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?"

Comments

The answer to the question

[descil]

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

Google anti Virus

[bindo]

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

It's about the coming desktop search engine

[jalefkowit]

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.

Re:Why follow google's principles?

[MilenCent]

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.

Re:Google = do no evil? Maybe... maybe not...

[lukewarmfusion]

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?"

The Real Reason

[njfuzzy]

I don't really think Google expects to change the mind of the Malware companies. Afterall, without shady practices, they would have exactly no business. Rather, I think there are two things going on here.

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.

Re:Why follow google's principles?

[harrkev]

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...

Re:Google = do no evil? Maybe... maybe not...

[Buzz_Litebeer]

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.