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?"
While the spyware types may not particularly give a damn what Google says, a lot of people do. A lot of people look up to Google - a lot of programmers want to work there, and a lot of companies can easily see the success that Google has made for itself by having a good image and a good product.
Google is essentially offering free advice for companies. They're showing what worked for them. Often the CEO of a company will go out and look for information about how people have previously solved the solutions that said CEO is looking to solve in their business plan. It's a 'learn from mistakes and successes' ideal. Right now, spyware is fairly ubiquitous, so is it any surprise that companies start doing it more and more? Whether or not it works, it has a definite presence, and that presence brings it into mind as a company strategy.
Google is bringing their (superior, I think we can all agree) company strategy into view, and saying 'here's something better' for anybody who's willing to listen.
--
Mr Google Advocate
The question is though, 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?"
Because a search engine and an anti-spyware/virus software do VERY similar jobs.
Scan huge amounts of data for fingerprints and patterns.
And Google as a platform is looming pretty fast.
Bind0
of competition, it's really difficult for a company to "do no evil" and succeed...
i think google will soon see that the way to riches is paved with unmaintainable ideals...
The publication of these "principles" has nothing to do with getting other vendors to start behaving nicely, and everything to do with getting people ready for the impending launch of Google's desktop search app.
To make the leap from being a Web site to being software you have to install locally, there's a much higher burden of trust they have to surmount -- especially when that software will index your entire local filesystem (just think of the snooping possibilities!).
So, I see this as a kind of pre-emptive strike on their part -- a way that they can claim that they will be as "non-evil" on the desktop as they supposedly are on the Web, and have a document to back it up.
If any other companies follow the principles that document outlines, that's probably gravy, from their perspective.
Read my blog.
Noone else does.
/. but they fail a few of the points listed. As in, piggybacking software, phoning home, etc. And that's just with Media Player.
Microsoft, anyone? Sure, they're the easiest target on
I used to point the finger at Real, but they seem to have cleaned up their act a touch.
But really, who's going to follow these principles? Noone, that's who. Spyware has become a sad fact of life online. Maybe the solution doesn't lie in better software, but operating systems that actually offer the end-user some level of control over what software can/can't do on their system.
And please, don't try to tell me this functionality is already present using tools like personal firewalls. Their solution is more of a band-aid. The OS needs to do this, and needs to do it elegantly.
Google has got to be the most "virtuous" company in the online market today. I won't be surprised if they don't grow enormously, beyond expectations, just because their attitude of "doing it right" will resonate so strongly with Internet users. I think there's a lot to be said for appealing to customer's sense of propriety rather than merely his or her pocketbook.
I think what Google is doing is citing the Good Citizen Rules specifically for those that can't figure it out for themselves.
Apple, are you reading this? Can you say "uninstall?"one interesting thing to notice is that windows, though it is not spyware, does not follow these suggestions. many things are enabled on installation that are not requested or mentioned and it's not always clear what these things do or how to remove them.
-ninjaneer
I use Debian for similar reasons, though all free software is good.
This is what capitalism and real competition are supposed to do. In a real competitive environment, ethical companies win. Companies who screw their customers are quickly replaced. Only government regulations can protect dishonest and inefficient companies from would be competitors.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Not better : different : as I say further : Altavista Query syntax was much more powerful and advanced but this could slowen the search, hence Google success : why implement something that'll make the enngine a bit slower if only 1% of the users benefit from its extra features ?
Of course, because this is Slashdot, it is considered as flamebait...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I dispute that. If Google had obnoxious pop-ups with every page of search results, big annoying blinking banner ads and pages that took months to load, I wouldn't use them so much, or have made it my home page.
Even if another site were to handily beat Google's search results, if they didn't have that same basic level of respect for the user, I would not use them. They made the web useable again.
Who knows? But it's really hard to disagree with their initial motivation for putting this together:
And besides, what did it cost Google to put that little page together? An infinitesmal investment to show people they care ;-)
Is this, by any chance, playing off of Asimov's laws?
I think that with the coming of iRobot, we're going to see more things playing off of Asimov. This may just be Google attempting to create a set of "Google's laws for the behaviour of software"
On a vaguely related note:
In my city, I recently noticed that Asimov's laws for the conduct of robots were on plaques attached to a series of benches in front of the police station. I can't for the life of me figure out why those would be out in front of a police station.
And because we strongly believe these principles are good for the industry and users worldwide, we will encourage our current and prospective business partners to adopt them as well. They're not enforcing anything outside their company. Yet. As for trend-setter, what other web-based company has so much of the public's trust? Why not use their reputation for "power of good?"
Go look at the site and ask yourself if any of the stuff on there is problematic. Do you have a problem with website cookies? Do you have a problem with web site logs? Do you have a problem with government employees getting jobs outside of the government?
These are things that google-watch complains about. Basically, it sounds a lot like desperate attacks on a company that has never disappointed me and has earned its success.
Google-watch is FUD (and not even good FUD, at that). Yet someone always seems to post a link to it, as if to say, "Google's not so great now, huh?"
One reason that companies may wish to follow Google's guidelines may be to ride on the coattails of success. They could do so by declaring themselves and their products to be "Google Certified" in much the same way that movie theaters with the right sound equipment can declare themselves to be "THX Certified".
This presumes the continued (and increasing) success of Google and its internet presence, but if that's the case, then such a "certification" could do much for the marketing potential of an internet-related product.
Coffee is my drug of choice.
First, it's a little pure and simple shame. The more people who say that malware is evil, and the more prominent those people are, the harder it will be for companies to justify those practices.
Second, there's secondary shame. This can actually make a more direct difference. Basically, how would you feel if you used malware (bundling, advertising, etc.) and everyone was talking about how evil it was. Maybe Google can get a few companies who use malware from other companies to reconsider how they treat their customers.
