为对谷歌有益的东西肯定对世界有益”
一个商业合作伙伴厉声说道：“我觉得，他们就是认为对谷歌有益的东西肯定对世界有益。每个单一民族国家都会在某一时间得到这个结论。”
一位曾与谷歌最为重要的商业伙伴紧密合作过的高管补充称：“我真的认为，他们是好心的，但他们正试图将这个（“不要作恶”的信条）应用在越来越困难的经营环境中。”当谷歌的规模随着收购日渐扩大，这个挑战的难度也在直线上升。
谷歌去年以16.5亿美元收购了视频网站YouTube，这一交易突显出，谷歌一方面有自己的反主流信条，另一方面则是自己刚刚进入大企业主流的中心位置，两者之间存在着矛盾。该网站的用户经常上传带有版权的音乐、体育和电影内容，导致了谷歌和全球媒体集团之间的纷争。
斯坦福大学(Stanford)法律教授拉里•莱西希(Larry Lessig)仍然认为，这个集团瑕不掩瑜。他表示：“谷歌做出大胆决定，要去捍卫法律赋予他们的权利。在某种意义上，这种斗争是对社会的一种公共服务。”
但一家媒体公司的高管反驳称：“如果他们是在试探版权保护界限的话，他们已经过线了，现在，他们需要往回走。”
对批评者来说，YouTube的交易证实，谷歌不在乎媒体所有者的权益。互联网企业只要在接到通知后，迅速撤下侵权内容，就不能因为侵权内容的上传而被告上法庭，但维亚康姆(Viacom)还是将YouTube告上法庭，称这种保护不适用于YouTube。
开发“电子指纹”系统
今年的大部分时间里，谷歌都在开发一种“电子指纹”系统，以便于更好地辨认带有版权的材料。不过，反对者声称，该公司故意在这项科技方面放慢脚步，而谷歌在电子指纹方面的工作，也相当于承认自己至今未能尽力去履行自己的法律义务。
谷 歌坚称，解决这个争端是自己的重点。谷歌欧洲首席律师奈杰尔•琼斯(Nigel Jones)称：“我认为，谷歌和YouTube在解决这个问题方面都有着巨大动力。”这类争端不仅仅是被起诉的风险。如果不去解决，它们可能会扰乱这个 行业未来的发展，因为这个行业可能将越来越依赖于谷歌等互联网运营商和现有媒体集团之间的合作。琼斯表示：“如果潜在的合作伙伴对我们的进展不满意，我们 将拿不到最好的内容。”
谷歌所卷入的另外一个争端也是由一次收购行动所引发的，此次的收购对象是DoubleClick，争端事由是cookies。
对 于任何声称占领道德高地的公司来说，广告销售方面的决策总是相当棘手。从一开始，拉里•佩奇和共同创始人埃里克•施密特(Eric Schmidt)就担心，广告可能会对自己工作的可信性造成破坏。在他们首次讨论自己的互联网搜索新方法的学术论文中，他们警告称：“广告业务模式的目标 和为用户提供高质量的搜索，这两者并非总能保持一致。
据一位谷歌管理人员称，对于他们创建的这个年轻、理想化、工程驱动的企业来说，“不要作恶”的口号曾发挥作用，显示他们不准备在寻找挣钱方式时（对自己的理想）做出妥协。
销售人员做法有问题
为数不多的一些案例暴露出，谷歌某些销售人员的做法似乎印证了那个早期警告的正确性。今年早些时候，两个谷歌的销售人员积极向一些通过盗版挣钱的网站推荐谷歌的广告系统，令一些大型媒体公司异常气愤。
最近，一位过于热心的广告代表在谷歌的博客上写道，谷歌的广告可能会成为利益集团的有益工具，以反驳电影导演迈克尔•摩尔(Michael Moore)对美国医疗体系的批评。
谷歌高管否认这类事件反映了其广告业务及其核心价值之间存在任何更为广泛的冲突。“我认为没有这个趋势，”谷歌欧洲业务主管尼凯施•奥罗拉(Nikesh Aurora)表示，“这些都是独立事件。”
然而，谷歌的迅速扩张导致其招聘人数大增，可能对其灌输商业价值的传统方式带来了压力。
