Tim O'Reilly ziet ook een risico in de manier waarop Google zich ontwikkelt, vergelijkbaar met mijn eerdere gedachten.
"But Larry's on to something. I've been seeing the distinction that he makes coming more and more into focus as a defining issue for Web 2.0. Google has been a key enabler of the decentralized nature of the net -- they make other sites more visible, distributing attention, rather than concentrating it. But some of the newer sites, and the newer applications from Google and the other big guys, are increasingly aimed at centralizing user activity and user data.
This is true of GMail, of Orkut, and of Google Calendar. Google Maps could have been such a centralization play, but because of the brilliant hackers who built the first mashups, it's instead been liberated as a "real sharing" service.
I've been concerned about this switchboard vs. repository issue very specifically with Google Book Search. While I've come to the defense of Google over their library project, and overall, I believe that GBS is a very good thing for the publishing industry, it's essential that Google remember their heritage, as a distributor of attention, rather than trying to make their sites sticky (Web 1.0)."