Slashdot Mirror
Google's Turn To Be The Villain
caesar79 writes "The New York Times has an article titled "Relax, Bill Gates; It's Google's Turn as the Villain" (also evil but at least free registration required) According to the article, the "go-getting" attitude of Google is coming across as arrogance to many people in the Valley. More importantly, it draws attention to the fact that Google has drained the market of talent, caused a 25% to 50% hike in salaries and made it difficult for startups to get funding."
So, Google is a villain for improving the wages of technologists, and also retroactively (circa 2000) making it harder for startups to get funding?
<emote=plea style=Jon Stewart> Oh Google, why must you be so evil?<
Mox
Sure thats going to make your average coder hate google...
I disagree. I think Microsoft earned their title, and I doubt it's gonna go away. I'd like to think that the Google invasion is going over more like the story in Doom3:
Or something to that effect, anyways.
For instance, everyone who identifies BillG as the wellspring of all evil forgets how scared we all were of IBM back in the day. Now IBM is seen with much favor in the community. It wouldn't be that way were it not for Microsoft.
So really, it isn't Google's turn to be villain, it's Microsoft's turn to be the good guys.
Hrm, did I really just say that?
--
You didn't know.
they hire a lot of people and pay them well?
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
Increased salaries is bad for business and the number of employ hired, but you can't quote a 25-50% hike in salaries as a bad thing... c'mon!
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
I think the complaints are mostly because google isn't the small underdog anymore. Nobody likes a leader.
"How dare google make better offers for top quality programmers! Who am I gonna hire at 10$ an hour with no overtime for 80 hours a week?!? Google is Evil!"
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
Come on, the only people that are thinking Google is evil are other companies that have to compete with them. Look at the oddidty of this paragraph:
Google is doing more damage to innovation in the Valley right now than Microsoft ever did," said Reid Hoffman, the founder of two Internet ventures, including LinkedIn, a business networking Web site popular among Silicon Valley's digerati. "It's largely that they're hiring up so many talented people, and the fact they're working on so many different things. It's harder for start-ups to do interesting stuff right now.
I see, they are damaging innovation through creating so many products.
What?
What he really means is "I can't get top engineers so I can't innovate as much". But that doesn't mean innovation is not occuring. And how are we to be sure innovation at that company would have been as skillfully executed or as good for the industry as it might be at Google.
People complain about Google "hoarding" good engineers. But programmers are not slaves, to be bought as sold as property. Each person makes a choice and it just so happens people want to work at Google. If other companies want to hire the same calibur of people they either need to figure out how to attract programmers OR get the heck out of Dodge and go to a market where obtaining labour might be easier.
If only the heads of whiny companies consider Google evil, then I would say that slightly improves Googles rep with me. So far Google's behaviour has been far better than most other companies - and after all, Evil is as Evil Does. As long as Google continues to compete through excellence then I have no issue with them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And I don't even if Google didn't have so much money, how I will get enough money.
j0b.org - A famous domain name for sale
CMN.
...you type the URL into Google. Irony at it's best. :)
Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?
-Brentthat a wildly successful software company that only went public a year or so ago is scaring venture $ away from start-ups...what the heck was Google until 2 years ago if not a start-up?
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
...because we can't let the worthless peons below "suit" level make more money, god forbid. Sorry, but coders do the REAL work(tm) and should be making at least 75-90% of what execs currently do. Whereas execs should be making about 60-75% of their current pay.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
but the internet never lies
* with my apologies if this joke has already run its course, just stumbled across it for the first time today
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
I personally get sick of hearing industry whiners bitch about tech employees being paid what they are worth. Guess what, the industry has been typically underpaying by 25% over the past few years. Google has been simply offering competitive wages to attract the caliber of workers they desire.
and the B.S. about it hurting startups is insane. No startups worth a damn started by hiring expensive people... you do not create a business by spending money like mad, that is something everyone learned from the 90's. Every sucessful startup started with self made people with others they knew or could talk into starting a business with them.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
For quite some time, it was only the Google fanboys here (and there are quite a few) who were under any illusions about Google Incorporated.
Microsoft was once A Good Company.
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
Google takes a lot of pride in what they do. If people are complaining that they can't compete, maybe they should stop playing Google's game.
I mean, who's stupid enough to start a search engine and try to lure people to theirs whenever Google's is both established, has years of talent behind it, and millions in funding and then complain that they can't compete?
I mean it would be like me trying to write an OS for x86 hardware right now and complaining that Microsoft is making life difficult because no one will pay me for it or invest in me.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
clicky
... corporations!
If they were evil to their "customers" it wouldn't be news!
It's not the attitude of Microsoft that makes them evil, it's the business practices. Google does not do the same thing as MS when it comes to business.
The attitude of Google reminds me a lot of the early days of Apple Computer. Out to win big - yes, but villian - no. At least not yet.
Paul Graham has an essay about this: The Submarine.
"Suits make a corporate comeback," says the New York Times. Why does this sound familiar? Maybe because the suit was also back in February, September 2004, June 2004, March 2004, September 2003, November 2002, April 2002, and February 2002.
Why do the media keep running stories saying suits are back? Because PR firms tell them to. One of the most surprising things I discovered during my brief business career was the existence of the PR industry, lurking like a huge, quiet submarine beneath the news. Of the stories you read in traditional media that aren't about politics, crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms.
We have seen this before with anti-Linux campaigns. Nothing new.
" it draws attention to the fact that Google has drained the market of talent, caused a 25% to 50% hike in salaries and made it difficult for startups to get funding."" I miss the recession when there were plenty of people out of work and salaries were dropping. Those the good 'ol says. Damn you Google.. and Microsoft! We should start a petition urging MS and Google to close up shop forever. Then.. there will be lots of people available for hire and willing to work for peanuts. I like peanuts.
MS can't compete, so they buy some BS news that says "google is evil". not that google is a saint or anything, but competitors whining is just a sign of desperation.
Google has ordered it's PR staff to decline any interviews from /. editors...
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
wow, this IS news
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
1. Copy story location.
2. Paste into google search
3. click on link that appears on the google search page.
4. ???
5. Profit
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Is a better link to the story available? The NYT web site goes into a redirection loop if you have cookies disabled or are behind a firewall that stops cookies.
Compete or die!
The difference between how this applies to Microsoft and Google is in the end products and services each produces. Google's place in the market is the result of quality applications, a building of a trust relationship with its users, and a eye towards putting out the best software and services it can.
Microsoft on the other hand owes its place in the market to luck, the laissez-faire attitude of govt. during the early days of its development, and a focus on corporate marketing double-speak that focuses on the "message" rather than the quality of their products.
Google may be evolving into a corporate giant, but that doesn't equate with them being evil. They are far more similar to early Apple, but with better leadership.
As an engineer, I want more companies to be evil like that. I wouldn't mind a 25% raise and working environment that doesn't get in the way of what I'm capable of.
"When I meet with venture capitalists, or if I'm engaged in a conversation about going into partnership with someone, inevitably the question is, 'Why couldn't Google do what you're doing?' " said Craig Donato, the founder and chief executive of Oodle, a site for searching online classified listings more quickly.
Geez, I wonder why the VC's always think of Google during our presentation for a search company named Oodle??
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Google is a terrorist organization. Their plot is to systematically (subversively) destroy the IT Sector by employing all the best talent. They'll have a *monopoly* on intellect! You want smarts? You gotta pay da Google. You'll never be able to pry the Scientists from their clutches... They hypnotically keep them there by way of shiny trinkets, coin, and free gourmet meals... No one can escape. We're all going to have dumb workers. We'll never succeed. Google must be stopped! They hate our freedom!
geeks are cats who dig a certain kind of cool
Google is evil because it hires a lot of people for good money, attracts investment, and is successful.
Why do we consider Microsoft evil? Is it equivalent to Google's evil? Well, no, it isn't. Stealing ideas, actively trying to destroy competition, lying in court, producing half-working crap and using a monopoly to force it down everybody's throat... is that morally equivalent to what Google is doing?
Didn't think so.
Since when does success = villain?
It is pretty frustrating to see people constantly complain about large, successful companies. What the article fails to mention is that Google likely hires the best of the best. So I would guess that the talent level of the employees dictates the pay, instead of the company name dictating the pay. Make sense?
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
The issue here in my opinion, is that Google is leveraging it's advertising revenue model and it's vast economies of scale in hosting costs to corner the web application market. This is the play that Microsoft should fear and I think that has allready been adressed.
The problem is that their efforts do stiffle web entrepenuers who are trying to break into new areas such as hosted groupeware for email, file, photo and video sharing etc. (I know this from personal experience). Keep in mind that not all web application developers are looking for a "good Salary" from a benign giant like Google. Some of us actually want to be masters of our fate and make a living on our own. But now the real fear is "Will Google invade my market and make a free version of my Widget?"
That's becoming more real every day. I can't buy bandwidth at the same cost as Google, and I can't leverage massive Advertising revenues to give away my products for free either.
"Do no evil" doesn't mean "don't crush small start-ups".
-Adam
So, people are hating Google because they are too good? Forget that, you have to give props and deal with it. If you can't hire someone because Google is offering something better that you simply can't match, then TOUGH! Deal with it and stop whinning.
I'm mad at google too for raising my salary by 25%.
Ok, I have a small complaint about Google. Nice company and all so far. They have been there for us to combat the "evil corporations" etc. Ok fine. But check this out.
I just checked the link that takes you to their IM page (talk beta). The catch? You must have a gmail account. My problem with this? Gmail is invite only, and as a result, gmail is creating a chain of trust between people on the net. No offence, but why is google trying to build a web of trust list between me and my friends? I had a friend try give me a gmail account once, but do you honestly think that I want to be associated in any way with that person now? And now you want me to give voice samples from myself to google so that they can store more about me and my chain of friends in a db for all of eternity? No thanks. Ill pass.
Wanna do it with news.google.com? Didn't think so.
right here.
fuckedgoogle.com
Has interesting facts, e.g. that Larry Page alone made more money selling stock than Google has had revenue in its entire existence. This is where the funding goes.
It's the guys with the dough that call the shots, and when you directly threaten the dough inflow or increase the dough outflow, you're a villain!
If Google is draining talent, forcing pay raises and making it hard for start-ups, then it only means that the system is working. Money (and people) go where they are appreciated in a free, capitalist economy. If the start-ups have a better (more valuable) idea than Google's then they should be able to convince both prospective employees and VCs that they start-up is worth it.
Although economies aren't zero-sum games (many activities do grow the pie, or raise the tide that floats all boats), some aspects do have a win-lose component to them. Successful companies can afford (and should afford) to pay their workers more than unsuccessful ones. This means that successful companies will inevitably harm less successful companies by "draining" the labor pool and seem "evil."
If Google is evil it is because change is evil (to some) and because competition (for money, workers, customers, etc.) can be evil -- at least in the eyes of the less successful.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Google shareholder (their stock seems very overpriced relative to the long-term risks of Google's business model and the high expected earning built into the current stock price), but they do seem to be very successful.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Maybe trying not to do evil is a threat to all of those others who innovate progressive perfection of evil.
Paying the best what they are worth to tackle interesting and important problems is evil?
Let's just hope that we are saved from that evil scourge of Google by other companies who compete with them by emulating themn.
OK... so perusing some of the replies here I have to agree with those that think that Google is GOOD. Heck... if you've got the talent then you DESERVE to get paid well and work for an innovative company. Its not Google's fault that there are a lack of innovative competitors. On a second and more interesting note, look at all the stuff Google has brought us. Yes, it might bring more ads to your doorstep (or browser or whatever), but that is the price you pay. (unlike Cable TV where you pay for the service and still have to watch commercials), Google gives us Google Earth, maps.google.com, an excellent search enginge, Picassa, etc.... I won't mention too much about what I think about Google Desktop Search though.... after it took snapshots of credit card numbers I reformatted my machine... so maybe they are partially evil. Anyway, for the most part, I Like Google.....every company has its pros and its cons....What do you think?
