It's very misleading to say that Google "run their services on the back of information provided by others, without adding much or any original content." The people who invented chemistry and physics also did that.
Sorry, but I think that's a very poor analogy, unless you happen to be using Google to search for information about how to mine large data sets or how to make enormous amounts of money through on-line advertising.
Experimental physicists and chemists aren't useful because they develop novel experimental methods. They are useful because of what the results of the experiments tell us about physics and chemistry. The methods are merely a means to an end, and if we discovered how physics and chemistry work through other means instead the information would still be the same and just as valuable.
Similarly, Google is not useful because of all the clever algorithms it uses and the fact that they didn't realise "downloading the Internet" was supposed to be a joke. They are useful because of the web pages, newsgroup postings, etc. that they help visitors to find. The content is what matters, the content would be just as valuable however a visitor found it, and the content is written by other people.
IMHO, a far better analogy is that Google is just a middleman trying to get the market to finds content through its services rather someone else's, just like publishers and record labels. Just as in those other cases, it's the people who create works and the society that consumes them who really matter. The middleman is only worth as much as it helps the other roles to function better than they otherwise could.
Sorry, but I think that's a very poor analogy, unless you happen to be using Google to search for information about how to mine large data sets or how to make enormous amounts of money through on-line advertising.
Experimental physicists and chemists aren't useful because they develop novel experimental methods. They are useful because of what the results of the experiments tell us about physics and chemistry. The methods are merely a means to an end, and if we discovered how physics and chemistry work through other means instead the information would still be the same and just as valuable.
Similarly, Google is not useful because of all the clever algorithms it uses and the fact that they didn't realise "downloading the Internet" was supposed to be a joke. They are useful because of the web pages, newsgroup postings, etc. that they help visitors to find. The content is what matters, the content would be just as valuable however a visitor found it, and the content is written by other people.
IMHO, a far better analogy is that Google is just a middleman trying to get the market to finds content through its services rather someone else's, just like publishers and record labels. Just as in those other cases, it's the people who create works and the society that consumes them who really matter. The middleman is only worth as much as it helps the other roles to function better than they otherwise could.