Is Google Becoming a Bond Villain?

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Recently I noted here that  (AMZN) founder Jeff Bezos has entered the "Bond villain" stage of his career, a point where he's larger than life, and where every pronouncement he makes, no matter how strange (Let's have drones deliver packages!) is seen as brilliant insight.

Well, if Bezos is Willard Whyte, Google (GOOG) suddenly looks like Blofeld.

Men and women of a certain age will remember Blofeld well. The rest of you will find him in IMDb or Wikipedia.

Blofeld was the "super villain" in nine different Bond films, and was played by a succession of actors, most memorably by Donald Pleasence, his head shaved, stroking a white cat in You Only Live Twice.

How did a company whose unofficial motto was "Don't be evil" suddenly appear to be the personification of evil? Mainly it's a product of its own success.

Google's profits have let it indulge its leaders' whims in everything from wearable computers to life extension to self-driving cars, robots and barges mysteriously floating in the bay. Its wealth has elevated real estate prices in San Francisco to infinity.

All of which led to a false confrontation yesterday in San Francisco, where a union organizer named Max Alper, pretending to be a Google employee, shouted, "This is a city for the right people who can afford it. You can't afford it? You can leave. I'm sorry, get a better job."

The San Francisco Bay Guardian posted a video of the diatribe, which went viral before it learned Alper's true identity. What's troubling is that so many people believed the original conception. They believed that Alper was part of Google, and that Google believes the nonsense he was spouting.

What Alper was portraying is known in political philosophy as the Problem of the Loyal Henchman. Why, after the villain has fled, does his private militia still try to kill the hero? Is it loyalty to Blofeldism, whatever that is?

And if that's true, what is Googleism? That's something CEO Larry Page needs to define, something he needs to get in front of quickly, or the sympathy he's gained over the Alper incident could quickly turn against the company.

The widespread belief that Google has become evil, complaining about the National Security Agency doing things for national security Google itself does for profit, is a sea change in our view of the company, that will last long after the protest is forgotten.

Google, along with the other huge San Francisco tech companies that have sprung up in its wake, now has enormous power. With enormous power comes enormous responsibility. Cottage industries spring up to take down the newly powerful (in this case, Google), and the default assumption about them can turn on a dime.

Google has tried to be aware of this possibility. It has beefed up its presence in Washington, hiring a former Republican congresswoman to head its policy shop. It has been transparent in its political contributions following a formal code of conduct which turns the "Don't be evil" mantra into specific, detailed policy.

But as the cover of Google critic Scott Cleland's book Search and Destroy illustrates, what looks on the outside like a cute bunny can easily look like a T. Rex to others, both competitors and potential customers.

Over the last few years Google shares have taken off for the stratosphere, increasing in price by more than 57% in just the last year, despite slowing growth, expanding the price-to-earnings ratio from about 20 to more than 30.

That's more than twice the current P/E paid for Apple  (AAPL), or Microsoft  (MSFT) or even mighty IBM  (IBM). Sustaining such a valuation requires not just doing everything right, but appearing to do everything right.

If Google loses its glow, if it's being seen by consumers as a T. Rex rather than a cute bunny rabbit, if it's truly viewed as a Bond villain, the stock has a long way to fall.

At the time of publication the author owned shares in GOOG, AAPL and IBM.

This article is commentary by an independent contributor, separate from TheStreet's regular news coverage.


If you liked this article you might like

Nordstrom Board Kills Buyout Possibility

Nordstrom Board Kills Buyout Possibility

Chopping a Way Back for the Bull: Cramer's 'Mad Money' Recap (Tuesday 3/21/18)

Chopping a Way Back for the Bull: Cramer's 'Mad Money' Recap (Tuesday 3/21/18)

Take-Two Interactive, Constellation Brands: 'Mad Money' Lightning Round

Take-Two Interactive, Constellation Brands: 'Mad Money' Lightning Round

Jim Cramer: What's the Playbook for a Return to the Upside?
Why Oracle Doesn't Seem to Be Getting a Pass for Weak Cloud Guidance This Time

Why Oracle Doesn't Seem to Be Getting a Pass for Weak Cloud Guidance This Time