Google becomes ubiquitous is a good thing, it seems, for consumers. However, I think there's a real danger that it has too much information that can be construed as personal and valuable on millions of individuals. While I appreciate the "do no evil" mentality that has diven Google so far, the lure of "evil" and better returns are what drive shareholders, and Google after all, is a public company. On another note, one has to be amazed at the way in which Google's unique take on technology and on familar things like web search (Google Suggest), GMail, Google Talk and Google Earth, have allowed it to quickly supplant the leaders in every sphere it steps into. It's quite remarkable, and telling of the culture that thrives in the company. I fear however, that after conquering just about every communication medium (IM, Email, Web Search, VoIP, and rumor has it, free WiFi), stepping out of Google will be as hard as it is to step away from Micro$oft. What is it they say -- too much of something good can't be too good for you after all. In this case, a ubiquitous publicly traded company that features in so many forms of communication exchange, can't possibly resist the temptation to exploit that monopoly... or can it?
We still have record tech unemployment in the Valley. Draining talent? WTF? What a bunch of bull. Sounds like some other company is marketing about bunch of agitprop. Which could it be?
Google will read your brain, and thus with the combined power of maps.google.com and news.google.com with talk.google.com and moon.google.com there will be no place left on earth to hide!
They are even working on underthesea.google.com for people who think it's still safe to hide UNDER THE SEA!
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Silicon Valley is a lot like a University campus. A lot of really smart people with a ton of brilliant ideas on how to make the world better, but often lacking in the common sense or business saavy to translate the idea into something real.
Companies in Silicon Valley are a dime a dozen anymore. There's always some kid sitting in an apartment dreaming up The Next Big Thing. Some of them do come up with great stuff, but for whatever reason they just never get to the point where they're selling or distributing what they dreamed up. Those that do often do it on a limited basis because they lack the resources to go bigger. Those who really are onto something neat get bought out.
Google is hated by these guys now for the same reason academics look down their noses at their equivalents in the professional world. Because Google successful in ways others could only dream of. It's jealousy really. They claim it's because Google has lost its small-company spirit, that it's no longer doing what they do for the pure reasons of doing "cool" stuff or whatever. Google has taken the spirit and the drive of so many startups and they actually went somewhere with it.
We tend to hate, or at least target, those who do better than us.
I don't think they were underpaid by the industry.
I just think that these people are worth 25% more to google than they were to other companies.
If you work for my company you will make me $100k, I might say it is worthwhile for me to pay you $75k.
However if a competator will make $150k from you, he could quite rightly pay you $110k.
I wasn't underpaying you, the job market has just changed. This is competition, and it's a step up.
Basically the market gets 50% more value from the same resource (you). In the economics this is productivity improvement.
When the fertility rate of US citizen techs matches the world average -- preferably the average of Indian techs -- then the NYT can start complaining about the status of techs. If you take sociosexual status from someone you have to give them money to compensate or you lose your technology. That's what's been happening to the US and the NY culture, as represented by the NYT's bias is partly to blame.
Seastead this.
To place Google in context, Mr. Kraus offered a brief history lesson. In the 1990's, he said, I.B.M. was widely perceived in Silicon Valley as a "gentle giant" that was easy to partner with while Microsoft was perceived as an "extraordinarily fearsome, competitive company wanting to be in as many businesses as possible and with the engineering talent capable of implementing effectively anything."
Now, in the view of Mr. Kraus, "Microsoft is becoming I.B.M. and Google is becoming Microsoft." Mr. Kraus is the chief executive and a founder of JotSpot, a Silicon Valley start-up hoping to sell blogging and other self-publishing tools to corporations.
Step 1: Create start-up to compete against Google.
Step 2: Compare Google to MicroSoft in NYT.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Keep fingers crossed?
"Google is doing more damage to innovation in the Valley right now than Microsoft ever did," said Reid Hoffman, the founder of two Internet ventures, including LinkedIn, a business networking Web site popular among Silicon Valley's digerati. "It's largely that they're hiring up so many talented people, and the fact they're working on so many different things. It's harder for start-ups to do interesting stuff right now."
"When I meet with venture capitalists, or if I'm engaged in a conversation about going into partnership with someone, inevitably the question is, 'Why couldn't Google do what you're doing?' " said Craig Donato, the founder and chief executive of Oodle, a site for searching online classified listings more quickly.
"The answer is, 'They could, and they're probably thinking about it, but they can't do everything and do it well,' " Mr. Donato said. "Or at least I'm hoping they can't."
So, Google is evil and is hurting innovation because they have so many smart people working on so many projects that there's nothing else to work on?
It sounds more like Google is raising the bar rather than killing innovation. The bubble burst, ladies and gentlemen. You can't get new money for old ideas anymore. Get over it.
So the problem is partly stupidity--obviously, Google isn't working on all the stuff that they are rumored to be working on. Still, Google could help the problem by being a bit more communicative. They really cultivate the mysterious atmosphere right now.
I do agree that the salaries thing is just sour grapes. I'm on the other side of that one, and I don't mind one bit when salaries going up.
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
--Proverbs 9:7
Google has produced an effecient way of searching for information on web pages, not an insecure and poorly designed operating system that refuses to go away. Further, Google actually *did* become sucessful based on quality and innovation, whereas msft was essentially handed a monopoly when they purchased Q-Dos and licensed it to IBM. Yes, Google is big and powerful, but so far they have stuck to the "don't be evil" idea... A situation which can always change, but for the moment there is no comparison between Google and Microsoft.
Kahn never screamed like that.
It may be 20/20 hindsight, but the ethical problems Microsoft has should have been apparent by its early business practices, or even after Bill Gates' famous letter to hobbyists. Google, on the other hand, seems to have their heads on much straighter when it comes to software, business, and motivational ethics. From the Google Talk FAQ:
We believe that you should have a choice in how you communicate with your friends, that you shouldn't have to use one service because that's where you keep your contacts and other information. We launched free auto-forwarding and POP access for Gmail so our users could take their messages with them and use any service they want, and we're committed to upholding this idea of user choice for Google Talk as well. Today, with instant communications, you can't talk to your contacts or buddies in one service while using another service. We hope to change that. We want to work with other willing service providers to enable their users to communicate directly with Google Talk users. And while we hope many people will use and like the Google Talk client, we're committed to making it as easy as possible for you to communicate with your friends using the client that you want--even if it doesn't happen to be ours. That's why we're also supporting open standards and the same protocol that clients such as Trillian, GAIM and iChat do.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
but I thought irony was like rain on your wedding day?
You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
Google doesn't want to control the world, they just want a large specialized niche. Microsoft on the other hand will crush anyone who stands in the way between them and market share expansion.
...
:) I actually have the next innovation that would give MS tons of new market share and possibly even outsell iPod. However, we will have to wait for Apple to bring it to us, even though MS already has the lead.
I think Google is still a free-wheeling fun place to work where MS is starting to lose it's shine as the internal bureacracy stifles innovation. MS has been playing the "me too" game for years. Google is just the latest company to show MS "nothing but taillights" and they are crying that Google is stealing all the talent. Boo Hoo! MS has had a giant talent pool since the late 90's and what have they done with it? Oh yeah, I remember now Longhorn and ".NET"
Hopefully one day, MS will just accept their place in life as a commodity i.e. (the maker of Solitare and the Word Processor) and just shut the h*ll-up. If MS isn't going to innovate, quit whining. There are so many simple things that MS could do to improve to computing universe and add some real value but instead all they do is whine, patent, and sue. I would post the top-10 list of how MS could improve the computing universe, but it is patent pending. However, I would be willing to sell it to their consultants
Google is not evil and the glory days of MS are long gone.
enuff said.
Funny all these companies whining about having to compete with Google for top talent, and pay competetive salaries... You'd have thought they could just outsource, or are they maybe actually concerned about the *quality* of the people that Google is hiring, not the cost?
Could you open an office out where I live??
Increasing salaries at a time when jobs are going overseas. How dare they!
Hiring top talent-- jerks!
Being a "go-getter" in a capitalist system? Priceless.
Yeah, the models of Silicon Valley should be the SGI's, Real's, and Palm's of the world. I won't even mention MS because everyone else will...
Thank goodness for the 1st amendment that lets idiots say whatever damn fool thing pops in their head. Commies!
did you win a free ipod? build a case for it here
So its bad that theyre...
1. Providing an excellent search engine
2. Doing many things at onece
3. Hiring talented people and paying then well
4. Providing free mail, maps, news, etc...
5. They arent talking to CNet after they drove away customers
Sure, they are providing a lot of things and being extremely competetive. Even though they buy out other companies, like whatever that IM company was a few days ago, they continue to add free stuff. Do we have a problem with free stuff?
There's a difference between a monopoly on search engine services and a monopoly in the OS space. Changing search engine providers is as simple as replacing a bookmark, changing operating systems requires some serious expeditures, especially at the enterprise level.
If Google has a monopoly on search engine services, it's a very fragile one.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Microsoft, on the other hand, can pretty much hold the whole computer industry hostage by virtue of having the most deployed systems hence anyone who wants to buy or write software for a computer has to obtain the MS OS to transact business. This is worse than the classic "utility" type natural monopoly -- the better analogy would be if someone owned a perpetual patent on 60Hz AC.
Seastead this.
I remember when Yahoo! was The Cool Company. They offered arseloads of free applications, the applications were nifty, cool, hip and where-it's-at.
Then somewhere along the line, the free email accounts and home pages got so choked with ads and bloat that I couldn't stand using them anymore.
I like Google's stuff. Lots. I've just got this nagging feeling that I've been here before, and I hope I'm wrong.
http://downwithpants.org Overthrow the tyranny of your pants
I don't think we have a winner here.
As far as I can tell, Google's business plan is similar to all the dot-com bubble stories:
1. Get funding through at least one huge IPO
2. Hire all the top talent you can find
3. Give away your products for free, relying on advertising
4. You can figure this one out yourself
So for everyone sarcastically crying how Google is "so evil" because they're doing this, think about it for a second. How fair is it if you have a long-term business strategy to be run out of business by an upstart that is little more than a flash in the pan? For as good as Google is (and they are good), history shows their business model not to last the long haul.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Sorry to say kids but the writer does make some part of a point. Everyone loves to hate success (unless they are part of it). Some point in the future you will be talking about google as GOOGLE_ZON and how they have takin over too much of the internet, and control too much information. It will happen, its bound to....
There's a glut of talent in a lot of cities up and down the Coast. How about doing a start-up in Oregon or Nevada instead of the Bay? I'll bet you the salaries are way cheaper, too.
Finding God in a Dog
It seems like there's another story every day about something new Google is trying. Today it's IM. (That's innovative?)
It seems like forever ago that I signed up for a gmail account and it is still in beta. I can't even get to my gmail account on my PDA (probably my fault, but I don't have any problems with Yahoo!)
As an independent publisher I was also excited to take part in their Google Print program (also still in beta). But its been over two months since I uploaded my PDF files (they didn't even have to scan my books) and they are still listed in "pending" status.
Okay, so that's my grousing for the day. Anyone else have similar experiences with Google's lack of follow-through?
Read any good sonnets lately?
... if you have both the technical chops and the commercial success to back it up, which Google does, especially compared to other big players who are called arrogant.
Research labs like Xerox PARC back in the day were viewed as arrogant, in large part because of their technical success and lack of business success - "if you're so smart, home come you're not rich?"
Microsoft is viewed as arrogant because they're wildly successful commercially, but their technology is middle-of-the-road at best - from a purely geek point of view they don't deserve their success.
Google is an almost unheard-of beast that does truly technically innovative things and profits by doing so.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
But the article makes a good point about arrogance. There seems to something about a growing tech company that they feel they need to touch EVERY area instead of focusing on what they are good at. Google hasn't made any innovations to their search for years, while competitors like Clusty.com, Yahoo and A9 are coming up with new ways to improve search. Meanwhile Google is busy playing with chat, and photos and all sorts of other nonsense, like when Yahoo branched out into all sorts of things. The article describes this as arrogance, and who can blame them? Just releasing a Google skinned version of the open source Jabber client created about 8 articles here on slashdot and several in every other publication. Hey, maybe they will build that Space Elevator now...their stock price went up when they offered $4 bil more...maybe they can try a $10 bil offering and buy Egypt, but call it G-gypt.
Two pages of whining containing nothing but "Google pays their employees too much!" and "Nobody wants to work for me anymore"
How does this make them evil? This takes the cake:
It's largely that they're hiring up so many talented people, and the fact they're working on so many different things. It's harder for start-ups to do interesting stuff right now
So they're evil because they stifle innovation. And they stifle innovation by innovating. Sure makes a lot of sense
There are 11 types of people. Those who understand binary, those who don't and those who are sick of this lame joke.
Sounds like IBM was the bad guys and Microsoft were new and cool....
because they are essentially being tarred for the same thing that MS has for years, that they are leveraging their current financial strength to put their fingers into every cookie jar they can and because they are so large, the presumption of instant stolen thunder is made. But we said that about IBM when MS was a start-up and where are they now? Licking the rear of the Linux community in a pathetic attempt to co-opt some sort of audience to get their numbers going again. (Note to Linux weenies: IBM gave the world OS/2. It sucked like the intake of a TF30-414A. Run from their power of mediocrity while you can. Think of them as SCO in disguise. Run.)
Google can get into anything it likes just as anyone else can. So can MS. Or Novell or so on. Income inflation for techies is a GOOD thing after the dual nuclear economic bombings of the dot com and telecom sectors. So I think this is just sour grapes.
I will agree that they get way too much free and overly uncritical positive press from the crowd around here as does Apple. Let them earn it for good things and not because it fits into the lazy chintzy mindset of "well, it doesn't cost anything, it's free".
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
I think people are actually scared of Google because they don't know what to think of it. At first, everyone wanted to know how to achieve the golden orgasmic PageRank 10 from that little upstart search engine with such a simple friendly page. Now you have companies paying large sums of money to have 'experts' optimize their site for a seemingly great and monolithic Google, sometimes at the cost of ignoring all other search engines. So with this gigantic company, they have a Think Big kind of attitude, as the article points out. Where have we heard that before?...
Here's where everyone gets confused, though. Google isn't forcing its software onto nearly every computer manufactured. They aren't trying to force any sort of vendor lock-in or commit evil business practices so they can continue to give you "good enough" software either.
Forgive me for quoting people's gripes with Microsoft, but that's the difference between the services provided. To the end user, Google isn't costing us much of anything. People wanted a company to kill Microsoft, and now they might get it...and it scares them because the company they're tired of wanted to 'Think Big' and have big ambitions a long time ago too. People are trying to attribute the track history of MS to Google simply because of how quickly Google has taken off, and the fact that both companies were open about having great ambitions early-on.
Who hasn't? Can a company honestly succede without big goals to reach for? No.
On the other side of things, I was waiting for the day that Google would start getting bad press for anything and nothing. So far, every search engine that soared after it's IPO sunk not too long after and was quickly tossed to the wayside. Yahoo! actually survived surprisingly enough, but Google seems to be going another route: They're still worth money (and lots of it) but now some are turning from curious to suspicious about their former favorite. The little child with lots secrets can be seen as cute, the rich and powerful social elite with lots secrets must be hiding something malignant.
The only part about the negative press that annoys me is that nobody is giving Google the flexability to be a new company. They have to know how to behave like a giant from the start, and giants obviously must behave like monsters as far as the press is concerned.
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
the graph seems to indicate a surge in "evil google" around the time of the IPO. IIRC Google's motto is "DO NO EVIL", and in the time leading to the IPO that fact was mentioned many times in many articles. It looks like any article that says something like...
...would notch the "evil" index up and not hae any influence on the "cool" index at all, even though it is a very positive statement!
In contrast to Microsoft's image of industry dominance at all cost, Google has cultivated a friendlier image with its adoption of open source technology and its philosophy of "do no evil"
'tis an amusing graph, but completely meaningless.
""Google is doing more damage to innovation in the Valley right now than Microsoft ever did," said Reid Hoffman..."
I hardly think there's any damage to innovation going on here. Just look at the products that have come out of Google's furnace. Google Maps alone was pretty damn spiffy. Then they opened up their APIs for that and I've seen A LOT of cool hybrid map-type things coming out from people and organizations that are NOT Google. Not only that, but the bar has been raised and people are forced to be more creative and more innovative rather than resting on their laurels and hoping to make money simply from forging crafty business deals. Nah...I'd say we've seen more innovation in the past few years BECAUSE of Google...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
when CNET is carrying it hassle free...
There is a vast difference between technical quirks in some products and a systematic approach that kills all competition through annoucnemnents and buyouts. I'll bet people that wrote those links above still use Goole to search for things (perhaps not the second guy as he sound irrationally peeved just because they are large and successful).
A illustration of this difference is that Microsoft will bury a startups chances by introducing a press release saying they are working on an area (even if not). Google is accidentally hurting some startups because they do NOT say what they are working on, and venture captialists make assumptions.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Those numbers don't sound right to me. How many people work at google? Say their salaries are really high.. there are still many other places that *aren't* google out there who are not going to pay those prices. Perhaps salaries have gone up for the cream of the crop, but 25-50 percent still sounds like a huge spike in an area with such a large quantity of software people.
To me this seems like one of those times where someone just threw out a number and that number instantly becomes the focus of everyone's attention because they don't have any better numbers.
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
Since /. posters are always too lazy to find the reg-free link, here you all go:
l ley.html?ex=1282536000&en=344e9c533c3980cc&ei=5090 &partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/technology/24va
Google's products and results are also 25% to 50% better than their competitors.
>>
More importantly, it draws attention to the fact that Google has drained the market of talent, caused a 25% to 50% hike in salaries and made it difficult for startups to get funding.
>>
Right. This sort of thing happens in a free market, especially when a company has earned a good reputation and provides a high quality service.
You want to work for a company like that. In turn, the company's success makes it affluent enough to pay premium salaries for the best people.
In terms of the startups... Funding any startup is a risk, but it would be ludicrous for a venture capitalist to fund a startup in the face of direct, ostensibly superior competition. That's a no-brainer.
If a startup is significantly different from google, or can unequivocally provide a superior service, or if google's quality declines (which some predict) then it will be easier to procure capital and get off the ground.
These are all really *desired* things under capitalism. People are just griping that they didn't get in on Google's IPO or something. Things only begin to look grim for the market once all of google's competition is eliminated entirely. And even a monopoly doesn't guarantee bad news for the service recipient, although theory and historical precedent make it much more likely.
The last, but far more important issue is that google has yet to perform any actions of dubious moral or ethical* nature. No frivolous lawsuits. No submarine patents. No unfair competition.
They have acceded to the requests of China, France, etc, to alter their service to those countries in a manner that might seem offensive or tyrannical to some, but the point is that those are sovereign nations within whose borders google is technically operating. They have not done that here and, I assure you, I would be the first to denounce and vilify them for such.
In short, the premise is (at least currently) a bunch of hogwash.
*corporations cannot exactly be characterized by these descriptions, but rather are anthropomorphized in the public's eye into such affected entities through the actions of their CEO, board, and so forth. So let it rest, ok?
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
And: is the same reason applicable to Google?
Well, Both MS and IBM were perceived to be bullys. They used their overwhelming advantages in one market to extend control to other markets. Typically, they cut prices in the new markets in order to drive competitors out, even competitors with superior products. The investment community saw this, and feared investing in excellent products and technologies whenever Microsoft trumpeted that they were moving into a market. I can only think of two products that survived that onslaught: Oracle and Quicken. This is the fear, uncertainty, doubt (FUD) strategy.
The other bullying tactic which both used was to offer low ball buyouts to companies with promising technologies. They would, at the same time, threaten to buy similar technologies elsewhere, and then overwhelm their target company. In many cases, Microsoft seemed to steal technology outright, both from buyout targets, as well as from partner companies. In short, they were thugs, and were known as such.
IBM has changed over the last 20 years. Bill Gates still sings the same tune that he did 20 years ago. I haven't heard those notes from Google.
"Google is also making it more difficult for some start-ups to raise funds."
Gee...and I thought the dotcom bust had something to do with VCs a bit wary of throwing money out to new startups.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
just look at the opinion tab at www.iht.com and you'll find the same article on Google as the new bad guy.
no registration required.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If you think being an executive is easy, I seriously recommend you take a few accounting classes just as a starter. There's just as much complexity in C-level jobs as there are below, if not moreso, but it is complexity in different areas that are all too easy for gearheads to airly dismiss as trivial (just like it is all to easy for managers to dismiss our jobs as being Simple Matters of Programming). Complexity that if not handled well can completely sink the company, putting everyone on the street and potentially the executive in jail. Sure, large companies have people dedicated underneath the C-level people to the "dangerously complex" tasks like accounting, but your average startup CEO wears not just more than one hat, but pretty much EVERY hat.
Yes, executives make a lot of money. But they do that because of the risks and responsibilities they have. Imagine, for a second, that you're the CEO of Dell or Microsoft or IBM... Nice life, right? Now imagine looking out of your office and every person you see is able to feed their families because of your continued track record of not screwing up, and that companies you couldn't even name are also depending on you to not screw up. Bit more pressure, eh?
I've got a simple standard regarding listening to somebody's economic opinions: has the person ever held a job with a regular paycheck and had to pay rent/buy food/pay bills every month? If not, their opinions are borderline worthless. The same standard writ large applies to corporate management: if you haven't had to meet payroll every month, your opinions about the tasks and difficulty involved with running a company are basically shit.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of dumb managers and executives out there. I've worked for and hated several of them. But to blanket assert that the tasks of a worker bee equal or exceed the risks and responsibilities of an executive's is just absurd.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
An easy way to increase the pool is to allow more immigrants in. If you are worried about the effect of poor mexicans on welfare rolls, then lets at least let in all wealthy educated people who would love to be here and work legally. Importing talent and wealth help everyone when immigrants innovate and create jobs here in America.
Limiting the number of all immigrants to 500,000 people or whatever is a waste. Personally I'd like to see us take in more immigrants of all kinds, but at the very least lets accept the wealthy and educated.
For every cocky pushy engineer who thinks they deserve 150K/yr plus a company car there is a person behind them 10 years younger who will best them.
I'm sure just as I think [and once in a blue moon demonstrate] how better I am at some development issues then the more senior fellows and that while my talents are growing and maturing there are probably kids right now, ages around 12-13 who will be doing really cool shit by time I'm 30.
People seem to very quickly forget where they came from by time they get an ounce of "authorative stature". More so they forget that technology and knowledge is in a feedback loop.
Just like I am a leap ahead of my parents in computers (I was born around the same time 8080/6502 systems were getting popular) because of when I was born so are the kids today. They're growing up with net access, fast computers, tons of mature databases to draw knowledge off. I mean I didn't have access to citeseer when I started college. Kids do now.
And besides, Nortel did the same brain drain thing and look where that got them... Having PhDs on staff isn't a good thing if they're not creative or willing to put their knowledge to some useful purpose. Now the people at Google have done some cool shit, but so did the people at Nortel 20 years ago.
Just don't forget where you came from, drop the holier-than-thou-I-must-live-like-a-king attitude and you'll be fine.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
A corporation is just a faceless legal entity. It is no more good or evil than a particular country. The "good" or "evilness" just reflects the mindset of their current rulers. As countries can change leaders, so do corporations. Also, a companies "coolness" factor can grow stale over time, just like clothing styles.
Remember when Microsoft was geeky cool and everybody wanted to work there? (I do, but few here today would admit it)
Remember when HP and Nortel did really cool cutting edge research?
Remember when Germany/Japan/Russia was an evil empire?
Remember when Spain, Mexico or Canada was at war with the USA?
If and when (I hope not soon) Google's leadership changes, so may their philosophy.
