At what point is a singular company too large? Too powerful? Too invincible from outside harm? At what point should we—the people—express concern for a company that can do anything? Does such a point exist? Well, technically, but who is to say that a company deserves such scrutiny.
In his CNN article, Matt Rosoff discusses a concept similar to this, except with a major added twist. Instead of the people deciding a company can do too much, the competitors are laying down the law. For instance, Bill Gates with Microsoft was attacked in 1998 for being too powerful of a company. Gates, of course, didn’t understand why people were attacking the company he worked so hard to create. After all, Microsoft was the winner “by being smarter and working harder” than the competition (Rosoff, 2011).
Flash forward: Google is like the new Microsoft. One man, Larry Page, can control every aspect of Google, deciding what to invest in, what to pull away from, and how many engineers to hire (he would like a million). The problem lies with the eminent power Page now holds. Google is a singular company that can offer hundreds of services. When Google acquired a company that offered a similar service to their own, they were required (by law) to sell it.
Ultimately, this all comes down to a supply and demand type of power structure. When we—the people—demand millions of services, a company will step up to provide them, at any cost. Google has developed into that company, understanding exactly what people want and what people don’t want in their Web 2.0 environment. On Google, one can blog (as I am right now), search and navigate maps, photos, scholarly journals, stream music, etc. The list is endless.
Does a solution exist? Not exactly. We have turned into a society where the quickest and most convenient method of delivery wins all. It no longer matters who has the best technology or who can create the best online environment. Now, it’s all about time and money. And really, that isn’t far from the truth. The following article provides a list of tech tips, all dedicated to making technology that much easier. Is that our new goal? Should technology be easy? My opinion, easy technology creates a lazy user. If I have a computer that can do everything for me, what will I learn? For instance, I spelled convenient incorrectly above (conveneint), but the word was corrected due to my spell check. I will not learn how to correctly spell the word because the computer does it for me.
While most laugh at technology making me lazy, others will understand the magnitude of such a claim. Does this stem from one company offering every program needed? Probably not, but the fact cannot help either. Google has become a beacon of technological advancement. Web 2.0 is Google’s domain (in more way than one). And while technology has become as essential aspect of all our lives, we need to learn to let go. I think, in a way, we all need to go back and learn how to spell conveneint [sic] the right way, or we never will.
Rosoff, M. (2011, September 1). The new Bill Gates: Google’s Larry Page. Business Insider. Retrieved from www.cnn.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment