Firefox Creator No Longer Trusts Google

watashi writes "Blake Ross the man whose scratched itch became the Firefox browser explains on his blog why he has a problem with Google's policy of promoting their own products over competitors' in search results. His main gripe is that the tips (e.g. "Want to share pictures? Try Google Picasa") result in an inability for other products (perhaps even Parakey?) to compete for the top slot on Google."

Comments

Why shouldn't they?

[mr_zorg]

Wah. Why shouldn't Google put their own products first? Name me one other company that wouldn't do the same thing.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[RobinH]

Wah. Why shouldn't Google put their own products first? Name me one other company that wouldn't do the same thing.

Any company would, and that's why we have anti-trust laws. If Google gets a defacto monopoly on searches (which it hasn't got yet), then manipulating the search results to promote it's own non-search related products would be a clear anti-trust violation. Plus, Google has told us their motto is "don't be evil", and manipulating search results is at the very least naughty.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[Overzeetop]

I see no naughtyness. Search results are search results. Paid ads are paid ads. We can all tell the difference, and for those a little less intellectually endowed, Google has colored the ad bar and noted it "sponsored link(s)". An ad placed by google has opportunity cost associated with it.

FWIW, a google for "Online Maps" brings up Mapquest in second place. You know who was in first? Multimap.com. Google maps hit the top of the blue bar; Mapquest was the top of the sidebar. Google maps, btw, wasn't in the first two pages of search results. (A Google search for "map" has maps.google.com first, mapquest second, with that order recreated in the blue bar)

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[aristotle-dude]

dumbass i guess you forgot their "do no evil" policy. How is promoting your own products over other products evil? Don't open source projects do the same thing? Do you see Open Office recommending MS Office or Firefox recommending IE?

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[daeg]

It still does, though. It's not like Google is being accused of altering the search results -- the results are the same. Nothing at all is preventing someone coming up with a superior product and getting a high page rank to get the #1 slot, is there?

Do you also cry foul when a newspaper puts their name on top of the classifieds section?

Do you cry foul when a yellow pages book from your phone company advertises the phone company?

Do you cry foul when an advertising campaign also advertises the advertising studio that put the campaign together?

Remember, Google is, in a sense, one huge advertising system. However, the entry is free for enterprising individuals with the content and product to back their site up to searchers.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[aristotle-dude]

The problem is that Google has a monopoly on web search, and as such, they cannot simply do what other companies would do. As it is, Google is using its web search monopoly as leverage to promote its non-search products (Picasa, Docs & Spreadsheets, Google Talk, Gmail, Blogger, etc), to the disadvantage of others that produce better products in those areas. They do? What about http://www.altavista.com/ http://www.yahoo.com/ and http://www.live.com/ ? Do they not work? Are you confusing popularity with monopolies?

Nobody is stopping you from using those other search engines.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[blakeross]

> We can all tell the difference

There is opinion and then there is fact.

> An ad placed by google has opportunity cost associated with it.

A tip does not.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[tpv]

Why shouldn't Google put their own products first?

Because ultimately it may not be in their best interests.

Google relies on trust. I enter my search criteria, and Google returns the "best" results it can find.
If users start to think that Google is manipulating those results for their own gain, then they will stop trusting the results and start looking at other search engines.

Is this "hints" section a sign that Google has crossed the line? Maybe - that's for each person to decide - but there is a line there, and Google needs to walk it very carefully if they want to maintain that trust relationship.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[ringm000]

>> We can all tell the difference

> There is opinion and then there is fact.

No one considers banning the lotteries yet. Isn't it fair for stupidity to be taxed?

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP

This is the most insightful post Ive read all day. The fact some schmo agrees with some other schmo really makes you think.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[Jake73]

It's a question of context. Most companies promote their own products. The question is more regarding the ethics behind doing so. In particular, when MS began putting IE on every installed OS (with some other details in there), MS got into a little hot water. You could argue the same thing -- of course MS would want you to use their own products.

But the devil is in the details. As the article says very clearly, Google is in a (near monopoly) position to direct users to "the best" of the web. When they do so with their own products in a way that is inaccessible to other vendors, questions begin to be asked.

At the moment, it's more of a concern to advertisers. If I were Kodak trying to advertise my photo sharing product on Google, I'd be pretty upset that their competing product has far better visibility.

It's a very clear conflict of interests -- just like MS with IE. Or MS with Office using "secret" API calls.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[bheer]

Because it takes customers away from superior products? Because they have this grandiose page saying things like on no account will they compromise the integrity of search results. And yeah, I'd say putting unmarked ads -- a.k.a Tips -- over standard results does compromise the integrity of the results, especially since they're not clearly marked as the ads they are.

To put this another way: CNN routinely cross-promotes Time-Warner movies as 'news', and gets routinely razzed for doing so (unless they've stopped -- I've stopped watching). So did many other publications, and these days the better ones have taken to labeling such articles with a 'note: we have the same parent' notice. Even Slashdot marks links to OSTG sites. It's basic ethics. But of course, if you see Google's search results as a haven for commercials, you'll fail to see the point -- just like execs at AltaVista and Yahoo Search once failed and gave Google their chance. They might as well put huge blinking banner ads there next.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[Urza9814]

I haven't ever seen google appear to be unfair in their search results. Google 'pictures'. If they were unfairly promoting their own products, google image search or picasa would be on the top. AOL pictures is on page two, google image search is on page 5. The thing they DO do is, before the search results, say 'Tip: Looking for pictures? Try Google Images'. What's wrong with that? They're not even pretending it's a search result, they're just saying they have a product you might be interested in. Might as well complain that the last EA game I bought came with a flyer advertising other games, but *gasp*, they were ALL EA GAMES! Actually, no, that's worse. Quite a bit worse.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[KillerCow]

Wah. Why shouldn't Google put their own products first? Name me one other company that wouldn't do the same thing.

Microsoft. Microsoft would never leverage their leadership position in one market to capture new markets or lock out competitors. They would never bundle or cross-promote their products. They would never prevent their competitors from reaching their customers. They would never use their monopoly position to push into other spaces or prevent competition.

Wait... they do do that. But... Slashdot tells me that Microsoft doing it is bad. But... somehow Google doing it is okay. I'm confused. Surely, when Microsoft does this, and it's bad, then when Google does the same thing, it must also be bad. No?

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[laffer1]

You make some valid points. Its just like Microsoft pushing IE and including it in Windows to kill Navigator. I think people forget that Netscape practically had a monopoly on browsing for a time. Yahoo was once in google's position and they did exactly the same thing. Its called marketing.

