I'm a person who mistrusts corporations. They work with the premise that they exist to make profit, and in economics terms, that means the purchaser gets a worse deal. If a producer of a primary product (raw materials) adds profit, then a manufacturer makes things and adds profit, then a retailer adds profit, the end consumer is paying the profit margins of three companies. This isn't inherently bad if each is adding value.
The hardest one to argue for is the retailer. In essence, they buy finished goods, put them on shelves and allow you to purchase them. Their added value is choice and convenience; perhaps after sales or maybe even advice presale. However, if we think of a market like the supermarkets, this does point to the only areas of value added are choice and convenience. I won't go all Veblen or Marx on you here, that's for another post, but I thought I'd make my standpoint clear from the start.
Google have announced today they're making driverless cars, and I immediately loved the idea. It's like Sci-Fi and I want one now. I don't understand people who reckon that they enjoy driving. It's brain numbing monotony and repetition, I only look forward to driving now as I am an odd ball who is wise enough to drive an automatic transmission vehicle (I can drive a manual car, I did for many years) as I see no one manually cranks their cars to start or manually adjusts the choke to change fuel air mix when starting.
This last thing is probably lost on most people born after 1980, cars used to have a knob to pull out when you started it, on the steering column. It changed the fuel air mix and as you drove and the car engine got hotter, you pushed it back in. My first car (C registration Vauxhall Nova) had one and on cold, wet mornings, they were a nightmare: push it back in too early and the car would splutter and stall. Mine had a spring that pulled it gradually back in and if you got to traffic lights before it was hot, the car just conked out, kangaroo style. So I augmented it with a wooden clothes peg that I clipped on to hold it out.
Anyway, Google's car sounds awesome. Yes, it'll make taxi drivers redundant for car owners who have a drink, but that was said about email - apparently email would make Royal Mail bankrupt, but of course it was their pension scheme, not the universal postage costs to blame there. In the end it takes us away from doing something we'd rather not do and gives us more time to do things we'd rather do. So instead of paying attention to the back of a truck on a winding country road, we can admire the gorgeous views to our side.
This is where my unease comes in usually with companies. I mistrust them but Google seem to give us toys and gadgets we like. This can be said of many firms, but for me Google's approach is something special. Yes, they have a monopoly on search. Inherently that's a bad thing, but while I could use another service just as easily, I find myself not doing. The reason? Their search is better. A monopoly based on a better product is something to knock from its pedestal, and no one seems to be able to no matter how much Microsoft throw at the problem, so I'm comfortable with it.
I end up with the same conclusion whatever Google does (some specific examples omitted): they make something I'd actually use, they make the best of breed and they give it out on an advertising funded model or use the data to better understand you. I wish Tivo actually did this, but it seems to always tell me I'd love stuff on channel 5 or something with James Corden in. With a slight unease, I accept Google's products much more readily than other corporation's products simply due to them using science, maths and software engineering to make better and better things.
It's going to be a long time until they're on the road, but the Google car is a step forward and perhaps the battle to make them legal will make them better still. I look forward to driving one. Hang on, don't I mean riding one?
No comments:
Post a Comment