Category: Google

Google Glass as an Example of Innovation Failure

Innovation is the foremost wheel which drives humanity forward. In this silicone era most innovations we see are all around tech. Not just entrepreneurs but even big tech giants are contributing their fair share of ideas to keep the heat. An innovative idea has a high probability of failure with respect to startups. That’s no big deal, it happens all the time and its reasons are quite well known yet versatile. This research paper is focused on lesser discussed more important topic that is failure of innovation by tech giants. Innovation by a giant means a bigger project requiring more resources like money, skilled labor and lots of time: a fascinating idea that could revolutionize the way we live still fails to succeed in the market. This is a big deal because it’s a tech giant, aiming for high risk and high return because they can still end up as a failure. This not only hurts the value of the company but such big giants at times represent the nation itself. And not to forget the resources, time, ample amount of money and waste of highly skilled technical experts’ time. For this study, I chose one great idea – Google Glass – trying to figure out the reasons for its epic collapse.

Google Glass is a brand of smart glasses—an optical head-mounted display designed in the shape of a pair of eyeglasses. It was developed with a mission to produce ‘ubicomp’, i.e. a computer (smartphone) is made to appear anywhere and anytime. Since, 2010, Google (GOOG) X, an initiative started by Sebastian Thrun, has attempted to improve life and commodities by a factor of 10, rather than ten percent, through efforts called moonshots. Project Glass was assembled by virtue of these ambitions. Viewed as a vehicle for future technology, the MIT Technology Review comments that “Glass is already miles from where it was in 2011”. In fact, the invention, which was merely a shot in the dark, has taken on an afterlife of its own.

The Dream

Google Glass isn’t coming to save the world, just help it. In fact, the central dispute among members of Google X is whether Glass should be used as a ‘fashionable device’ all the time or “only for specific utilitarian functions.” Drawing inspiration from John F. Kennedy’s understanding that bigger challenges create more passion, specifically in regards to the space race, Google development ultimately strove to integrate feedback into its system. To do this, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who also oversees Google X, suggested Glass be treated as a finished product, despite everyone in the lab knowing it was a ‘prototype, with major kinks to be worked out’. Brin wanted to release Glass to the public and have consumers provide feedback that X could then use to improve the design. The Glass prototype was released early as a result, with the intention of being more forward-looking than expressly convenient. Tim Brown, CEO and president of IDEO, feels the effort was not in vain, stating: “There has never in the history of new technology been an example where the first version out of the gate has been the right version”. Ultimately, although consumers want wearable technology, the functionality needs to be palatable. As Slate notes, “Glass’ problem is that the technology today simply doesn’t offer anything that average people really want, let alone need, in their everyday lives”. Glass is an interesting idea: it is nice to look at, but not through.

The Reality

Google originally advertised Glass in terms of experience augmentation. The 2012 demo reel featured skydiving, biking as well as wall scaling. Eventually, the videos showed user-friendly information instantaneously appearing on screen during everyday activities. Google’s aspirations were lofty: the technology required lengthy battery life, improved image-recognition capabilities, and a lot of data.

Rather than augment reality, Glass simply supplemented it. The two to three-hour battery life enabled users to check messages, view photos and search the Internet. Glass was competing with other devices that boasted superior cameras, larger capacity, and faster processors. Before the product was even launched, there were already concerns as to how safe Google Glass is for everyday use. Not everyone was comfortable with the idea of having a gadget that constantly emits carcinogenic radiation so close to the head. There were several reasons for the mainly:

Privacy and Health Concerns

The built-in camera also raised privacy and piracy concerns. Remember that the Google Glass could be recording or taking a photo at any time. This means the person sitting in front of you at the subway or at the next table could be taking a picture or footage of you. “Google Glass is a breakthrough concept, but it involves wearing a camera on your face, saying things like ‘OK, Google’, out loud, and walking around like it’s cool to do those things in public”, – says Dan Kaplan of Threadling. Another main concern was the possibility of illegally filming movies in cinemas, which is the reason why the device was prohibited in a lot of movie theaters. It was also banned in casinos where people didn’t appreciate surreptitious recording. There are simply too many ways to exploit the capabilities of the Google Glass. The mounted camera isn’t really a bad idea, but it could be in the wrong hands and situation.

No Clear Function

“Similarly, in your business, be sure that before you focus on the results or outcome, that you make it crystal clear what problems you solve, or why people might need what you offer”, – says Ian Altman of Forbes. The key to creating a great product is to find the demand or a problem that your product is trying to solve. You don’t just make a product first and find someone who’ll be interested in it after. This is an essential step before determining your target market, planning your promotion strategy, driving in sales, and calling your product a success. Unfortunately, this simple principle in business was overlooked in the development of Google Glass. The Google Glass has two basic functions: to quickly capture images and to have a feed of useful information from the internet a glance away. What are the most practical daily uses for these features? None. Obtaining the Google Glass offered no clear benefit to consumers whatsoever. In fact, even the engineers behind the product weren’t agreeing as to how it should be used. Some argued that it should be worn all the time, while others believed it should only be used in certain situations. This also resulted from the worst reason as to why the Google Glass never took off.

Aesthetically Unappealing

While the idea of a smart device mounted on a pair of glasses sounded awesome, Google Glass’ design somehow looked awkward and very unattractive. The product looked like as if it is still in its prototype stage (which could actually be the case). Not only does it look unnatural, wearing it in a dark alley or even in a crowded place doesn’t really sound too safe, given its price.

Conclusion

Google became caught up in the storm of its own making when it marketed Glass. The company wanted to capitalize on the hype, hope, and potential of the product instead of selling the reality. Rather than promoting the product as a prototype technology from the future as initially intended, the promotion and high price of Glass simply gave it the allure of a super-premium product.

Can Search Engine Be a Culprit of Defamation? Google Cases

With constant development of technology nowadays, it becomes more complex to draw a line between legitimate information delivery and defamation. A question brought to the table is that whether a search engine assumes full liability for any damages triggered by defamatory publication on its platform or whether a plea of innocent dissemination is applicable. In defamation law, a plaintiff can take a party to the court arguing that he has endured three of the following things: the words or pictures “were capable of defamatory meaning, … identify him as the person defamed, … heard or seen by a third person” (Thenewsmanual.net n.d.). To keep it simple, an examination of the defamation case between Dr. Janice Duffy and Google will provide a practical application on what current Australian law system is practicing.

In 2011, a former SA health department researcher had filed a civil lawsuit against Google for defamation by a number of articles composed on a site named ‘Ripoff Report’. The content is alleged to hold slanderous imputations about Dr. Janice Duffy such as claims about her being a stalker and conducting continual harassment of clairvoyants. The plaintiff, in July 2009, realized that searches for her name on Google’s search engine generated the showcase of passages from the Ripoff Report and hyperlinks to other sites repeating that writing. Dr. Duffy asked Google to remove the material because of its potential defamation for her, and yet, the firm declined. After tedious years of costly trials, the Court had ruled in favor of Dr. Duffy and ordered the giant internet search engine to pay the plaintiff an award of $100,000 for general damages with the addition of $15,000 interest.

The plaintiff claimed three aspects which had driven her lawsuit against Google over defamation. The first viewpoint is under various insertion of Dr. Duffy’s names, Google was responsible for publication of search results that include extracts from and hyperlinks to 16 websites whose passages constitute libel about her. An example of paragraphs, cited by Cryptome.org, displayed if a user searches for “Dr. Janice Duffy” is “Dr. Janice Duffy is truly an embarrassment to her profession as a Senior Researcher in Adelaide Australia”, “… Psychics must be aware of a psychic stalker named Janice Duffy”, and so forth. It is reported by Marcus (2015) about Dr. Duffy’s concern that any potential employer would find her information through Google search engine and be exposed to those articles, which resulted in her financial and mental suffering. Secondly, Dr. Duffy pointed out that scans for her name on Google brought about the substitute term “Janice Duffy psychic stalker” offered by Google’s “autocomplete utility from June 2011 onwards and its related search utility from June 2012 onwards” (Cryptome.org n.d.), from which defamation could emerge. Moreover, on account of the production of excerpts and hyperlinks to Ripoff Report materials, Google was by all means the second publisher of such traducing content.

One of the most famous cases where Google was also considered second publisher of defamatory content would be Trkulja litigation against Google in 2012. He has successfully sued Google for defamatory search results of his name which falsely associate him with the Melbourne underworld criminal. On the Inforrm’s Blog (2017), it is written that the Victorian Supreme Court had awarded Trkulja $200,000 for damages in their final decision. The question was raised, in the same manner as Dr. Duffy’s lawsuit, whether Google is considered the publisher of its search results. With respect to web matter, Trkulja found the search results and autocomplete predictions that display a thumbnail picture of the plaintiff slanderous of him. On 3rd December 2012, Trkulja notified Google and sought for its authority to take the material down. It was argued that once the defendant had been given notice and had the power to withdraw the material, yet refused to do so, it unavoidably turned into a primary publisher of the complained matter. This defense was accepted by the Court and had brought Trkulja a famous victory against the technology behemoth.

According to Cryptome.org, Google repudiated allegations of any disparaging publications connected to its website and contended with “defenses of innocent dissemination, qualified privilege, justification and contextual truth”. Speaking of qualified privilege, the firm asserted that there is a public interest in acquiring data pertinent to the pursuit term, and thus Google shared a corresponding interest in presenting that information. In terms of justification plea, Google referred to Dr. Duffy’s exchange with Kasama administrators and posts on the site to prove the truthfulness of imputations claimed by the senior researcher. By which, it is bound to imputations of “stalking, harassment, government mail misuse, injury infliction, and reputation tarnishing … phoney name for deception; disseminated lies; … inaccurate and damaging reports about psychics; … manners requiring complaints against her to protect consumers” (Cryptome.org, n.d.). Justice Malcom Blue in the final verdict has rejected defense of innocent dissemination for the fact that defamatory materials were a result of a programmed search engine intended by Google. The defendant therefore had become a second publisher of the text when it was alerted by Dr. Duffy about the slanderous text in question. That Google rejected the request of content removal renders it liable for defamatory publications.

The implication of Dr. Janice Duffy v Google case has set a new bar for any search engine out there to carefully practice what an ordinary fair consumer would comprehend from its hyperlinks. In case of defamation caused by programmed search results, the publication is accused of disparaging imputations regarding an individual when his reputation is at risk of being tarnished; there is prospective damage to the person’s profession or business; and he is expected to be disregarded, ostracized, mocked, and loathed by others (Thenewsmanual.net n.d.). Therefore, as someone who has authority over content display, search engine firms should be mindful of the potential consequences of published materials on their platforms. Once notified of defamatory matter by users, a company will be counted as primary publisher of such content given that it decides to do nothing with the request. Same golden rule is also applied to the autocompletion coded by companies. As long as plaintiff can prove that the term offered by search engine is substantial in leading to his defamation, the award charged for firm in lawsuit would be costly depending on the scale of information dissemination. After two colossal cases of Google versus users, it is time to rethink about the role of search engine and its effect on today’s consumers. Everything might not appear to be as innocent as pure information delivery in the old time.

References

1. Cryptome.org., n.d., online, Available at: https://cryptome.org/2015/12/duffy-v-google.pdf [Accessed 6 Apr. 2019].
2. Inforrm’s Blog. (2017). Case Law, Australia: Google Inc v Trkulja, Trkulja III not as good as the originals – Justin Castelan. [online] Available at: https://inforrm.org/2017/02/17/case-law-australia-google-inc-v-trkulja-trkuljga-iii-not-as-good-as-the-originals-justin-castelan/ [Accessed 6 Apr. 2019].
3. Marcus, C. 2015, ‘Adelaide woman sues Google for defamation’, ABC News, online, Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/adelaide-woman-sues-internet-giant-google-for-defamation/6890292 [Accessed 6 Apr. 2019].
4. Thenewsmanual.net, n.d., ‘Defamation in Australia’, online, Available at: http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html [Accessed 6 Apr. 2019].

Reflections on How the Google Search Engine Affects Intelligence

Google search is a great tool for searching information that we need for work. It is so easy just to Google something knowing you will have it at the palm of your hand in no time at all or better yet not having to spend hours looking in books for a bit of information. But searching Google for every answer may seem awesome there are some negative impacts it can bring to our own intelligence as well.

There are many benefits for using search engine. For example, it can help us save time, access free information, it can be more comprehensive, allows us to use a more advanced search, and it keeps the relevance of what is being searched. So, these search engines help us a lot in terms of accessing information at the time that we need something. But just because it has good benefits in our search for information does not mean we are being affected negatively.

Philip (2016) ‘Cognitive Offloading: How the Internet Is Changing the Human Brain’ informs about how access to information has become simpler to find and that it’s changing our ways of thinking. Finding information before the Internet was a huge struggle back then and the amount of effort that was needed to find it was hard. But know that the Internet allows us to search any information we want it has become easier than ever. Philip mentions a study that he included in his article about a study made by the University of California, Santa Cruz and the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign. These studies were conducted by Benjamin Storm who was leading this study. The investigation consisted in how likely the participants would reach for their electronic devices when given a question to answer. So, participants were divided into two groups in which they set one group to use Google while the second group was not. Now this is where things get interesting; after the first series of questions were answered they allowed both groups to use Google. When the second series of questions were given those who use Google were the last to answer the question because they were more likely to rely on the search engine. While the group that did not use Google were faster in answering the questions that is because they were relying on their memory rather than using the search engine. As a result, Benjamin Storm came to this conclusion: “As more information becomes available via smart phones and other devices, we become progressively more reliant on it in our daily lives”. In other words, Benjamin is telling us that as information becomes easier to access, we start relying daily on the search engines such as Google.

Researchers Evan F Risko and Sam Gilbert refer to this as ‘cognitive offloading’, which means the use of physical action to alter the information processing requirements of a task so as to reduce cognitive demand. According to these two researchers they state that this has been going on for years. Evan and Sam found in their study that people rely on technology when it is superior to their own abilities. According to researchers these devices are needed because our memory has their limits as well.

Stéphanie Thomson (2016) in her article ‘Scientists Say Google Is Changing Our Brains’ demonstrate how Google searches have grown in past few years. In 2007 Google searches were 1.20 in average and for 2013 it has increased to 5.92 in less than five years. She says that thanks to the Internet specifically that people no longer need to rely on their memory for random information or small details. She also mentions, “But with all the knowledge we could ever need at our fingertips, are we outsourcing our memory to the Internet?”, and supports this claim with the exact same study as Philip mentioned in his article about the research Universities of California and Illinois did. This trend of using the Internet researchers is referring to it as ‘cognitive offloading’. She mentions Benjamin Storm stating, “Whereas before we might have tried to recall something on our own, now we don’t bother”. In which we agree with him as well because people now a days can remember things perfectly but we have become too dependent on the Google search engine that we rather use it than remember it our self.

In a Ted Talk mention refers to Michael Merzenich, a professor from the University of California in which he explains the details of how the brain is prepared for change. Stéphanie claims: “But is it changing for the better? At this point, we don’t know”. An opinion from people seems to be whether this affects us in a good or bad way. Nicholas Carr, author of ‘What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains’ is not quite pleased with the Internet. Nicholas believes that relying on the Internet over our own memory is affecting us greatly and that it is something necessary for our knowledge and wisdom. Also, other researchers in that field came to the same conclusion as Nicholas.

But other people feel more optimistic about these changes. Clive Thompson points out that this has been happening for many years now even before technology and states: “Humanity has always relied on coping devices to handle the details for us. We’ve long stored knowledge in books and on paper and post-it notes”. Only that nowadays it has been change to technology that help us in those areas. Clive truly believes that the Internet will help grow the intelligence abilities in the human mind. And we believe that it can help us improve; we are not saying it’s good because it still has some negative impact in our brain but if used the right way it can help us grow in a positive way.

Zach Wener-Fligner (2015) in his article ‘Study: Googling Gives You an Inflated Sense of Your Own Intelligence’ says that thanks to the Internet gathering information through search engines such as Google has made things easier to access. The researchers at Yale conducted an experiment in which participants had to answer a few questions in which each one uses a search engine or a given text so that after the experiment they would rate themselves. Outstandingly the one who use search engines thought highly of themselves and superior. As a result, people will think that they know everything thanks to the Internet. The reason why they think that is probably because they can access information with so little effort, they believe they already knew it. On the other hand, searching by book is more effort. Matthew Fisher confirms that those who don’t know the answer it quite clear that they really don’t know. He states: “With the Internet, the lines become blurry between what you know and what you think you know”.

This all due to what researchers call ‘cognitive offloading’ as mentioned in Philip and Stéphanie articles. Which is the physical action used to reduce the cognitive demands of a task. For example, programming a phone to remind you of upcoming events that is what is referred to as cognitive offloading.

Zhai Yun Tan (2016) in her article on KQED News says that a former English teacher in Kentucky named Terry Heick noticed that his eighth and ninth grade students immediately went to Google to answer his questions. The first question was: “How does a novel represent humanity?”. What surprised Heick was that they would start Googling the question. With the modern technology as we all know today, like popular personal assistants like Siri and Google. They serve up information before you even know you need it; just with a word you’ll have your answer simple as that. She asks, “If with so much information available, does it make us smarter?”. Compared to previous generation that were not born with availability to the Internet and comparing the generation of today, the so-called ‘Google Generation’ since they are born with it.

Heick wanted his students take their time to think and analyze, find information they need, and evaluate each data they find. He wanted them to analyze the data and look for the information just with one word or as less words as possible, to allow his students to think critically. But the process of critical thinking failed since his students instantly search the answer of the question on Google word by word, eliminating the process of critical thinking.

There is a relative lack of research available to investigate the impact of search engines on our minds, even as our lives are increasingly transformed by technology. Some believe that our brain has so much space to engage in more creative activities, as humans have in the past, thanks to easy access to information. A discussion from Steven Pinker in the New York Times about how our brain will be challenged as new technology is created. He states that the Internet and technology are the things that will keep us smart instead of making us dumb. Daphne Bavelier, a professor at the University of Geneva, wrote in 2011 that we lost the ability of oral memorization when writing was invented, but gained additional reading and text analysis skills.

In 2008 a study commissioned by the British Library found that young people seem to not verify the information when browsing online to see if it is accurate. Another study in 2011 a journal Science showed that when people know they have access to the information, they seem to remember how to access that information instead of remembering themselves.

Michele Nelson, an art teacher at Estes Hills Elementary School in Chapel Hill, N.C., who has been teaching for more than nine years, said that it was obvious that students could no longer read long texts. She states: “They just had a really hard time comprehending if they went to a website that had a lot of information. They couldn’t grasp it. They couldn’t figure out what the important thing was”. Even she has a hard time as well.

On the bright side Gary Small, director of the University of California in Los Angeles Longevity Center, made a study in 2009. They explored brain activity on adults using search engines. He found that those who experience using the Internet; their brains are more active. Small says that the Internet is like a brain exercise that can be good for our mental health. He believes that when they are older, they should use the Internet. The main issue is with younger people in which they misuse the technology. Besides that, he is very excited for new technology.

Heick decided to leave a created TeachThought, a company that produces content to support teachers in innovation in teaching and learning for a 21st century audience. The Internet has tremendous potential for education but the program needs to change appropriately. Because material is so readily available, teachers should not give the knowledge easily and instead concentrate on fostering critical thinking in the students. Heick’s company recently started working with schools and organizations in a few states like North Carolina, Texas and New York, to develop lesson plans. Heick states: “Google really lubricates your access to information, and while that’s great, it makes us have to change the way we think about things”. He recommends making questions Google proof which is a great idea.

In any case, we all have our different opinions based on the Google search engine, like Nicholas Carr, who believe it will not benefit us, and others, like Clive Thompson, who believes that it will help us become smarter. In any case, there are both right in their own ways. That is why we need to learn how to use the Internet and not depend on it. That is why people like Heick want to change this for the better. Google search is not a bad thing it just depends on how we use it. So, we ask that you all make the best choices when using the search engine and remember that our brain is the greatest memory of all.

Essay on Google Search Engine

In the vast expanse of the digital universe, few entities shine as brightly or exert as much gravitational pull as Google. An omnipresent facet of modern life, Google’s influence stretches across the globe, shaping the way we seek and process information, communicate, and interact with digital technology. The brainchild of two ambitious Stanford Ph.D. students, Google has metamorphosed from a humble search engine into a colossal tech conglomerate, carving an indelible mark on the technology industry.

This essay will delve into Google’s journey from its inception, examine the guiding principles that shape its operations and ambitions, and analyze its dynamic relationship with rival companies within the competitive tech industry. Through this exploration, we will gain an understanding of the factors contributing to Google’s sustained success and its pivotal role in the digital revolution.

Google Short History

Google, a name synonymous with the term “internet search,” was conceived in a Stanford University dorm room in 1996 by two Ph.D. students, Sergey Brin, and Larry Page. The pair initially named the search engine “Backrub” as it analyzed the web’s “back links.” It was later renamed “Google,” a play on the mathematical term ‘googol,’ which represents the digit 1 followed by 100 zeroes. The name was chosen to symbolize the company’s mission to organize the vast amount of information available on the internet.

In 1998, Google was officially incorporated in a friend’s garage in Menlo Park, California, marking the start of a revolution in the information technology industry. The following year, it shifted its base to Mountain View, where it continues to operate. The turning point came in 2004 when Google went public with its initial public offering (IPO). Since then, Google has diversified its operations from being merely a search engine to offering a broad range of products and services, including email (Gmail), cloud storage (Google Drive), productivity software (Google Workspace), and mobile operating system (Android).