There are several things that google has done I'm not happy about. This is very small on my list. As a geek, I realize that many of us have stronger ethics than most others. The public will continue to use google just as they love their Windows install. The difference is that its much easier to unseat a search engine.

Now if the developers at Mozilla wish to look down on google, they could stop making it default in Firefox as a search engine. Frankly I find it interesting after Microsoft started giving them help with Vista compatibility that we hear this negative google talk. I can say things about others just as easy as the Firefox guy.

I think its time some of you realized that google is not this amazing company that is totally different. Its similar to the argument I have with my mother over Yahoo. She views them as the best thing the internet has ever seen. She chooses them over google daily. For a long time I tried to talk her into using another search tool and game site. She stuck with Yahoo because of her personal experiences. I stay away from Yahoo because of my personal experience*. If you don't like google, just don't use any of their products and chose something else. The same goes for IE, Windows, etc. Modern computing is about choice.

* If you are curious about my hatred of Yahoo, its simply a flaw in their early childrens search feature. Their advertising code displayed a porno ad to a 7 year old I was watching and nearly lost me my job. His search was totally unrelated and quite clean.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[zCyl]

Other Search Engines don't exist. Face it, Google is by and far the only option.

I agree, but google doesn't necessarilly agree. If you search google for "search", you will find that MSN Search is the top hit. If you instead choose "search engine", google is at the top.

As long as the google hints are clearly marked as distinct from the search results, and are not intrusive, I see no problem with this. In the actual results google seems to be fairly honest to the algorithm for now.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[blakeross]

Frankly I find it interesting after Microsoft started giving them help with Vista compatibility that we hear this negative google talk

I knew someone would figure it out eventually. Yes, the Vista workshop was so valuable that I decided to cut all ties with Google. They may be supplying millions of dollars and free promotions across the globe, but... man, it was such a great workshop!

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[kenwd0elq]

Google lost the right to use the "Don't be evil" motto when they teamed up with the Communist rulers of China to censor search results for Chinese subjects.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[quixote9]

I think Giovanni has hit the target. A monopoly is defined as too little meaningful competition, not no competition, as some of the folks here seem to think. And even though Google doesn't yet have a complete monopoly even by that definition, it's headed there because search engines, like electric utilities, are natural monopolies. Natural, in the sense that competition is a waste in that case, like having 2 competing utilities, each stringing miles of wire. It's the same with searching. Whichever portal has the widest reach will be used the most, will therefore have an even wider reach, and so on. In short order, it can have a stranglehold on the process. That is Not Good.

There's a reason why monopolies are regulated. I would have thought that watching Microsoft leverage another "natural monopoly" product, an OS, into a stranglehold would have shown pretty clearly why this is something that needs to be controlled at the outset. I don't know about you, but I'd like to set my own criteria for my preferences. So far, Google's come up with some excellent products, but I want to use them by my choice, not Google's.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[Malfourmed]

An ad placed by google has opportunity cost associated with it.

A tip does not.

I disagree. The opportunity cost is the money google could have made by selling the tip to another provider. As you point out, tips have icons - and are also phrased in terms of advice by a trusted party rather than advertising - two attributes which no doubt would attract a price premium.

While your argument is well thought out, I don't have a huge problem with google cross-marketing its products in this way, probably because (a) it's still relatively unobtrusive (b) google doesn't (yet) have the same market dominance in search as Microsoft has on the desktop and (c) google's general halo effect, which is still only slightly tarnished.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[llefler]

And even though Google doesn't yet have a complete monopoly even by that definition, it's headed there because search engines, like electric utilities, are natural monopolies.

Please, go back and do some more reading on natural monopolies, and 'barriers to entry' in general. Operating Systems and search engines are NOT like utilities.

Consider a utility. To enter the market you need licenses from federal, state, and local governments. Property easements. And capital costs for plants and infrastructure. Monopolies are allowed because the local governments don't want utility companies cherry picking customers. They want one company providing universal service.

With Operating Systems it takes millions of man hours to put together something competitive. That alone could be considered a huge barrier to entry. Ironically, the better Linux becomes, the lower this barrier becomes. But the real issue was the exclusive OEM contracts anyway. Not a natural monopoly, but one created by predatory business practices.

With search engines, what does it really take to compete? A web crawler, a huge database, and an efficient search algorithm.

I think you should be looking someplace else for a windmill...

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[mcrbids]

So far Microsoft hasn't tried to stop me using Linux.

Don't confuse covert action with inaction. Microsoft has definitely tried to stop you from using Linux. They've done everything that they could possibly get away with to prevent you from using ANYTHING but Microsoft products on your PC.

But it was covert - you didn't witness the exclusive deals, threats and haggles yourself, your vendor(s) did.

You might remember a certain antitrust trial, in which Microsoft played one of the sides? Perhaps you were sleeping under a rock or something...?

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[mstone]

I think your reality check bounced..

If Google had a de facto monopoly on search, it wouldn't mean squat. A company that wants to promote its photo app on Google isn't competing with Google in the search market. It's using Google as an advertising medium. The only way for antitrust law to come into play is if Google gets some kind of monopoly on 'advertising media', and there's no way that can possibly happen.

Nothing Google does in its search results page prevents a company from running print ads in trade magazines or doing TV and radio spots. If you want to restrict the discussion to 'online advertising', nothing Google does on its search results page will prevent a company from hiring an actual marketing agent who's willing to do the legwork of finding the top 100 websites visited by the company's core audience and buying ad space there, or better still, working deals that will see the company's product discussed in the direct content of those sites (thus gaining the product a high page rank in Google's non-paid search results, and avoiding the "nobody actually talks about our product but we're going to buy our way onto the search page anyway" games entirely).

This whole "Google won't let me buy the top slot, waah-waah-waah" bullshit is the sound made by people who are too cheap, stupid, or lazy to get out there and do some actual MARKETING. They want to click a "send me business" button and have the world beat a path to their door, largely based on the hard-earned-and-diligently-maintained reputation Google has won for providing relevant and trustworthy search results.

People also have this strange notion that 'top slot' has some magical value that no other slot has. Seriously: I defy anyone to show me a meaningful financial breakdown of the difference in value between "number one slot on Google's paid search list" and "number two slot on Google's paid search list." If Google is 'harming' its competitors by keeping the #1 slot for itself, someone please define that 'harm' in actual shillings and pence. If you can't, there's no way you could establish standing to file a lawsuit, let alone claim any damages.

Besides, Google putting its own products at the top of the paid links list is the very antithesis of anticompetitive behavior. When you see the link to Google's product, you also see links to other products that compete directly with Google's stuff. Please explain how we entered the Bizarro World where 'giving everyone the URLs to all your competitors' has come to be construed as 'anticompetitive behavior'. Christ on a pogo stick, people, show me three other companies that devote half as many resources to 'promoting competing products' as Google.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[mstone]

Your argument is well-reasoned, but you failed to mark a distinction between "Google artificially directing traffic to its own products" and "Google artificially directing traffic to any website willing to pay."

Let's face it, the whole paid-advertising thing is a direct violation of Google's page rank system. Users know it, and that's why Google makes a clear distinction between paid ads and unpaid search results.

If Google were giving its own products an artifically high page rank, yes, they'd probably lose the trust of the users. But they're not. They're putting their own products in the #1 slot of the "these don't have enough page rank to get listed, but somebody's willing to pay us to put them here anyway" list. You need another argument to show how the difference between "Google, then everyone else willing to pay" and "everyone willing to pay, with Google mixed in there somewhere" will cost the company any meaningful loss of credibility among users.

For that matter, please try to define an alternative solution, in which Google places its ads in the paid search list at a certain value without getting reamed (and probably sued) for artificially inflating the cost of buying the Nth slot in those rankings.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[DusterBar]

Well, it may not be real but did any of you ever see the original Miracle on 34th Street? In that movie, there was a major plot point where the "Santa" gave out advice that sometimes told people to buy at another store. This was such a major positive PR move that it brought in more customers than it may have lost. This same concept is what seems to be going on here (or, more correctly, wishing was going on here).

Now, I am not saying that the Google thing is actually an issue but the point is that sometimes playing fair / even handed is actually a win in the long run.

Over all, however, I must say that Google does play rather fair - more so than many (most) other companies in the same space or even other businesses. This does not mean that they could not try harder, but it also does not mean that they should give themselves a disadvantage.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[DrEldarion]

So which is better, at least getting a foot in the door in China for the potential to even MAKE a fight at one point in time, or just leaving them to do their own thing which has just worked so wonderfully in the past? Would you rather have all the major search engines in China be controlled by the government and have no outside presence at all?

If you actually stop and think for a second instead of making knee-jerk reactions, it's pretty cut-and-dry what the better choice is.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[Torvaun]

Excellent post, you only missed one thing. Google currently does not charge for these services it provides, other than the advertising service. If Google wants to say 'use our bandwidth and access our servers without giving us money,' let them. Yes, I understand the underlying business model of selling advertising, it's worked for radio stations for years. It is better for more people to use your service for free, because then more people will want to pay you for a related service. But from the average citizen's viewpoint, it doesn't really matter. Personally, I prefer to grab Google's free services for many things, from searches to email. I'm glad they're telling me about the new things.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[NotBorg]

As long as the google hints are clearly marked as distinct from the search results, and are not intrusive, I see no problem with this. In the actual results google seems to be fairly honest to the algorithm for now.

Exactly.

I had to see what the fuss was all about. So I Googled "photo sharing" which yielded a page with "sponsored links" fist and were marked as such. Right below it was a single line:

[Picasa icon] Tip: Want to share pictures? Try Google's Picasa Web Albums

The normal search results followed.

Ok I know that I'm using Google as my search engine. I know that this one line stands out as being different from ALL other search results because it has an image next to it and it is not structured like the other search results. And I know that this particular result has is labeled as a Google product.

Geeeeeee. I'm confused. I can't tell that Google is promoting one of it's own products.

Ok mabye I am. Fuck-it.... GOOGLE IS EVIL. Next in line.... ahh Yahoo! I do a Yahoo! Search for "Photo Sharing" Guess what it looks just like the Google page except that they are promoting Yahoo! Photos instead. "Sponsor Results" followed by

[Yahoo Y Lolo] Share photos on Yahoo! Photos

Followed by the normal search results. Obviously Yahoo! is evil to.

I now use MSN because when I searched for "photo sharing" on MSN I didn't get a Microsoft product between sponsored results and the normal results. MSN Search isn't evil that way. Except that every search result on the first page had "msn" or "microsoft" in its domain name.

whatever.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[lintux]

> Now if the developers at Mozilla wish to look down on google, they could stop making it default in Firefox as a search engine.

I'm told that Mozilla.com makes a "bit" too much money from that little textbox, so I don't think they'd like to remove it. ;-)

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[lohphat]

Give me a break.

They had to do business under the rules set down by the government in that country. The alternative was to not do business in China and let some other company do it, gain market share, and dilute Google's position.

If you haven't noticed, Communist regimes tend to crumble when they loose their grip on information and a middle-class develops -- Google being in China only accelerates the eventual slide from power.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[udderly]

As a geek, I realize that many of us have stronger ethics than most others.

While your wording is careful and not technically untrue, don't you think that it's a rather smug-sounding assertion? Almost any large group can make some claim that a sizable number of its members are more _____fill-in-the-blank___ than most others. Try it out. As a left-handed person, I realize that many of us have longer shinbones than most others.

But, given the prepositional phrase that you began the sentence with, I wonder if you didn't mean to imply that geeks are generally more ethical than most other subgroups of the population. If so, what is the ethical mesuring stick? As far as I can tell, the prevailing ethical system here is a relativistic/existential one (meaning that a universal moral code is rejected in favor of a personal/subjective one). I'm not necessarily against that, but it does seem a little easier to be "moral" when one has the ability to decide for oneself what that means. At least in comparison to some externally imposed ethical system. In any event, you would be hard-pressed to find a whole lot of people who have an relativistic/existential ethical system who did not feel that they were quite moral or ethical.

It's interesting that no one has yet challenged your statement here on slashdot. If someone had posted an equally accurate statement, such as "as a [Religious Jew, Practicing Christian, Card-Carrying Republican, CEO of a major corporation, I realize that many of us have stronger ethics than most others," I wonder if they would have gotten a free pass.

Re:Why shouldn't they?

[ceejayoz]

I'd say Google has a pretty good argument that the Chinese people aren't losing anything by having Google censored, as if Google didn't do it China'd just block the entire country from going to Google.

His scratched itch became the Firefox browser

[Anonymous Coward]

My scratched itch became ringworm.

I wish I had more ambition. And less fungus.

Parakey?

[jbarr]

This is the third reference I have seen to Parakey in the past two days, yet when you go to their sight, it's nothing more than a solicitation for an email address for a product announcement. Anyone care to explain what it is? (I know, I know, Google it, but then again, wouldn't that go against the intent of the article? ;-)

Re:Parakey?

[Shazow]

Wikipedia tends to be better for this type of thing. Here's an excerpt from Parakey @ Wikipedia:

Parakey is a Web-based computer user interface proposed by Firefox creator Blake Ross. Ross describes it as a "a Web operating system that can do everything an OS can do." [...]

That explains the reference to Firefox and Blake Ross. I guess it is kind of on topic... in a strange sort of way.

- shazow

Re:Parakey?

[Archangel Michael]

so, what Blake is complaining about is that when comparing vaporware products to actual products that do what the user wants, google should ignore the actual product and promote the vaporware product nobody else has heard about, because He is the supposed author of said vaporware product.

Got it.

Somewhere deep inside, my view of Firefox just diminished.

Re:Parakey?

[suv4x4]

From Wikipedia: Parakey is a Web-based computer user interface proposed by Firefox creator Blake Ross. Ross describes it as a "a Web operating system that can do everything an OS can do."

Uhmm... everything? Like run device drivers and manage memory allocation and multitasking :P?

Have people forgotten that an "OS" comprises more than a shiny GUI? Well let's see how his "OS" performs when it doesn't have a real "OS" to run on top of.

Can't people call it the way it is: Web GUI, Web Desktop, Web Apps...

Business

[markalot]

It's a business. Maybe he should run his own search engine, spend millions+ on hardware and then not profit from it.

In other words, I don't have a problem with this in the least.

Re:Business

[garcia]

If *that* is what he's really concerned with as the #1 reason why he shouldn't "trust" them, then he's fucking retarded.

Seriously, that's the least of the world's problems if Google decides to actually "do evil".

Re:Business

[Aladrin]

I agree. And we've seen no proof that Google refuses to put others first. All we've seen is a TON of businesses unwilling to put that kind of cash into advertising on Google. If a business paid enough, I'm sure they could get first place, even over Google apps.

Also, if you go on Google and search for 'maps'... I think there's a pretty darned good chance you are looking for 'Google Maps', and not someone else's. There's every reason to believe that Google's apps are #1 on their search engine because people are actually looking for them when they search on Google.

Re:Business

[blakeross]

> I agree. And we've seen no proof that Google refuses to put others first.

Actually, that's the crux of the post: by taking itself out of its ad network, Google has guaranteed its own ad positioning--three weeks after reassuring advertisers that it played by the same rules they do. Did you read the post?

Re:Business

[metlin]

"Doing evil" as you put it isn't something that is going to magically happen one fine day.

It is something that creeps up, a little at a time.

Google had promised not to do evil, and it always starts small. Remember that there was a time when MS was the underdog. Google starts with corrupting ads and results now, and of course such things as revealing the search information of someone:

Google has confirmed that it can provide search terms if given an Internet address or Web cookie, but has steadfastly refused to say how often such requests arrive. (Microsoft, on the other hand, told us that it has never received such queries for MSN Search, and AOL says it could not provide the information if asked.)

Of course, I will not even mention what happened with Google China etc.

The thing is, most people will not notice if Google was turning evil because it's not like one fine day they decide to do evil things. Remember that they are a publicly traded company, and sooner or later the desire for profit will win out over everything else.

They have already decided not to provide search results in a nation where such things as massacres by the government occured, and they have provided data to government agencies and refused to disclose how often they do this.

The thing about "evil" is not that it happens, it's that you would not know if it did. Who knows what else Google does with all that information?

That is the scary part. /tinfoil hat

Just my two cents and all that! :)

Priorities

[mikerm19]

I would rather them concentrate on fixing the memory leaks then who they should trust.

Re:Priorities

[dryeo]

And yet, despite all that, it's still the only viable choice for a web browser.

I don't know about that. I'm using a browser that (at least here) is twice as fast as firefox, includes mail, news, IRC, and a crappy HTML editor. Accepts lots of extensions, though only a subset of Firefox's. Runs on every system that Firefox runs on. And builds out of the same codebase as Firefox just needing different configure options.
Yes I'm talking about Seamonkey. Stupid name, nice fast browser.

The right to choose.

[grolschie]

Google's site, Google's rules. Don't like it? You have other choices. Unlike Microsoft products, it's not like many of us are locked into using Google. Just the way I see it.

Let's get real...

[__aaclcg7560]

It's no longer cool to be whining about Microsoft. That's why everyone is starting to whine about Google.

Sigh...nothing to do with Parakey

[blakeross]

Some people seem to find it incomprehensible that a person might genuinely put others' interests above his own. This has nothing to do with Parakey, which won't even exist for some time. You would think this statement from the post would defuse conspiracy theorists: "I believe, for instance, that shipping Internet Explorer with Windows was a good move." Hmm, doesn't that hurt Firefox?

I wrote about the issue because I believe it's important. You are, of course, welcome to disagree.

Re:Sigh...nothing to do with Parakey

[blakeross]

> Simple, Firefox didn't exist when the decision was made to bundle IE with windows.

"Shipping Internet Explorer with Windows" is not a moment in time. It is ongoing, and I still support it.

Re:Sigh...nothing to do with Parakey

[Khuffie]

Please, for the love of whatever it is you believe in, if you want to be taken seriously...it's MS, not M$.

Re:I don't see it.

[ScrewMaster]

... but they haven't demonstrated it in the same palpable manner.

Only because Emperor Palpatine hasn't taken over at Google yet.

Uh....

[scapermoya]

Google isn't some public service that needs to be "fair." If consumers start to feel like google's self-promotion degrades the quality of the (free, bear in mind) service they provide, then they will stop using it.

People need to stop treating really good ideas like something that we have a right to have.

Re:Uh....

[JFMulder]

Great post. I was going to post something similar, but I'll add to it.

It's like owning a hockey team. For many many years, the Molson beer company (a Canadian beer company which merged with the American beer company Coors a few years ago) was the majority (or complete?) owner of the Montreal Canadians. Because of this, the only beer you could buy at the forum was Molson beer. Even more, it was the only beer you could see advertised or sold during Montreal Canadian hockey games or Montreal Canadian related events. Molson had a monopoly over beer consuption during the hockey games. It truly was a monopoly since no other beer company could advertise there. Who in their right mind would allow advertising from a competitor in their own distribution or promotional channel?

I see Google's situation the same. They own the space and the distribution channel. They have the right to advertise anything they want in there.

(On an unrelated note, now that Molson sold the hockey team to George Gillet, an american interrest, they are still the only beer company associated with the team. Why? They offered the best advertising dollars to the team and became one of the biggest sponsor)

How's this from default search engine of IE7

[Astarica]

Didn't Google object having Microsoft put their own site as default search engine of IE7?

Of course, Google lost that one too, though in this case, as I understand it, there is no way to ever get the top spot from the ones Google wants their stuff at the top, whereas you could configure IE7 to use another search engine.

Those sons of bitches

[briancnorton]

Can you believe an ad-supported free service would be SO BOLD as to put THEIR OWN ADS into the results? What a bunch of Nazis, I bet they vote republican and sacrifice fuzzy animals to lord satan. That's just criminal, like an organization putting their own preferred home page on a new browser installation.

Re:so?

[martin-boundary]

You simply don't get it. There's no issue that Google can do (within reason) whatever they like with their own assets. The issue is that Google is biased, and people who use Google should know that when they do searches, so they aren't being duped. It's information, it's newsworthy, it belongs on slashdot, digg and other places.

This is not about telling Google what to do or not, it's about telling Google's _users_ that they are being duped when they search for particular types of software. It's Google's right to do so, and it's people's right to know.

Not Trademark Infringement

[John Hasler]

> Google can make a Picasa ad say "Easier to use than Kodak," but Kodak cannot
> create an ad that reads "Easier to use than Picasa."

Where is the support for this claim? Neither would be trademark infringement.

Re:Not Trademark Infringement

[blakeross]

That merely explains how to file a trademark complaint with Google.

My post does not claim it's trademark infringement, which you must know, since quoted it. The post says that Kodak could not create an ad containing "Picasa".

You've done this?

Yes.

What happens when you do it with "Kodak"?

That's exactly the point here. Google's tips are not subject to the same policies as AdWords ads, so irrespective of whether Kodak blocks ads from using its trademark, a tip could do it anyways. That wasn't the case when Google was using its own network.

Re:Not Trademark Infringement

[RedWizzard]

But the point is that Google are not saying that Picasa is "Easier to use than Kodak", are they?

Google's Opportunity Cost

[SocialWorm]

One thing that I haven't seen anyone else mention yet is, regardless of if Google dominates search and search advertisement or not, they have an opportunity cost in that they could be advertising something for someone else in the space they take for themselves. This is true even if it's in a space of the page that isn't used for AdWords (Seriously, what would YOU pay to place a link to your site on Google's front page? What do you think Amazon, Netflix, or WalMart would pay, given the chance?). If Google gives up a click that they would get money for in order to promote something of their own, so be it. They are, after all, paying for it!

Re:Blake Ross, Step Down

[blakeross]

Okay, I'll take the bait: no, none of this is based on any atom of truth.

Might as well be paranoid of everything

[moochfish]

Last time I checked, Mozilla owed a huge debt of gratitude to Google. Wasn't it Google that helped them get off the ground by making browser development a financially viable business model, and even helped distribute the browser with the Google Pack? In fact, they even describe Firefox as helping you "browse the web quickly and securely." I didn't see Yahoo, MSN, or Ask pushing Firefox the way Google did. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Yeah, some stuff google does might justify a feeling of distrust. But ad placement for their in-house products? Not having ads for Outlook on Mozilla's homepage doesn't make Mozilla less trustworthy.

Re:Might as well be paranoid of everything

[blakeross]

> I didn't see Yahoo, MSN, or Ask pushing Firefox the way Google did.

And you believe those engines (with the exception of MSN, perhaps :) wouldn't similarly support Firefox if *they* were the default? We made Google the default in Firefox long before Firefox was popular because we believed Google provided the best service to our users. Perhaps that's why I'm upset with the company now. It was only once Firefox started getting big and driving significant traffic to Google that a deal was cut.

> Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

I criticize Google because I want to see them improve.

General Motors starts selling Fords, News at 11

[davmoo]

Okay, so Google pushes their own products ahead of everyone else's. Would someone please name me a company that produces a product but pushes someone else's product ahead of their own? I guess you expect Ford to start selling Chryslers, eh? I bet you think Apple will start positively advertising the availability of Windows Vista, too.

Grow up. Google is a company. It can preach all the "do no evil" it wants to. But ultimately it will behave like a corporation. And putting your own product first is not "evil".

Re:I presently work for Google.

[a.d.trick]

Wait, so are you a Google acountant or a security professional. Don't tell me you changed jobs yesterday.

He just wants to keep up the image...

[dreemernj]

It's understandable. Firefox was a rallying cry against Microsoft, the monopoly, the company that only cared about making money, not following standards and playing friendly. But now Firefox is controlled by a for-profit company (the Mozilla Corporation), it is heavily backed by Google, a ginormous for-profit company, and he is starting to get nervous that Firefox is becoming the very thing that people were fighting against when they so openly accepted it.

So, he is going to be extra vocal about not playing fair.

Re:He just wants to keep up the image...

[blakeross]

> Firefox is controlled by a for-profit company

And that for-profit company is wholly owned and controlled by a non-profit company.

Re:I presently work for Google.

[aristotle-dude]

Wait, so are you a Google acountant or a security professional. Don't tell me you changed jobs yesterday.

Maybe he/she/it is a CIA plant who got confused about which cover story they were using this month. Either than or they have a multiple personality disorder where each personality holds down a different job at opposite ends of the country.

Re:I presently work for Google.

[eln]

Given that every post he makes is fake, I think you may be on to something there.

Re:I presently work for EVERBODY

[Harmonious Botch]

He works for a few others too... try googling "I work with" OR "I work for" trisexualpuppy

Re:TV and Newspapers

[servognome]

Does CBS bitch that NBC doesn't let it advertise its shows on NBC? (Or at the least, if CBS managed to, give its own properties prime ad spots?)

I'm sure NBC would bitch if CBS wouldn't allow advertisements for movies produced by Universal during primetime.

Uninstall it.

[Giloo]

OK, so let's just uninstall Google...

Parakey is...

[TravisW]

I'd never heard of Parakey before reading this, and clicking on the link didn't leave me much better off. From the Wikipedia article about Parakey:

"Parakey is a Web-based computer user interface proposed by Firefox creator Blake Ross. Ross describes it as a 'a Web operating system that can do everything an OS can do.' The idea behind it is to make image, video, and text transfer to the web easier."

Even the Wikipedia article is awfully short for a computer tech topic. Is this just a proposal? Vaporvare? If not, does anyone have a link to something more substantial about it?

You might guess it from the summary, but the implication is that Ross has a potential motive other than promoting blind ranking for its own ostensibly good sake.

agreed... i don't find it unreasonable at all.

[tylernt]

...as long as their ad results are clearly distinguishable from the real results. I don't have a problem with the ads of a different background color at the top or side... it's the ad results injected into the middle of the real results with only a faint horizontal line to separate them, that I find objectionable. What's worse is Google doesn't do it all the time, so they tend to catch people off guard.

Blake grew up?

[flyingfsck]

I guess he finally realized how the capitalist system works.

Re:Blake Ross is an idiot.

[blakeross]

I believe if you read the comments on the post you'll find that I reconsidered many of my opinions based on the opposite views presented there. But thanks for the kind words :)

Re:Blake Ross, Step Down

[AEton]

1) Denounce self anonymously
2) Post logged-in denial
3) Instant karma!
4) ...
5) Profit

Vertical Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what Blake is trying to say, is that Google has created a modern day internet-ified "vertical monopoly" over certain kinds of software.

Traditionally, vertical monopolies simply came about when companies purchased every level of manufacturing from resource acquisition to brick and mortar product retailers. Nowadays, especially in the burgeoning industry of internet-based software solutions, there is no 'resource acquisition' or 'brick and mortar product retailers.' Instead there is 'source code' and 'web advertising.'

With Picasa/Google Calendar/Google Maps, Google has absolute control and ownership over every stage of development from 'source code' to 'web advertising.'

Now the typical argument is "so what? isn't that what companies are supposed to do?" and that argument is absolutely right. Companies truly do aim for complete monopolization of an industry, either vertically or horizontally. This allows them to minimize costs, and ultimately deliver a better product to consumers.

In an idealistic world there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. If Linux was the only operating system in the world, there would be no "compatibility problems" (see Apple Computer, for an example of just such a OS->Hardware vertical monopoly). Problematically, Google is not Apple. Apple is 15% of the market. Google is nearly 80% (in its respective field).

If Google is allowed to continue it's course of action, it will be as if Microsoft decided to start selling computer hardware (like Apple). This can be very bad for consumers. Say Microsoft wants to "buy marketshare" and gives away free laptops that are fast, problem free, and run windows (yeah, yeah, yeah, oxymoron, don't belong in the same sentence, your jokes aren't that clever so suspend your disbelief for the sake of argument).

That's great... people start making accessories that only work with Microsoft laptops because they have 90% marketshare (see iPod). Soon all the other laptop companies go out of business because who can compete with a free laptop that's faster and better than yours? Now Microsoft laptops determine what new features are allowed (if iPod says no wireless connectivity, consumers don't get wireless connectivity. Thank God for big companies like Microsoft willing to step up to the plate... too bad Apple's marketing has made the iPod 'too cool' for the Zune, so consumers will have to wait for Steve Jobs to decide we're ready for wi-fi mp3 players before we can trade songs with each other on the go. Normally in a non-monopolized industry, one company would introduce wireless connectivity, and everybody else would follow to "keep up" but with iPods dominating the marketplace, smaller companies can all add wireless connectivity and Apple can simply "not care.")

1 year later, Microsoft decides to jack up the price of the laptops to $2000. No other companies exist, and consumers must deal with it because all other choices are gone.

So that's why monopolies are bad... I thought you all knew that, but from the comments I've seen so far it seems like that's not the case. Just because it's in the best interest for the company, doesn't mean it isn't ultimately bad for consumers.

If Google (with an immense market share of web advertising/search advertising) kicks out competitors in picture management software by giving away Picasa and minimizing advertising exposure of other companies, the other companies will go out of business and we will view/organize our pictures at the whim of Google.

If Google truly "does no evil" and never ever screws us over in the future, that's fine. But someday, the current CEO's/board of directors will move on, and somebody a little more greedy may take their place.

It's best not to let any company achieve that much power over any area of industry.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I presently work for Google.

[ben there...]

He wears a lot of hats. He's also been working for Barclay's (banking) in the UK for the past 30 years.

Does he promote IE over Firefox?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

kettle, pot, black

Re:I presently work for Google.

[AchiIIe]

Whoa, and he explains it himself here:

Hey, idiot. I only posted this to up my karma. Every post that I make is fake.

And yet, 7/20 of his latest comments are 3 or more, with some still being +5
Mods: I feel cheated :-/

I Disagree

[shaneh0]

I think we can all agree that Google has incredible power. They mean the difference between a paycheck and an unemployment check for--i'm guessing--millions of Americans. I was a developer consulting a web retailer during the September/October 2005 "Jagger" updates. This website went from page 10 on their top phrases to the first page above the fold. Two months later they were number 1 where they still are to this very day.

The difference? Pre Jagger sales averaged $110,000/mo less $20,000 in adwords. Post Jagger sales were $140,000/mo with nothing in adwords. Six hundred thousand dollars a year from an algorithm update.

This puts Google in the league of "Common Carriers." They're not nearly as vital as, say, the electric company--If google went dark today the other search engines would absorb the traffic--but their power doesn't come to them at no charge. They are benefiting greatly from this power, as you can see in their market cap. Google isn't a 1-company bubble, it's doing well because it has a unique amount of leverage and power in markets and technologies that almost surely will be the foundation of the global economy. In exchange for this massive power, Google has a responsibility to be a responsible corporate citizen.

And let's face it--if you called AT&T 411 for the number to your local Cable Internet company and the woman wouldn't tell you without first giving you the name and number of their own internet service, people would justify complain. This is similar. We expect our "utilities" to be fair abiters in exchange for a captive audience. The time has come that we start considering Google in the same light.

Re:I Disagree

[Dun Malg]

This puts Google in the league of "Common Carriers." No it doesn't. Go look at the Telecommunications act of 1934 to find out what a "common carrier" is in terms of telecommunications. Google runs a free service over the internet. Further puncturing your ridiculous assertion is the fact that not the ILECs and cable co's that provide internet service are not even considered common carriers. You're clearly confusing the nition of "common carrier" with that of "utility monopoly", probably from hearing about ILECs being called "common carriers".

They're not nearly as vital as, say, the electric company--If google went dark today the other search engines would absorb the traffic Yeah, it sounds like you're making the "utility monopoly" comparison. The laughable part is that you make and refute your own argument all in the same sentence. Google is open to competition at any time, on an equal footing. Buy a domain and enough hosting facilities and you too can index the internet and sell ads, just as they have.

Re:I Disagree

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Google is open to competition at any time, on an equal footing. Buy a domain and enough hosting facilities and you too can index the internet and sell ads, just as they have.

That is not strictly true. The idea that "anyone" can compete with any company on "equal footing" is one of those silly libertarian, "free market cures all" delusions.

In the real world, something called a "barrier to entry" exists for each of competitors in the marketplace. If those barriers are small, competition is usually flourishing and the "free market" functions as intended. Not so if the "barriers" are measured in billions of dollars or political power.

Sometimes those barriers are regulatory and legal in nature, which causes libertarians and "anarcho captialists" to howl and whine about the evils of government.

