Who Gave Google Permission to be the Judge and Jury of Mobile Content? at MobHappy

location based services

pointed to an entry on the Google Blog that I must have missed first time around.

If you use your mobile to search for something with Google and then click through to that site, they’ll very helpfully repurpose the site, so that it’s mobile-friendly. Here’s the before and after screen shots.

This seems a neat idea and you wonder why Google haven’t made more of it somehow.

But then, think what they’re doing. They are taking a website and deciding what you should see. And that includes taking out advertising too.

For a publisher, or a content owner, this is pretty hard. For the most part, online publishing is all about selling ads round the content. Any publisher who needs to make money from his site (ie they are a business) has to sell those ads, or the site will disappear - it’s that simple. So by stripping these ads out, Google is effectively depriving publishers of income. You can’t argue (like Google News) that you’re sending traffic to sites by offering a taster of the content. They are simply taking traffic away from exposure to the publisher’s advertising.

Once you’ve crossed the moral boundary of stripping ads out, it’s not such a stretch to consider putting your own ads in. Indeed, Jason Calacanis already got upset with a company called Skweezer, for doing precisely that about a year ago. But for a small start-up to be doing it is one thing - revenue loss would be negligible - but for Google to go down this route, is potentially a huge issue.

Google has clearly made a decision to influence every publisher’s site on the mobile internet. Who asked them to do this? Shouldn’t we have a discussion? How do other publishers feel about it?

Contrary to popular belief, the mobile internet is already pretty big and growing daily. This is clearly something that needs to be addressed as a matter of some urgency.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31 Responses to “Who Gave Google Permission to be the Judge and Jury of Mobile Content?”
Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
1 Mike Masnick
Mar 10th, 2006 at 3:29 am

Heh. Russell, I can’t believe it, but I think we may have finally found a topic on which we disagree.

I’ve written about this a few times in the past, and I think publishers need to learn to accept services like this on the basis that many users, obviously, WILL find it to be a better way to read Mobhappy and other sites.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050118/0115200_F.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050225/1226205_F.shtml

The question of whether it’s taking money from the publisher isn’t the same black and white as you describe. If I’m on a mobile device with a small screen and a slow connection, I may simply avoid your site altogether if I can’t get the stripped down version. Google’s providing a service by making your content more accessible — and that’s what keeps loyal readers. At some later point they’ll come and visit in the full browsed version.

The real issue is what the user wants — and if the user wants to see the content that way, then why not let them?

The response, of course, is who lets Google decide — but that’s the wrong question. It’s the end-user’s decision how they view content these days, NOT the publisher — and that means that you should be happy that anyone, whether it’s Google, Skweezer, some adblocker or whoever else are making it more likely that your content is being read.

As publishers online, we all need to come to terms with the fact that sometimes our content will be used in ways we don’t want — but as long as it may improve the customer experience, in the long run, that’s better for everyone. How do you know that someone viewing the mobile version through Google doesn’t get impressed enough to pass on Mobhappy to others, or get a reporter at a major paper to link to it, or whatever. Don’t worry about the marginal ad impressions — worry about the bigger picture of keeping your readers happy. If Google’s mobile versions add value, then it’ll come back to benefit you in the long run.

2 Russell Buckley
Mar 10th, 2006 at 7:12 am

Well, Mike, it had to happen some time. I hope we can still be friends

Actually, I much more concerned with the principle than anything here. If I thought my site was getting a lot of access via mobiles, I’d make sure that the site was optimised myself and get rid of any graphic-heavy ads - not that we have any anyway.

That assumes that Google or some other intermediary doesn’t strip out my text only ads.

But I think it’s a dangerous thing for one commercial organisation to have the right to change how my site is presented to my readers. It opens the door for censorship, fundamentally. Supposing Google didn’t care for this post and removed it? Supposing, it decided that it didn’t like Carlo’s writing at TechDirt and refused to display any?

Removing ads is the thin end of the wedge in my view, but if that becomes a rallying call for publishers to wake up to the potential of this, so be it. While it might seem hard to envisage the current Google indulging in censorship for commercial or ideological reasons (well, apart from China then), they are a business. And I hate to imagine a world where one of the most powerful companies and chief custodian of facts and information suddenly starts to dabble with censorship.

