Slashdot Mirror
Google Gets Away With What Microsoft Couldn't
FreshlyShornBalls writes "WebProNews is reporting that
Google's new beta toolbar apparently sports an "AutoLink" feature which appends hyperlinks to existing content. These hyperlinks, of course, point to their services, such as maps for addresses, isdn numbers for books, etc. Sounds an awful lot like Microsoft's "Smart Tags"." Update by J : ... except that Microsoft's proposal was in the monopoly browser while Google's software is a third-party add-on, and Microsoft's was (originally) on by default while Google's is a button to click.
Microsoft is Evil
Google is Not (yet!)
Easy tiger - for this to work, you have to click a button on each and every page you want to temporarily create these links on. It took 3 minutes to confirm that. Is the art of journalism dead?
/. reader won't touch that with a bargepole.
This is an opt-in feature designed to help people who want it. Google aren't ramming this down people's throats.
There is also the option to change the default mapping app - you can switch between Mapquest and Yahoo maps in addition to Google's offering. A nice touch - google didn't have to do that. It's just a shame this only works for US addresses right now.
Of course, this is all academic. It runs on IE, and the average
I of course detonated the PC I used to test the toolbar in a controlled explosion a few minutes ago.
It's ISBN not ISDN
Microsoft has an almost total monolopy on PCs. If Microsoft does this, it's anti-competitive. They have been convicted as monolopists.
If Googles optional toolbar points at their services, that is hardly an abuse of a monolopy. Heck, I don't even have a google tool bar, I don't want one.
But at work, I'm forced to have a windows machine.
Until or unless Google becomes a big monolopy who can force everyone to use their crap, the fact that Google does something that would be illegal for Microsoft to do is irrelevant.
Why is this so tough?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
takes over your browser integrates it with the OS and forces you to see the links. then they are getting away with something MS didn't .... quite
"He's a real midnight golfer"
yes, it has an optional feature that does this. and that optional feature has different levels of link creation.
and for pete's sake, slashdot, if you're going to get paranoid and argumentative, at least do it on the day the story broke so it has some currency.
go get it
maybe, google toolbars are not "SMART" enough to be considered to be evil?(yet)?
buffering...
AutoLink will add tags to web pages that take you to other places in services that were accessible to everyone. SmartLink was intended to replace existing tags with links to places MS wanted you to go, and to add links that would only work if you happened to be running Windows. Not that I like this idea either, but it's not exactly the same evil.
Google gets away with what Microsoft couldn't
Oh Good Lord what rock have you been under for the last 15 years.
Microsoft is a monopolist convicted of using that monopoly in unlawfully anti-competative ways to run competitors out of business. They've violated in spirit and letter numerous consent decrees, agreements with government, and even court orders, and gotten away with it because their cycle of business is orders of magnitude faster than the wheels of justice.
As a convicted monopolist, Microsoft must play by a different set of rules than everyone else, like, say, Google, which has never been convicted of anything in the US (and quite IMHO bugus trademark violations in France).
You might as well say "Joe's Computers get away with what Microsoft Couldn't." Damn straight. Joe's Computers, like Google, haven't been shown to even be a monopoly, much less convicted of abusing such a position if they had it. Microsoft has, on all counts.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
...if it weren't for that pesky Slashdot!
What Google has done is completely different because it didn't come from Microsoft. Microsoft has been operating a sweatshop of coding gnomes. They pay them only in fractions of a farthing per month! Whereas Google employs a crack team of trained code sphinxes who test their search technology daily with vexing questions. Google pays their sphinxes well and because of that the sphinxes coded this new technology that is quite superior to Microsoft's magic links technology. So don't fear the sphinxes for they are your friends. Microsoft abuses gnomes. They are evil.
;P
Yes. Laugh... it's absurdist!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I did wonder how long the "Microsoft Inc Bad, Google Inc Good" pastiche could last.
...
Just because its founders are young and "wacky" doesn't mean they can't make very corporate decisions in polo shirts instead of pinstripe shirts. The platitude about "thinking outside the box" already sounds trite coming from Google. The decision to fire a blogger for speaking up is proof that Google has a PR department just like any other corporate minded drone army.
