Google is one of the most popular websites in the entire world that gets millions of views each day. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that it needs a strong and reliable programming language that it can rely on to run its searches and many of the apps that Google has created. Because of this, Google uses Python to ensure that every time a user uses one of their products, it will work smoothly and flawlessly. That being said, Google uses Python in a variety of different ways, outlined below.

Code.Google.Com
Since its creation, Google has always used Python as part of its core for programming language. This can still be seen today considering the strong relationship the two have with one another. Google supports and sponsors various Python events, and Python works to better itself so that Google remains on top of cutting edge material. One way that they do this is by working with code.google.com. This is the place where Google developers go to code, learn to code and test programs. And with it being built on Python, users can experience exactly what it is that they should expect once they start using the real site.

Google AdWords
Google AdWords is a great way for people to get their websites out there, through the use of advertising. Each time a person types in a certain string of keywords, or if they have history in their cookies, then they’ll come across these AdWords. The way that these AdWords are broadcasted to online web surfers is built on the foundation from Python. Python also helps clients access their AdWord accounts, so that they can tailor where they want their advertisements to go.

Beets
If you have loads of music, but some of it is uncategorized or sitting in a music player without a name or title, Beets is for you. This Google project uses Python and a music database to help arrange and organize music. The best part about Beets is that even if it doesn’t run exactly the way that you want, you can use a bit of Python knowledge to tailor it to be more specific to your desires.

Android-Scripting
Not only does Google run off Python, but Android also has its own value for the language. Whether you are someone who is just creating your own app for your phone or if you are someone who is looking to create the next app that gets downloaded multiple millions of times, you can use Python and Android-Scripting to create an app that does exactly what you want it to do.

YouTube
YouTube one just started as a video viewer on its own, but is now a billion-dollar company that is owned by Google. YouTube uses Python to let users view and upload video, share links, embed video and much more. Much like Google itself, YouTube relies heavily on Python to run seamlessly for the amount of traffic it gets daily.

Python is not your average coding language. Instead, it is a valuable and integral part of some of the biggest websites in the world, one of which is Google. And the resources listed here are just a fraction of what Google uses Python for in total.

Related:

What Are The 10 Most Famous Software Programs Written in Python?

The Future of Java and Python

Ranking Programming Languages: Which are Gaining Popularity?

Top 10 Software Skills for 2014 and Beyond

Working With Strings In Python

Working With Lists In Python

Conditional Programming In Python

Like me, I believe most people go about their business never to give a serious thought about their assumed private correspondence when using Gmail to email friends, colleagues and business associates.  As it turns out, your daily banter may not be so private after all.  A recent article in Fortune Magazine, “Judge Rejects Google Deal Over Email Scanning” caught my attention and an immediate thought dominated my curiosity…Google email and scanning scam.  

In essence, the article describes Googles’ agreement to change the way it scans incoming messages so that it no longer reads emails while they are in transit, but only when they are in someone's inbox! So, what exactly does that mean? Judge Koh, a San Francisco federal judge, said she's not so sure about that. Her ruling claims the settlement does not provide an adequate technical explanation of Google's workaround, which involves scanning in-transit emails for security purposes, and then later parsing them for advertising data. The judge also proposed a legal settlement to pay $2.2 million to lawyers, but nothing to consumers.

My interest in this story is not so much about the proposed settlements or the specific details about how Google or any of the web giants settle claims based on vague legal language. It is however, more about the naiveté of myself and perhaps many others that never question how the email scanning process really works. I wonder, do most of us really care that Gmail uses contents of our mail to display targeted ads?

I remember the day like it was yesterday. Pac Man had finally arrived on the Atari 2600.  It was a clear and sunny day, but it was slightly brisk. My dad drove us down to the video store about three miles from our Michigan house. If I remember correctly, the price for the game was $24.99.  It was quite expensive for the day, probably equaling a $70 game in today’s market, but it was mine. There *was* no question about it. If you purchase a game, it’s your game… right?

You couldn’t be more wrong.  With all the licensing agreements in games today, you only purchase the right to play it. You don’t actually “own” the game. 

Today, game designers want total control over the money that comes in for a game. They add in clauses that keep the game from being resold, rented, borrowed, copied, etc. All of the content in the game, including the items you find that are specifically for you, are owned by the software developer. Why, you ask, do they do this? It’s all about the money.

This need for greed started years ago, when people started modifying current games on the market. One of the first games like this was Doom. There were so many third part mods made, but because of licensing agreement, none of these versions were available for resale. The end user, or you, had to purchase Doom before they could even install the mod.  None of these “modders” were allowed to make any money off their creation.

Another blanket article about the pros and cons of Direct to Consumer (D2C) isn’t needed, I know. By now, we all know the rules for how this model enters a market: its disruption fights any given sector’s established sales model, a fuzzy compromise is temporarily met, and the lean innovator always wins out in the end.

That’s exactly how it played out in the music industry when Apple and record companies created a digital storefront in iTunes to usher music sales into the online era. What now appears to have been a stopgap compromise, iTunes was the standard model for 5-6 years until consumers realized there was no point in purchasing and owning digital media when internet speeds increased and they could listen to it for free through a music streaming service.  In 2013, streaming models are the new music consumption standard. Netflix is nearly parallel in the film and TV world, though they’ve done a better job keeping it all under one roof. Apple mastered retail sales so well that the majority of Apple products, when bought in-person, are bought at an Apple store. That’s even more impressive when you consider how few Apple stores there are in the U.S. (253) compared to big box electronics stores that sell Apple products like Best Buy (1,100) Yet while some industries have implemented a D2C approach to great success, others haven’t even dipped a toe in the D2C pool, most notably the auto industry.

What got me thinking about this topic is the recent flurry of attention Tesla Motors has received for its D2C model. It all came to a head at the beginning of July when a petition on whitehouse.gov to allow Tesla to sell directly to consumers in all 50 states reached the 100,000 signatures required for administration comment. As you might imagine, many powerful car dealership owners armed with lobbyists have made a big stink about Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO and Product Architect, choosing to sidestep the traditional supply chain and instead opting to sell directly to their customers through their website. These dealership owners say that they’re against the idea because they want to protect consumers, but the real motive is that they want to defend their right to exist (and who wouldn’t?). They essentially have a monopoly at their position in the sales process, and they want to keep it that way. More frightening for the dealerships is the possibility that once Tesla starts selling directly to consumers, so will the big three automakers, and they fear that would be the end of the road for their business. Interestingly enough, the big three flirted with the idea of D2C in the early 90’s before they were met with fierce backlash from dealerships. I’m sure the dealership community has no interest in mounting a fight like that again. 

To say that the laws preventing Tesla from selling online are peripherally relevant would be a compliment. By and large, the laws the dealerships point to fall under the umbrella of “Franchise Laws” that were put in place at the dawn of car sales to protect franchisees against manufacturers opening their own stores and undercutting the franchise that had invested so much to sell the manufacturer’s cars.  There’s certainly a need for those laws to exist, because no owner of a dealership selling Jeeps wants Chrysler to open their own dealership next door and sell them for substantially less. However, because Tesla is independently owned and isn’t currently selling their cars through any third party dealership, this law doesn’t really apply to them. Until their cars are sold through independent dealerships, they’re incapable of undercutting anyone by implementing D2C structure.