“我们不希望进行太多控制，”奥罗拉表示，“人们可以做他们认为符合公司利益的事情。我们希望他们理解公司的价值观，并拥有自己的解读。”
同时，谷歌大举挺进新的在线市场，导致其与最亲密的同盟产生了摩擦，加重了人们对谷歌某些动机的怀疑。
据两位知情人士表示，一个引入关注的例子发生在2004年，当时，谷歌未能开诚布公解决与美国在线(AOL)即将爆发的利益冲突。当时，美国在线是谷歌最重要的商业伙伴。
这两位知情人士表示，谷歌高管亲自向时任美国在线总裁的乔纳森•米勒(Jonathan Miller)保证，它们无意推出一个与美国在线竞争的基于网页的电子邮件产品。
出尔反尔推出Gmail服务
一位知情人士表示，几周后，米勒接到了谷歌首席执行官埃里克•施密特的电话。施密特在电话中通知他，谷歌将在第二天推出其Gmail服务。谷歌行为的180度大转弯让米勒“暴怒”，并给外界留下了这样的印象：谷歌情愿“摧毁其合作伙伴”。
一位曾面临过此类冲突的商业伙伴，将谷歌的行为更多的归咎于失误，而非傲慢。他表示，内部结构的紧张以及高度分权的产品开发方式，有助于解释为何出现此类误解。
公司高管承认，谷歌的快速增长，意味着该公司长期以来一直极其缺乏能与媒体公司交流的员工——这些媒体公司担心，谷歌实力不断增强，将对它们的业务造成影响。这引发了人们的猜疑，认为谷歌对自己信息优势信心十足，对其它企业则不屑一顾。
谷歌进军新市场的步伐，令一些最亲密的盟友也十分警惕。一位合作伙伴在谈到谷歌许多新产品计划时说道：“你不知道巧克力盒子里装着什么？”
一位谷歌高管并不理会这些抱怨。他表示，传媒行业一直在协调关系，在这里，企业既是合作者，也是竞争者。这不是一个可疑道德的问题：“这是商业。”
同时，在过去一年，施密特已将改善与商业伙伴的关系作为他的主要任务之一。
与未来的挑战相比，这些问题都不值一提。该公司远大理想（将信息传递给所有人）的意义刚刚成为焦点。
谷 歌毫不掩饰其目标的远大。它正在创建一个能够吸纳海量数据的、巨大的全球计算平台。最近，谷歌扩大了它的使命，将“应用软件”包括进来：这是迄今最明显的 一个迹象，表明在为电脑用户提供他们日常生活中依赖的基础工具方面，谷歌希望象微软在个人电脑(PC)领域那样，在互联网领域取得垄断地位。
在今年的年度股东大会上，佩奇向股东警告称，这些理想将不可避免的遭到抵触。“我们的机遇非常非常巨大，”他表示，“我们需要调整规模，以迎接这个机遇。其影响之一是，在这个领域，我们将导致一些网络流量。”
言下之意：随着谷歌成为全球海量信息的传输渠道，并成为利用这些信息的工具，它将不可避免地令更多的商业竞争对手和公众怀疑其动机。到那时，“不要作恶”这一口号将意味着什么？
译者/何黎
阅读本文章英文,请点击 GROWING GOOGLE SEARCHES FOR THE RIGHT BALANCEWhen
Google agreed to buy online advertising outfit DoubleClick five months ago, it put a lot of backs up.
US behemoths from Microsoft to AT&T expressed concern at the group's newfound might. Antitrust regulators were alerted. Consumer groups complained. The deal was also one of the clearest illustrations yet of how Google has changed.