My rights don't need management.
Microsoft, on the other hand, makes shitty OS products and browser that locks you in hard. All competition, free or otherwise, is attacked with great but subtle vigor.
Microsoft vs. Google as evil? Microsoft wins hands down!
Meh.
I think we need to look a lot more closely at Google and whether or not we should trust them with all our digital content and everything about us. I'm actually nontrivially worried.
Sadly, when I speculated about this yesterday, I got moderated as "troll"
Ah well. The world is a strange place.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
Google has drained the market of talent, caused a 25% to 50% hike in salaries and made it difficult for startups to get funding.
:)
And this is evil... how? If other companies aren't willing to pay as much or provide all the amazing benefits Google does -- or even if other companies just aren't cool enough to attract talent -- isn't that their own fault?
It's like complaining that your competitor is beating you by selling a better product at a lower price. It's called competition!
Plus, I'm sure none of us coders mind being fought for...
stupid submitter
Google is anything but evil. Even with their "go getting attitude" that they have, it's all for the good of the community. Everything they have and invent is free and open source, unlike Microsoft who charge out the ass for everything... they charge for shit products even, while Google gives you the better deal for free. I'm not going to sit here and read shit about how Google is stopping people from start ups... because that's not always their fault. Google invents... what do you want them to do? Just stop all of a sudden, because I know no one would want that. The fact of the matter is that it's hard to come up with a new idea anymore because most of it is already out in the world... and if you think Google has their hands into everything than that is just one big complement to them, because they don't. There's many other companies around that do the same kind of work, so let's not appoint all this negative attention towards Google.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
I don understand this constant complaining against Google. They have a very long way to go before they are even baby Microsoft anno 1993.
Things that Google gets bashed for is done ten times worse by other companise. Its feels like a orchestrated campaign since its so far off from what most techpeople think.
HTTP/1.1 400
yes, just go to www.iht.com and click on the opinion tab to see the no-registration-required free version of the same story posted on the International Herald Tribune website.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It seems to me that Google's only real offence is being too successful. I can see why people would call Microsoft evil - there's no doubt that they've abused their monopoly more than once - but until Google starts acting the same way, I don't think people have the right to complain.
Look at the backlash against Microsoft. Compare with the backlash against Google. Look carefully. Look at exactly who is making the complaints, what kind of complaints they are making, what sorts of media coverage they're getting.
Isn't it neat? We now have a near-perfect demonstration case of the difference between people being villainized because of outrage against their actions, and people being villainized because of jealousy against their success.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Draining the available talent pool?????
Who's being arrogant here?
Nope. Remember it well. That was one reason I used to like Microsoft.
I think the "wellspring of all evil" is sub-contracted under licence. Every now and then Satan takes a look at his minion-in-chief and holds a review to see if they've been performing up to expectations. Every now and then, the licence gets withdrawn and appliations are invited for a new Wellspring.
But according to sources in Hell (who do not wish to be named) even if Google starts now with the Microsoft class bastardry, Bill's tenure is reckoned to be good for another ten years.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Even if Google turns into the epitome of evil, does it really matter to the end user?
If I didn't like google I could easily replace every function that I use that they provide today.
IM, email, maps, oh and lest we forget searching. ^_^
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
ka-ching!
If this is bad, then good must really be awful.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Maybe you need some wheatgrass.
The market / analysts - what a bunch of asshats.
blakespot
-- Heisenberg may have slept here.
iPod Hacks.com
Even Wired.com has a front page headline called "Greedy Google"....Yes they are going the corporate domination route.
However, consider the coder who comes up with an idea for the next killer app. If they can't get startup funding to hire a few extra sets of brains and typing-fingers domestically, what are their options?
Well one option is to leave freaking California! There are a lot of talented programmers that for whatever reason do not want to live in CA. Find a place where a lot of them are and go there.
If you can't stand the heat then move somewhere cold.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It is such an evil thing! And I thought techies were supposed to passively allow their salaries to free fall...... They all know how valuable and indispensible management is. Those poor managers need outsized salaries so they can withstand the miseries of such things as private jets and country club memberships. Google is at the bottom of a mostrous conspiracy. Actually trying to hire great employees, keep them and treat them well?? Beezlebub!!! What a nasty ugly dasrdly trick. These people rally oughtta be boiled in oil.
So, what you're saying is google has hired competent people and paid them well.
They must be stopped.
I doubt Google has drained all the national, or even local talent.
But any newly available jobs are just as boring as our current jobs, with the same bad incentives. Without a reason to change jobs, I won't change jobs. Give me an environment as conducive to working as Google does (good pay, freedom to work on cool things you want to work on, cool things the company wants you to work on, etc...), and I'll gladly let you pay me for my talent.
Until then, I'll let my current employer keep paying me while I expand my knowledge and dream of new ideas.
Exactly! You hit the nail right on the head, imo. Go ahead, ask your programming friends the top big companies they'd like to work for. I can almost bet that they want to work for Google as one of their choices. They're exciting, they're young, they're innovative, they're successful and they treat their employees well. What's not to like unless you happen to own a company that can't generate the same buzz?
"Maybe you can call it arrogance, but there's that same sense that they can do anything and get into any area and dominate."
...
Ok, let's think about this.
1. Get a bunch of intelligent geeks with slightly different interests.
2. Make them work on core products 80% of their time
3. Let them do whatever they want 20% of the time, and turn those projects into core products when mature.
4.
5. Profit!
Honestly, does anyone expect them to do differently? They are turning each employee into a researcher with the possibility of producing something that can rocket past whatever is already in the market.
If the employees enjoy working, they will produce better than average work, regardless of their intelligence and experience. If they also happen to be intelligent and have experience then you get Google.
-Adam
That sure sounded bad. But if you'll look back you'll see he leaked some financial stuff he should not have pre-IPO.
Once I read that I realized the article had an agenda. Or the reporter just really sucks at fact checking.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
>> caused a 25% to 50% hike in salaries
So engineers in California are (finally) being paid a reasonable salary again after the dot com crash?...
Aww.. my heart bleeds for all those poor companies that can no longer cheap-rate engineers...
caused a 25% to 50% hike in salaries
And this is bad why? In an age where we are getting screwed left and right. Where people coming out of college with a CS degree (one of the harder degree's to get in college) who start at 18k-25k/year. Good --- where's my 25-50%?
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
That's difficult to believe, for I don't think that Google employs thousands of engineers. I am willing to believe that they have got a large percentage of the very best, but that does not mean that there aren't out there people just as talented as those in Google. Google can hire only so many geniuses.
Some of the reasons, fair or not, for why Microsoft has earned a reputation for evil:
- Maintaining market dominance using closed standards. For example, the Microsoft Word file format.
- Embrace-and-extend. Adopting an open format, then corrupting the standard by deviating from the specification. For example Java and Kerberos.
- LONG latency in security patches and too many exploits.
- Devious scheming against competitors: the Halloween documents.
Well I could go on, but there is probably no need for that here... coals to Newcastle.
Some reasons why Google is earning a reputation for Evil:
- They have attracted many customers by providing a superior product.
- They attract star employees by providing better working conditions.
Others have made the point and I agree, Google hatred bowls down to jealousy, envy and anti-capitalism. The success of Google, much like the success of Apple's iPod, owes primarily to the superiority of the product, not to evil corporate machinations. They are winning market share fairly. Good for them. Good for their employees. Good for their investors. Good for their customers. GENUINE innovation makes everyone better off, except for those competing against it.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
According to highly credible sources, upset Google employees everywhere are demanding lower pay, citing heavy feelings of insult for the rediculous amount of money they are receiving for the minor, unimaginative work they are involved in.
Google has locked the doors of all their development houses from the inside, fearing massive defection to more reasonable companies that tell their employees exactly what to do and when, eliminating the stifling processes of having to be creative. Updates to follow soon.
A B A C A B B
That's what venture capital does. It puts food on your table as you develop your product. It seems like an awfully successful system for something that's supposedly a sham.
The alternative is to fund everything out of pocket. If you have no financial resources, well then you're just another talented designer working at McDonalds.
"Google reminds me a lot of the early days of Apple Computer."
Oh yeah! Let me remind you - Apple didn't win.
.. I'm pissed because Google didn't hire me and make *me* rich.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
For years, Silicon Valley hungered for a company mighty enough to best Microsoft. Now it has one such contender: the phenomenally successful Google.
But instead of embracing Google as one of their own, many in Silicon Valley are skittish about its size and power. They fret that the very strengths that made Google a search-engine phenomenon are distancing it from the entrepreneurial culture that produced it - and even transforming it into a threat.
A year after the company went public, those inside Google are learning the hard way what it means to be the top dog inside a culture accustomed to pulling for the underdog. And they are facing a hometown crowd that generally rebels against anything that smacks of corporate behavior.
Nowadays, when venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and technologists gather in Silicon Valley, they often find themselves grousing about Google, complaining about everything from a hoarding of top engineers to its treatment of partners and potential partners. The word arrogant is frequently used.
The news last week that Google plans to sell an additional 14 million shares of stock, adding $4 billion to its current cash reserves of $3 billion, will only provide more reasons to gripe.
"I've definitely been picking up on the resentment," said Max Levchin, a founder of PayPal, the online payment service now owned by eBay. "They're a big company now, doing things people didn't expect them to do."
Mr. Levchin, who last year founded a multimedia company in San Francisco called Slide, said Google "still has a long wick of good will to burn off," but he added, "I'm surprised at how fast the company's reputation is changing."
It was not that long ago that Google reigned here as the upstart computer company that could do no wrong. Now some working in the technology field are starting to draw comparisons between Google and Microsoft, the company in Redmond, Wash., that Silicon Valley loves most to hate.
Bill Gates certainly sees similarities between Google and his own company. This spring, in an interview with Fortune, Mr. Gates, Microsoft's chairman, said that Google was "more like us than anyone else we have ever competed with."
Google's success has already spurred Microsoft to develop its own Internet search engine (a project code-named Underdog), but Google has legions of engineers banging away on a range of projects of its own that, if successful, could dislodge Microsoft from the pre-eminent spot it has enjoyed since the early 1980's.
Of course, Silicon Valley has had past pretenders to the throne. Netscape, which went public 10 years ago this month, and its Web browser, Navigator, were supposed to fell Microsoft - but it is Netscape that is no longer in business. And while Google is riding high, those closely following the company caution that it is hardly invincible; an inflated stock price, a desire to compete in too many sectors simultaneously or simple hubris might cause it to stumble, they say. Even Microsoft, after all, has had legal troubles.
Still, similarities between Google and Microsoft are evident to local entrepreneurs including Rob Malda, who worked at Microsoft between 1993 and 1999 but now lives in San Francisco, and Joe Kraus, a founder of the 1990's search firm Excite.
"There's that same 'think big' attitude about markets and opportunities," said Mr. Malda, who has visited the Google campus in Mountain View many times to be penetrated by friends who work there. "Maybe you can call it arrogance, but there's that same sense that they can do anything and get into any area and dominate."
To place Google in context, Mr. Kraus offered a brief history lesson. In the 1990's, he said, I.B.M. was widely perceived in Silicon Valley as a "gentle giant" that was easy to partner with while Microsoft was perceived as an "extraordinarily fearsome, competitive company wanting to be in as many businesses as possible and with the engineering talent capable of implementing effectively anything."
Now, in the vie
BRILLIANT!
coming across as arrogance
Saying the above proves nothing more than those that said it being weak and out of any other ideas. I guess nothing in today's PR and marketing scene can surprise me anymore. They see a company good in ideas, realisation, plans, people, cash, businness, vision, resources, then they look at each other and say "Man, this Google is evil. Or, at least, so damn arrogant. What do they think, they can get to world domination before us ? How dare they ?"
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
That is all.
Clearly, Google is the next Microsoft.
and Secondary Offering was to ... um, gee, they're not going to spend it on something silly like hiring people to create things, are they?
... not.
What most people don't grok is, looked at from a cost of living viewpoint, salaries have been going down since 2000, this only returns them to below where they "should" be.
