Ken Auletta talks about Googled: The End of the World As We Know It. Auletta tells the story of how Google formed and crashed into traditional media businesses -- from newspapers to books, to television, to movies, to telephones, to advertising, to Microsoft.
With unprecedented access to Google's founders and executives, Auletta reveals how the industry is being disrupted and redefined.
Ken Auletta has written Annals of Communications columns and profiles for The New Yorker magazine since 1992. He is the author of eleven books, including five national bestsellers: Three Blind Mice: How the TV Networks Lost Their Way; Greed And Glory On Wall Street: The Fall of The House of Lehman; The Highwaymen: Warriors of the Information Super Highway; World War 3.0: Microsoft and Its Enemies; and andGoogled: The End of The World As We Know It. Starting in 1974, he was the chief political correspondent for the New York Post, then staff writer and weekly columnist for the Village Voice and contributing editor of New YorkMagazine. He started writing for The New Yorker in 1977. Between 1977 and 1993, he wrote a weekly political column for the New York Daily News
Googled author Ken Auletta recounts a conversation with Google co-founder Sergey Brin about the book publishing business. Although Auletta admires Brin's engineering skills, he calls the Google co-founder an "idiot savant" in relation to publishing, copyright law, and the politics of information dissemination.
Tool for finding information, especially on the Internet or World Wide Web. Search engines are essentially massive databases that cover wide swaths of the Internet. Most consist of three parts: at least one program, called a spider, crawler, or bot, which crawls through the Internet gathering information; a database, which stores the gathered information; and a search tool, with which users search through the database by typing in keywords describing the information desired (usually at a Web site dedicated to the search engine). Increasingly, metasearch engines, which search a subset (usually 10 or so) of the huge number of search engines and then compile and index the results, are being used.
"When the Google engine returns one million hits in 0.34 seconds who is going to verify those one million hits? THEY GOT YOU."
You seem to misunderstand something. It does not matter how many hits the search engine finds (nobody cares about that number). All that matters is that the first ten hits contain at least one bit of information that the user finds interesting enough to come back. The metric for Google is not how many hits they find, it's how many times a day people use Google. And, obviously, if they can't return useful searches, people won't use them. There are on the order of a hundred or so search engines which all failed to generate that one piece out of ten that turns out to be useful. I bet you have already forgotten their names.
"Most relevant books are already in the public domain and can be downloaded and read for free on several websights."
Most of the books in the public domain right now were written before 1925... there is hardly any science and engineering text of relevance that falls into that category. You won't find a single modern author in there unless they or their estate have chosen to donate the works to the public. There are no books on 20th century art or modern history in there, let alone anything of importance about economics or politics. So unless you want to limit your horizon to that of your grand or great-grandfather...
The reason that the Google digitization project is useful has nothing to do with the copyright status of any of these books. It is all about the difficulty of sampling these books BEFORE you order them through your librarian. As a frequent library user you should know how much time and effort it takes to physically access a book. And if you have to order a dozen or more because all you have are a few entries on library cards, the likely discovery that none of them contain any of the information you are looking for can give you a rather bad day. But that is how the library system without digitization works...
And I hope you are not serious with your last remark that a person can not transcend their local environment... I pity you if that is your personal experience.
Here is "yet another person who does not understand Google". Maybe we should create an acronym for that? YAPDNUG...
Google is not a content creator. Google is an advertising company which was smart enough to know from moment one that the success of this industry does not lie in the artistic quality of ads but in how many people they reach. Pretty much every advertising company in the world knows that, too... they just failed to open the channel that happens to accumulate the most viewers. EVERYTHING Google does is simply meant to increase the "viewership".
Then he makes the ridiculous comment that "the engineer" Larry Page lacks emotional intelligence because Google got sued by publishers and authors...
For God's sake... they just settled the scanning rights for pretty much all of the worlds written words for a mere $125 million. That is economic and political genius! There is material worth trillions of dollars and they get it for what accounts for a days worth of Google's income. What do you have to do to get praise from this guy? Grow wings like the Archangel Gabriel and win an aerobatic show contest while composing a poem about the internal revenue service tax code in iambic hexameter?
OK... at that point I stopped watching this nonsense. What a waste of time this was.
Google's allure is based, like many illusions, on faith.
When the Google engine returns one million hits in 0.34 seconds who is going to verify those one million hits? THEY GOT YOU.
Also as far as digitizing all the books ever published and their subsequent power and control of information is a canard.
Most relevant books are already in the public domain and can be downloaded and read for free on several websights. Grant it, some people might kill to read Dan Brown's new novel but this speaker doesn't weigh in the power of the writer and of the people in his equation of book-price warfare.
The end of the world as we know it won't come from Google it will come from people who realize that a world is too large of an object to accomodate in their small minds and leave the "world" back to their local communities which, incidently, is the only reality a single person can ever have first-hand knowledge of. Barely.
Sergey Brin aka Idiot Savant is right, BTW I think Google should go forth and give AdWords for free, I´m convinced that they would reach way more people with the free AdWords!
But Sergey Brin is not the only Idiot Savant Mark Zuckerberg the second Idiot Savant among us, since he discovered that the age of privacy is over, they should go forth too and throw their non-disclosure contracts away.
...and have all together a great Idiot Savant Party.
This is by far the dumbest video on foratv.
This guy, he isn't accurate about some of what he's saying, he makes huge (obviously pre-conceived) assumptions, and simplifies everything to absurdity.
Wouldn't read his book if I was paid to do so.
information should be free. if the issue is sustenance(earning a living) then we should strive to achieve the dream that was born when technology became, to make technology serve us for our needs(self sustainable sustenance) and not for our hate greed and ignorance.
if we free ourselves from the burden of providing for our sustenance and shelter then we can free ourselves to focus and achieve the impossibles.
The question really isn't to pay or not. The question is the degree that IPR provide a monopoly to the owner. Successive GATT agreements have produced trade agreements and national law that is entirely in favor of owners says Joseph Stiglitz. The monopoly provides far in excess of the original intent of copyright law--to provide stable income to support the careers of CREATIVE PEOPLE. Of course, the main beneficiaries of IPR are large global corporations and not the artists, writers,musicians and scientists that actually create.
Like all monopolies, the effect is to exploit something (the public domain in this case) and to restrict variety and consumption through monopoly pricing and restricted entry of producers into the market. The effect eventually stultifies culture by crowding out the many new talents that continually add the voices of new genuine experience to the well of our culture. Perhaps JG Ballard's "Kingdon Come" is actually comming.
Commercialization of culture means that a few dominant voices of those chosen by cultural bureaucrats to create into stardom define us culturally. The eventual effect is to lose the cultural stories that tell us who we are and what is right to do that inspire and drive us as a people or even a species-an barren public domain that is worthless to producers and consumers alike.
The question is not to pay or not. The question is the price that will sustain a vibrant cultural life for us all. To me, the price and product brought to us by corporate creative products inspires about as much as breakfast cereal, underarm deodorant, and the products that now grace the begining of most highlights and full programs here.
The quality of printed writing like books and magazines far exceeds what you'd fine on the internet. I'd much rather read a physical book than I would read online. It's much easier on my eyes, and there's less distractions involved.