iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Larry Page: Google CEO Faces 'Paranoia' Over Facebook One Year Into His New Role

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE 04/ 3/12 07:53 PM ET AP

Larry Page

SAN FRANCISCO -- Google co-founder Larry Page has a Facebook fixation.

When he replaced his mentor Eric Schmidt as Google's CEO last April, Page insisted that the company had to be more aggressive about countering the threat posed by Facebook's ever-growing popularity.

Page responded with a social networking crusade that is still reshaping Google Inc. as he marks his one-year anniversary as chief executive on Wednesday.

The Facebook obsession has already led to Google's creation of its own social network, Google Plus, and inspired changes in Google's privacy practices and Internet search results. Those changes have raised questions about whether the Internet's most powerful company has forsaken its "Don't Be Evil" motto in its zeal to protect its online advertising empire.

"Facebook awoke Google to its shortcomings in the social aspect of the Internet. It wasn't something that could be ignored," said Steven Levy, whose book "In The Plex" provided an inside look at Google's origins and evolution over 14 years.

Fretting about Facebook may seem like overkill, given Google's dominance of the Internet's lucrative search and advertising market. Last year, Google's sold $36.5 billion in advertising – 10 times more than Facebook's $3.2 billion.

But Page realized Facebook has been carving out a competitive advantage that could be leveraged to topple Google.

Since its 2004 inception, Facebook has been stockpiling valuable information about people's social circles and interests. The volume of insightful data pouring into Facebook has mushroomed along with its service's popularity. That has provided Facebook with the means to target ads more precisely and deliver content tied to a user's hobbies and tastes.

Google couldn't use most of that data to refine its search engine and other products, which is why it developed its own social network.

Since its debut nine months ago, Google Plus has attracted more than 100 million users. Although it lags Facebook's 845 million, the number is far greater than Facebook's tally at that stage in its history.

But Google Plus hasn't proven it can hold users' attention. Visitors have been spending an average of just a few minutes per month on Google Plus compared with six to seven hours on Facebook, according to the research firm comScore Inc.

Nevertheless, Google Plus and other social networking features introduced since Page took over allow the company to learn more about its users' lives, just as Facebook has done for years on its online hangout. Now, Google can try to use some of that knowledge to sell more ads, the source of virtually all its revenue.

Facebook's threat figures to become even greater after the company emerges from an initial public offering of stock, likely to be completed next month. The IPO is expected to raise $5 billion and generate free publicity that could attract even more traffic to Facebook. The IPO will likely eclipse Google's 2004 stock market debut as the biggest for a U.S. Internet company.

Google said Page was too busy for interviews about his past year as CEO, a role he reclaimed after surrendering the helm to Schmidt in 2001. Page had been CEO during the company's first three years, but early investors demanded a more experienced leader.

Schmidt, now Google's executive chairman, last year described his failure to mount a more serious challenge to Facebook as one of his biggest blunders.

When he took over as CEO, Page quickly made his top priority clear by moving Google's executive offices into the same building as the team working on Google Plus.

Page also tied a portion of employee bonuses to the success of Google Plus and eliminated what he considered to be unnecessary distractions by closing more than 20 of the company's less popular services, including an initiative to digitize health records.

"Larry is driven by his paranoia about Facebook. Clearly, these are two companies at war with each other," said Ken Auletta, who got to know Page while writing his book about the company, "Googled: The End of the World As We Know It."

Page already has plenty of other challenges to confront as he enters the second year of his reign.

Google is also grappling with broad regulatory investigations in the U.S. and Europe into its business and privacy practices. Its Android operating system for smartphones and tablet computers is clashing with Apple Inc. in the increasingly important mobile computing market. And it is close to completing its biggest acquisition ever – a $12.5 billion purchase of cellphone and tablet computer maker Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc., pending approval from the Chinese government after winning clearances elsewhere.

Page also is trying to win over Wall Street.

Although Google is more prosperous than ever, its stock price hasn't kept pace with the rest of the technology sector. Some investors have been turned off by Google's rising expenses under Page. Others were alarmed by a drop in the prices paid for Google's search-driven ads late last year. The company's stock price has climbed by 9 percent since Page became CEO, but that trailed a 12 percent gain in the technology-laden Nasdaq composite index. The broader S&P 500 index, which includes Google, has increased by 6 percent over the same period.

Some of Google's tactics to fend off Facebook have been interpreted as signs that Google is turning into a ruthless company willing to go to any length to protect its core business.

That's something Page and co-founder Sergey Brin vowed would never happen when Google filed its plans to go public in 2004. In a letter to investors, Page expounded on the reasons Google adopted "Don't Be Evil" as one its guiding principles. "We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served ... by a company that does good things for the world even if we forego some short-term gains," Page wrote.

The sincerity of those commitments is being questioned as Google digs deeper for personal data.

A recent change to Google's privacy policy has triggered the loudest outcry. About a month ago, Google unified 60 different privacy policies so it could stitch together all the personal information it gathers while users are logged into most of its services. Google explained the change as a simpler approach that would benefit its users, but the company also acknowledged that it would let it draw a more meaningful profile for advertisers looking to connect with prospective customers.

Another privacy backlash grew out of research a Stanford graduate student published in February. It showed that the company had been bypassing the security settings in Apple's Safari browser for iPhones and iPads to track Web surfers' online activities. Google called the intrusion an inadvertent offshoot of an effort to enable Safari users to press Google Plus's version of Facebook's "Like" button. Google disabled the tracking after it was revealed.

Google also tweaked its search results in January to give users the option to highlight results from Google Plus. Among other things, the search engine began to include suggestions on people to follow on Google Plus while excluding recommendations for Facebook and Twitter's messaging service, both of which are used more widely than Google Plus. Google says its search engine can't pull enough information from Facebook and Twitter to provide the same recommendations as it does for Google Plus.

Critics, though, scoff at that explanation and point to the bias as another example of how Google is abusing its dominance of Internet search to steer more traffic toward its own services. Those complaints are a central part of the regulatory investigations under way in the U.S. and Europe.

Both Auletta and Levy view what's been happening at Google as part of the inevitable maturation of the company and Page, who turned 39 last week.

"That idealistic flame still burns in Google," Auletta said. "But what happens, as time goes on, and you are no longer a young company, you have to make the compromises of adulthood...Facebook eventually is going to have to face a lot of the same questions."

Also on HuffPost:

Take a look at where Larry Page ranks among the highest employee-rated CEOs in tech.
Loading Slideshow...
  • #9 - Meg Whitman, HP

    Current approval rating: 80 percent Leo Apotheker, who served as HP CEO before Whitman, received a 67 percent approval rating in Glassdoor's previous survey.

  • #8 - Larry Elison, Oracle

    Current approval rating: 81 percent Previous rating: 72 percent

  • #7 - Daniel Hesse, Sprint

    Current approval rating: 85 percent Previous rating: 77 percent

  • #6 - Joe Tucci, EMC

    Current approval rating: 86 percent Previous rating: 88 percent

  • #5 - Paul Maritz, VMware

    Current approval rating: 90 percent Previous rating: 75 percent

  • #4 - Paul S. Otellini, Intel

    Current approval rating: 93 percent Previous rating: 90 percent

  • #3 - Larry Page, Google

    Current approval rating: 94 percent Previous rating (of predecessor Eric Schmidt): 96 percent

  • #2 - Paul E. Jacobs, Qualcomm

    Current approval rating: 95 percent Previous rating: 88 percent

  • #1 - Tim Cook, Apple

    Current approval rating: 97 percent Previous rating (of predecessor Steve Jobs): 95 percent

  • ALSO ON THE HUFFINGTON POST

    Apple CEO Tim Cook spoke with investors at Goldman Sachs about Apple's financial plans, business operations and the future.

FOLLOW TECH

From our partners


Filed by Catharine Smith  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 53
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ecceme
Be afraid!
12:13 AM on 04/08/2012
Now I remember " fourteen or fight"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ecceme
Be afraid!
12:08 AM on 04/08/2012
"Wild in the streets" is all that comes to mind. Though I'm unclear as to the connection
02:07 AM on 04/05/2012
That reminds me, I need to check my Facebook!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Barry Dennis
personal decisions, personal consequences
04:01 PM on 04/04/2012
In highjly competitive business markets there will always be new competitors vying for market share from the leader(s). The Internet's market leaders, still in their early teen years, will constantly be looking over their shoulders for the next competitor, revising their structure to maintain/gain advantage, and doing the things that just about every business does to grow profitability. However, gaining huge market share, even monopolistic advantage is not allowed in American capitalism, and it is the job of government to force transparency so as not to allow monopoly market share except as earned in a competitive marketplace with reasonable access. Uninformred regulators and legislators, influenced by politics and freely flowing contributions from every direction have allowed unwarrented geo-monopolies, and equally unwarranted market share monopolies in vital sectors related to the Internet, to the detriment of Citizens and business. This must change if the highest value usage of Internet broadband spectrum, managed by government "for the benefit of Citizens," is to succeed. With Internet-based commercial, educational and health-related activity slated to be by far the fastest growing part of the Content and spectrum needs, it is incumbent that informed Citizens to make their voice heard in favor of freely accessed, open, transparent and competitive markets.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jack Boats
not a proof reader
02:58 PM on 04/04/2012
**************************************
I think facebook will probably be replaced before google will. Filters tend to get bunged up and need to be thrown out after awhile.
**************************************
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
booksnmoreforyou
Progressive educator, activist for good government
02:25 PM on 04/04/2012
How about this: everyone use Adblock and force these privacy-invaders to come up with some other means to earn a living.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jack Boats
not a proof reader
02:52 PM on 04/04/2012
use a proxy and spoof your IP people its the only way to browse! at least until Larry and Zuck lobby for them to be outlawed!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bigbe
I can't remember the last time I forgot something.
10:35 PM on 04/04/2012
Wish I knew what that meant, I might try it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Barry Dennis
personal decisions, personal consequences
04:05 PM on 04/04/2012
How about quit expecting something -Content- for nothing? Ads are the way Content, including Search, are paid for. My objections relates to captured markets-you and me for Cable, Internet-paying to receive a service-spectrum- and paying again to receive content when we already paid for it!
If "fairness" were the issue, the FCC and FTC would FORCE separation of Content and Broadband spectrum for Cable and telecom companies, so that a competitive, auction-driven market for Content and services would prevail.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
booksnmoreforyou
Progressive educator, activist for good government
09:50 PM on 04/04/2012
Pay $5 per month to use Facebook instead of have them use me? Sure. I'd do that.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bigbe
I can't remember the last time I forgot something.
10:44 PM on 04/04/2012
Remember when cable started the story was we would get content without any advertising like on the networks with antennas because we were going to pay for the programming. Look how long that lasted. We have only ourselves to blame for it I guess. Much like serius radio there is always someone who doesn't object to laying out cash for what we always got fot free and the rest of us have to follow along or go without.
Kind of irritating when you think about how the government just CLAIMED all the bands and sold them for outrageous amounts. (At least it seemed so at the time).
Next thing you know, the money went where?
02:17 PM on 04/04/2012
I think what Google is afraid of is they thought they had figured out how to collect the most personal data from internet users to sell to their advertisers, but Facebook comes along and literally has people willingly giving every personal detail about their life to Facebook.

They should be worried honestly. Facebook is able to collect 100x the amount of personal data that Google does and the majority of Facebook users actually feel as though it's what they're supposed to do, it's almost too easy.

In the end, Google's just mad that they didn't figure it out first. Google Plus doesn't even come close to comparing to Facebook's usability and the 100million figure is completely overblown, there's no way 100million people are using Google Plus. I work in IT and barely anyone knows about Google Plus still after being out for what a year?

Google can't run everything, they should stick to what they're best at. They are always going to have their advertising for all websites except facebook and until people stop visiting every website BUT Facebook, they'll still be making a ton of money.

Greed is a quick way to kill your company, they're in a fight they cannot win against Facebook. I say take your ball and go home, you're still the only viable search engine/advertising business on the web.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bigbe
I can't remember the last time I forgot something.
10:51 PM on 04/04/2012
I know I'm old and not in the majority but I have no interest in keeping my phone stuck up my butt texting my every thought or telling everyone every time I fart like you young people do on facebook. I'm retired and don't even have a cell now but when I was working, I was far more interested in making a living and giving my boss what he was paying for such as my time and attention than keeping in touch with my friends. Unlike today's young workers in many cases.
I do use Google whenever I have a question on any subject but I have no interest in the advertisements and why would I look at them on Facebook?? I just don't get it. They don't provide me with anything real.
11:22 PM on 04/04/2012
Well the internet is completely run on advertisement money. So while you don't look at them(neither do I), the only reason we can even post on this website is because it's servers and employees that wrote this article are making money by using Google's advertisement program.

How else do you think a website makes money? 99.9% of them use Google's advertisements based on information they've taken from you(or you've given them through using their search engine). They then present advertisements that are relevant to your search inquiries and websites you visit. Facebook does the same thing but they only advertise on Facebook, which has almost 900million users, so their advertising is a lot more focused than Google's, which is why Google is worried.
01:37 PM on 04/04/2012
Apparently only the good looking people will get to wear these glasses
photo
quixmar
You may not agree with me, but you know I'm right.
01:33 PM on 04/04/2012
I guess he hasn't made enough money yet.
BrunoMan
Think progress.
01:25 PM on 04/04/2012
Google is corrupt and it uses propaganda to lie to the public and sway the public. It makes a lot of money off piracy of music, film, etc. And justifies it as free speech. Any empire can fall and I hope this one does.
02:03 PM on 04/04/2012
It does? Quick, let me Google it to see if its true!!!
12:43 PM on 04/04/2012
The "war" between all those "virtual" companies is going right over the backs of ordinary internet users. The basic civil rights, like privacy (if anybody can still remember what it is), are being systematically put aside. It's not a nice feeling typing your password to get to your email account, and knowing that it doesn't mean much anymore, because your emails are being monitored anyway, and everything you do is just more information about you for the Big Brother Machine. And all that just to place ads and sell you more useless stuff. I've got this stupid ad on almost every page I visit. Websites place "cookies" on your computer, and then have the damn ad follow you around the internet! I get it! All right, you can stop now! :-) If I had already read about it, I don't need to see it everywhere I go. Virtually. :-)
12:18 PM on 04/04/2012
No-one is interested in google. We just use google to search for stuff. facebook is where the action really is
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jack Boats
not a proof reader
02:54 PM on 04/04/2012
*to search for stuff to post on facebook*
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jack Boats
not a proof reader
02:58 PM on 04/04/2012
google is the data mire, facebook is the filter. sorta. a sometimes very droll and large holed filter that pumps out lol cats and photos of peoples lunch, depending on who your 'friends' are.

I think facebook will probably be replaced before google will. Filters tend to get bunged up and need to be thrown out after awhile.
12:17 PM on 04/04/2012
Why is it every time I see a picture of Meg Whitman, I think of a man in drag?
MoneyMan2000
Sensitivity is for the Birds
12:09 PM on 04/04/2012
One question. Why isn't Steve Balmer listed in the slideshow above? He is just as influential to the world of consumer electronics as half of the CEOs listed and his business model is way more successful than certain CEOs listed! Meg Whitman, I'm talking about you!
MoneyMan2000
Sensitivity is for the Birds
12:04 PM on 04/04/2012
He's scared of Facebook and that's why he bought windmills? He seems a little out of his gourd!