And that is just oh so evil
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Google is guilty of one thing really, and it's respective to what Microsoft had going for it in the very beginning (ala DOS), in that it has a bunch of clever ideas, and they are implemented well. The thing with Microsoft is that they are now in a position to literally, stop business from functioning in certain parts of the world by implementing changes they deem 'necessary'.
What if Microsoft stopped patching Windows XP? I mean, if there's a vulnerability to Windows, and a BIG one that cripples businesses and users worldwide... Things in this world would HALT. Financial institutions that rely heavily on Excel would not trade. Banks that use SQL Server couldn't make transactions. Of course, this is a very 'doomsday' scenario, but it also can portray the stranglehold Microsoft has on the current business world.
Google on the other hand well... they don't have that kind of power. The resentment in the article comes from different Silicon Valley 'players'. One that I found amusing was the PayPal founder -- and the article later mentioned there may be a PayPal rival in the works. I wonder why he's bitter against Google?
Others complain about the talent Google is 'stealing'. Another post mentioned this but I feel it's worth reiterating -- you pay people what you feel they are worth. Trust me as much as I'd like to work for Google, if they don't pay me more than I make now... I don't think I'd make the move. There is a huge bonus to Google because of the way they treat their employees -- and people worldwide know it, and they want to be a part of the community that ENJOYS their jobs. If you work at a bank as a programmer, where you have to wear a dress shirt and tie, arrive promptly and work extra hours with no appreciation, then the wunder-stories of employees at Google are extremely appealing. If you are mad about not getting that 'talent' that Google is 'stealing' then start changing your work environment. Make employees ENJOY their work, give them freedoms -- it's software development after all! And yea, PAY THEM MORE! I find it amazing that computer programmers who LITERALLY have to study longer and harder than DOCTORS (due to the ever-changing atmosphere of technology, new languages, methods etc), get paid so little so many places in this country. When a computer programmer makes less than a garbageman it's indicative of a larger problem. So fix that problem you complainers -- don't blame Google because they saw past the problem and offered a solution.
I won't say Google is full of angels, but by in large when they express the "Do no evil" philosphy, they are pretty close to following up on it. They release an IM client, and show you, ON THEIR SITE, how to make it work with other 3rd party clients like Trillian or iChat. They release a web based email with a lot of free space, and to no addition revenue, offer free POP3 service for it. They release Google Earth free of advertising. They buy Picasa, update it, and release it better and ad free, even better (imho) than the Photoshop Gallery software or anything else. They release plugins for Internet Explorer, and follow by releasing similar plugins for Firefox. They create AJAX and allow royalty free use of it.
Evil huh? There may be examples of how Google is being 'evil', but at this point it's as laughable as the character with the same name in an Austin Powers movie.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
I think therein lies one of the core problems about this article. They both look similar in terms of their extreme growth, hiring of top talent, and any other characteristic that's similar of companies going through this. I do see some KEY differences that were NOT mentioned that I hope stay as differences as Google grows:
1) Don't be evil. While it may seem like a childlish statement, there's a lot to be said about this. Microsoft got its start by using an OS they purchased from someone else, "stole" key features from other competitors and, as the years have progressed, tried to place a choke-hold on the industry through it's monopolistic practices w.r.t. Windows, IE, non-standards compliance and litigation. This is very different from Google who has: used completely open source products, supported the open source community and developers of open source products (linux, firefox, jabber etc.) and has said, right from the start: don't be evil.
Who knows? That may change in time. I do know that Microsoft never had such a mentality. I hope Google doesn't converge in that direction. Given their constant support of open source, I find myself a bit more optimistic.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
You are in fact, quite correct to question those numbers. Let's look at the original quote.
Google, Mr. Hoffman said, has caused "across the board a 25 to 50 percent salary inflation for engineers in Silicon Valley" - or at least those in a position to weigh competing offers.
First, Mr. Hoffman begins with a load of steaming hyperbole. Then the reporter appears to add some facts to the stew.
It appears that there has been salary inflation for those who have highly desirable skillsets. However, I can tell you for damn sure that there has not been across the board salary inflation. Ask any engineer in the valley how much his/her salary increased in the past two years.
Its not the success of google, but the competition you face getting talent - if you have candidates who can go to google - who wouldn't? So to retain you have to pay more or to get candidates you have to pay more. for a start up this can be in someways the life and death since salary in a knowledge company is > 70% of costs. Ther other drag is that housing is always going up - not this this is new even in the boom 1500 sq ft would go 2 million or more which has a side effect that people not in the industry cant live there.
Europe runs on 50HZ, you insensitive clod!!!!
Every time I hear that the company is publicly traded, I recall my econmic's professor.. who said that it is a job of every CIO/CFO is to simply "MAKE ME MONEY!". Every stockholder of GOOGle yeilds as we speak "GOOG! MAKE ME MONEY" 'cause they all want to see their stock to hit next high... but GOOGle want to "do no evil" in MAKING MONEY. So far I see no evil from GOOGle but correct me if I am wrong.
~Leo
When Google first appeared on the search engine scene, Yahoo was fat and lazy as king. Google was the young, hip, energetic younger kid. Plus it used Linux!!! Google really brought linux into the limelight showing that it could take center stage and work. Google took advantage of this new found popularity and started hiring as many talented people as they could. Then Google started pressing the line and pissing off some people...
Since then, google seems to be positioning themselves to be the sole internet portal where everything will go through them, web searches, email, IM, your map searches. I mean, if google wanted to, it could know more about you than I think it should.
So far, their policy has been "do no evil." I for one hope that remains the case. Right now, my only real gripe is their lack of giving back to the open source community. They used linux to build their empire but give very little back to it other than being able to use it as an example of what linux can do. Ok, that's useful, but given how large they are, I think they could actually spend some resources to give back to the community.
But wait, they are using jabber for their IM servers. Well yes, I could use any IM client that uses jabber to connect to them, I think using an open standard like that is great, except you can't use the voice features that way, you have to use their program which isn't open source and currently only available for windows. So basically they are using an open source product to create a closed source program. Sure it's free, but that doesn't help me, the linux or mac user at all.
So unless you use windows, you can't use their IM client, you can't use google earth and I still haven't seen them release any source code. Is this evil of them? No, I don't think using open source products makes them evil, I think it's good in a way but I certainly wont consider them a friend until I'm running google earth on my linux box while talking to my friends over GIM.
it pushes more and more of the startups and the work for the smaller companies overseas. To investors and businesses the overseas workforce becomes a better and better deal and the jobs that would be here for the less fortunate actually have to move to India/China/Russia because there is an even greater difference in pay. They look better and better in comparison. This is the problem. Google will drain the employment base not at the top, but everyone else.
http://www.richardmartineau.net/museum/
We have assumed control. We have assumed control. We have assumed control.
caused a 25% to 50% hike in salaries...
:-)
Yes, I as an IT pro find a 50% pay hike completely appalling.
Evil indeed!
Take the url to the NY Times story, and do a google search for it. Then click on the link next to "If the URL is valid, try visiting that web page by clicking on the following link."
NY Times allows google news to link to stories without login, so I guess this works in the same way.
Advice for my fellow geeks: before seeking out that threesome you dream of, you might see what a TWOsome is like first.
Ironic, isn't it? PayPal has been seizing account balances left and right under false pretenses, and they have the audacity to slander a company that hadn't actually done anything "evil" yet.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
If they can't compete in Google's market, innovate in another market. This is, at least used to be, the strength of start-ups. The ability to recognize an area that needed innovation and fill that need. Google has a stranglehold in Information Management right now. Find something else.
You guys are supposedly intelligent, right?
Lotus. You ever go to any of those Lotus parties in Boston back in the day? Some of the craziest shit I've ever seen, booze, drugs, women, partying like rock stars, albeit rock stars with degrees from MIT, Stanford and other upper crust institutions... Then MS squared them in the cross-hairs, they didn't quite deal with the whole windows thing and while they aren't a complete bust they went from owning the spreadsheet and acocunting world to making a glorified email/database toolkit. Notes does do some really cool things but you have to get a PhD in it and not many people are willing to do that. Never mind any of their other office products, Ami Pro used to be the balls, still one of the best word processors I've seen, a nearly perfect balance of simplicity with power and WYSIWYG.
Wordstar. Seems like the world was their to lose and somehow they did.
Wordperfect. See wordstar. They were is a two horse race and then out of nowhere this 3rd horse came in and crushed them out of existence for all practical purposes.
Corel. Had a killer product in Draw, not best of breed but close enough and priced right. Bit off more than they could deal with.. Maybe these last three should be lumped together. Bottom line is that they all did things well, they all lost it when they strayed from doing what they did best. It's not a lock that they could have been successful just doing what they were doing but I think their odds would have been better.
Borland. Practially undisputed leader in dev tool technology for a long time. MS was a joke, Zortech was pricy and had no future, Watcom was kind of specialized and pricy. Made a couple mis-steps, got confused doing things that aren't core to what they do. Not dead but not exactly killing either, they are almost at the cusp of if they were much smaller you'd never risk anything on their platforms and until more people put more risk in to them their platform will never grow. The whole Pascal/Delphi thing is great too, fabulous technology but if I'm going to buy into a single vendor's compiler why shouldn't it be Sun's JDK?
Netscape. We all know this story. They thought they were big becuase they had a nice IPO. In reality, they were bigger before the IPO and the IPO really just signaled the end.
NeXT? Built a full OS and full dev suite. Not just the gloss of an OS like other recent buzzwordy OS plays, it was internationalized, was robust, did all the font and color stuff that you'd expect, multiuser, network able, etc.. They had to do hardware to get started because the existing hardware wouldn't cut it. They had money, they had it all and never were able to capitalize even though they had a tremendous fan base. The later stages before the take-over OpenStep was lost, they had no vision, they had no hope. Put it on AIX and HPUX, put it on windows, port Step to Intel, port it to RS/6000, I don't know how many of those stupid projects were ever realized.
I want to throw Semantec and NAI in there some how too. I mentioned Zortech above, Symantec bought their technology (as well as Think or Lightspeed's if I'm not mistaken,) anyone remember when they were going to be a development tool shop? How about cafe? In fact it was a popular java product because it was bloody fast. NAI I stopped paying attention to but I do remember them buying up everybody under sun and then starting to sell them all back off. For moments they saw themselves doing more than making a virus scanner. Quarterdeck anyone? I bet Symantec or NAI bought them...
Hop even further in the wayback, it seems like Bank Street Writer should have been able to capitalize on their success and popularity. There were a lot of shareware products that should have some how managed to go furthe
That's spelled vulture capitalists.
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 247 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
This posts captcha is "bombed"
Bill Gates certainly sees similarities between Google and his own company. This spring, in an interview with Fortune, Mr. Gates, Microsoft's chairman, said that Google was "more like us than anyone else we have ever competed with."
I think that translates into: "Join us. You cannot imagine the power of the dark side."
"PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
We have assumed control. We have assumed control. We have assumed control.
Hold the red star proudly high in hand.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I don't give a shit about team outings, or free pizza lunch or any of that crap. My job is rewarding enough. I want the $$ to justify the time I put into it. I can buy my own drinks and food, thanks.
Blar.
This tripe sounds like the same kind of crap that the US right wing elements spew towards the left...
"Cindy Sheehan weakens america by helping the insurgance sustain there fight longer, by protesting for peace."
"Google is evil, they pay people too well..." they might as well be union-fucking-labour they are SO evil...
Meanwhile, right-wing Christian nutter Pat Robertson wants to asassinate the democratically leader elected foreign country because they don't share a american enough view of the world. He's a fucking saint.
I for one miss Soviet Russia when there was at least something else to compare propagada too!
If you start sucking and you deliberately compromise the user's interests to make some money or crush some company, do those users have to bend over and take it, or do they have elsewhere to go?