Maybe this is naive. The media has always been bias and news and opinion is censored according to the whim of the owner and editor. But at least we had a choice of what to read. If one organisation becomes the distorting lens through which all media is read, surely that’s a bad thing?

Russell

3 Mike Masnick
Mar 10th, 2006 at 9:44 am

Two thoughts:

(1) It’s a HUGE leap to go from cutting out ads to censorship. If Google were censoring, blame them for that. However, don’t blame them for the potential to censor if they haven’t done it.

(2) If they actually did censor, the backlash would be swift and fierce. The community power that we all embrace would be quite harmful to Google. So, I believe that the market is self-correcting for things like that. If Google actually did something nasty here, and it didn’t make the user experience better, they would get slammed for it.

They’re trying to make the user experience better — and if someone benefits from that, you should be happy.

4 Russell Buckley
Mar 10th, 2006 at 3:37 pm

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, Mike.

I really don’t like the idea of some other company deciding what I can show on my website. I also don’t think that removing ads is such a big leap from censorship at all - it’s already a form of censorship, albeit with the best of intentions. Big changes start with little ones and we should resist at this stage - or at least debate if we want this kind of thing.

As an example, CCTV cameras are so prevalent in London that the average person gets filmed 70 times every day. Did anyone want this? Was there a debate? No, it started with one camera and no one protested, so more and more and more were installed.

Now it’s too late, we’ve got them. I’m not suggesting that they’re a bad thing. But it wasn’t a democratic process.

Google’s motives might be pristine and pure and they might always be ruled by cool and froody people. The debate over them changing other people’s websites might end up with everyone agreeing with you - and that’s fine. I can see your point and I 45% agree with it actually. People might also think that “real” censorship does not logically follow too and that’s also cool, but at least they will have had a chance to think about it before it’s imposed on them.

I just think we should all have a say in the process and Google shouldn’t just do it.

R

5 Mike Masnick
Mar 10th, 2006 at 8:01 pm

Heh. Ok. I guess I just don’t see the censorship angle because no one is forcing anyone to use Google. If you feel that Google is causing too much trouble for you, then you can block them.

Also, not quite sure I get the CCTV argument. If no one wanted them, they wouldn’t be there. The issue is that many people (gov’t/businesses) did want them. The privacy issue for users is an important externality, but there’s no viable way to think of that they could have ever stopped it. So, the real issue is making people aware that the cameras are there, and to consider ways to deal with that fact.

Anyway. I understand your position — and I’m sure many, many people agree with you. I just think there are better battles to fight, and this is one where embracing someone else making your content better (for some) seems like a better solution to me. But, there are plenty of people who consider me crazy.

6 Sarah
Mar 10th, 2006 at 8:36 pm

I agree with Mike M. 100%!!

7 Russell Buckley
Mar 10th, 2006 at 8:51 pm

OK Sarah, fair enough, that makes two of you

What does everyone else think?

All I actually want here is to debate it, rather than accept it as a done deal. Maybe Mike is right. Maybe they have the perfect right to change other’s content, without asking.

But a “please” would be nice, don’t you think?

Come on, everyone - you’ve got to have an opinion on this one. Even if it’s “Google is right”. Loose your comment virginity here

Russell

8 Ken Hyers
Mar 10th, 2006 at 9:34 pm

I imagine that this would certainly be an important issue for website owners. There is a bit of a precedent here though. Several browsers offer pop-up advertising blockers, which also block a website’s advertising. Google mobile is a similar case in point, where the browser blocks a certain type of advertising because it’s adventageous for the user. Web sites that do see a lot of mobile traffic will have to adapt, which means making the ads more “mobile friendly” whether that be using more text ads rather then graphic-heavy ads, or by figuring out a way to embed the ads so that the browser doesn’t recognize them as ads. Welcome to the next Internet advertising arms-race!

9 some guy
Mar 10th, 2006 at 10:23 pm

Dear Publishers Who Complain About This:

I don’t want to see your ads, whether I’m on my phone or at my desk. If you can’t run a business without advertising, I don’t think you should bother. You are trying to get the public to believe that your service will disappear if you don’t sell ads, but that’s a whitewash. There are so many things you could do to cut the costs of operating your website. For starters, how about reformatting your website to meet modern web standards? That would cut your bandwidth bill in half.

You should also stop trying to convince me that you are in business to give me content, and that the ads are somehow an inseparable part of our relationship. You are not in business to keep me informed about world events; you are in business to make money from advertising. Content is just a carrot to get people to your site and click on Flash banner ads.

So, in summary, I am very pleased that Google removes your tasteless ads. Maybe one day you will wake up and realize that advertising sucks. Until then, I will keep on clicking “printer-friendly” as soon as the page loads, and install every ad-blocking Firefox extension that I can find.

10 Russell Buckley
Mar 10th, 2006 at 10:34 pm

Ken - thanks for the comment.

I’m not sure it’s the same thing though.

Firstly, pop ups are manifestly evil Seriously, they’re horribly intrusive and no real marketer in their right mind could ever defend this type of rubbish.

Secondly, in this scenario it’s the user’s choice. The user can always choose to view site without images of any kind and that’s fine - no debate needed.

What I object to is an unauthorised third party unilaterally deciding how other company’s websites should be displayed.

But yes, you are right. We must adapt our design to accommodate mobile. But as I’ve said in the debate already, what’s to stop Google or any other player changing the “mobile friendly” design again?

Russell

11 Russell Buckley
Mar 10th, 2006 at 10:49 pm

Some Guy

I think I’m just going to pretend that you’re right. Well done. Great argument.

Russell

12 Another Guy
Mar 11th, 2006 at 3:03 am

“I don’t want to see your ads, whether I’m on my phone or at my desk. If you can’t run a business without advertising, I don’t think you should bother.”

Mentioned this to Google yet?

13 vinu
Mar 11th, 2006 at 6:55 am

the web is hackable! so, if you were to extend the same argument more … how good is greasemonkey?

The only solution I see is either the publisher come up with a eml page for mobile providers or doesn’t crib for such solutions as anyway - the page would be completely no browsable on the mobile!

14 Scott Rafer
Mar 11th, 2006 at 8:37 pm

Mike,

I’m pretty appalled at your take on this. Google is already clearly censoring, and they are arguably using monopoly power in one market to gain dominance in another.

Google is already censoring all well designed mobile sites. We haven’t heard a peep, never mind the “swift and fierce” backlash that you assure us would happen. When Google reprocesses a web site for mobile phones, they deceive the originating web server about the nature of the device making the web page request. The web site specifically misled by Google as to what sort of device is making the request.

If a publisher has built web facilities that differentiate Nokia phones from Samsungs from Blackberries, Google bypasses those facilities entirely. If the publisher has different information to communicate to offer owners of different mobile phones, or from different carriers, or based on whether it’s day or night at the location of the user, Google censors it out — every minute of every day. [For the nerdier ones here, it’s user agent spoofing by proxy on a huge and evil scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent#User_agent_spoofing ]

Secondly, this quote of yours is simply untrue: “If you feel that Google is causing too much trouble for you, then you can block them.” You can’t block Google from finding you on the mobile web without blocking them from finding you for desktop users too — which isn’t viable for hundreds of thousands of small e-commerce and informations business that depend on AdSense or organic search to survive.

What Google is doing on mobile becomes illegal the minute they are proved to be a monopoly, which will obviously take years. The extension of economic power from one sector to another is very dangerous for companies as dominant as Google to do this sort of thing. For a example, please take another look at the EU cracking down on Microsoft’s bundling media players into Windows.

Google is verging on monopoly power with their market share in paid search. With as important as the mobile industry is to the European economy (and with the current US administration’s unwillingness to limit industry in any way), I’d be suprised if the EU doesn’t take up this issue within a year or two.

I hope the Greenhouse is going well,
Scott

15 damian glover
Mar 13th, 2006 at 9:11 am

“If a publisher has built web facilities that differentiate Nokia phones from Samsungs from Blackberries, Google bypasses those facilities entirely”

If true, this is a disaster. These kind of facilities are very costly to build and are currently the ONLY way of ensuring a consistent and positive user experience for visitors to your mobile website, regardless of handset type. Most serious mobile websites are hosted by specialist service providers such as Volantis whose entire business is based on their ability to re-purpose the content on the fly according to the type of handset accessing the site.

