Can companies do that? I mean, are you suggesting they basically orchestrated this whole piece -- they have that much power over journalistic outlets?
I actually believed it, my friends at Google pretty much say the exact thing the article was saying, that Sundar is a very non-confrontational and amicable guy who wants everyone to get along.
I think the way it usually works is the company will craft a compelling narrative summary that paints the company in a good light and contact bloggers their PR people have good relationships with. Then when one blogger bites, they give them exclusive access, quotes, sound bites, etc. The blogger then writes their own story the way they see it, but they are primed to write the article the company wanted. At least that's the rumor I've heard about how it works.
A choice quote: "A good flatterer doesn't lie, but tells his victim selective truths (what a nice color your eyes are). Good PR firms use the same strategy: they give reporters stories that are true, but whose truth favors their clients."
I'm sure Sundar's a great guy. Meanwhile, I have no information on this subject that everyone else doesn't already have, so I shall refrain from generating any further information-free noise.
GP isn't wrong, but perhaps comes off a bit harsh. I think it's more accurate to say that it's a bit of a puff piece. I don't think anything in it is outright false, but it may not be telling the whole story. Think of it as closer to how Google wants you to see the market than what the real state of the market is. So it's probably not too wrong, and is useful info for people who aren't really into the market, but you definitely shouldn't make any important decisions based on info in an article like this.
