Slashdot Mirror
Google's Software Principles
Nick writes "Google has just posted a new set of "Software Principles" at their site on how they feel about spyware and the like. It is interesting to see the company whose motto is "Do no evil" trying to get the rest of the internet world to follow, with proposed principles dealing with upfront installation, clear behavior, simple removal, and keeping good company. The question is, though - why would a company who makes spyware (whose very nature is to be secretive and hard to remove) want to follow Google's principles?"
Cause they'll be ranked in the lowest portion of the results if they...
A: make spyware.
B: incorporate spyware.
C: Piss off the main marketing funnel of the internet which is THE search engine.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
--
QDB.us
To be successful?
Let's be honest. It's not googles principles that made them successful. THey came along, took a week internet tool (the search) and did it better than anyone else. It's the fact that they did it better than everyone else and got the press for that which caused them to be the big name.
Not, their great principles against spyware.
Evolution or ID?
Funny.. Nowhere in my google toolbar are the words "Advanced Features" showing up anywhere. And if I turn on the PageRank display, a popup warns me that that particular feature has privacy implications and even provides a link to explain them to me.
I think it's possibly the most non-spyware tool that I've ever seen integrate into IE.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
why would a company who makes spyware (who's very nature is to be secretive and hard to remove) want to follow Google's principles?
Free advertising baby! Screw ethics. Tomorrow's headline "Spyware agency agrees to Google's 'Good Guy' clause". Then can then follow that up in 2 weeks with "Spyware agency break Google's 'Good Guy' clause". And a few more weaks "Spyware agency makes amends with Google and their 'Good Guy Clause'".
A million free hits, zero effort.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
They are successful because they do what they do very well.
By plenty standards, Kazaa is successfull...
It is not surprising that they are going to put their best foot forward and try to "lead by example", prior to their IPO.
While admirable, their press release is nothing more than idealistic rhetoric which does nothing to actually help the situation at hand. Not in the short term at least.....
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There are probably going to be a million similar posts by the time I'm done writing this, but I'll give it a stab.
There are a lot of spyware apps that pretend to be something useful. Pop-up blockers, IE bar plugins, etc. Google directly competes with these.
By drawing a line in the sand, Google is making sure they are able to differentiate themselves in the eyes of the public. We all know that the fight against spyware is starting to heat up. By addressing this proactively they are more likely to be heard by the ears who matter. Slashdotters already know the diffrence between the Google bar and spyware, but not all users do. And as we all know, most of the people who draft/pass/enforce laws are clueless users.
"It's not googles principles that made them successful"
No, but it has allowed them to stay successful and continue to grow.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
It looks like a pretty good set of rules, ones quite similar to those presented by a number of regular /.ers when talking about dealing with spyware. One that particularly attracted my attention was this one:
I'm not sure about things like changing your home page, but it seems to me that it should be possible to impliment some of the other steps at the level of the windowing system without needing cooperation from the application. You could design it, for instance, so that you could right-click on any window's title bar and find out which program was responsible for that window. The idea undoubtedly needs some more thought so that programs couldn't hide their responsibility by calling another program to do their dirty work, but I'd guess that including some facility like this would be a lot easier than convincing spyware writers to admit their handywork.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
THey came along, took a week internet tool (the search) and did it better than anyone else. It's the fact that they did it better than everyone else and got the press for that which caused them to be the big name.
I don't know about you, but 40-60% of the reason I started using Google ~1999 is that I had gotten burned by other "web portals" with all of their popup ads, JavaScript malware, and other shit.
If you think this is something that only us Ivory-Tower geeks care about, you are incorrect. My parents recently threw away an entire computer because it was so ridden with spyware and popups.
Google's business is all about trust. If users think they can't depend on it - because the search results suck or because of popups - they can set their homepage elsewhere with a quickness and never come back. There is a reason that the first of Google's top three questions is about popups. Users get pissed off about it, and if they blame Google, it cuts into the bottom line.
Google confirms: Ruby is the world's most beloved programm
I'd download it in a second. I'd even buy the beta invitation on eBay like I did for Gmail.
Random rants about technology: http://technorants.blogspot.com
Their principles are important.
It guides them when they make advertising decisions.
It guides them when they decide how to present search results.
It guides their privacy and security policies
So unless you define 'better than anyone else' as 'perfecting honest search results', I'd have to say their principles are very important. How can you be successful if you aren't honest?
GPL Deconstructed
I think weak is a poor choice of words. There were many search engines, and they all had their advantages/disadvantages. Problem was, by and large they had all been beaten via meta-tags and other stuffing tricks. Google came out with in innovative idea, rank pages based on links to them rather than on the page itself, that took folks a while to beat. In the end, it was defeated by simple brute force (link farms). In the end, it will cost us because almost all the other options have been driven under short of Yahoo and Microsoft...
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
In this cynical world, where everyone claims success comes only by bending the rules, or being 'wordly-wise", this is a company that has become successful by sheer ability, and the quality of its products and services. If, today, they say that it can be done their way, they've earned the right to say it.
*A dreamy-eyed idealist, who still believes in old-fashioned things like principles and ethics, and that you don't need to bend the rules to succeed*
They are successfull because they are the best search tool out there, but there is more to being "Google" than just being a good search tool. If it was just a good search tool, there wouldn't be an artilce about thim on /. every day. They are not only good at search, but they have an approach to the Internet that has struck a chord with many on the one hand. On the flip side, they are so influential that minor changes to their algorithms can send some small businesses into a tail spin.
I struggled for days and days and all I got was this lousy sig.
Those shouldn't be guidelines. They should be legal requirements.
The cake is a pie
I think there's a lot to be said for appealing to customer's sense of propriety rather than merely his or her pocketbook.
Internet users are not Google's customer base. Google's customers are advertisers. We're Google's product.
exactly,
When I found out about google, I was amazed at the lack of adds. I was using yahoo which was pretty good but what was better about google was the lack of adds! Text adds are great! I even use them.
Today's xp computer can become completly unusable within a month or 2 of internet surfing, and downloading by an average non-technical computer user because of all the spyware/addware/malware etc...
I think their past behaviour, coupled with the success that bevahiour has garnered, is sufficient reason (for me at least) to respect their moral authority.
Besides, Google is not "laying down the law", as it were. They are posting the standards that they expect from themselves and recommend to their partners. Nobody _has_ to do anything Google says, ever; if they screw up, people will stop using their services. People will follow Google's guidelines for two reasons: either they agree with the ethical and logical principles behind them, or they're trying to emulate Google's success.
For me, anything that gets more people and corporations to adhere to the principle of "Do no evil" is awesome, regardless of the source. Even if Google one day abandons these principles, they will have left an example of how not being evil can serve your business, that hopefully others will follow.
"2. It's best to do one thing really, really well.
Google does search. Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat."
Yeah, Google doesn't do news, Google doesn't do e-mail, Google doesn't do social networks, Google doesn't do blogs, and Google certainly doesn't do price comparisons.
The more you know, the less you understand.
In 2000, Google's founders defined a set of principles for a quality search engine:
[W]e expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers...[W]e believe the issue of advertising causes enough mixed incentives that it is crucial to have a competitive search engine that is transparent and in the academic realm.
Today, about 95% of Google's $1B+ revenue comes from advertising, and Google's lawyers forgot to to check the "This will be an academic-only IPO" box on their SEC paperwork.
Four years from now, will Google's institutional shareholders feel bound by today's Software Principles?
This might be an outrage to developers and "let me build the nigthly Mozilla tarball" type geeks, but that's the reality, and all high-volume popular web sites like Google have to deal with that.
Only some form of government/collective action can protect honest companies (and individuals) from dishonest ones (inefficient is a different story, though they do overlap). Your point is valid, but blown out of proportion. The problem you are addressing is that dishonest people will use anything to get ahead, even the laws that protect the inocent.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.