Scorched Earth - if Google can't own the web then it must destroy it

This article is vapid.

"It's almost as if Google wants to end the document-centric open web as we have known it."

Actually, if this happened, Google's $40B+ in revenue would approach zero.

On Reader: Every week there's a new Reader replacement that pops up. I think in a year or two, Google Reader being shutdown will be seen as a positive thing for RSS.

"Apple will switch its default search engine to Bing....The web is a forest, and Google is burning it."

Maybe Apple will do this. It's possible though very unlikely considering Google's ability to monetize search and Microsoft investors' disappointment at losses in the Live division, but that's still not a move that immediately destroys Google.

Again, this article is completely vapid.

The flaw in this reasoning is that just because Google kills a product it doesn't kill the protocol underneath it. Killing off Blogger won't kill Tumblr, or Wordpress for that matter. It will make it possible to create value in that space again though since Google will have left.

Google cannot "kill" RSS, they can only kill Reader, and if people are so dependent on Reader then someone will make a Reader replacement that makes them enough money to keep it running. If nobody can do that, then the business model for Reader (and RSS for that matter) is in doubt.

How does Google destroy the web by not supporting open protocols, any more than any other company does?

Sure, Google may be dropping XMPP support. Guess what: before Google, no major messaging system supported XMPP or federation! That didn't prevent the open web for existing.

All they're doing is reverting to the state before they created those services, back when they only had Search. It's disappointing, yes (though not surprising), but it's no more destroying the open web than not supporting it in the first place would be, like most companies did.

Just stop using their services if there are open alternatives, like I did with mail and RSS way before the death of Reader had been announced, and stop portraying Google as some Internet god. It's just a company, people.

Well ... that implies a long-term strategy with the actor assuming it's a zero-sum game. The other possibility is that Google is simply following a completely economic strategy and that each of the decisions described would end up maximizing their return.

I think the real question is "why did we accept so many Beta services, knowing that there was no guarantee they'd be brought to market". If we'd only let them be a search company, would this even be a problem?

Yet if Microsoft were in the same position doing the same things the chanting horde would be calling for their heads. Meanwhile Google can do no wrong. Google is in a position where they can greatly affect the usage and adoption of open standards. And increasingly they're subverting open standards. Is that evil? Draw your own conclusions but it was considered evil when Microsoft did it.

Very interesting theory. Maybe that's why Microsoft is doing the same to desktop OS? Apple must act quickly to destroy the smartphones.

> Apple will switch its default search engine to Bing

Speculation, or has there been some indication of this?