16 Tomi Ahonen
Mar 13th, 2006 at 1:45 pm

Hi Russell and all in this thread,

First, excellent posting Russell, on a valid issue about our industry, as is always the case with your excellent blogsite

Secondly, that we all feel a frustration with overwhelming intrusion of interruptive ads to our worlds, should not be confused with what Google is now doing.

You are totally correct, Russell, in that this is a dangerous step that Google is doing. They may be caught on this alone.

What will definitely be totally wrong, is if they offer any ads on a service where they remove the existing ads. It is like a cable TV broadcaster showing CNN, but during commercial breaks they cut out of the satellite network feed, and without permission simply insert their own cable TV ads. Totally wrong.

I hear you Russell, this is a dangerous step, and we need to be very vigilant about it.

As to comments in this thread that we can select to be without Google ha-ha, that is a bit unrealistic.

Tomi Ahonen
four time bestselling author and consultant on mobile
founding member Forum Oxford, the Engagement Alliance and Carnival of the Mobilists
blogsite www.communities-dominate.blogs.com
website www.tomiahonen.com

17 Scott Rafer
Mar 14th, 2006 at 2:14 am

We looked at the problem from a couple of specific phones to be sure and google misbehaves in the way I said. Details at:
http://harper.wirelessink.com/?p=81 and
http://rafer.wirelessink.com/?p=44

18 Russell Buckley
Mar 14th, 2006 at 7:17 am

Thanks everyone for the comments.

Scott - I knew that they had clearly made a decision to alter the content. After all, they’re not stripping out ads specifically, but slow-loading, heavy graphics and unless they’re very clever, this is also going to disable other features of the site.

In my original post though, I chose to focus on ad-stripping as I decided it was more emotive to more people than altering the design slightly. I want some action to happen on this and for Google to explain themselves or at least reconsider what they’re doing.

Unfortunately, this story seems to have petered out within the Blogosphere, even after being picked up by CNN. I think we should all try to reignite it and hold them to account.

A Wannabe David.

19 Ian Mansfield
Mar 14th, 2006 at 9:08 am

One of the problems that has been ignored is “how” would Google display the adverts ?

Most mobile phones have screen sizes smaller than the average banner advert.

Now add in the fact that most advertising is delivered via javascript - which again, most phones do not support.

So - just what was google supposed to do ?

20 Scott Rafer
Mar 14th, 2006 at 1:35 pm

We’re considering working with AdMob, who is already a functioning mobile CPC network. They just give us a WAP hyperlink to insert in our pages. What Google would have to do is get a lot more transparent. They are able to hide who advertises on your web pages with the whole Javascript scheme. AdMob can’t and isn’t trying to.

Google gets to avoid this openness if it’s transcoding and serving mobile pages from third parties who have opted into a network. I suspect they are aware of this.

21 Jason Coleman
Mar 14th, 2006 at 5:01 pm

I’m from a team that just released a beta application called mobilicio.us (http://moblicio.us/www) which can be used to view your del.icio.us bookmarks from a mobile phone and have the links automatically converted using Google Mobile.

We’ve received some negative response to our product based on our perpetuating Google’s attempt to dominate mobile content and have posted an item on our FAQ to address this (http://mobilicio.us/www/faq.php). Of note is the fact that Google offers a way to opt out of this service by contacting mobile-support@google.com.

I’m glad to see that some great discussion is happening here on this and related issues. If you ever happen to change your opinion (of feel we are misrepresenting you) on the matter, feel free to contact us and we’ll remove your name from the FAQ. Thanks.

—
Q: Aren’t you supporting Google in their quest to be the “judge and jury” of mobile content?

A: We don’t agree with Russell Buckley who thinks that Google is out to censor mobile content. It’s obvious to us that applications like Google Mobile are an interim solution which can be useful until a site’s publisher manages to create a mobile-friendly version of their content. Often times, the alternative to viewing the mobilized version of a made-for-monitor website on your phone is to endure grueling download times and fees (if you’re able to view the site at all). If your advertisements are targeting mobile phone users, you should have a mobile-ready version of your site available.

