Who Exactly is Google's Client?

Colin posed this question last night and the more I think about it, the less I seem sure of an answer. Let's take a look at some possibilities:

1) The User- Google provides the search according to what you, the internet user, ask for.
2) The Sites Being Searched- Google provides the sites with an easy way for users to find it.
3) Advertisers- Google provides the platform for advertisers to get their message across.

I'm not even sure that these are all of the possible clients. Each have their own argument to go with them and each seem equally valid. What are some of the other clients that Google is invested in? Do they favor one over the other? Is the user really the main concern for Google or are they siding in a different way? I've got to admit that this question is really fascinating me. Previously, I had always thought that their primary client was me, the user. However, the sites that I'm searching for are being helped nearly as much, if not more so than I am. How else would I find obscure sites around the web? I'm really not sure.

Facebook and Profit

While I agree with mostly everything that Courtney asserts here, my question lies with the last sentence, the comment that Facebook is now about profit. Hasn't it always, to an extent, been about profit, from the first time it took money from an individual or a venture capital firm? Surely these companies were not throwing Zuckerberg money out of the goodness of their hearts but out of the promise of future funds returning to their wallet.

Facebook, Twitter and Profitability

Much has been made over the past week about Facebook's supposed even running when it comes to cash flow and for the most part, it's big news. Some of the big internet startups at the end of the tech bubble were having issues with monetizing their site, i.e. creating a way for it to turn a profit for investors. Facebook went the way of advertising, hoping that enough traffic plus enough ads would provide them with enough money to offset their operating cost, thus providing their investors with some sort of return on their investment.

However, Twitter's profitability is still in question. One thing that you'll notice on every twitter page is a complete lack of ads. In fact, there is a complete lack of editorial control. Twitter, unlike Facebook, which features apps, a controlled look to each page and ads, is a site wholly controlled and molded by user-content. If everyone stopped using Twitter today for an hour, the service would literally be dead for that 60 minute span. With no new updates, Twitter's bread and butter, of reporting news literally as it happens sometimes, would be destroyed. It's a service based on what's happening right now, not yesterday or the day before. Rather, if Twitterers don't provide new information, Twitter is stagnant.

Facebook, due to it's much larger scope and content, doesn't face this issue. If everyone stopped updating their statuses (a sub-par, direct rip-off of Twitter's service), Facebook still provides the users with loads of old pictures. Facebook is what it's creators want it to be, Twitter is what its users want it to be. For me, that's ultimately why Twitter is a more fascinating and interesting service, with loads of more potential. Twitter's a continually evolving beast, not because of what its programmers and creators want it to be, but because of what it's users desires. As the service matures and continues to find its footing, it will continually adapt to the changing climate as it changes. Facebook is still reliant on it's programmers to move with the curve.

Still, the question of profitability remains. If Twitter can't figure out a way to make money, what's to say that its private equity investors won't jump ship. Rather, than throwing good money after bad, they could feasibly move onto the next hip app or service. Personally, I'd love to see Twitter figure out the answers here because its potential is much more exciting than it's social networking counterparts.