I think in Google's case, it's pretty obvious they have somewhere else to go. Google doesn't have anyone locked in, not with Search, not with Maps, and definitely not with Gmail. If they turned evil, that would definitely compromise their quality of service, and there are many people including MS eagerly lining up to serve Google emigrees who only came to Google in the first place because Google's lack of evil made for a good user experience.
I think it's incredibly immature to equate the size and power, or even the ambition of a company, with evil. I guess there are some people who can't distinguish legitimate moral objections from mere sour grapes and envy. Remember that what makes Microsoft bad is the fact they deliberately screw their users (just because they can) and try to undermine open standards and install their own proprietary ones. This behavior should be condemned whether it's done by a big or a small company (remember Rambus?). And Google, big as they are, are not doing this. They are the sort of company we should cheer - a pro-user company with a bit of power. The alernative is that only the evil companies have the power, and I wouldn't like that.
So in 5 years, we'll see a headline about how evil craigslist is...
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
So many on here complain that people 'arent getting paid what theyre worth'.
How does that work exactly? There is no objective value to anything or anyones labor. Physical fallacy anyone?
If you made $60k a year 5 years ago but now cant find anyone willing to pay you more than $50k, it doesnt mean youre getting less than youre worth; it means youre worth less. Your labor, my labor, his labor, her labor...none of it is worth any more or less than what you can get for it.
Unless of course one wants to claim there is an objective value to labor, in which case one is talking religon (believing in something that doesnt exist) and thus being an idiot.
I find the slashdot comments thus far more fascinating than the article itself; among geeks, Google has an amazing reputation. I quote the article:
Levchin, who last year founded a multimedia company in San Francisco called Slide, said Google "still has a long wick of good will to burn off," but he added, "I'm surprised at how fast the company's reputation is changing."
Don't get me wrong; I'm a blind google fan (google homepage, gmail, picasa, google maps... weee) myself. Nevertheless, google users DO seem very hesitant to change their google ways. Google is becoming increasingly eager to take over each new market it thinks it can do so successfully, and does so with ingenious and highly manipulative marketing strategies (read: remember the gmail invites system with tons of space, how everyone wanted one?). Google isn't an underdog merely-simplified-Yahoo search engine anymore, and it does have its sights set high on all sorts of markets.
Now, is this a bad thing? With enough power, does anyone or any corporation remain "good" and not get corrupted? Will we keep supporting google, no matter what steps it takes, as long as it treats its employees nicely? Well, I'm all for it - Google, I'm still yours.
I work at a company that is neither small nor insignificant. My group has been trying to hire people for the past 4 months or so to take over one of the 2 and a half jobs that sit in my lap right now. Every time we find someone remotely qualified, though, we find out they also have standing offers from google and yahoo and that the very next day they've taken one of those. We can't compete with either in salary so we lose. It *is* a brain drain.
Google on the other hand releases specs and APIs to work with the system and they don't care which platform you happen to be running on.
The following google apps do not work in anything other than Windows:
Picasa
Google Desktop
Google Earth
Google Toolbar
Google Hello
Comment removed based on user account deletion
follow the white rabbit..........
When so much of what has been said and left unsaid in the pages of this supposed paper of record why take their skewed view as valid? For example, admitting their missteps in publishing unsubstantiated claims on the WMD in Iraq and even posting statements of partial retraction yet not naming their marque reporter on most of these erroneous reports. Nonetheless, the paper's leadership has taken an aggressively defensive stance regarding this same in-house perpetrator as a defender of the First Amendment.
Why give them credence when in so many other areas they play favorites not on the basis of being the best, but best liked (connected)?
Haven't you heard? Everything is a service, is the new business model (The upcoming GPL ensures it stays that way). The fact that moochers get something free is just a side-effect not mentioned in the pamplet.
They are however offering below market wages (see other posts on this story).
An odd way to go about "buying up all the talent".
And as also noted eleswhere, a company is free to hire from other states - or even outsource. I thought that was the hot thing to do anyway.
You attribute Google's motives in hiring a lot of smart people to malice. An easier explanation is they know they have a lot of things to do and want smart people to do them. That's pretty much my own development philosophy as well, find good people and you'll get fewer to get things done. Is it any wonder they would get who they could so they could work on more projects?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. When you're visible, you make a good target. Sorry. It's not fair, but that's life.
Chris, you're going to have to come to the realization that Google is not perceived as any sort of an upstart or underdog anymore. You and your company are likely best served by just letting people rant a little. I appreciate your position, but don't fall into the trap of criticizing muckrakers. Your "what have you done" comment is really beneath you. I understand your anger (and think you have some justification for it), but there are some people who make many contributions to open source projects but not feel a special need to brag about it. It's this close to asking him to whip it out and see who has a bigger dick.
Good for you for pointing that out. Now I would like you to compile a list of microsoft products that work in linux.
Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
This strategy works to a point, but can be taken too far. For example: you set up shop in the middle of nowhere, Iowa. You find a few talented coders and begin work. When one of them leaves for whatever reason, you are left scrambling for replacement talent - you already tapped the local sources and now have to draw from abroad. But what coder is going to risk going to Iowa to work for you? Should the job opportunity fail, he's stuck in a place that has no hope of offering him comparable work.
More importantly, it draws attention to the fact that Google has drained the market of talent, caused a 25% to 50% hike in salaries and made it difficult for startups to get funding."
So, now, any company that prevents management from treating their programmers poorly is "evil?"
Heinlein defined a term which encapsulates an attitude, a complete world view, or more a world NON view. Don't blame him. He can't grok groking.
... Oh, what's the use?
The average person is very limited in their capacity to grok.
How long did they BELIEVE that the earth was flat, despite the evidence of their senses? How long did they NOT wonder at gravity, until Newton. How long did they NOT wonder at divergent parallax, until Einstein. How long have they believed that Excel tables are usable as databases, despite
How long have they fucked up everything beyond what works and get themselves in an awful mess?
Then they wait for a messiah to show them that their senses weren't lying.
Its 'easier' than thinking... (And that's how the God industry started. From the first shaman to the latest newage crap. They AL due to failure to light up the 'THINK' sign.)
The struggle for new ideas isn't coming up with the ideas, even the seeming scarcety of workable ideas, its the Phillistine pig ignorance from the non-creative garbage out there.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
The biggest issue I hae with Google is that there personal politics appears to be spilling over into censorship in adsense and adwords. They have banned several right-leaning sites while allowing almost identical left leaning sites to make money from their programs. The way they seem to be encroaching on websites with their own advertising and the way the handled C-Net googling personal information also shows hints of evilness to me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
a 25-50% rise in salaries? awww.. well screw teh outsourcing valley girls.. google rocks.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
So causing the average wage to increase, which fell through the floor after the dot com crash is a bad thing? I personally would enjoy getting paid more again.
Hiring up a boat load of talent to cause a tech labor shortage is a bad thing too? I think there are a lot of unemployed and underemployed techies out there who would benefit greatly by this.
The perspective here seems to be from a corporate standpoint, one that doesn't want to pay it's people any more money and wants to be able to replace them easily at a whim. I would hardly call Google evil for that.
Seriously, I can think of so many talented techs out there who cant get jobs. Maybe companys should stop trying to BE Google and start being themselves and hire workers based on what they can do and not what degrees they earned. And dont even give me the money bullshit. There is more than enough money in these companys to pay better, that is IF their employer can keep his greedy fat hands off of it.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
When it is obvious that it is NOT.
Yea maybe before they became googlairs they were 'ok'... but only because they SEEMED to try harder.
Now they are just-like-Ms.-- in that, they are the only game in town, and they are overly-constantly-hyped.
Sorry yahooo, I don't consider a company that requests payment to be listed-- a search engine.
When you type something in quotes, it almost always says: "remove the quotes.. Google cannot find your request".
So you take off the quotes, and you get millions of pages, with the first several finds that have NOTHING to do with your request, but EVERYTHING to do with somebody trying to sell you something!
I'm sorry, a product such as google is NOT free, when you have to spend countless hours/days in frustration, and then not find things that you know are there!
One good thing about google and all it's ms-like-billions.. and that is, when people start to sue them for their fraud (in advertisement and in what they claim to provide), there will plenty of $ there for individuals.
THEN we can all REALLY be excited about how RICH Google is!!
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
Seriously Google might be stifling to some competition, but it still produces a good final product to the consumer, who benefits. That's the bottom line of a Free Market, the consumer.
.)
Microsoft however destroys companies in ways to increase it's profit margin for inferior product, stifling the market for the consumer and forcing people to shell out a large amount of money for a product that is outdated, trying to keep it to be the only product in the market.
I don't see how one can even compare the two. Google is a website, and hasn't even tried to be the only one (well they wish to be but they don't push out others).
Personal story upcoming. I liked Yahoo Maps, I typed in my work address and searched how to go to a claim service for my insurance (got my stereo stolen and window broken) well Yahoo had me going all these ways that were SO inefficent, and the starting point didn't even match my location. So I went to Google Maps, not only did i get a perfect route (the one I pieced together out of a couple Yahoo maps and 10 minutes). I got perfect directions, exact locations, and every position was perfectly marked.
Yahoo Maps and Mapquest is STILL there, and they are available to you if you want, but Google takes the idea of driving directions and doesn't just do it, they mastered it. What is the Satellite Imagery do? not much but it's a nice feature if you want to use even more advanced stuff (and it looks better to some)
There's a difference between that and what Microsoft has done in the past. Comparing Google to Microsoft in this time frame is just a joke. Microsoft has been doing evil stuff for years, Google is just trying to get more users and it's success is evident, I haven't seen them as "evil" rather they are just proactive, in improving themselves. However it hasn't damaged the market to do so (and they make mistakes... Atom over RSS? heh)
Kudos Googles, Boo Microsoft, and WTF New York Times (also get rid of the damm registration, please or we'll keep use bugmenot.com
This wouldn't be why I have the Google Toolbar running smashingly in my Firefox 1.0.6 under Gentoo Linux, would it?
I'm pissed at them because they closed my account, kept the money that was generated even through "valid" clicks and refuse to do anything about it. I provided a service (did NOT click the ads) and they refuse to pay me. As Google grows, they'll slowly slipping over to the dark side.
Invalid clicks has been a huge problem, just do a search (oh the irony, searching on Google for invalid clicks ...): http://www.google.com/search?q=invalid+clicks
That quiet extraordinary but Spiegelonline has the same article... http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,15 18,371170,00.html
and this one as well :
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spie gel/0,1518,371159,00.html
When did Bill Gates start writing for the NYT?
Angleyne: You can't bend that girder - it's unbendable! Bender: Well I don't know anything about lifting, so that ju
if Larry Page sells off his stock, google doesn't buy it. Some sucker on the secondary market (ie, Nasdaq) pays for it.
The article is about Google's reputation among venture capitalists and technologists in Silicon Valley, and I do not think it's fair to extend this comparison to Microsoft into the realm of user exeperience.
Microsoft's products in the 1990's were essentially bloated foistware. Their software implemented critical functionality poorly and was outpeformed by other products, but they used marketing tactics bordering on extortion to ensure that they picked up a monopoly on end user operating systems. And they still made us pay for their crappy software.
Google's products in the 2000s are available for free. They compete with other free products for market share, and therefore are differentiated by performance and functionality.
In my opinion, Google is leading the way in good technology implementations, and they deserve to have an industry-leading position. Where they need to be careful is to remain competitive, and not stray into the realm of anticompetitive behavior.
My guess is that they are going to launch some initiatives in nontraditional (for them) categories of business, and maybe one or two will have some success. The rest will fizzle out because the company will not be able to translate its success on the internet to success in other media avenues. If they are smart about how much capital they risk on these projects, they will learn their lesson, and still keep the top spot in the internet-based free services.
Yeah,
nothing wrong with paying top quality $$'s for top quality talent.
What about union ppl who have a large work pool, yet drive up their wages by organizing strikes. What about the ppl who get paid $18-25/hr to hold up a sign that says GO SLOW..
Also, I apologize for the senseless garbage... just wanted to call attention to that joke.
