It is increasingly clear that there is a "Google backlash" going on. Customarily wary, and with good right, of the penetration of a company into a market (or all markets), people distrust the motivations and intentions of that company. Google's acquisitions and projects range the gamut, striding ever more toward the façade of an even more omnipresent corporate presence. Yet, it is difficult to point Google out as being a vast grasping evil.
Tentacled though it may be, Google provides some innovative public services gratis. For instance, Google recently made a huge push in the direction of archiving valuable newspaper relics by digitizing them. The argument against this is that by categorizing all knowledge, it can attach a price tag. But this is a necessary public service, argument or not. Libraries already offer a service similar to this, and it's utilized for valuable research work, or simply curiosity.
In effect, Google is shouldering the common good and acting in its capacity as an information nexus by improving the infrastructure all around. Google's support for the O3b networks is a valuable service, even if it is a ploy to get a larger user base to improve its financial standing. If giving more people access to the Internet is a by-product of Google's support for public sector projects, then it's certainly a beneficial process. If more companies stepped up to the plate and acted as anything more than cash-generating machines, then the paranoia over corporate control would perhaps lessen.
As a common argument against the private sector expanding so broadly, people will say that the companies are no longer held accountable. Yet a great deal of people will state that the public sector needs to allow the private sector a chance to help support basic services. Most do not, unless there is a price tag attached, as they see their direct accountability to the shareholders only and thus wouldn't waste millions of dollars on public service projects. Google still seems accountable to the public, moving recently to address concerns over its EULA agreement for its new web browser, Chrome.
If this isn't an indication that Google is willing to work with the public sector while still remaining profitable, then it isn't obvious enough. While a Google backlash has been in the cards for a while, I doubt a coherent rationale will utterly condemn the company to the shadows where its spiritual predecessors lurk. As a worker in government, I can see the company as a necessary function, adding to the richness of our IT world. Unlike with some of the other companies out there, as of yet there is no cost for any of this bounty. This means less tax dollars spent on infrastructure projects, which means the money can go to other meaningful endeavors.
Garett Kopczynski is an IT professional for the City of Keene, NH and has been involved in the transformation of the IT group as it increasingly explores cloud computing and other next-generation initiatives. His hands-on involvement with Google Apps, and its impact on the IT environment in a municipal government organization, gives him unique insight into other applications of Google within (and beyond) a corporate office environment. In addition to his role as an IT professional, Garett has also been involved in ongoing research efforts for a number of "future impact" technologies such as e-waste and open source vs. licensed software.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