Bill Gates was once young and just as idealistic as Sergey and Brin. Bill Gates once said that he was planning to give away most if not all of his fortune to charity - I bet he wasn't labelled "evil" back then
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
A major issue of creating "smart links" (even though these aren't exactly the same as smart links) is one of trust. Can we trust Google that they aren't going to take advantage of us with a feature like this? Well, just look at their track record, where they consistently go above and beyond what consumers expect and set a new standard in user-friendliness.
Why should Google treating its users with respect and consistently creating a quality product be worth nothing? This article sounds like it is using the logic of an eight year old.
Microsoft is the company known for being a big bully who uses its position of power to cram things down its users throats. It is the opposite of Google. This is why the reaction is different, and perfectly valid as well.
I am also much less inclined to trust Microsoft's search engine, Microsoft's maps, etc. than anything Google puts out there.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
I find it surprising that most /.ers, while criticizing the MPAA and the RIAA for placing restrictions on the way their content is used, balk when website content is manipulated on the browser end.
Microsoft's Smarttags could have had great benefits and brought about semantic-web like features if only people weren't paranoid. After all, the website owner had full control over how and where smart tags were displayed on his page.
Now, 3 years later, Google does a stripped down version of the same to make themselves more money (MS' smart tag gave the website owner options - Google does not), and we all scream asking for the equivalent of DRM on web pages.
We who don't want to pay for the music and movies, who don't want to pay for software, who believe in the 'creative commons', throw a collective fit when a user agent wants to do something cool with the HTML already downloaded to the computer already.
It's been over a decade since the first browser - and all we have to show for it from Microsoft, Netscape, Opera and Mozilla put together is what? A new way of doing tables and tabs!
Stop cribbing and let someone innovate.
Whilst I appreciate being modded up as informative for the parent post, I find it scary that someone may have actually taken my post regarding sphinxes and gnomes to heart. After all, there is a major flaw in the previous post. I left out the most important detail that Bill Gates was an escapee from the Roswell UFO crash in the 40s. Hence his power to subjugate gnomes and corral giant trolls (Ballmer). :P Sorry for the oversight.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Google scares me. Taking over the world one service at a time.
"Electric Relaxation" - ATCQ
- Bwana
Some of the difference is qualitative. In a smart tag envioronment, it felt like we were going to be advertised to - like text saying "broadband" might be linked to MSN broadband. In this case, it feels like Google is trying to be legitimately helpful in a way that also happens to generate cash for them. If I see directions on a page, having the option of asking Google to magically link that address into Google maps is a good thing.
The business model is different. Google makes money because they help you. You have lots of choices, and still choose Google, and all of us can use something else the moment they piss us off. Microsoft was shoehorning smart tags in because people don't know they have a choice in web browsers. Users would either be annoyed or oblivous to smart tags, but would put up with it for a (perceived) lack of options. Google needs users, users "need" Microsoft - that's the differing dynamic.
Seen any BadMarketing lately?
It runs on IE, and the average /. reader won't touch that with a bargepole
For those slashdot users who would touch IE if they had a barge pole:
General Purpose 6-12 ft extension pole
Avery Push Pole (for water use)
First of all, there's no such thing as "convicted monopolist". That's an idiotic term in itself, since it's not illegal to be a monopoly. Show me the law that says being a monopoly is illegal.
The parent poster did not say "convicted monopoly." Otherwise Boeing would have been in trouble for years with this aspect of the law.
The parent poster said "convicted monopolist." IANAL, but I believe that this is defined in section 2 of the Sherman Act. Section 1 of this act specifies penalties of restraint on trade.
Basically, the way the courts have interpreted this (unfortunately, Congress decided to give the Courts essentially legislative power in this area by passing a law with the intention of letting the courts work it out) is that monopoly power is something which must be restricted. Therefore, you can't legally use your monopoly power itself to either protect or extend your monopoly. Those who are found to have done so in the courts are often referred to as "convicted monopolists."