Why is talent an issue? I thought there weren't any jobs left in Silicon Valley. I though VCs are now requiring overseas workers, which are supposedly plentiful. Phds for pennies a day. What gives?
..deskstop search, Hello, Google earth, Picasa, and now google-talk URL:http://google.com/talk> .
How about some linux/mac software?
Be heard || Be herd
If you're worried about Google turning to the dark side, you can simply use other services. If Google ever turns into an evil monopoly, then we all are partly responsible. Especially the Google-fanboy-crowd, promoting every new tool Google releases (and who will mod me down). Google has the best PR division on the planet: Slashdot!
Then again, I'm slightly paranoid and don't trust corporations with my email/browsing/IM-logs/files. Yet many others don't mind. Their choice.
This sig is intentionally left blank
Google OS! Now with more vendor lockin!
I'm sure they could come up with cost savings for using less prestigous offices no problem.
Besides, I work out of my home in shorts and flip-flops.
Blar.
"What have you done to help open source?"
Ummm.... stopped you from abusing GPL? That seems pretty helpful.
All I know is, the 3 times I've bought products based on clicking advertisments they've been google ads. No flashy ads with viral marketing? You don't say...
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Google had some rather meager beginnings. What you see now is the result.
Microsoft wrote windows, Microsoft gets money when people use windows. Of course they're not going to encourage the use of their competitors. Does Google Desktop allow you to search the web using Yahoo! or MSN? (That's not a rhetorical question... for all I know, it might do...)
The thing they fear the most isn't competition, it's loss of influence. This is I know from working there: the constant dialogue on the Redmond campus is about how to maintain and enhance their relevance.
This article is a huge blow to that.
I sometimes wish to understand why some people lack so badly reading comprehension skills.
The GPL is a mechanism to ensure everybody has access to source code when binary files are distributed.
If you don't distribute binary files you are under no obligation whatsoever to distribute code.
You are attributing to the GPL a "spirit" that lives only in a figment of your zealous imagination.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
...the OS sucks-rules-o-meter. There's also an editor sucks-rules-o-meter (vi vs. emacs) among others.
Like you said, meaningless but fun.
Linky here.
This sig rocks the casbah.
MS Windows is a rather small fraction of the code that has been produced by Microsoft, actually. What they gain from mswindows is CONTROL and something to force-bundle their applications with.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Interesting as it reminds me of working for startups in the late eighties. There was a definite fear that if you came up with something good, Microsoft would just swoop in and steal your market. It certainly did act as a drag on startups. Who wants to put in blood, sweat and tears only to see someone come in at the last minute, steal your ideas and leave you poor?
The startup I worked for? We had an email package that got a rave review in LAN Times. Not that we ever got big enough for anyone to actively steal it.
Though one difference is that Microsoft did it with mediocre products whereas Google seems to do it by actually creating a superior product.
The cake is a pie
People left the area in the dot.bomb, and changed professions, because they had to. But with the upswing, there's nobody here to hire anymore. So, duh, Google is interviewing nearly everyone who's on the market... the number of people on the market is way down.
Recruiting has gone from a job of filtering the stacks of resumes to really actively pursuing people again.
The funny thing about the Google accusations are that Google takes months to do an interview process and make an offer; the flip side of this whole story is Google being very frustrated that most of the people they make offers to have already accepted a position somewhere else by the time Google gets their offer in. Evil predator, which loses most of its candidates? I don't think so.
Google's a convenient entity to blame, but that's all it is. Until IT people start coming back to Silli Valli, it's going to be escalating difficulty of hiring talent and escalating salaries.
The GPL3 with it's web server apps clause might change this spirit.
As far as I can tell, it was CNET that announced that Google wasn't talking to them. The reporter in the Times article says it's Google that announced it. I'd like to see a link or something corroborating his statement that Google is doing any announcing; otherwise, it's just spin/bullshit intended to make Google look bad (part of the point of the article, of course, but back your claims with evidence).
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. -- Hanlon
Try this out.t ure&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.co.in/search?num=100&hl=en&q=fu
scroll a bit down and check where ads are.
Spam: Any activity on internet to gain popularity without paying to advertising companies like Google.
Ah, this eternalle questionne of Goodle vs. Eville...
"..Google has drained the market of talent, caused a 25% to 50% hike in salaries.." Someone explain the evil on Google's part.
Microsoft has repeatedly been caught commiting intentional, illegal, anti-competitive acts. All of the "evil" attributed to Google has simply been side-effects of being a successful business. The two are not even remotely comparable.
Of course. It's not a unique business model. Printers being the obvious ones. The printer isn't the way of making money, it's the way of getting people to buy ink. Windows isn't the way of making money, it's the way of getting people to buy other windows software. (Although windows does still make a lot of money - most printers seem to be given away free these days)
Google is doing a very bad thing in stealing links from other websites and pumping them to the likes of Amazon.com. I don't thing their reputation will be salvageable once this gets out.
I'm sure I remember a time when one of Google's main selling points was something like: "We only do searching. Nothing else. We don't have a horribly complicated home page, and we don't clutter things with a myriad of other [generally useless] products."
Now: they have a simple homepage, but a whole host of features the next step in. To me, that seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
Now I would like you to compile a list of microsoft products that work in linux.
Why particularly Linux? Let me point out that Microsoft is the world's second Mac developer (after Apple itself), so they're obviously not "Windows only". And they have released code for FreeBSD as well, for example here. If MS developed for Linux, you'd ask why they don't develop for any other pet OS of yours, and show *that* as a proof of evil. IOW, you don't have an argument.
As it appears to me, Google is accused of being "evil" because 1) it pays employees more than its competitors would, 2) it is "arrogant" with symptoms of "hubris", 3) it doesn't talk to CNET reporters, and 4) it controls a vast quantity of information. That's pretty much the order the accusations come in. You got to wonder at the priorities (and thought processes) of a reporter when control of the kind and quantity of information that Google has is something mentioned halfway down the last page.
Anybody who does better than me has to be an evil cheating, world-dominating, faceless entity.
It can't be that I suck.
And why? Because too much power is a bad thing for a company. Hey, I love everything Google, they rock. Seems like they're the ones that actually care about the user. The thing is, what happens when they say completely snuff out all competition? Maybe even, dare I say it, Microsoft? Well, if they change their tune then, were screwd.
The following google apps do not work in anything other than Windows:
Picasa
Google Desktop
Google Earth
Google Toolbar
Google Hello
Add this: Google Talk.
Yes, I know I can use Gaim and/or iChat to use talk.google.com, but dammit, I want to try their voice chat and there's no alternative program for that! Oh well, Skype has both Linux and MacOS X clients, and Skype even sounds better on Linux than it does on Windows!
I don't think Google is evil. I just think they are exasperating sometimes.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I remember Netscape starting up, but I don't recall setting it out to destroy MicroSoft. As I recall, and others seem to agree, MicroSoft didn't have a browser when Netscape started. Netscape wouldn't be targetting MicroSoft for anything.
It would be nice if the people writing these things would stick to their topic, rather than trying to start new urban legends.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
As someone who was involved with trying to get startup funding over the last couple years, I can tell you one thing: It was not Google that made it hard for startups to get funding. It was Sand Hill Road - the roost of the vulture capitalists. Approximately 90% of the capital granted during that period had a string attached:
To even be considered for funding you had to have an "outsourcing story". You had to put most of your workforce outside the US and justify every employee that you wanted to be local. Result: Only a handfull of core-team stars with well-known reps could find startup work and the bulk of the talent - the "early hire" masses of talented people who know how to turn hairbrained schemes into functional products (and bust their butts doing so) - got to sit on their thumbs.
So while the Valley was experiencing a depression, Google created a friendly working environment and picked these people up at bargain prices. And now the vultures - who tried to leave them homeless while they bought up (and bid up) all the talent in places like India - are crying because they have to pay more to get them to come back.
I cry crocodile tears.
They made their own bed. Let them lie in it.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Add Google Talk to that list.
Google is clearly getting arrogant -- they're not even the best search anymore (though they continue to add nifty services at a rapid clip).
Most arrogant is the recent "tweak" to the AdWords pricing. They basically doubled prices overnight.
I cancelled the account that I had set-up for my not-for-profit website (totalk.ca Toronto talk site).
Regards, Lex
I would love to say that is when the table turns - but look at Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Blizzard, they are doing alright.
* Googles search engine is full of algorythmic fascism:
- if you don't update constantly you go back to the end of the list (so what makes the top 10 are mostly inane blogs)
- if you do update constantly you go back to the end of the list (easy tiger you are going too fast, here penalty for you)
- if either of the above happen you could be sandboxed
(don't worry after 6-9 months you will be reindexed even for non-competitive terms like"morrocan henna shampoo Tampa Florida"
- after leaving the sandboxed, you will find you will still never get listed as before unless for really non-competitive terms like "morrocan henna shampoo Tampa Florida" and even that will appear right at the end.
* Apart from GMail, other googles entrerprises: Orkut, Picassa, are short of being mediocre.
* Google does not endorse accessibility nor webstandards. Now while this may be irrelevant to most. You technically could be penalized by making your page accessible: ie having a navigation menu where text is hidden from view a no-no in Google's code of conduct.
They are (getting) arrogant no doubt.
But then other companies are yet more so.
It's not just individuals that get cocky and snarky with fame money and power. Businesses too.
Addressing specific "concerns" in the article...
...when earlier this year it fired a new employee who had joked online that the free meals, the on-site gym and all the other perks were a clever ploy to keep people at their desks longer.
The news last week that Google plans to sell an additional 14 million shares of stock, adding $4 billion to its current cash reserves of $3 billion, will only provide more reasons to gripe.
Because a tech company generating revenue and making stockholders comfortable, such that they might consider other tech companies as viable again.... is a bad thing.
"Microsoft is becoming I.B.M. and Google is becoming Microsoft."
This is how things happen in the real world. It will happen again.
"Google is doing more damage to innovation in the Valley right now than Microsoft ever did," said Reid Hoffman, the founder of two Internet ventures, including LinkedIn, a business networking Web site popular among Silicon Valley's digerati. "It's largely that they're hiring up so many talented people, and the fact they're working on so many different things. It's harder for start-ups to do interesting stuff right now."
Yes, because as we all know, everything worth inventing has already been invented, except for the relatively minute number of things that Google is currently working on. Darn them!
Google, Mr. Hoffman said, has caused "across the board a 25 to 50 percent salary inflation for engineers in Silicon Valley" - or at least those in a position to weigh competing offers. A sought-after computer programmer can now expect to make more than $150,000 a year.
And to think, a couple of years ago, we were whining that no qualified programmers could find jobs. Now we're whining that the qualfied programmers are getting snatched up so fast that we can't afford to pay their high salaries to compete. Bleed my heart does.
Why couldn't Google do what you're doing?' " said Craig Donato, the founder and chief executive of Oodle, a site for searching online classified listings more quickly.
Oh where shall I begin... A startup, with a name that is obviously intended to pick up some free indirect word of mouth advertising from Google because it's a likely offshoot of Google, has investors worried that someday Google will decide to do the same thing, only better. Imagine that.
Meanwhile, hundreds of people lined up to replace him. I doubt Google has suffered any bad press from a comment like that. Certainly can't see how it raises the "ire" of anyone. Can you imagine? "Man, this job sucks so much... they pay me too much, give me free meals and all sorts of onsite perks.. they challenge me and give me time to be creative. I love it so much that I don't want to leave at the end of the day. Woe is me."
To be fair, I can understand the concern of some people that a single company can be too powerful and disrupt the industry as a whole. After all, it has happened before. Microsoft is a perfect example. But if you must look for evil, search out the roots. Compare if you will, a company who's core principle is "Do no evil" and a company that broke into the PC market by selling a product it didn't even own yet. Compare a company that offers multiple perfectly useable and useful "beta" applications, to a company that couldn't get through a staged product demonstration without crashing the system. Worry about Google if you must, but keep your concerns in context.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Recent adwords "upgrades" are killing the very businesses/advertisers that put google on the map.
The company isn't nearly as "seemless" as some suggest, we only know what we do because people tear it apart.
If you watched Microsoft as close as you watch google the differences won't be that much these days. Google is out to destroy competition in everything.
Atleast microsoft had an "assimilate" approach where they would purchase x y z company and incorporate technology rather than absorb all talent & funding and develop within..
HOWEVER i do recognize google has done some assimilation as well.
Wait and see game, but it's funny how the blind follow google and hate microsoft
but mainly my reason for liking google over microsoft is the ease of doing what you want with its services, rather than what they want you to do.
compare gmail and hotmail... 2 inter-OS services..
Hotmail = no pop3 access, no outlook access unless you've used it for a few years already, no forwarding, annoying and slow web interface, no contacts export, no contacts import, and up until gmail very little amount of webspace (increased to 100MB after gmail), doesnt automatically save outgoing mail.
Gmail = pop3 acces, email forwarding, best webmail interface ive used (i love the conversation feature), 2.5 GB web space (and counting), easy contacts export/import plus guides on how to screen scrape from all the competitors, filters (way more manageable than folders, able to apply multiple filters), automatically saves outgoing mail.
just to name a few....
but when it comes down to it, does anybody flame yahoo about their services? no... because even there it is much easier to make yahoo mail do what you want than hotmail.
Hotmail is for the people who just discovered that AOL was a waste of time...
I may be wrong but you're downright ugly!
This is weird because I heard the exact same thing about Waterloo (home of Research in Motion...). Some people were saying that no one can start up a company there any more because RIM sucks up all the good engineers.
Is this true or crap?
PS I'm hoping to open an office soon in waterloo for my startup...
home page
Nope sorry NY Times. Microsofts the villen of the people who are getting a bigger paycheck becouse of Google.
Google is the hero.
I don't actually exist.
It's not interoperable with other jabber servers currently...Using Gaim, I tried sending messages to a friend at jabber.org from google talk and she did not receive them. (this works with normal Jabber servers, though there are some hiccups with netsplits; my normal account is at jabber.evilrealms.net and that works just fine) Therefore, for all practical purposes it's just another IM service.
-insert a witty something-
90% were back before the end of the first winter (lets not mention ludafisk).
CA's central valley (Sacramento) is a good compromise between SI valley and midwestern life. I grew up in KC, worked in the bay area, now I'm in Sac. Close enough to the bay area to draw on resources and contacts there, but sane costs and some elbow room (except where they've put up closets on 16th acre lots for transplanted Bay Aryans).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Morons deserved to lose (which IIRC they did).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
well as i understand it they only did dev for the mac because it would prove they weren't a monopoly, and they stopped doing it years ago.
Don't post anything too bad...Google may not talk to our reporters!
I hear what your saying Microsoft but all I heard was
"WAHHHHH WAHHHHH We're stupid and loosing money. WAHH WAHHHH"
The thing is, if you have a good idea you can do it in a lot of ways. VC funding is one that might be harder to get with Google around, but I have to say that at least the people in the article were farming out ideas that were REALLY similar to what google is doing (just a specialized form of search).
I don't think the "Google Field" is in actually repressing many startups - as another poster pointed out, VC's have to put money somewhere. It might make it a little harder but I don't think it would stop a really good unique idea from getting funding.
I agree that not everything Google does will nessicrily be the best thing going, but they sure have a good infrastructure and as a Mac user I have to admire them for at least trying hard to support multiple platforms. If other companies want to try similar things to what Google is doing only with less intuitive interfaces that are Windows only - well then I'm not so sure I'm sad things are hard for them.
I think Google raises the bar in ways that make the companies that do well better than they might have been - in other words I think Google is "healthy" competition to have in the market that really does bring new things to the table and creates opportunities for other companies even as Google itself grows.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Lets face it the only reason why google is getting slapped with the evil monicker is that they are good at what they do. It's the same reason why models get torn down for being beautiful. They are so good they must be bad reasoning that some people like to use.... I can't see dirt so they must have hired a cleaning crew to hide the actual dirt. If the rest of the industry feels like they are treated unfairly by having to be held to high standards then simply don't compete....
Here's the Slashdot commentary from the time.
More vague than I remember, but it still seems basically like revealing financial detals (even if just NDA benefit data) about the company they did not want released. It also seems like he had a warning and then chose to keep going...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...and/or expensive, maybe you might have a large enough talent pool. It might call for immigrant instructors to bring down cost(said tuition/board costs being well out of reality), but you definitely can get Ivy quality with a State educated person if you only prohibit the exclusionism and funding games that are present in every private college to keep their image.
The way I see it, Google never departed from being evil straight from day 1, as they have inherited things from their Stanford upbringing that do not go well with the public they interact with. First of all, they seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the "invite system" (see Orkut and Gmail). The practice might have been good when elitism was king (pardon the pun), but this version of divine right fell out of favor many ages ago. Google isnt evil for creating competition, just that they come from a very questionable background (Stanford) with obsolete practices.
In other words - Google, the Midwest isnt just something you fly over to get people from private/exclusive colleges. It's the untapped pool of talent that you think is just a bunch of rednecks. Not all the best talent comes from places that pride on exclusion, nor do they all come from outside the US.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Now lets think about this. I'm tired of everyone saying google is such a bad thing, those people who actually think Google is a detrement, are the same idiots who think Wal-Mart is the cause for our society's dwindle. No. Google is what we need more of in the computer industry. Things like Google, DEbian linuxes, especially Ubuntu, are what the computer should be. These capture the true spirit of Open source. In fact, I can't wait till we get a new distro of linux, GLinux. wouldn't work too well I don't think, but hey, it'd be true open source. If google is on its way to world domination, I am definitely on the sidelines rooting for it.
Google is a good company for this: their search engine, the way they handle the publicity, their free tools like google earth or maps, trying to free people from the microsoft monopoly, openness, creativity. Google is a bad company for this: ban of cnet, employee fired because of a blog, their predatory approach to anything that is information, their growing power that i don't trust. Giving back to open source is a good thing but it's not enough. They will have to convince me that they won't be the next monopoly and that they're not trying to trick me with all their tools. I would prefer that they show openly what are their plans. and that Eric schmit cancel this ban, god i don't like this.
You know, as much as I use google, I don't think its that interesting. Every 4rth slashdot post ends up being about Google. Ok we learned about the IM, does that need a reply post? No. Ok we learned this about google now, which doesn't even matter. Some journalist's opinion that-- google is more evil that M$. Google has a lot of road to cover to even reach M$'s evil throne.
Big whoopy-doo.
Why would anyone want to use a text editor that is not vi?
You say "we" and yet I don't really know of anywhere it's been made obvious that you have some business relationship with them (e.g. work for them). I don't /think/ Slashdot is (yet?) owned by Google, but I sure wouldn't mind if you were, well, more upfront about whatever business relationship you have with them given all the Google stories we see posted...
I mean, hell, we get disclaimers for links to NewsForge, so that doesn't seem like too much to ask.
Unlike an individual, the corporation may be something quite different as the years go by. Schmidt, Page, Brin et al may have good intentions today, but once the architecture is in place, who is to say how benevolent the google of tomorrow would be.
ummm, ever heard of Mac Office? http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/office2004/o ffice2004.aspx?pid=office2004
or maybe Virtual PC for the Mac?
So a company employs enough select people that forces other companies to drudge for resources and ultimately raises incomes. This is the very same free employment agrreement that we all asked for. Google gets the best, because right now, they are the best... very strategic. You want them, you pay. Otherwise your idea aint' that good enough to tempt VC money. Get over this and kudos to google. There is a far deeper seeded idea here than what the initial article prints. In the 90's we enjoyed lavish paychecks, nice cars, and nice houses... then came the influx of H1B visas... we bitched, and lost money. Someone want's to restore our value and you complain? Bullshit. Google predominantly is english in nature... so for it to support english speaking/reading people and to take away from the H1Bs' is in my opinion welcomed. You should all welcome better wages.
well as i understand it they only did dev for the mac because it would prove they weren't a monopoly, and they stopped doing it years ago.
Well, no, and no. Microsoft developed software for the Mac since the beginning, long before there was talk of monopolies. Some of the best known MS products were originally developed for the Mac. And the development continues today.
If you're a meteorologist. :)
..don't panic
Reinventing the Operating System
...it will be a longer term transition, but I believe eventually we will be securely connected to the net and "rent" software, and someone like Google will step in and reinvent the operating system for these reasons. It makes too much sense for the consumer and the developer.
Most software is going to be on the web in 20 years, if not sooner. The model makes far more sense that the model we have today. We will all rent software one day, coming full circle from the early days of computing. Always-on internet at high speeds is not far off, and technologically feasible...... yet 98% of computers are slaves to Bill Gates' OS?
Most computers are used for 2 things: 1. email + 2. finding info on the web. Long-term, I am hopeful and eager to see software make a big move towards mostly-on-the-web paradigm... i.e. seeing someone like Google work with an open source community like Linux to develop a scaled down operating system that was based upon: 1. security and 2. interacting with server software. I believe this will happen.
While Windows was a blessing at one time (not having to write software for multiple OS's) it is now overkill in most cases. When speeds get increased on the internet, application developers only need to write software for 1 thing --- the browser. Interfaces can take on many forms with the capability of FLASH (and AJAX) to richly customize the interface into any imaginable possibility, and interact with server-side code.
The potential merger of Google + ADBE + MACR could create a paradigm that will be positive for consumers & developers, and be revolutionary in the software world.
-Holts
Oh please, spare me with that "Do No Evil" Google mantra. Did you really fall for THAT? If so, I have a "do no evil" VHS cassette reader to sell you.
Nooo! This is a lie! All you wrote are all lies! I will not fall into your traps! Google is here to save us all, to save us from the M$ Empire! They collect information about us just so to improve their products and services, to empower us more! Google does no evil -- they announced it to us all! -- Google Fanboy
LinkedIn managerment has been treating their engineers like idiot coding monkies. As a result, at least 2 engineers (of 6) have left for Google. They fired one of the engineering managers but not after letting him practice the "schoolyard bully" style of management for a year. As a result, they have mostly junior engineers left.
So Reid found his scapegoat in the recently departed manager without ever having to ask the question, "why are the engineers looking in the first place?" By the time someone is mulling an offer from a company it is way too late.
You know maybe people just would like to be treated with respect. But many start-ups don't like to listen until the engineers start bailing en masse.
Boeing has been marred for an earlier episode of corruption.
One of their director got too power-hungry.
Ok let's try Johnson & Johnson instead.
I would vouch for Motorola also. Very successful, very famous - you don't get the public or indeed newsreporters saying they are "evil"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(think SG-1) Those planets would still be there, but it'd be alot harder to know where they are, or to get to them easily..
The SGC might want to think about hiring Google to implement some sort of interface to replace the archaic (6 address glyphs + POI). "For once I'd like a planet with no evil nasties, a balmy but mosquito-free 72 degrees, populated with ewoks and scantily-clad women. Oh, and 'I feel lucky.'"
Hint: Investment groups in the Valley (which put most other VC money to shame) usually put a representative on the board of directors of their investments. They're not going to move to buttfuck Ohio to monitor and develop their tech-monies.
That's why Silicon Alley, Silicon whothefuckcares, will always be also-rans. Until your community is matching Sand Hill Road in VC, it's wind-pissing.
Actually, I'm a troll too. I just have the guts and skill to do it from an actual login. You're not even a real troll, just a coward, hiding behind anonymity like a scared little school boy tugging at his mother's apron strings. You are, amusingly enough, beneath trolls!
I find your crowing about being a troll to be all the more amusing, because you're the one who was engaging a real, accomplished troll, and were too ignorant to see it!
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Well my hat is off to you then, Mr. Troll. I thought that you were just another Slashdot moron. Boy was I wrong.
The point has to go to 'Doublem'
...and that's the end of our show. Donk!
Thank you.
/me bows
Thank you very much.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA