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.

20 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 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.)

  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 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!
    2. 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

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

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

  8. 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
  9. 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."

  10. 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.

  11. 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)