But more often then not they are based on other factors, such as technological, geographic, geo-politicial and the like. In the case of Google, the company is at this point in time "open" to competition by any Microsoft or Haliburton out there, or any one individual with a few billion dollars to spare on a risky venture. That is because Google has achieved nearly 50% market penetration (compared to 25% of the nearest competitor) and thus wields tremendous power over the marketplace. And that is why socially unjustifiable monopolies or, in this case, oligopolies are a fundamentally bad idea, no matter if their creation is coupled "good intentions" or not.

In short, it is exceedingly foolish to allow any one company to control anything near 50% of the marketplace in any product, for market distortions of massive scale are sure to follow.

Re:I Disagree

[HUADPE]

Sometimes those barriers are regulatory and legal in nature, which causes libertarians and "anarcho captialists" to howl and whine about the evils of government. But more often then not they are based on other factors, such as technological, geographic, geo-politicial and the like.

There is a big difference between legal barriers to entry and financial ones. There is good competition in the auto industry at the moment, an industry with much higher barriers to entry than the search engine market. Financial barriers to entry can be overcome, and lack of market share can be resolved through advertising (assuming the product is decent...well even not them sometimes). Legal barriers to entry cannot be gotten around. If you don't do what they tell you men with guns can come and take you away. Men with guns, that's the difference between a legal barrier to entry and a financial one.

Re:I Disagree

[IgnoramusMaximus]

There is good competition in the auto industry at the moment,

You must be joking. What dealership do I go to buy my electric car, for which there is considerable demand? Where do I get my bio-diesel/electric hybrid? How about an in-hub electric motor 4 wheel drive system? Stuff that has been around for decades and for which there would be a 2 year-long waiting list if it were only available from any of the major makers. Give me a break, none of the major, entrenched car makers compete on anything but marketing and manufacturing vehicles that are as cheap as possible to make and last as short a period of time as it is humanly possible while generating maximum after warranty parts demand. The term to use is "oligopoly". In a properly functioning marketplace there would be hundreds of car makers, not less then 10 globally.

Legal barriers to entry cannot be gotten around.

Neither can be geographic. A toll road built in the only valley linking major metropolies is just as difficult to "compete" with as a legal decree. In one case there is next to impossible political power to overcome, in the other a few trillion tons of rock. A conglomerate who manages to purchase all, say, nickel deposits world-wide, is also impossible to compete with. The very simple fact that the deposits accessible to mining (at non-astronomical price) are finite. There is no room to "expand" or to compete. Etc and so on.

Men with guns, that's the difference between a legal barrier to entry and a financial one.

As I pointed out, "financial" is only one of many different types of barriers to entry, of which legal only but one. Most of them are as insurmountable as men with guns.

Re:I Disagree

[Smidge204]

FYI: The absence of specific products does not equate to a lack of competition. It could be that the cost for manufacturing such things is simply not justifiable, the technology just isn't as mature as you want to believe, and/or you have grossly misjudged the potential market.

You are, of course, free to start "The Ignoramus Maximus Electric Auto Company" and produce these products yourself. Come up with a good sales pitch and find some venture capitalists, hire some good engineers and have a go. If the big bad oligopoly squishes you under its thumb I suppose you can always blog about it. Of course we all know such a brilliant business idea is guaranteed to be successful, what with such readily available technology and high demand...

Give me a break, none of the major, entrenched car makers compete on anything but marketing and manufacturing vehicles that are as cheap as possible to make and last as short a period of time as it is humanly possible while generating maximum after warranty parts demand.

Buy a Honda. If you bother to take care of the thing like you're supposed to it'll last longer than you will.

=Smidge=

Re:I Disagree

[ubergenius]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I am growing very tired of people thinking and arguing that because a company is immensely popular, it is somehow "indebted" to society, and is a "social service" because of that popularity. That is flat wrong.

For Google to have any obligation beyond itself and its shareholders, they would have to have governmental approval to become the only search engine on the web, thus shutting down Yahoo!, MSN Search, Ask.com, and the host of other search engines that could easily be substituted for Google.

Just because you rely on Google doesn't mean Google owes anything to you. If they want to do something, and you don't like it, you have a huge array of other options for your searching needs. Just because you don't feel like using another one doesn't mean Google is indebted to you in any way.

Re:I Disagree

[ucblockhead]

Funny thing is, I remember, way back in the late nineties, when the search engine market was locked up by Yahoo and Alta Vista, and only a fool would try to break in.

Re:I Disagree

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

But if you call Free 411 (1-800-373-3411) they do give you an ad first, but they are FREE.

Regular 411 you pay (thru the nose) for, so that is a much different situation.

Re:Blake Ross, Step Down

[blakeross]

You got me. I had qualms at first about "Blake Ross was bribed by a lobby" showing up in searches of my name for all eternity, but then I thought--wait, I can get some karma points!

To solidify the illusion, I prepared another comment and posted it simultaneously.

Re:I presently work for Google.

[ggy]

[...]or they have a multiple personality disorder where each personality holds down a different job at opposite ends of the country.

Hmm, like some kind of TriPersonalityPuppy?

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anpheus]

First, to make it clear, I'm replying to this to put my post nearer to the top, but that's because I'm egotistical and have a bias towards exaggerating the value of my own posts. So please, feel free to ignore the nice tidbit below:

It appears what TFA is about is incorrect. Why? Google for "share pictures." Picasa is the second ad in the blue box.

Google for "blog." Blogger shows up below the paid ads, as mostly plaintext with a blogger logo.

Google for "videos." Google Video shows up in the blue box, second ad.

Is it just me, or does it seem like they aren't favoring their own ads at all? There might be some algorithm sorting them, as when I search for some other terms Google comes up first (gmail comes up before AOL mail,) but in other cases Google's service shows up last in the paid ads.

Re:Blake Ross, Step Down

[serialdogma]

>SerialDogma is a cheat who stole my wife, burnt down my house, and killed my cat.
I am sadly forced to rase to the bait, none of those scandalous allegations have any element of truth, and the fact this troll posts as an AC further shows this.

Re:Not forced + Pot Kettle Black!

[blakeross]

There are bandwidth hungry Firefox adverts everywhere (obviously) but I find it ironic that someone who recommends his products on his own blogging website blasts another website for recommending their products on their website.

Putting aside the fact that my blog is not the kettle to Google's pot, this isn't even true. There is one Firefox advertisement on my website—a button in the right-hand sidebar—and it is below links to Internet Explorer, Opera and Safari that have been there for a very long time. (The blog header has the Firefox logo in it, but it's not a link to Firefox.)

No need to worry...

[bnf]

pop will eat itself

(forgive me, but let me go on a rant...)

which is to say that the common fancy becomes so common that it's commonality becomes a point of contention and leads to the fancy's demise. We're just about there with the ubiquity of google now just like we've been there before with IBM and at&t and ford and pan am.... this is the cyclic nature of (near)natural monopolies. Their success is their importance is their weight which means every step they take is heavy and is heard. Of course they can't be trusted; their success means that they've become "the man". It's easy to look sceptically upon them. How dare they self-agrandize. How dare they try to shape the world into their vision. Aren't they being irresponsible in propogating that vision?

It's very easy to be egalitarian in the face of such things. Big bad google is the new big bad wolf... They don't care about me, they only care about their stock price, which is all their stock holders (read: owners, read: larry and sergey) care about.

(The egalitarian view is always in conflict with the view of any particular hive, otherwise you're just kissing up to the masses and appear wishy washy)

From the google IPO filing:
Kumbaya: "We aspire to make Google an institution that makes the world a better place. And now, we are in the process of establishing the Google Foundation. We intend to contribute significant resources to the foundation, including employee time and approximately 1 percent of Google's equity and profits in some form."

in present time that rings: "we have a foundation for good to offset our foundation of commerce. Hopefully it will mitigate the evil enough for your tastes"...

but now we're at the "what have you done for me lately" phase with the over arching question of "prove to me it's not just the money". They have a particular PR battle on their hands since they are so much better off with us on their side. I mean, what if we all of the sudden realized that other search products were at least as good?

but they're not. Right? The other tools aren't as familiar or as elegant or as relevant. So at the end of the day this argument is moot. You can grumble as you use google or you can nod, but nine time out of ten the big G is still your dog when it comes to playing fetch with the net.

Re:No need to worry...

[blakeross]

Right? The other tools aren't as familiar or as elegant or as relevant. So at the end of the day this argument is moot.

I think you raise a very good point, but I don't think the argument is moot. Using a service and trusting a service are very different. When I trust a service, a competitor has to be significantly better to get me. When I'm neutral, the competitor has to be a little better. When I distrust a service, the competitor only has to be equal. Brand loyalty is important.

Straight from the horses mouth:

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what Google has to say about it: clicky

Basically, they're competing with everyone else fairly. They're not favoring their own ads. And IMHO, if they did put their own ads on top, it would be fine. But then they should expect some people to choose overture for keywords that google grab for themselves.

Re:I presently work for Google.

[GreatBunzinni]

TrisexualPuppy is a known slashdot troll. His method? Make big, impressive (and false) claims about what he does and try to play the authority card to make his posts fly. On the process TrisexualPuppy writes a few pure troll posts. Here is a small list of claims that TrisexualPuppy made:

• in here he claims to work for google's accounting department
• in here he claims to write video game reviews
• in here he claims to be a systems administrator working for a 3500-employee corporation
• in here he claims to be "an active lesbian"
• in here he claims to have worked "in the UK for Barklay's for 30 years"
• in here he claims to "work in Washington for an Internet Security firm" (while in here he claims to be "planning on travelling to DC" to attend president Ford's funeral).
• in here he claims to have met Sheldon Cohen, a psychologist and researcher at Carnegie Mellon University, and also reading "few of his papers on the immune system". Then he pastes a link to a wikipedia article which doesn't even exist.

All this was extracted from TransexualPuppy's last 25 posts. And of course, the confession right out of the wolf's mouth:

Hey, idiot. I only posted this to up my karma. Every post that I make is fake.

Taken from here Mod him accordingly.

Oh noes, COMMUNIST!

[Caspian]

"Google lost the right to use the "Don't be evil" motto when they teamed up with the Communist rulers of China to censor search results for Chinese subjects."

It's 2006; the era of McCarthyism is dead. Is there really a reason why people still use the word "Communist" as a sort of bogeyman? China's leaders aren't evil because they're communists (and, by the way, they aren't); they're evil because they're evil.

Re:Oh noes, COMMUNIST!

[ahodgson]

Is there really a reason why people still use the word "Communist" as a sort of bogeyman?

Probably because all Communist regimes really were, and continue to be, pretty much pure evil.

Language

[MidnightBrewer]

I find it more more annoying that Google insists that localized versions of Firefox automatically default to that locale's official language, and won't let you change this default no matter what. I live in Japan, and yes, I speak and read Japanese, but I'd prefer my searches not be limited by language. I have to click "search the entire web" every single time, which means searching twice. No other search engine has this built-in limitation.

Ironically, Yahoo! is the search engine of choice in Japan, and doesn't discriminate against language. Also, their results are often better than Google's.

Or because their results have gone to crap?

[Peter Cooper]

I've been a big Google fan for many years now since I started using them in 2000. I was the sort of idiot who got people to try them out in the early days and changed my clients' default search engines to them :) But now... man, the results they're dredging up in the last few weeks have been so atrocious I'm trying to jump ship to another search engine with a clean design and actually good results (still looking though.. Yahoo has nice results, but is surrounded by spam and distractions).

I think people have celebrated Google a lot in the past couple of years while they've been on top and the largest, most popular search engine. Some of the other respondents talk about tall poppy syndrome, but Google have been a much celebrated tall poppy for a while now. I think the reason for the whining is legitimate here and based on things like quirky advertising, piss-poor search results, and the lack of any great new developments from Google since Gmail in 2004.

Really? No Shit

[Luscious868]

Newsflash people: Google is a company that is in the game to make money. "Do No Evil" .. what a joke. Google is going to do what's in it's own best interest. All smart companies do. So enough of this outrage. Some of you people act like little kids who've just found out there's no Santa Clause. Google screwing someone or some thing to make money? No shit. Deal with it. This crap from Google will continue so stop worshiping them like they are the second coming of Jesus Christ. They are not. If screwing someone will result in making some money they will opt to do it. It's just a matter of degree. It's time to recognize that and deal with it.

Re:Please educate yourself

[mantito]

There was no attempt to apologize any executioners. There are lot of innocent people killed in the name of [communism, Christ, Alach, civilization, democracy, freedom, ...]. Most of these killings have nothing to do with alleged purpose. So please educate yourself too and judge people by their actions, not according labels, which some propaganda sticks to them. China is not "communist", and if it were "communist", it still wouldn't make them evil, all those bad things which they do make them evil.

Re:Proof that Google ain't what it used to be.

[VGPowerlord]

Have you tried disabling Google's "Safe Search"?

You know, the one that blocks money shots from being shown by default?