As of mid-2023, Google maintains a dominant position in several key technology industry sectors. Its search engine continues to hold the largest market share globally, serving as the primary access point to the internet for billions of users.

Google’s Vision and Mission

The guiding force behind Google’s ceaseless innovations and diverse offerings is its clearly defined corporate mission, “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” This mission statement underscores Google’s unwavering dedication to delivering its users the most relevant and accurate search results. At the very essence of Google’s operational philosophy is the intent to ‘democratize information,’ a belief that the power of knowledge should be available to everyone. The company’s endeavors to categorize and deliver information stand as a testament to its efforts to promote understanding on a global scale.

Google’s vision, on the other hand, is a direct extension of its mission. The corporate vision is “to provide access to the world’s information in one click.” This statement reflects Google’s commitment to providing an effortless access pathway to the vast reservoir of information that the digital world contains. It exemplifies Google’s determination to simplify the information retrieval process to a single click, allowing users to have an enriching experience. This ‘one-click access’ has been brought to life through various innovative services that Google offers. Google Search, for instance, has become an integral part of Internet users’ lives, providing immediate answers to virtually any question. Similarly, Google Books and Google Scholar work in tandem to cater to academic and literary needs, putting a wealth of resources at the fingertips of learners and researchers worldwide.

The harmonious alignment between Google’s vision and mission creates a powerful impetus driving its ceaseless efforts toward technological innovation and user-centric design. Google’s mission provides the foundational principles guiding its operations, while the vision offers a clear and ambitious goal that Google continuously strives to achieve. Together, these twin guiding stars have successfully positioned Google as a pioneering tech entity that ceaselessly evolves to meet and anticipate the needs of its global user base. By making the world’s information not only accessible but also comprehensible and useful, Google ensures that it remains relevant and indispensable in an ever-changing digital landscape.

Google and Rival Companies

Google’s impressive growth over the years has not been without competition. Many tech companies rival Google in various sectors, with the most notable competitors being Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, often collectively referred to as the “Big Five” of the technology industry.

Microsoft competes directly with Google in areas like search engines, with Bing being a notable competitor to Google Search. Also, Microsoft’s Office 365 suite directly rivals Google’s Workspace. However, the rivalry is most visible in the operating systems sector, where Google’s Android and Microsoft’s Windows battle for dominance.

Amazon is another critical rival, mainly in the cloud computing domain. Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Google Cloud are often considered the two significant players in the cloud infrastructure market. Moreover, Amazon’s aggressive foray into the digital advertising space poses a threat to Google’s Ad business.

In the social media and advertising sector, Facebook (now Meta) is a formidable rival. Google’s advertising model competes with Facebook’s targeted ad system, which capitalizes on its massive user base and extensive user data. Moreover, Google+ was a direct competitor to Facebook, though it did not achieve the same level of success.

Lastly, Apple competes with Google in several areas, including smartphones (iOS vs. Android), digital services (Apple Music vs. Google Play Music), and web browsers (Safari vs. Chrome). Despite their rivalry, Google pays Apple billions annually to remain the default search engine on Apple devices, showcasing the complex nature of their relationship.

Despite these rivalries, Google continues to hold a dominant position in many sectors. The company’s success lies in its ability to innovate and integrate its services, offering a seamless, comprehensive user experience. Google’s core values of focusing on the user, pursuing excellence, and long-term thinking have allowed it to remain at the forefront of the rapidly evolving technology industry.

Conclusion

In the grand tapestry of the technology industry, Google occupies a distinct and commanding position. Emerging from the humble roots of a university project, it has grown into a colossal entity that not only shapes our digital interactions but also consistently redefines the boundaries of technological innovation. The cornerstone of Google’s success lies in its clearly articulated mission and vision statements that coalesce to inspire a commitment to user-focused design and relentless innovation. These guiding principles have fostered Google’s growth and equipped it with the resilience to navigate the competitive currents of the tech industry.

Despite facing fierce rivalry from companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, Google has demonstrated an uncanny ability to hold its own and maintain dominance in several sectors. It is a testament to Google’s ingenuity, adaptability, and talent for integration that it has managed to weather competitive storms and technological shifts.

In summary, Google’s journey offers valuable insights into the potent combination of a well-defined mission, a visionary outlook, and an agile business strategy. It underscores the importance of user-centric innovation and the relentless pursuit of excellence in an industry defined by constant change. As we look to the future, there is little doubt that Google will continue to shape the digital landscape, pushing the frontiers of technology and playing an essential role in our interconnected world.

Organizational Behavior at Google: Informative Essay

Introduction:

Alphabet Inc. is a multinational organization which is based in California, USA.

Alphabet Inc. This organization became the parent company of Google and its subsidiaries back in 2015.

A lot of people know about Google but hardly any of us knows about Alphabet Inc. and if anyone does that is very little. Google’s management decided to go for this decision because they wanted their businesses under one umbrella and made this conglomerate. This organization owns a number of subsidiaries ranging from search engines to robotics, healthcare, anti-aging, and other technological stuff.

Theoretical Framework:

Alphabet Inc. applies organizational behavior theories in order to hire, train and manage its talent. The theories that we have gone through in our classes are listed below.

• Frederick Herberg’s Two Factors Theory of Motivation
• Group and Teamwork
• Management of conflicts
• Leadership styles

Best practices followed by Alphabet Inc.

Alphabet Inc. is one of the best companies which applies these organizational theories and practices them in the best possible way in order to keep their employees motivated and get an efficient and effective framework.

As Behaviors related to the organization have become so important and interesting that we need to study them as how individuals behave individually and how they behave in groups as well.

The first and most important thing is how do behave and why they do this behavior. The organizational theories and research suggest that these can be studied as individuals, in groups, and in organizational structures.

Individual Behaviors:

This stage says that an individual behaves according to the learning and analysis o the motivation, cooperation, tasks, and all other related things of the organization. As I have chosen Alphabet Inc. so the company hires the best individuals who have got best expertise in their fields and have the creative and technical skills that are required for sophisticated designs and technologies. The organization provides the best atmosphere and managers to the employees where they can discuss their ideas and consider them as part of the bigger thing. The organization has set best practices and atmosphere so that individuals can align themselves with the organization’s goals and objectives which are to bring innovation in the constantly changing environment. Individuals are encouraged to give their best ideas to any problem, or they can come up with completely new ideas and can discuss them with the higher management freely.

Individuals have got different levels of motivation and have different expectations for them. Herzberg gave the idea of two factors and explained that individuals are mainly motivated by these two factors. In my case, Alphabet Inc. allows sometimes employees to invest in their own way to get things done by themselves. This is an example of indirect motivation to the employees to work according to their way and all the company wants is the job done not the way it has been done.

Teamwork:

At this level, people tend to behave according to the group norms and group types. People usually mold their behaviors and act according to the situation and group norms. In Alphabet Inc., people are encouraged to behave for the benefit of that individual as well as for the group. When talking about a group then it is natural that there must be some members and their roles assigned in that group. In Alphabet Inc. employees tend to behave according to the organization’s culture and norms the leadership encourages creative and innovative ideas and the group motivates the individual in the group to come up with the best of their versions.

According to Cranny Smit Stone, if any organization wants success it must retain its human talent and try to make them more efficient and effective over time. It is understood that when employees work in a team for a single objective then their productivity increases and achieve a higher level of goals unlike individuals because every individual must be good at the field of specialty and in team different experts combine for the common objective. The team supports employees to give their best and achieve the best out of themselves one of the employees at Alphabet Inc. said that “there comes a time when you need feel motivated and here you need your team the most because they know how you feel and they can easily judge you that your potentials and not being fully exploited”. When employees work at Alphabet Inc. they create a synergy where every single person matters, and every single work done by that individual connects the dots for the success of the organizational level at the end of the day. That is why employees are highly encouraged here. As Alphabet Inc. has large employees across the globe and diverse cultures so where diversity is encouraged, and the company says that ’diversity is our strength’ because by having diverse people in their organization they come up with different ideas by looking at cultural aspects in mind. Like we are Muslims, so we focus on the things which are related to our culture and religion and are very sensitive in some areas no matter what. So, does Alphabet Inc. looks at their employees who are hired from across the globe?

Management of Conflicts:

Every organization has some conflicts and deals with people who have different mentalities and behaviors. So, how does Alphabet Inc. deal with this problem?

The answer is very simple because an organization is not rigid and gives value and opportunity to share their problems and proposed solution or them. It encouraged people to come up with their own solutions provided they solve the problems in the best possible manner. Leadership even motivates them to solve their differences b themselves and not harm and do any bad thing towards anyone or the organization. The company applies different techniques to avoid the conflicts that are either built or have been created over time by taking wrong strategies. It focuses to treat every single person as part of the larger family and avoids any form of discrimination and potential conflicts. It applies conflict management tools like avoiding the conflict in the first place and if it happens and giving the best solutions to solve the conflicts and will set some rules and regulations so that the conflict should never arise in the future.

Evaluate and Understand the Emotional Responses of People

At whatever point somebody has a forceful passionate reaction to something, they ordinarily fall back to their default setting, which is to look for a battle or flight reaction. They don’t have the option to reason seemingly out of the blue thus their activities may not be judicious, and they may articulate words they don’t mean at all and are probably going to lament later.

The exact opposite thing you need to do in such a circumstance is to attempt to contend with such an individual. You should hang tight for the resentment or other forceful feeling to initially scatter before you can attempt to speak with them. Sincerely set-off individuals aren’t anything but difficult to prevail upon.

Self-Awareness Is Key

What sort of individual would you say you are at the point at which a contention emerges? Do you will in general keep away from strife or would you say you are the forceful kind that attacks the issue in earnest? It’s essential to have an excellent comprehension of how you manage strife. Not every person will react particularly well to your compromise style. Some of the time you can utilize your strategy on the opportune individuals and on different occasions you need to make a stride back and either adjust your style to the individual and the circumstance or bring in an alternate individual who is better furnished to manage the circumstance. In any case, understanding yourself is the initial step to getting others.

Listen to Everyone Involved and Hear Their Views

Nobody likes to not be right thus nobody needs to hear another person disclosing to them that they are incorrect. Obviously, you can contend from one viewpoint that individuals should be sufficiently charitable to acknowledge that they won’t generally be correct. Notwithstanding, then again, you additionally can’t anticipate that everybody should be as edified about the complexities of compromise as you.

Solve the Issue From its Roots

Something that clashes is the point at which one gathering unequivocally tells the other party that they are incorrect, and the charged party gets guarded. If you feel like this is the circumstance in your association, at that point, you need to stop it from the beginning. Will hear everybody’s side of the story without judging, and afterward resolve the issue dispassionately, with a decent comprehension of where everybody is coming from.

Accept People for Everything They Are (and Are Not)

At times the contention you see on a superficial level isn’t generally what’s up. In some cases, there is a more profound issue stewing underneath the surface, either on the ground or at the administration level. Attempt to discover what is truly going on in a circumstance and find a way to take care of that issue.

Don’t Forget About Regular Feedback

Individuals are extraordinary; thus, they will hold, decipher, and measure data in totally different ways. Also, they will regularly utilize altogether different dynamic cycles to show up in their choices. Knowing how your colleagues work is essential to realize how to allot obligations to them so that their qualities are helpful. You will likewise be more edified and more averse to limiting their propensities or work styles.

Collaborate with the Team to Create Conflict Resolution Protocols

Strife regularly happens when an issue isn’t tended to while it is still little. It putrefies like an injury and becomes too enormous and confounded to be addressed rapidly. To evade this from occurring, you can hold standard gatherings where the entire group gives criticism about the thing that is working and what isn’t and conceptualizes what to do going ahead. That way, you manage issues while they are as yet minor.

Collaborate with the Team to Create Guidelines for Communication

Individuals will in general help standards when they played a part in making the principles. You can request that your group get together and thought of some compromise conventions that they are getting tied up with. Whatever they think of, it is probably going to work in the long haul since everybody took part in making it.

Not a wide range of correspondence is useful or profitable in an association. It very well may be that a significant part of the contention in your association is brought about by individuals imparting in the incorrect manner. You can, along these lines, welcome your group to think of certain rules for the sorts of correspondence that are permitted in the working environment. They should be rules that everybody gets tied up with, much the same as the compromise conventions.

You should likewise be essential for this activity since you may be speaking with your group in the incorrect manner. Possibly they discover your tone tyrannical and pompous or they find that it deters them from transparently conveying themselves. This might be a reason for a large part of the contention in your association and should, along these lines, be managed.

Leadership Styles:

Every organization has its managers and leaders and it all depends upon them how the employees and organization are going to perform. Some leaders are autocratic means they don’t listen to anyone and all they want is to get the work done as they want without considering their employees on the other hand there are democratic leaders in the organizations who focus on job and wellbeing of their employees as well.

Here at Alphabet Inc. leaders are very democratic, they listen to their employees, value them, and make them feel that they are part of something big.

As Sunder Pichai once said that “I don’t consider my people subordinates here at Google rather I make them feel like someone who is owning the brand and is going to be the next CEO of the company”. This is how they create loyal employees in Alphabet Inc.

Conclusion:

Looking at all these practices of the organizational behavior in Alphabet Inc. I would say that this is the one of main reasons why it is getting success day by day. They highly value their employees and own them in every possible way to make them come out with their full potential.

Here at Alphabet Inc., they hire different people to make sure the well-being of the employees and give them full autonomy to do their work the way they want. Because management is fully aware that they have hired the best talent in the world and if they don’t give them these things then they are going to lose them in the long run and who knows someone in the company may become rival in the future. So, the only thing they are making sure is to retain them and fully exploit their expertise and make the company profitable in the long run.

References :

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_Inc.
2. http://alphabet inc.
3. https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/leadership-styles
4. https://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-assets/5050_book_item_5050.pdf
5. https://www.tutorialspoint.com/individual_and_group_behavior/introduction.htm
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google
7. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/ways-managing-conflict-organizations-2655.html
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundar_Pichai

Google Case Study: Google Cloud Pricing Philosophy

Google Cloud Pricing Philosophy

Last year Google committed to continuously driving down costs for their customers in alignment with Moore’s law. Since then they announced three major price reductions and keep leading the industry in combining strong performance with low cost as well as flexible commitment-free pricing options. Google believes its cloud platform delivers better performance at a lower cost than other cloud providers. You may wonder how they are able to do this.

Firstly, they are creating infrastructure that’s tailored to your workload, not the other way around. Earlier this year Google introduced Nearline storage to dramatically reduce storage costs by up to 70% for many classes of content and data and more recently, we announced preemptible VMs – a new class of machine tailored specifically for stateless applications such as Hadoop processing and short-duration batch workloads. Preemptible VMs can lower your cost by as much as 70% compared to standard VMs and they’re perfect for adding firepower to data processing applications.

Secondly, Google provides you with the most appropriate billing plan so you can save on costs automatically. You shouldn’t have to spend hours or days calculating rate plans and different classes of machines. One of Google’s primary philosophies – they believe that the cloud should do that for you and for that reason, they pioneered a number of innovations in pricing including per-minute billing and sustained use discount options. For instance, these choices significantly lower your cost and are provided to you automatically.

Thirdly, Google does not force you to prepay to get the discounts you deserve. Signing long-term contracts reduces your flexibility in their rapidly changing environment as your business grows. The types of compute resources you need change as well, for instance, you may start off on a standard VM but as you grow – a new class of machine may result in dramatic savings reserved instance pricing or other prepay schemes lock you not only into the price but also into a machine class and a location. This works only if you don’t grow or if you have a very good crystal ball so Google gives you the flexibility of changing regions or classes of machines to meet your changing business demands – with no penalty.

Finally, Google is establishing firm price-performance benchmarks based on Moore’s Law so that infrastructure becomes more efficient and the price of the underlying hardware continues to decrease. They are committed to passing those savings on to you, so taken together – Google wants to make sure that our cloud platform provides the lowest total cost of ownership and the highest performance.

Google Business Strategy: Critical Essay

Google merchandise store is an e-commerce platform that specializes in selling Google product merchandise just as the name implies. It is operated on behalf of Google by Brand Addiction, a global promotional merchandise business.

Google merchandise store is currently at a level one business maturity model, with only a static web presence and broadcast model of communication, the proposition is to move the business into a level three model where most of the business’s functions and decisions will be digital and data-driven.

This digital plan focuses on Nigeria. Nigeria is a huge market for e-commerce, with a huge population and continuous growth in internet usage. According to statista.com, the number of internet users will grow exponentially from 72.4 million people in 2017 to 187.8 million people in 2023. Google currently has a big market in Nigeria and can leverage that to create brand loyalty in its buyer personas. According to Alexa.com Google is the most visited site and most popular search engine in Nigeria.

Successfully marketing and selling Google product merchandise in Nigeria will ultimately promote brand awareness on Google products like YouTube and Android, and also provide more profit for Google as another stream of income.

Before implementing a digital strategy, a clear identification and understanding of the organizational needs is required, this will shape the actions implemented and ensure that they are perfectly suited for the business. There are 2 factors to consider, the external and internal environment, with this insight the buyer personnel can be identified, and their needs and wants can be met. (Aleksej Heinze, Gordon Fletcher, Tahir Rashid and Ana Cruz, 2017)

1. External Environment

The external environment consists of two considerable factors, the micro and macro environment.

1.1 Microenvironment

These are the forces that are closer to the business in terms of how they can affect the business, they have a direct impact in delivering value to the buyer persona.

Competition

One simple yet powerful tool for analyzing competition in the microenvironment is the five forces model by Michael Porter in 1979, although it has its criticisms, the 5 forces are an effective framework for competitive analysis. The main purpose of this model is to establish deeply the root causes of profitability in the industry through its competitive forces.

Rivalry among existing competitors

The rivalry between merchandise brands is low, although if you expand the competition beyond the direct competition and look at the indirect competitors in terms of the mass market. So, it can be said that rivalry among existing merchandise competitors is low, but rivalry within the whole commercial market is high.

The threat of New Entrants

The threat of entrants in the merchandise business is high, it does not take much upfront investment to start a merchandise company, especially for big businesses in Nigeria like Apple, Shoprite, or Microsoft who might see this as a business opportunity. It is a relatively easy business to start, there is no special set of skills required to start. Although, because of its popularity, a sentimental attachment to the Google brand from customers may give Google a slight competitive advantage over its other rivals.

Threat of Substitutes

In terms of the merchandise industry, it can be said that customers would rather buy merchandise products like bags, T-shirts, Laptop cases, and sunglasses if they can relate to the brand, or if they have any connection with the brand. But in terms of need and necessity, consumers can find so many alternatives to this product, especially in a heavily commercialized market like Nigeria. There are a number of substitutes available in the Nigerian market, especially because of the prevalence of counterfeit products for lower prices in Nigeria. According to a study conducted by Solomon & Adeyemi (2012), there is a high knowledge of products that have been counterfeited in Nigeria, which proves just how big the market for counterfeited products is.

Bargaining power of suppliers

The bargaining power of suppliers in this industry can be considered high. When looking at all the processes and major inputs required to run an eCommerce business. It is a business dependent on manufacturers and delivery companies. Google merchandise store does not have an in-house team for this feat, Brand Addiction handles all supplies for the business.

Bargaining power of buyers

The bargaining power of buyers in this industry is high. Although the market for this type of product is huge, the supply is equally as high. Customers are able to check for different product prices online on other e-commerce platforms and can also go to visible markets to get informed decisions and compare prices of different products.

Market Trends

Google Trends is a tool that is used to analyze comparative and popular top search quarries.

The data in the figure — below proves that the word “merchandise” does not have a lot of popularity in terms of search quarries in Nigeria. This can further prove that products

In going deeper, looking at the figure – below, the data for the number of times “merchandise store” was searched for in Nigeria is non-existent, which can prove that Merchandise stores do not have enough popularity in terms of queries in Nigeria as it is.

Buyer Persona

Access to the actual buyer persona target is limited, although from Google Analytics, we

can deduce who the current buyer persona is by looking at the demographic of the

actual buyer persona of Google merchandise store is.

1.2 Macro Environment

Table 1 displays a PESTE analysis for the Google merchandise store. This analysis provides a more in-depth context for the digital plan and informs the SWOT analysis. It is important to note that the PESTE analysis does not cover all sides of the business implications, hence why an ensuing microanalysis is important.

Political/Legal

Nigeria is a politically stable economy in terms of policies and implementations of business regulations, although it is a country with a very high corruption rate which can impact businesses negatively or positively even. According to theglobaleconomy.com Nigeria has a low control of corruption level.

Economical

The middle class in Nigeria makes up 23% of the population and has an estimated potential market value of over $28 billion USD, which will only grow as the middle class expands over the coming years. (Shannon McCroklin, 2018)

In 2018, Nigeria’s GDP was 397.3 in billion US dollars, the inflation rate for Nigeria was 12.1%, the Annual GDP Growth Rate is 1.50, and the GDP Per Capita was 2,049 US dollars. The GDP per capita of Nigeria increased from 496 US dollars in 1999 to 2,049 US dollars in 2018 growing at an average annual rate of 8.73 %. according to Knoema. With this in mind, it is also important to understand the dominance of informal trade in Nigeria. According to research conducted by Business Chief, “87 percent of the trading in Nigeria happens in informal markets.” Informal trade is not tracked or included in overall Gross Domestic Product calculations, which means Nigeria’s economy is more prosperous than GDP alone can represent. (Shannon McCroklin, 2018)

Businesses should take note of Nigeria and the projected trajectory of the market. With the huge population and youthfulness of the country, as the population gets older, purchase power will continue to increase, and businesses looking to expand can benefit from the powerful set of customers.

According to the Spectator Index, Nigeria can be named the second worst country in the world by power supply. Amongst the 137 countries, Nigeria was named the second after Yemen. According to the reports provided by the Electricity Generating Companies, the average power supply in Nigeria was 3,851 Megawatts in 2018, which is poor in comparison to South Africa which produces over 40,000 MW of power for over 56 million people. That being said, the extra cost of electricity is also an economic factor to consider in Nigeria. Due to the lack of constant electricity, Generators that run on fuel or diesel are being used as a source of electricity.

Social

Nigeria’s population is very young with an average age of 20 years. Over 60 million people in Nigeria are 14 years old or younger, which points to an even larger consumer market to come in the next decade. (Shannon McCroklin, 2018)

Nigeria has a high illiteracy rate, although according to Knoema.com Nigeria’s literacy rate has been increasing exponentially from 51.1% in 2008 to 59.6%, which will only continue to grow over the coming years.

Technological

Over the past few years, Nigerians have been becoming more and more computer savvy. A large number of Nigerians are computer literate, and the use of mobile devices and mobile apps has bridged the gap between computer literates and illiterates, especially with the invention of smartphones many people are now users of the internet and have active social media presence. According to Statista.com, the number of smartphone users in Nigeria has appreciated since 2014 and will continue to increase and the penetration of smartphones will continue to rise also to around 60% by 2025, which will inevitably increase the number of internet users. Therefore, businesses can use the Internet to sell products and target consumers.

Environmental

The government in Nigeria plays an important role in protecting the ecology of the country. Each territory is empowered to make laws that ensure environmental sanitation to prevent outbreaks of diseases or sickness.

Nigeria is a country that lacks electricity, this introduces a high level of noise pollution & air pollution from generators, this can have some negative effects on commercial and industrial areas &. Businesses.

SWOT Analysis

Strengths

• Company Brand name
• Data efficient company
• Search Ads Advantage
• Opportunities
• Grow interested in Merchandise
• Upper-middle-class buying power growing in Nigeria.
• Low rivalry from existing competitors

Weaknesses

• More affordable alternatives in the market
• Low website traffic
• No social media presence.
• No conversions on the website.

Threats

• Expanding beyond technologically sound areas.
• Logistical problems, due to bad roads and poor power supply.

SMART Objectives

The SWOT analysis lays a foundation on which SMART objectives can be formed. Using the smart Framework ensures that objectives are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound. In setting up smart objectives, data collected from the Situation analysis will be used to identify these objectives and solve them.

Setting a budget to achieve all objectives and breaking down each individual and the collective effort it will require without full insight into internal revenues and the marketing budget of the business is not practical and feasible. However, the objectives are listed below.

Objectives set as part of the digital marketing strategy are:

• Increase website traffic by 300% within the next months.
• Grow 3000 followers/likes on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter within the next three months.
• Bring 1000 new signed-up customers on the website within the next six months.

Objectives

Substantiation

Grow 3000 followers/likes on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter within the next three months.

Having a social media account is very important for businesses, it creates a path for 2-way communication between the business and the buyer persona. Building a social platform will also help brand awareness and can eventually translate into sales conversions for the company.

• Increase website traffic by 300% within the next months.
• Situation analysis showed that traffic on the website is low.
• Bring 1000 new signed-up customers on the website within the next six months
• More signed-up customers translate to more likely conversions, which translates to more robust business.
• The objectives in the above table translate into short, medium- and long-term plans that will support the IMC strategy.

Strategy

The table below shows all the objectives and strategies that will be in place and the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that will be needed to make sure that the objectives are met.

Objectives

Strategies

KPIs

• Grow 3000 followers/likes on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter within the next three months.
• Create social media accounts and promote social media accounts, and create engaging and interactive content specific to platforms.
• An overall number of followers, likes, comments, views, and retweets on different platforms.
• Increase website traffic by 300% within the next 6 months.
• Bring 1000 new signed-up customers on the website within the next six months.

Tactics

Before outlining the tactics, it is important to consider how the marketing mix will influence this strategy.

• Product: The company provides branded merchandise to customers; the business has to offer the best quality products in order to remain relevant in the market.
• Price:
• Place: Management and promotion of the business takes place online, because of the nature of the business & brand.
• Promotion: Multiple channels online will be utilized to promote the business, like social media platforms, search ads, email marketing, and the like.

Social Media Marketing

Build social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter), use social media influencers, user-generated content, Twitter polls, trend hijacking, and short videos.

Native Advertising

By collaborating with popular fashion blogs and other relevant blogs. Google merchandise store can expand its reachability and generate more traffic to its website.

Paid Advertising

In order to reach a wider range of audience, search and display ads will be utilized appropriately to reach its conversion goal.

Email Marketing

This tactic will be used to inform customers about deals and great sales, it will also be used to remind customers where to get quality products and to re-engage disconnected customers.

Is Google Making Us Stupid’: Rhetorical Analysis Essay

The article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” written by Nicholas Carr contains a wide range of rhetorical appeals as well as a friendly tone that draws the reader into Carr’s message of the hindrance the internet is to our intelligence. His use of these tools helps support his article given that rhetorical appeals and his voice bring an elevated level to his writing to connect with the reader.

Carr’s opening paragraph is an appeal to pathos, as he uses a description of a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey. The introduction in the form of a recitation of the scene was directed at those who already share the paranoia and fear of a dystopia whose catalyst was the advancement of technology. This choice reflects the picture painted in our minds by the pessimism of the day that our technological advances inevitably fail us or worse, turn on us; the day that we will have to “disconnect” from our legacy of technology. He then uses a quote from the supercomputer HAL as a transition into his next paragraph, demonstrating his mastery of language.

The next rhetorical weapon wielded with poise by the author is a combination of pathos and ethos as he goes on to reference anecdotes from personal experiences and the experiences of some of his colleagues. The anecdotal paragraphs reinforce the idea that this affliction is less likely to be in his head as it is affecting and being observed by a number of those whom he believes to be credible sources. Even if their credentials cannot be verified, this choice adds a little bit of weight to his words as well as relates to us as individuals rather than taking the stance of a man behind a podium who talks down to his intellectual inferiors. It gives the impression that you can trust him.

A combination of ethos and logos is next. References to respected historical figures reinforce an appeal to ethical identity, and their opinions of technology, namely as presented in the text by Socrates, provide much inherent logic for including him in the text. He even cites an opinion centuries-old that still seems to hold much insight into the worrisome nature of human beings as our tools progress. This offers a nigh impervious objective viewpoint to his essay that encourages you to be skeptical of his position for the sake of truth in accurately identifying the problem he suggests exists. Furthermore, the way that he structures the essay to include an invitation to disagree toward its close is absolutely strategic in its inclusion as well as placement in the text.

Carr, as he wrote, knew the power of voice and tone. Overall, he took to writing this essay in such a way that it would resonate with the personality of a concerned friend or peer. This takes your moral or opinion-filtering defenses down so that you are better able to receive his message without the interference of doubt or suspicion. Due to the tone of his “voice”, he doesn’t come across as an alarmist, but as a friend; a wary pondering to one’s peers out of real concern for all of our well-being that leaves readers more open to the human facet of the writing instead of the detached presentation of the information.