Or maybe it's just marketing, and Google wants the brand loyalty that comes along with being one of the Good Guys.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Is a piece of software really spyware if the user knows its spying on them?? Google has always been up front with this and even gives the user the option to turn it off.
There are companies (maybe not the majority, but some) that have had their software labelled "spyware" that don't want to be spyware. Maybe a powerful Marketing or Sales VP demanded a feature, or maybe a business partner wanted to track some data with permission, and the implementation wasn't strict enough. Whatever the cause, there are companies who would like to see the term "spyware" defined so that they aren't subject to the whims of companies who are trying to make the "best spyware-removal tools", and can only do this by removing everything that has even a slight problem. I mean, it is now considered a crime to leave shared files installed after an uninstall of one product in a suite. Sheesh!
Perhaps, but you miss the point (I hope).
Anti-virus makers have been reluctant to enter the spy-ware arena for fear of getting sued by adware companies. If a big name (like Google) published a spec like this, perhaps it will give the anti-virus comanies a little amunition to take to court. They can now say "Our software block your spyware because you do not follow the industry standard for software installation." I do admit that it is not likely, but I can dream...
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Ok, I will bite.
I just read a great chunk of the google-watch site, and I came to this conclusion. I now know why we get better page hits on google lately than before.
5-6 months ago, no matter what you seemed to search for you would get porno, e-commerce spam sites. The kind that return things like "Search for bird poop on e-bay!"
Which was rather pointless. One pointed example was to search for "batteltech cartoon" to search for an old, unpopular battletech cartoon that was out in the 90's. You had to go 3 pages down before you could get a legit link, and not something like "eshoplink.com - search for battletech cartoon on e-bay!" bullcrap.
Now when you search for battletech cartoon, you get smart, concise, and easy to view hits.
Seems like google improved thier algorithm by getting rid of the people that attempt to abuse the search engine to get their links up. Googles entire purpose is to return valuable informatino, getting linked to a web site asking if you would like to look at "battltech hardcore porn" is not what I would deem as usefull information. This has the side effect of screwing over people that are putting up worthless information in an attempt to get page hits on google, which completely violates googles mission statement.
The fella on google watch seems totally against the fact that google is trying to provide a useful search capability that does not cater to people who abuse systems simply for fun and profit.
I am glad google-watch.org exists, it shows me how google is pro-actively trying to protect itself from becoming what yahoo was for many years. Pointless, and worthless.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
Why can't they make a simple HTML page that is standards compliant and not littered with mark-up errors? It's not like their search page is even remotely complex, either. I just can't understand why a company as big as Google, whose name is virtually synonymous with the web, can not be able or bothered to make a basic HTML page that is correct?
Google's principles aren't expected to change the behavior of the worst companies out there. They are designed to set the bar of what the best companies should behave like. If every company making legitimate software clearly stated what their software did and made it clear and easy to install or uninstall, the gulf between "good" software and "bad" software would be very large.
... if every email you send has detailed contact information (I include my full name, company name, phone number, and department as well as the name of our software in every email), it is very easy to distinguish from the majority of spam. We know spammers and spyware companies won't suddenly get ethical, but we can make the unethical nature more obvious by raising our standards for ourselves higher.
You could divide people and companies into one of four groups -- very ethical, moderately ethical, moderately unethical, and very unethical. Those who are very ethical do not need laws to tell them what is right or wrong. Those who are moderately ethical can usually make the right decision, but are more comfortable with laws that clearly delineate right and wrong. Those who are moderately unethical will routinely take the easy way or the most profitable way with little consideration of whether it is right or wrong, though strong laws with enforced punishments can dissuade them. Those who are very unethical are seldom concerned with right or wrong and often don't even connect their behavior with what is illegal.
What laws or principles do is widen the gap between what the ethical do and what the unethical do. The more difference between a piece of spyware and a piece of legitimate software, the easier it is to identify and avoid spyware. This is much like spam
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
Why would a spyware company want to follow the rules? Well, a lot of the early spyware companies started out as adware companies. Alas, people saw the potential to get a few more dollars by being unethical about uninstall policies and/or invading other people's software. Several companies, including Radiate, couldn't stand the heat that resulted and backed off from questionable uninstall policies, etc. But the idea was out there at that point, and smaller companies created for the sole purpose of building spyware followed in their footsteps.
If an atmosphere could be created in which spyware couldn't be pulled off, there might be a niche for real, above-board, opt-in adware again. Which might even be a good thing.
I once polled users evaluating one of my products to find out which they would prefer -- shareware with a timer, or adware that runs forever. They overwhelmingly preferred the adware option. I made plans to follow through on that, but the bottom dropped out of the adware market thanks to spyware and the negative message it sent about all "software with ads."
(There are a handful of adware success stories that don't include unethical policies as part of the business case, notably Opera.)
Check out the Apostrophe open-source CMS: http://www.apostrophenow.com/
Well, Google is putting out a search utility for the local pc right? perhaps it's a subtle warning that soon the day will come where finding all the installed spyware will be 2 clicks away. With all the information google has at it's disposel, it should be fairly easy to keep up with them too
Google should make their own online operating system and than slowly add features to it till it trumps Microsoft. Hell, more people should be working on that already. The infrastructure is here to do it.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
We, as consumers, should openly refuse to buy or install software that does not adhere to the Google Software Principles (GSP). To that end, Google should institute a GSP logo & licensing program. If it is later found that a company is violating the GSP by displaying the logo but not adhering to it, Google would have grounds to sue them. And perhaps such companies would get the message when we all refuse to buy/install their application because it doesn't display the GSP logo... Here's hoping!