Just two years ago, the Financial Times has established, Google abandoned a potential acquisition of DoubleClick amid concerns that a fundamental part of the way the online advertising company does business – using “cookies” to collect banks of data on users so it can target adverts to them – conflicted with the much-touted ethical principles of Google's founders.
By proceeding with a deal in the spring, Google showed how it has struggled to apply its cherished business principles in practice, including its well-known internal motto: “Don't be evil.”
Having publicly set themselves above others, its founders remain adamant their ideals will make a difference in the long term. “We haven't had big companies before that had that kind of ethic,” Larry Page said recently. “I think we can be a positive force.”
That is not how some are coming to see it. The DoubleClick deal has amplified complaints that Google has on the one hand abused its users – invading their data privacy as well as adulterating search results with increased advertising – and on the other trampled over potential business partners.
Former executives and other observers argue that the increasingly complex nature of Google's activities, particularly as it moves into new markets such as the one where DoubleClick operates, is forcing it to adapt and in some cases make compromises with its founding principles.
Facing growing numbers of commercial rivals and legal adversaries over copyright and other issues, it is not uncommon these days to hear comparisons to a company that many people in Silicon Valley love to hate: Microsoft.
In part, this is about image. “As you get more powerful, it's natural for people to think this way,” said Mr Page.
But the backlash has substance, too. “When you're a grown-up company,” says David Yoffie, a professor at Harvard Business School, “ ‘Don't be evil' is too simplistic. You have to evolve it and develop it.”
Google's decision early last year to launch a censored search engine in China became an early lightning rod, since its stance appeared so clearly at odds with its self-declared mission – to make “the world's information universally accessible and useful”.
Even some opponents of the decision concede it is hard to criticise Google over it. “I think reasonable, and ethical, people can disagree on which path is best to take [when dealing with China],” says Jonathan Zittrain, professor of internet governance and regulation at Oxford University, who was personally opposed to the move.
Nonetheless, there is growing evidence that Google's nebulous claims to ethical superiority are backfiring – antagonising, in particular, other companies who see no basis for them, and who find they conflict with their own business interests.
“I think they have a view that what's good for Google is good for the world,” snaps one business partner. “Every nation state reaches that conclusion at some point.”
An executive who has worked closely with Google's most important business partners, adds: “I absolutely think their heart's in the right place, but they're trying to apply this [‘Don't be evil' principle] to increasingly difficult business situations.” As Google grows by acquisition, the challenges multiply.
Google's $1.65bn purchase of the YouTube video-clip website last year encapsulates the tension between Google's anti-establishment principles and its new-found status at the heart of the big-business establishment, with the frequent posting of copyrighted music, sport and film by the site's users causing friction with media groups worldwide.
Stanford law professor Larry Lessig still sees the group more as saint than sinner. “Google has taken aggressive decisions to defend the . . . rights that the law allows them,” he says. “It was in some senses a public service to engage in these fights.”
But an executive at one big media company counters: “If they're testing the limits of copyright, they've gone over the line and now they're trying to get back.”
To its critics, the YouTube deal confirmed Google's disregard for the rights of media owners. Internet companies cannot be sued for posting content that infringes copyright, as long as they respond promptly to requests to remove it – though Viacom, which has sued YouTube, argues these protections do not apply.
The company has spent much of this year developing a “digital fingerprinting” system to try to make it easier to identify copyrighted material. Opponents claim, though, that it has deliberately dragged its feet over the technology – and also that the work on fingerprinting is an admission that Google has not done enough up to now to fulfil its legal responsibilities.
Google itself insists that resolving the disputes is a priority. “I think there's a huge incentive for Google and YouTube to get this right,” says Nigel Jones, Google's chief lawyer in Europe. Such disputes are not just about the risk of getting sued. Unresolved, they could disrupt the future development of an industry that looks likely to rely increasingly on collaboration between internet operators like Google and incumbent media groups. “If potential partners aren't happy with our progress, we won't get the best content available,” says Mr Jones.