There is a way to avoid Google Mobile’s conversion. Sites which wish to be excluded from Google Mobile’s re-rendering can send a “removal request” by email to mobile-support@google.com.

We also realize that there may be times when you wish to view the unconverted version of a site through Mobilicio.us. For this reason, we are looking for an elegant solution to opting out of using the Google Mobile filter when linking to a site.
—

22 Russell Buckley
Mar 14th, 2006 at 7:01 pm

Jason

Well, actually I do you’re rather misrepresenting me. The phrase “who thinks that Google is out to censor mobile content” implies that I think Google is part of some sinister conspiracy and that’s not what I’m suggesting at all.

I assumed that Google have acted with pure motives (to create a better user experience) without thinking through the issues. The censorship thus becomes the effect of their actions, not the cause.

Further, they acted like this without consulting the content owners, which I think is presumptuous, at best. I do however think that this could create a precedent for future censorship, by Google or by other people and that’s one of the reasons why we should have the debate.

The phrasing also implies that I disagree that this is just an interim solution. Of course, it is. Everything we look at in technology is an interim solution, unless the world ends tonight.

Finally, I think it’s commendable that users can opt out of Google’s version of the web. Though maybe it would be slightly more humble to ask them if they want to opt in in the first place. But why don’t they offer this option to publishers:

“Dear Publisher

We’ve found that many websites are not optimised for the mobile web, which means that they are simply unreadable on a mobile phone. We’ve taken the decision to offer the user an optimising service, but the technology for doing this a a little primitive right now. This means that we sometimes have to strip out important content from your site, which might include graphic heavy advertising or special features that you’ve built in.

The best solution for everyone is for publishers to optimise their own sites for mobile (see Google FAQs for what this involves). But in the meantime, if you’d prefer not to have your site treated like this by Google, please let us know and we’ll opt you out of this experiment.

Love

Google”

So, yes Jason - please either remove my name or get the site to portray my views accurately.

Thanks

Russell

23 Jason Coleman
Mar 14th, 2006 at 8:30 pm

Russell,

We’ve taken the one item in question off of our FAQ and moved it to our blog, which is a better place for the discussion. I’ve updated the wording a bit to hopefully better explain your position on the issue. Feel free to reply in comment on our blog (http://mobilicio.us/www/blog/?p=6) and keep up the good discussion.

24 Scott Rafer
Mar 15th, 2006 at 12:53 am

Russell — I’m more concerned with them ignoring mobile-specific sites than I am with them providing a subset of sites that are not mobile specific.

Jason — We did as Google requested and asked via email to be omitted from the transcoding. They sent us a note saying that the process was complete about 24 hours later. However, they still transcode and nothing has changed. You are also propogating their misleading FAQ, unfortunately. I’m sure you guys are great, but Google isn’t in this area. Please layer in Yahoo’s mobile search instead.
1
carnival of the mobilists # 18 | gotomobile

Pingback on Mar 10th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
2
Petit Déjeuner » Blog Archive » Google Mobile search , is it evil?

Pingback on Mar 11th, 2006 at 3:10 am
3
Different Things » Blog Archive » An Open Letter to Google: “Page adapted for mobile phone?” Please stop now, you are crippling sites, not adapting pages.

Pingback on Mar 13th, 2006 at 12:04 am
4
Scott Rafer’s Mobile Chair » Blog Archive » Garbage 2.0 In, Garbage 2.0 Out

Pingback on Mar 13th, 2006 at 4:50 am
5
Drivin’ Blind » Blog Archive » An Open Letter to Google: “Page adapted for mobile phone?” Please stop now, you are crippling sites, not adapting pages.

Pingback on Mar 13th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
6
Drivin’ Blind » Blog Archive » Garbage 2.0 In, Garbage 2.0 Out

Pingback on Mar 13th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
7
Mobilicio.us Blog »

Pingback on Mar 14th, 2006 at 8:14 pm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
« Rumours of the Death of TV Advertising Are Not Greatly ExaggeratedLinks for March 9 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posting Your Comment
Please Wait
Leave a Reply
There was an error with your comment, please try again.
Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website