Motorola Tech Support

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Saturday, 22 April 2006

Why Google got hammered for its China policy

Posted on 22:17 by Unknown
There's a long and fascinating article from the New York Times describing Google's policy in China. As usual, the real story is more subtle and nuanced than what was first reported in the press. The article is great reading on several fronts – it talks about the cultural differences between the US and China, it discusses Chinese Internet usage patterns that are significantly different from other parts of the world, and it attempts to explore the thinking of the average Chinese Internet user.

The last bit rang a little false for me – the article's implication that many Chinese people welcome censorship of the Web reminds me of the articles during the Cold War that found Russians appreciated being oppressed by the Soviet government. When the government is powerful and punishes misbehavior, people quickly learn what they can and can't say. China is by no means a police state, and there's enormous diversity of opinion there, but I think it's dehumanizing to say that Chinese people somehow desire or deserve less of their rights under the UN charter than do people in other countries.

But all of that stuff aside, the most striking thing about the article to me was the description of how Google took enormous criticism in the press and in Washington for its China policy. The article describes much more egregious compromises made by Google competitors, and concludes: "Against this backdrop, the Google executives probably expected to appear comparatively responsible and ethical. But instead, as the China storm swirled around Silicon Valley in February, Google bore the brunt of it."

The article implies that timing and unrealistic expectations caused Google's problem, but I think there's another explanation: it's Google's own fault. When people misunderstand your intentions, when they blame you for things that you didn't do or didn't intend, it's a sign that you are not communicating properly. It's not their fault for misunderstanding you; it's your fault for failing to explain yourself properly. For a company, the process of explaining yourself properly is a thing called "marketing." Google's contempt for marketing was cute when the company was younger, but now it's just an embarrassing handicap. Unless Google comes to terms with that, and empowers some senior marketing people, I think it will inevitably get hammered again.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Google Video: Is that all there is?
    Google's new video store seems to be up and running. I say "seems to be" because when I looked at it my first reaction was, ...
  • RIM's Pearl: Splendid hardware, unfinished software
    For me, the highlight of fall CTIA this year was that I finally got to play with a Pearl, RIM's latest smartphone. It has more media fe...
  • A new way to measure the popularity of the iPhone
    True story: Back when I was working at Apple, we received a report that there had been a burglary at a company that had a lot of Macintosh c...
  • "Social" as a Business Tool, and Richard Windsor Unchained
    I'd like to call your attention to two new information resources on the web. "Social" as a business tool.   First, my friend a...
  • Why Apple + RIM would be a bad idea
    Several days ago a financial analyst in Canada floated the idea that Apple and RIM might collaborate to create the merger of an iPod and a ...
  • What does Google want?
    I’ve been doing a lot of networking in the last couple of months, meeting new people and getting in touch with old friends and co-workers. I...
  • Mobile phones and navigation: I've seen this movie before
    Reuters published an article saying that navigation features are the hot new data function on mobile phones. News.com picked it up, and by...
  • Motorola Rokr: Instant Failure
    I did an online search today for the words “Rokr” and “failure” together in the same article. There were 49,700 hits. I don’t want to pic...
  • Look what's number one
    The image above was sent to me today by a former PalmSource colleague. Yes, that's a list of Amazon's best-selling consumer electron...
  • The river and the dam: CTIA and The Future of Web Apps
    I went to two conferences this week: the CTIA telephony conference in Los Angeles and The Future of Web Apps in San Francisco. It's al...

Categories

  • Adobe
  • Air
  • Amazon
  • android
  • Apollo
  • apple
  • applications
  • April 1
  • att
  • avatar
  • blackberry
  • cera
  • China
  • Chrome
  • clearwire
  • community
  • conference
  • content
  • convergence
  • ctia
  • design
  • developers
  • devices
  • digital chocolate
  • ebook
  • entertainment
  • eTel
  • foleo
  • GMR
  • google
  • HP
  • htc
  • IBM
  • influencers
  • info ecosystem
  • info pad
  • information overload
  • intel
  • internet
  • ipad
  • iphone
  • japan
  • kindle
  • linux
  • Logitech
  • metaplatform
  • Metro
  • microsoft
  • mobile
  • mobile data
  • mobilists
  • motorola
  • N95
  • nano
  • net neutrality
  • netbooks
  • new media
  • Nintendo
  • nokia
  • O'Reilly
  • O'Reilly TOC
  • operators
  • oqo
  • OS
  • Palm
  • PDF
  • platforms
  • Pre
  • PS3
  • psion
  • qualcomm
  • RIM
  • rubicon
  • samsung
  • search
  • security
  • semantic web
  • Silverlight
  • smartphone
  • smartphones
  • Sony
  • speech
  • sprint
  • symbian
  • tablet
  • traffic
  • treo
  • twitter
  • verizon
  • video
  • virtual reality
  • vista
  • web
  • Web 2.0 summit
  • web apps
  • webos
  • wimax
  • windows
  • Windows Mobile
  • yahoo
  • zekira

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (10)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (3)
  • ►  2012 (17)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2011 (28)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (7)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  February (7)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2010 (20)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (5)
  • ►  2009 (22)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (4)
  • ►  2008 (32)
    • ►  December (4)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (7)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2007 (61)
    • ►  November (8)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (5)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (4)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (10)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (12)
  • ▼  2006 (73)
    • ►  December (7)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (7)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (4)
    • ►  June (7)
    • ►  May (5)
    • ▼  April (8)
      • Thank-yous to two mobile forums
      • The futility of high tech forecasting
      • Why Google got hammered for its China policy
      • American Idol and the future of online market rese...
      • Simmering at CTIA
      • (Re)Announcing Stop Flying Blind, my second weblog
      • Almost Live from Software 2006
      • Implications of the Google-Sprint merger
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (9)
  • ►  2005 (22)
    • ►  December (9)
    • ►  November (6)
    • ►  October (7)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile