There are few companies out there who are currently as prolific as Google.

Almost no week goes by without them putting out some new service - some great, some OK, some ugly. As many commentators have written,it is sort of coherent with their ad-supported business model to try to intercept as many "surfers with a purpose" to serve them contextually relevant tips for purchases: the relevance turns into higher clickthroughs, which directly turns into additional revenue for Google given the auction model for buying adwords.

My ad helps you sell, so, you're willing to bid up the price of the ad. The more you sell, the more you're willing to pay.

One must therefore assume that there are lots of people at Googleplex watching not each of us individually (that would be "evil") but in aggregate and guessing what do we come to the Net for - which place best to do this than the world's most popular search engine?

Once I understand what you're looking for, I can help you find it more easily with a score of easy to use (free, of course) services that make your life easier. Looking for a map? Here's the whole world, plus satellite images, plus API to include in your own app. Placing  a classified to sell your old skis? Here's an easy access to the world community, list as many items as you want, no fees, no costs.

However, there are a few snippets that don't quite match this picture.

a) Why did Google IPO?
There are normally two reasons for an IPO: get fresh cash and pay out early investors. GOOG was already cash-flow positive at the time of their IPO [check!] so they had all the cash they needed. However it is quite possible that they needed loads o' cash to invest in whatever future venture they were planning. The stock market being what it is, companies such as Google don't feel they have to explain what they'll do with the cash, as investors are pouring in and bidding their shares up to a point it would take some 100+ years

b) Why is Google buying dark fiber?


c) Why is Google experiment with free wireless connectivity?


d) Why is Google developing a quick-deployment, self-contained data center?
A few days ago, Robert X. Cringely wrote this post on something he had heard at Google. The skinny is that Google has translated its data center prowess into a 40-foot container that can be deployed basically everywhere a tractor-trailer rig can go. If "The Cring"'s analysis is correct, in his words, where other people might install a router, Google will plop a whole data center.
That is the old dream of making the Net even more dispersed than it is

e) What's does it all add up to?
Well, once Google owns every road on the planet every other competitor will find it difficult to intercept enough traffic to support a similar ad-based model, and by giving away every conceivable software or service, they'll squeeze out basically all competition.

So the benevolent ending is one of a semi-socialistic communal ownership of the medium with vendors willing to foot the bill for the privilege of addressing us their message. Google skims a bit off the top, and everyone's happy.

It is not dissimilar from a government that builds roads with tax revenues (yeah, I know, they too skim a bit off the top...) - with one important difference: in most places, we get to choose those who govern us. After a few years, we get asked how happy we are, and if the answer is "Not much", then somebody else gets to try their hand.

Does it mean we get to elect Google's board or officers? For some reason, I feel safer with a (partially) crooked politician than with a ruler restrained only by the quality of its' company corporate governance. Like Enron. Or Parmalat.

There is however at least one person voicing a more ominous opinion, which I will leave for you to read. George Dyson on Google