The other big row to engulf Google, over cookies, was also triggered by an acquisition, that of DoubleClick.
For any company claiming the ethical high ground, decisions about advertising sales were always going to be knotty. From the outset, Mr Page and co-founder Sergey Brin worried that advertising in any form could undermine the integrity of their work. In the academic paper where they first discussed the outline of their novel approach to internet search, they warned: “The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search for users.”
For the young, idealistic, engineering-driven company they had created, “Don't be evil” was a slogan that served a useful purpose in signaling that they were not about to make compromises as they looked for ways to make money, according to one Google official.
A small number of cases that have thrown a harsh light on the practices of some members of its salesforce appear to justify that early caution. Earlier this year, two Google salesmen antagonised some of the biggest media companies by actively recommending the search engine's advertising system for use by websites that make money by distributing pirated content.
More recently, an over-zealous advertising rep wrote on a Google blog that advertising on the search engine could be a useful vehicle for interest groups seeking to counter criticism of the US healthcare system made by filmmaker Michael Moore.
Google executives deny that instances like these point to any broader conflicts between its advertising practices and its core values. “I don't think there's a trend here,” says Nikesh Aurora, head of Google's European operations. “There are isolated cases.”
Yet Google's rapid expansion, which has led to a sharp increase in its rate of hiring, seems likely to put a strain on its traditional way of inculcating its business values.
“We try not to have too many controls,” says Mr Aurora. “People will do things that they think are in the interests of the company. We want them to understand the values of the firm, and interpret them for themselves.”
Google's ambitious push into new online markets, meanwhile, has caused friction with even its closest allies, adding to suspicions about some of its motives.
In one notable instance in 2004, according to two people close to the situation, Google failed to deal openly with a looming clash of interests with AOL, at the time its most important business partner.
According to these people, Jonathan Miller, head of AOL at the time, had been personally assured by senior Google executives that they had no plans to launch a rival web-based e-mail product to AOL's own service.
Weeks later, Mr Miller received a phone call from Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive, to warn him that the next day Google would be unveiling its Gmail service – an about–turn that made him “furious” and left the impression that Google was willing to “ride roughshod over its partners”, said one person close to the situation.
One business partner who has faced conflicts like this, attributes Google's behaviour more to error than arrogance. Strains on its internal organisation, along with its highly decentralised approach to developing products, help explain how misunderstandings like this occur, this person says.
Google's rapid growth, company executives admit, meant that for a long time it had too few employees to be able to talk to all the media companies that were worried about the impact of its growing power on their businesses. This just fed suspicions that Google, confident in its intellectual superiority, had an arrogant disregard for others.
Google's expansion into new markets has left even some of its closest allies decidedly wary. “You don't know what's inside the box of chocolates,” one partner says of Google's many new product initiatives.
A senior Google executive gives short shrift to such complaints. The media industry has traditionally accommodated relationships where companies are both partners and rivals, this person says. This is not an issue of questionable ethics: “It's considered business.”
Meanwhile, Mr Schmidt has made it one of his main missions over the past year to build better relations with business partners.
Tensions like these could be nothing compared to what lies ahead. The implications of the company's ambition, to bring information to everyone everywhere, are only just coming into focus.
Google is unabashed about the extent of its aims. It is in the process of building a massive global computing platform capable of absorbing vast amounts of data. Recently it extended its mission to include “applications” – the clearest indication yet that it wants to assume the same role on the internet that Microsoft has played with the PC when it comes to providing the basic tools computer users rely on in their everyday lives.
These ambitions will inevitably lead to a backlash, Mr Page warned shareholders at this year's annual meeting. “The scale of our opportunity is very, very large,” he said. “We need to scale to meet that opportunity. One of the impacts is that we will cause traffic in this area.”
Translation: as Google becomes the conduit for much of the world's information, and the tools for manipulating it, it will inevitably feed many more commercial rivalries and public suspicions about its motives. What meaning will there be by then in the slogan: “Don't be evil”?
沒有留言:
張貼留言