In analyzing this article, Carr’s bag of tricks he keeps at his disposal is revealed to the reader. He knew the power of his word choices and how to appeal to every side of a reader’s rhetorical appeals. By using such a mixed bag of tools, Carr was able to create a flowing and informative article that didn’t leave the reader feeling brainwashed or tricked; just informed and ready to debate.  

Thesis Statement for Critique of ‘Is Google Making Us Stupid’

In the article “Why Google was wrong” the author stated that, in early August, a senior software engineer at Google named James Damore argued that most of the technical industries tried to get more women in the industry and took things in the wrong way. James wrote through a memo that more men are working in the tech industry than women, and it’s not because of the hiring exercises, qualifications, or any other discrimination, but due to biological differences.

The thesis statement of the author is paraphrased, through this memo, he narrates that females are ‘on average more interested in people’, ‘more co-operative’, and ‘more prone to anxiety’. These are the aspects that keep them away from the technical business or being raised to the top. Once the memo got international attention, James Damore was fired from Google, and legal action is taken against him.

The author is against the firing of James Damore and there are several reasons for that. According to the author, James’s view wasn’t twisted or crazy. Many serious articles and journals have been published in peer-review scientific journals that support the view of Damore.

The Author thinks that James put forward a very serious issue as Google is troubled by its workforce being largely male and sexism in many areas of the work field and its employment is well-documented. Employers should take prominent steps to stop such discrimination.

I would conclude that James got ‘most of the science right’ and elaborate ‘pretty good judgment about what we know and what we don’t know’. Google should revise its employee policy and forget the firing of Damore.

Different people have different opinions on whether Google was right in firing James or not, but in my opinion, google was fair and had complete authority to kick him out of the company. As it is providing the full knowledge wherever a user does not matter but still professionally giving its services. From the perspective of a businessman, after reading his manifesto, there is some reason why Google had to get rid of him.

James condemns the communist behavior of the fashionable career which is required to exhibit political correctness. Damore suggests that orthodox opinions should be welcomed by industries. This is working in opposition to the desires of the stakeholders, traders, professional colleagues, and most of the important clients. Both ladies and minorities are considered the main clients. Why it is necessary to make these demographics happy? I want to personify some ideas: from the records of the American Census, half of the population of America born in the year 2010 were not white. Adding to this fifty percent of the public in approximately each age community (the elderly being more so) were women. Moreover, all those English men who like minorities and manly that strengthen feminism, one can easily presume this sort of public relation failure can be very much catastrophic and it is the loss of amount if industries disregard discrimination and rationalize priorities for males, that Damore wants to prove through his manifesto.

Promotion of conservative behavior such as preventing fertile rights for ladies, implementing God-fearing conviction to conceal ‘family’ ethics, against-minority, and strategies which are against new settlements, surely be dilapidation for a technical industry’s recruiting succeeding and contemporary! Survival of the technical industries relays on distant employees.

Damore’s views made many of the extremely professional laborers upset and they were thinking to leave the organization that provides such obvious contempt for ladies and minorities. That’s why it was needed for the company to secure retention and gave Damore a lesson for making the public stupid with his impolite views. James should keep his opinions confidential only in that case, he would continue his job, but he shared his views publicly. It was never a good proceeding.

When an industry bears such an open ignorance for fellow workers, executives, and headship is that kind of working atmosphere entertaining for other workers? Where now it’s reasonable to authorize prejudice, intolerance, and supremacy exactly in the forepart of your eyes? Alongside your work surface? Adjacent to where you toil? No industry wants to bear such kind of judicial and psychological troubles. And concluding all this discussion I would like to comment that James was undoubtedly kicked off from the job to eliminate damage as much as possible that he had created for his company, himself, and other employees that were distressed by his narrow thinking 

Google Company Analysis Essay

Google was founded in 1998 by the Russian student Sergey Brin and his fellow student, the American Larry Page, and is a subsidiary company of Alphabet Incorporate. Today, Google is more than just an online search firm as they offer more than fifty services and products in their portfolio. This makes Google one of the four most influential companies in the tech area, alongside Microsoft, Apple, and IBM (Hosch, William, and Hall, Mark, 2019). 

Larry Page and Sergey Brin first met each other in their computer science Ph.D. program at Stanford University. In the next year, they decided to work on a project together to improve the state of search on the internet. Finding relevant websites was very challenging at that time and sometimes the information you were looking for was – not like today on the very first page, but – several hundred pages down. The idea to solve this problem was to track each website’s reference links. They assumed that the more backing links a website had, the more valuable and in conclusion the more relevant a website is. This means, “pages with a high worth (to the ‘voting system’) were quickly pushed to the top of Google’s search results page” (SuccessStory, 2019). 

Page and Brin named their search method after the mathematical term for the number one which is followed by one hundred zeroes (“googol”). The two students spent over a year looking for an investor until they came up to David Cheriton with their revolutionary idea – an investor and computer scientist – who got the students into contact with Andy Bechtolsheim, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, and organized a meeting between the three. Bechtolsheim immediately recognized the potential of the business and wrote a cheque for over 100,000$ to get the start-up going (Discovery UK, 2018). By mid-1999, Google was already processing five hundred thousand queries a day. One year later, Google introduced a new service called “Google Adwords” which is an advertising network that displays online advertising next to the search results and became an instant success for the company (Sucessstory, 2019). Only four years later, activities tracked more than two hundred million searches per day. The growth was continuously rising and by the end of 2011, the search engine was handling more than three billion queries daily. Just like back in the 90s, the business model stayed more or less the same in the core: With every search, the user finds search-related offers on the very top of the page for whose placement the advertisers pay Google. For example, if you are searching for the latest Wimbledon results, you are likely going to get an ad on a website selling tennis equipment. 

The tremendous growth of Google led to management problems within the company. The investors thought that the founders need an experienced manager as their helping hand and so it came that Page and Brin agreed to hire Eric Schmidt, a computer scientist and previously CEO at software supplier Novell Inc., in 2001. Schmidt became chairman and the chief executive officer of Google. In 2004, the executives decided to go public and were able to raise $1.66 billion for the company. That made Brin and Page billionaires overnight. In fact, of Google’s early stockholders, seven became billionaires and nine hundred of them became millionaires after the company’s initial public offering. In August 2015, Google had to reorganize itself as it became a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. (Hosch, William and Hall, 2019). Larry Page overtook the CEO role of Alphabet, Sergey Brin was announced as president of Alphabet and so it came that Google got a new CEO in 2015: Sundar Pichai (Hanseranking, 2016). Since its foundation, Google has expanded its business in different areas: The company stepped into the mobile operating system, launched mapping services and its own hardware, a social network, and cloud computing applications (Tran, Sang Kim, 2017). Five years after its foundation, Google managed to reach a billion-dollar revenue in the year 2003 and became one of the most influential online service providers ever and reached an all-time high regarding their revenue in 2018 with $136 billion (Statista, 2018).

Without a doubt, these are great numbers for the company. Now the question arises, is it really just the business model and the technological know-how that makes Google so successful or are there more factors that play a key role in the success story?