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Okay. So, take a web site with lots of advertising. Let's say .. Slashdot. They depend on that advertising to generate revenue to keep that web site afloat.
... you guessed it ... Google advertisers. So, now Google is potentially usurping Slashdot's advertising by encouraging people who are using Slashdot's web site to purchase services or merchandice that are in turn paying Google for advertising.
Now, here comes Google with links to its own services that are funded by
So, in effect Google is making Slashdot nothing more than a big-ass marketing tool for Google while not reimbursing Slashdot for the privilege. In fact, with respect to marketing they are indeed reducing the potential for Slashdot to make money on its own web site using its own advertisers. And they also are not going to give Slashdot the option of opting out of the practice.
Given all of that, I think that I'd prefer Smart Tags, thank you.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
buys you things that deception and malintent does not.
Read them both! Don't just read Web Pro news, but read the article the author at Web Pro News linked to. These are not the same thing! Damn, first slashdot doesn't RTFA, now it's a disease spreading to other sites!
Look, Window's Smart Tags were not for internet explorer, they were for the entire operating system. Yes they extended to Word and other applications as well. It was a feature described to be in windows XP. And considering MS considers I.E. part of the operating system, and MS has a monopoly on the OS...
Smart Tags are a cool idea, but what really is evil about MS's version is the potential forced tie ins. Would this functionality have directed the user to specific MSN sites or sites people chose to partner on the functionality? Could you right click on a word and select MSN search in order to make it easier for someone? Yes, but by using this OS muscle to create a new OS which basically forces you to search MSN in this manner and makes it less convenience to search, say, Google, then you are using your monopoly power unfairly and it's, yes, Evil(tm).
You don't have to install Google toolbar, and you can configure it to go to other sites other than googles. Google quite possibly has a websearching monopoly, but then don't have a toolbar monopoly nor do they force you to install it on your machine.
I'm not a google apologist nor do I think Google will always be a Good (tm) company. However, I hate how Slashdotters continue to fail to see the relevance of Monopolistic power in the "Evil" equation.
That said, I hope this feature can be completely diactivated. I wouldn't even mind if this controversy did force them to remove it. NBC did this a long time ago with their NBCi initiative back at the start of the WW explosion. It sucked, and frankly, I don't find it all that convenient, even for beginning users. However that's just my opinion.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
I am not hypothetical!
Oh, wait, I'm female, and I'm on slashdot. I take that back. I am hypothetical.
What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
Mother Teresa gets away with things that Adolf Hitler couldn't, film at 11.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
He's not even right "technically." There are civil as well as convictions, as 5 minutes with google will show. A vast amount of legal literature on civil law supports this use of terminology, as does the more common dictionary:
What Microsoft did was a violation of the law. The court convicted them of said violation, i.e. offense. The method of redress involves civil law, but that does not change the fact that a court has convicted Microsoft of abusing its monopoly position, both in terms of common English parlence, and in terms of (at least) layperson's legal language. Perhaps a lawyer might parse it somewhat differently, but if Groklaw is any guide, it doesn't appear so.
What we have here are Microsoft apologists desperately trying to bluster and intimidate the rest of us into changing our correct usage of the language through ad homonim attacks and disparagements in an effort to redefine the very terminology and control the language used in any discussion of their beloved monopolist.
They would have us believe that our use of the term "convicted monopolist" with respect to Microsoft is incorrect, when in fact it is perfectly correct, both in laypersons' terms and in casual legal terms (at the very least).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"...One central theme of the documentary is an attempt to assess the "personality" of the corporate "person" by using diagnostic criteria like the DSM-IV; Robert Hare, a University of British Columbia Psychology Professor and FBI consultant, compares the modern, profit-driven corporation to that of a clinically diagnosed psychopath..."
By the way I am not a communist hippy but a proud owner of two company's and think that honesty and business can go together.
Depending who take responsibility for the actions of the corporation some companies act better than others, the problem with public companies is that nobody wants to take responsibility for their negatives actions. Stockholders want no responsibility but profit and CEO's claim they have to obey to stockholders.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove