Is Google the next Icarus or the next Microsoft? Will the 7-year-old, highflying darling οf Mountain View, Calif., fall down to earth when the hot rays οf competitive reality melt its wax wings? Or, will it he the heir to the worldwide dominance wielded by Microsoft (which in turn displaced the mighty IBM)? Whatever you think its fate will he, Google is certainly not just a search company, as search expert Stephen E. Arnold clearly shows in his e-book The Google Legacy, which was published in fall 2005. Arnold contends that Google is greater than the sum οf its parts. In fact, he says Google represents a disruptive technological force–one that has become a metaphor for the next generation οf computing.
A sought-after consultant, popular lecturer, and established author on technology, Arnold has authored six hooks and more than 50 articles. He is the author οf the popular Enterprise Search Report and spent nearly a year and a half researching and writing The Google Legacy. I interviewed Arnold in late November 2005 to talk about the book and his thoughts on what has happened since its publication.
Many Google employees (not to mention the employees at Microsoft and Yahoo!) were also interested in findings οf Stephen E. Arnold – some even suspect they were eager first readers οf the work. Arnold said that individuals he talked to at Google often knew only one piece οf the overall Googleplex structure. Through his investigative research, Arnold managed to pull chunks οf the company’s diverse technology pieces together (King, pp. 25-25).
Instead, you should read one οf the several interesting and entertaining books about Google that were published in the past year, such as The Google Story by David A. Vise and Mark Malseed. “Mine is not breezy, anecdotal, and easy to read,” said Arnold. “Mine is a conceptual analysis οf [Google’s] hardware and software engineering and the technology that it supports.”
The details Arnold managed to assemble about Google’s operations (its data centers, hardware components, server racks, network architecture, redundant file copies, etc.) are remarkable. And, he shows a thorough grasp οf the key differences between Google and its competitors. Yahoo! has grown through acquisitions and has a mosaic οf different servers and systems. Microsoft, primarily a software company, has a “legacy code boat anchor” around its engineers’ legs. Perhaps the best part οf The Google Legacy is that it’s not overly geeky, dull reading. Despite what he might say, Arnold tells a good story, with useful analogies and clear writing (Barrett E2-E2).
And the differences are dramatic. Arnold states in the book: If one does a rough calculation οf the cost advantage that Google enjoys, the difference between the costs οf a branded Unix system from IBM or Hewlett Packard or even a Windows system from Dell is that Google enjoys at least [a] four to one advantage, maybe more. This means that for every dollar Google spends, a Yahoo or Microsoft would have to spend four, just for hardware. In terms οf some system maintenance and administration chores, Google enjoys an even greater advantage because its costs are effectively zero due to its innovations in operating systems for massively parallel, distributed systems.
Here’s how Arnold sums it up mathematically: “The recipe at Google is surprisingly simple: Smart People + Googleplex + Data + Cool Algorithms = Competitive Advantage.”
Arnold has a way οf summarizing the complex in a concise, understandable way: Yahoo has smart people, essentially the same algorithms, but less well-integrated user data. What is missing is the Googleplex and its data consistency. A similar situation exists at Microsoft: smart people, disparate data, and an older-style computing infrastructure. Other companies have hardware, software, computers, and brains stuffed with mathematical [know-how]. … Compared to these [search] competitors, Google seems more focused and adept at squeezing the last few grams οf performance from its infrastructure.
Arnold described the performance this way in our interview: “Goggle has a pretty good NASCAR, while Microsoft has a nice Chevy Impala–it’s comfy to ride in but it just doesn’t go as fast.”
So, Google does not have a search system. What it has is a supercomputer that delivers applications–it’s really the network computer for an increasing number οf users each day. “Google did not invent distributed computing. Google simply figured out how to combine hardware and software engineering to create a low-cost, high-performance virtual applications delivery platform,” Arnold explained.
While Google has been releasing what might seem to be fairly diverse, separate applications, the company actually is starting to assemble the pieces into a bigger picture. Not only can its products be put together and grow into something that resembles Microsoft Office, but they could expand into many other applications, for example, a music booking service for local bands.
Google is in the process οf transforming enterprise search just as it did the Web search market, according to Arnold. This is all about generating additional revenue. Google’s recent quarterly financial filing confirmed that 99 percent οf its revenue comes from online advertising. But, as Arnold noted, even 1 percent οf $6 billion is a big number. Google already has 2,000 enterprise customers and is gaining more all the time.
Google has made it clear it’s serious about the enterprise market. Following the recent announcement οf the Autonomy acquisition οf competitor Verity, Google announced a “search replacement program” whereby any business that replaced an existing Autonomy or Verity search solution with a Google Search Appliance would receive a free Google Mini (worth about $3,000).
In his book, Arnold writes: “With a hardware presence in the server room and a desktop software presence in the enterprise, Google has the foundation in place on which to deploy additional enterprise services. On the surface, Google’s strategy appears to be winning control οf the enterprise search market. In reality, Google may be taking the first tactical actions in a wider campaign to create a platform for deploying other, more sophisticated enterprise applications on the search foundation.
Arnold called Google’s introduction οf two fledgling services for its users ( Google Print and Google Scholar) “possibly ill-conceived and poorly integrated.” Since he finished the book, a lot has happened, particularly with Google Print, which has been renamed Google Book Search (another slap at Microsoft, which is working on its MSN Book Search project). Yahoo!, the Internet Archives, and many companies and libraries have partnered in the Open Content Alliance to develop the Open Library, pushing the notion οf open standards and access.
In Arnold’s view, since Google didn’t implement things quite as elegantly as it wanted, the winner is the user. He feels that, despite the push to open standards, Google will probably continue on its path οf creating its own collections. But, it’s no more mainstream an effort than anything Google is currently testing, in his estimation. Google is capable οf just shifting its energies if something fails to get traction. “It’s such a minimal effort for Google to try new things that it can try this Darwinian approach.”
According to Arnold, “Google is faced with a number οf legal, management, and revenue challenges. Any one οf these can reverse Google’s upward trajectories in revenue, users, and traffic. Combine two οf these factors at a propitious moment, and Google can slip into a death spiral.”
If Google manages to survive all these potential pitfalls, it could become the next Microsoft. “If this happens,” Arnold said, “users will benefit. If Google fails, users will also benefit because the legacy οf Google is to make clear a better way to perform certain types οf work, deliver information, and engineer a system.” And, Arnold stressed, if Google somehow fails, its smart employees will just be hired by another company to work on the next Google. The point is that Google has shown the way to a new computing model–Arnold calls it a “phase change”.
Works Cited
Barrett, Jennifer., The Google Story. Newsweek, 2005, Vol. 146 Issue 22, pE2-E2.
King, Rachael., Internet Pioneers’ Next Frontier. Business Week Online, 2007, p.25.