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.

37 of 481 comments (clear)

  1. It is simple by odano · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft is Evil
    Google is Not (yet!)

    1. Re:It is simple by ePhil_One · · Score: 5, Funny
      What defines evil?

      In the case of Twins, its usually a goatee.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    2. Re:It is simple by pbranes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think we need to stop thinking of Google and MS as good vs. evil. They are both companies out to make a profit. Google chooses to make a profit by showing us advertisements, while Microsoft chooses to make a profit by getting us to buy their software. Neither is less or more evil than the other - they both answer to consumers when the screw up something, and since consumers control the almighty dollar, they are answerable to us. The problem is that most consumers can't agree on what color blue is, much less whether a company is doing something that is too invasive or not.

    3. Re:It is simple by pbranes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Throughout humanity, there is a basic standard of right and wrong. We may disagree on some of the smaller points of it, but the general principles are there. Don't steal, don't murder, don't lie, etc... Evil is something that breaks one of these basic rules. A company out for a profit is not inherently evil, however, when it starts to break these rules, then it partaking in evil actions. In general MS and Google are neither evil because neither of them are breaking these basic laws of humanity. We may not like the way they compete in business, but that doesn't make them evil.

    4. Re:It is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      In the case of websites, it's usually goatse.

    5. Re:It is simple by jadenyk · · Score: 5, Funny
      You must be new here.

      To tell if a company is evil is pretty easy:

      • Does Bill Gates own it?
      • Are they called "Microsoft"
      • Can they be found on Google by entering Bastards

      I'm probably missing a few there, but you get the point.

    6. Re:It is simple by pbranes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A corporation isn't a person, even though we like to think of it that way. When you hand your keys over to one corporation, you are really handing it over to thousands and thousands of individual people - some of whom have good intentions, and some of whom have bad intentions. I do not trust a corporation as a collection whole.

    7. Re:It is simple by dynamo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. You build a relationship with any entity you interact with, and Google has treated me very, very well. I've almost always enjoyed working with Google products, while I've almost always become angry when working with microsoft products.

      Google is a good company and I trust them until they break that trust.

      ONE too many times? You have to be kidding, unless after that one time you just stopped using MS products forever (which is damn near impossible, even with my magical consumer dollar power. I have to work.)

    8. Re:It is simple by mcc · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think we need to stop thinking of Sears and the Mafia as good vs. evil. They are both companies out to make a profit. Sears chooses to make a profit by buying clothing items in bulk and selling them individually at a higher price, while the Mafia chooses to make a profit by not burning down people's businesses in exchange for money. Neither is less or more evil than the other - they both answer to consumers when they screw up something, and since consumers control the almighty dollar, they are answerable to us. The problem is that most consumers can't agree on what color blue is, much less whether a company such as the Mafia is doing something that is too invasive or not.

  2. Easy Tiger! by hedgehog2097 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    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 /. reader won't touch that with a bargepole.

    I of course detonated the PC I used to test the toolbar in a controlled explosion a few minutes ago.

    1. Re:Easy Tiger! by no+parity · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This is an opt-in feature designed to help people who want it. Google aren't ramming this down people's throats.

      The obvious reply: Would you say the same if it was Microsoft?

    2. Re:Easy Tiger! by ADRA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think I've ever heard outrage about an optional opt-in 'feature' so far. If you're so averse to a company and their dubious products, don't DL/buy it. If you're forced to through your company, I pity thou.

      Wait, there was an opt-in feature. When XP was installed, it told you to install a new passport account. You don't really need to setup MS passport , but most people seeing it thought it was, or were to indifferent to ignore it.

      --
      Bye!
    3. Re:Easy Tiger! by |<amikaze · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't really need to setup MS passport , but most people seeing it thought it was, or were to indifferent to ignore it.

      It really helped how it popped up every 20 minutes, "HEY! You could be the proud owner of a FREE passport account!!!" in those little speech bubbles. Makes it hard to ignore, especially when you know that if you go through the process that damn bubble will go away.

    4. Re:Easy Tiger! by White+Roses · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft doesn't appear to be able (or remember how) to do anything that doesn't involve ramming something down someone's throat, so, really, the question is moot. With Microsoft, it's not a matter of opt-in, or opt-out. You can't easily (some would say ever) opt-out of IE on your Windows computer. Can you opt-out of ActiveX controls? Until the EU's case, you couldn't really opt-out of Media Player. By opt-out, I mean, I can get rid of it and still have a working, functional Windows system. Google doesn't have that kind of power. Frankly, neither should MS.

      --
      Do not touch -Willie
  3. Books don't have ISDN numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's ISBN not ISDN

    1. Re:Books don't have ISDN numbers by temojen · · Score: 4, Funny

      You could try plugging an ISDN into a book, but I've never been able to find the socket.

    2. Re:Books don't have ISDN numbers by lpangelrob2 · · Score: 4, Funny
      We make up units all the time in /., so I don't see why books wouldn't have ISDN numbers.

      If your typical ISDN bandwidth is 128 Kbps, and I can read about... 8 words per second... and given that each word averages about 5 letters, and each letter is a byte... that gives us a relative bandwidth of 8 x 5 x 8 = 320 bits per second... or something like .0025 ISDN numbers.

      I don't really feel like calculating that in libraries of congress per fortnight, though. But I can tell you that number would also be really freaking small.

    3. Re:Books don't have ISDN numbers by Duhavid · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, they do. I call my books all the time. Gets expensive, but it lets tham know I still care, even though I have not read them in a long time.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  4. Not a monolopy ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Not a monolopy ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny
      I am effin in tears at the repeated use of "monolopy" in this post. Transposing the L and the P once is understandable, but doing it throughout the whole post is just plain hilarious.


      m'I sydlexic you nisensitive cold!!!

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. IF google takes over your browser by doorbender · · Score: 5, Informative

    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"
  6. beloved slashdot sponsors, here's your drama by macsox · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  7. Google isn't a convicted monopolist by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  8. Rather, they WOULD have gotten away with it... by BlueThunderArmy · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...if it weren't for that pesky Slashdot!

  9. OMG!!! No! by eno2001 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    Yes. Laugh... it's absurdist! ;P

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  10. Remove those rose-tinted glasses by BillsPetMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Remove those rose-tinted glasses by William_Lee · · Score: 5, Informative

      "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 ..."

      Just to chime in, I hate M$ as much as the next red blooded /.er, but Bill Gates has given away more than most people in the history of philanthropy. He's already donated about a third of his net worth to charity. Cut the guy some slack on this front. I don't know how anyone could criticize this guy from a philanthropy perspective.

      From http://www.beliefnet.com/story/34/story_3450_1.htm l

      regarding his contributions:

      "I don't mean the actual figure, which is itself an unimaginable $22 billion. Rather, I refer to the percentage of his wealth he has donated. Still in his early 40s, Gates has now distributed about one third of everything he has to charity."

  11. Why do they have to be exactly the same? by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  12. We have seen the enemy ..and it is us by sriram_2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. BIG Difference by rkischuk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Microsoft's smart-tags co-opted text in a page to link to what were, in essence, advertisements. Google is pointing to services that are funded by advertisements - big difference. And the fact that Google isn't leveraging monopoly power to force it on people - they're using an optional program, and an optional feature in that program.

    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?
  14. Bargepole by BobPaul · · Score: 5, Funny

    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)

  15. Convicted monopolist by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  16. How is this not wrong? by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    Now, here comes Google with links to its own services that are funded by ... 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.

    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.
  17. earned trust.... by jp_fielding · · Score: 4, Insightful

    buys you things that deception and malintent does not.

  18. Read the F****** articles! by hellfire · · Score: 4, Informative

    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"

  19. Re:Who cares? by Daedala · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  20. in other news...... by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.