A Google Blunder- the Sad Story of Urchin

Anenome writes "Google has a track record of buying startups and integrating them into its portfolio. But sometimes those acquisitions go terribly wrong, as Ars Technica argues has been the case with Google's 2005 purchase of web-analytics firm Urchin Software Corp. 'In the wake of Google's purchase of the company, inquiring customers (including Ars Technica) were told that support and updates would continue. Companies that had purchased support contracts were expecting version 6 any day, including Ars. What really happened is this: Google focused its attention on Google Analytics, put all updates to Urchin's other products on the back burner, and rolled out a skeleton support team. Everyone who forked over for upgrades via a support contract never got them, even though things weren't supposed to have changed. The support experience has been awful. Since the acquisition, we have had two major issues with Urchin, and neither issue was solved by Google's support team. In fact, with one issue, we were helped up until the point it got difficult, and then the help vanished. The support team literally just stopped responding.'"

Comments

Just goes to show...

[LLKrisJ]

... How a once idealistic company (or one with some good ideas at least) gets corrupted by it's own succes. They are going the way of the evil corporation real fast.

But at least Brin and co. have their private airstrip now :)

Re:Just goes to show...

[Starturtle]

But at least Brin and co. have their private airstrip now I heard it was an 21-foot X-Wing model that actually flies.

Re:Just goes to show...

[cromar]

There must be something that happens to make a corporation and those who make it up become corrupt. All the bureaucracy? Or maybe the money does it...

Re:Just goes to show...

[sYkSh0n3]

I think a lot of it has to do with going public. Instead of worrying about making a good product and turning a profit, they have to worry about INCREASING profit. It can never be good enough. They have to constantly make more and more money to keep the stockholders happy. Eventually, they have to screw the customer for the sake of the stockholder.

Re:Just goes to show...

[Vegeta99]

air /strip/, man, not air /ship/. You know, like lapdance at 30,000ft, not Hindinberg.

Re:Just goes to show...

[jombeewoof]

I think a lot of it has to do with going public. Instead of worrying about making a good product and turning a profit, they have to worry about INCREASING profit. It can never be good enough. They have to constantly make more and more money to keep the stockholders happy. Eventually, they have to screw the customer for the sake of the stockholder. One of the many reasons I will only buy stock in a company I do not patronize.
As a stockholder I need them to screw their customers as hard, as quickly, and as often as possible.
This is not the kind of company I would do business with, but as long as I make 5% or more per year, I'm happy.

Two sides to every story

[d0rkb0y]

So a company made promises regarding a product right before they sold. Are the people who made those promises to you still in charge of the product? Did they cash out and move on to another venture? I'm sorry for your loss, but you should put some effort into learning what really happened. You have posted exactly what I am posted, which is opinion. I don't feel this is news worthy.

Re:Two sides to every story

[uglydog]

I don't think the original company management ever planned on releasing an upgrade.

Here's a news flash: when it takes 2.5 years to get an upgrade out that was due shortly after the Red Sox won the 2004 World Series, it's already effectively "discontinued."

I think what happened is that Urchin promised to deliver the upgrade "when the Red Sox won the World Series". Who could have seen that coming?

Re:Two sides to every story

[pintpusher]

Are the people who made those promises to you still in charge of the product? In theory this is irrelevant. The other side of the "corporate" coin -- that is, the side that doesn't involved shielding everyone involved from being liable for being jerks -- is that it, the corporation, persists beyond the tenure of its employees, officers, etc. Promises made by people on behalf of the corporation (or other business structure) are still binding on that corporation after those people leave. At least that's the theory. Of course now-a-days corps can do whatever they "want" with little or no repercussion.

Re:Two sides to every story

[jZnat]

They should have said the Cubs instead, then! :P

Re:Two sides to every story

[Rallion]

Well, I think there's a bit of a practical problem, there. If all the old people are replaced with new people, and there's no actual record of what promises were made, then...what do you do? What can you do? You can either do whatever somebody else tells you you're supposed to, or you can do whatever all the documents tell you to do.

Re:Two sides to every story

[pintpusher]

Sure its a practical problem, especially with smaller organizations where your scenario is more likely. But that doesn't absolve an organization from its responsibilities. And its also the purpose of things like contracts.

Regardless, if the organization fails to perform its contractual obligations, then there are methods for dealing with that. It is the responsibility of the organization to keep track of its obligations and it is the customer's responsibility to be prepared to deal with an organization that doesn't live up to its obligations. This can range from simply pointing out the problem to filing a lawsuit. A lot of contracts actually deal with this scenario specifically. For example, my two commercial leases have clauses that allow for transfer of the contract to other parties, but force the parties to maintain the terms of contract despite this transfer. But I'm wandering OT with that.

Re:Two sides to every story

[Trogre]

Or was it perhaps "when more than one country is invited to the 'World' Series"?

Re:Two sides to every story

[Kymri]

Since the Expos are now the Nationals, I guess they figured that was a pretty safe bet, what with the way the Toronto Blue Jays are(n't) tearing things up, of late. Seems like a safe bet, sadly.

yep

[thatskinnyguy]

Everyone who forked over for upgrades via a support contract never got them, even though things weren't supposed to have changed. In summary: hey got "forked-over" after forking over.

Re:yep

[trolltalk.com]

> "In summary: hey got "forked-over" after forking over."

Of course, if it were OSS, it could just be forked ...

Anyone got a link to the complete specs of what their log analysis tool does?

Re:I blame Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Not bad... you should get some pretty good bites with that one. And almost certainly mod points.

Re:I blame Microsoft

[BlowHole666]

It is googles' own greed. They purchased this company in competition with M$ but it is Googles fuck up not M$. So by your Bad Analogy if Mandravia goes under it is some how M$ fault? Not that fact that Mandrake got bought out and the parent company fucked up? I think you need to pull your head out of the sand (or your ass) and realize that not everything is Microsofts fault.

Re:I blame Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

If it weren't for the constant threat of absolute annihilation at the hands of Microsoft, Google would be free to build and support any number of cool technologies that users would certainly flock to like gays to Apple products.

Quite fitting considering your username...

Let's wait for Google Urchin 6, then ...

[darthflo]

... and in the meantime I can really recommend Sawmill which I finde quite loveable as a log processor.

Re:Let's wait for Google Urchin 6, then ...

[Medievalist]

... and in the meantime I can really recommend Sawmill which I finde quite loveable as a log processor. What a letdown. I thought that link was going to lead me to something entirely different. So much for the semantic web, eh?

Re:Let's wait for Google Urchin 6, then ...

[innocent_white_lamb]

I guess both kinds of sawmills work with logs. Which is probably where those guys came up with the name, and it is cute.

Buyouts

[JCSoRocks]

Isn't this just what happens about 50% of the time with company buyouts in tech? It seems like either you're buying them because you want their technology for yourself, or you're trying to eliminate a competitor. (Very rarely some holding company may actually just want to own a piece of the action and make a profit from your hard work). In either case though, the purchasing company doesn't give a crap about the viability of the company they're buying. I wouldn't say this is just google, I'd say this is the way most tech companies with money to spend handle buyouts.

Re:Buyouts

[Larry Lightbulb]

Another reason is that the buyer wants to get the customer base, so they can then slow down and phase out the earlier product and offer an 'upgrade' to their main product. Buying a company for this reason can be cheaper than advertising, etc, to get new customers.

Re:Buyouts

[mpapet]

Parent is right on only the percentage is closer to 90. Most acquisitions are destroyed by the "not invented here" mentality and soul-sucking turf battles.

Ars is abusing their publishing privilege by whining about something that didn't go their way. Hardly news.

Re:Buyouts

[speaker of the truth]

Ars is abusing their publishing privilege by [informing people that Google makes promises and then doesn't keep them]. Hardly news. And it isn't it sad that this is hardly news?

Re:Buyouts

[cnettel]

Google also seems to have a real policy of not keeping external productified versions of technology they want for their internal use.

Re:Buyouts

[Anonymous Coward]

Ars is abusing their publishing privilege by [informing people that [companies acquired by] Google makes promises [without signing a contract] and [Google] then doesn't keep them]. Hardly news.

And it isn't it sad that this is hardly news [yet people seem to care because it's Google and not Microsoft buying bungee to kill off cross platform support]?

PS: 1-UP

Re:Buyouts

[BuGless]

Another reason is that the buyer wants to get the customer base, so they can then slow down and phase out the earlier product and offer an 'upgrade' to their main product. Quite. Two notable examples are Lucent (buying and killing Livingston, then buying Ascend; resistance is futile), and Cisco (which does this all the time; most recent examples: wireless and VOIP).

Breach.

[iknownuttin]

So a company made promises regarding a product right before they sold.

It looked to me that they signed a contract. Therefore, wouldn't it be breach of contract and be actionable in court?

Re:Breach.

[quanticle]

It looked to me that they signed a contract. Therefore, wouldn't it be breach of contract and be actionable in court?

Nope. From the article:

"Them's the breaks," as they say: the support contracts never guaranteed upgrades.

It looks to me like they never got the upgrade promise in writing, and now they're whining that Google is failing to acknowledge a verbal promise made by the old dev. team. To which I say, "So what?" Isn't the first rule of corporate dealings, "Get it in writing or don't get it at all?"

Re:Breach.

[speaker of the truth]

To which I say, "So what?" Isn't the first rule of corporate dealings, "Get it in writing or don't get it at all?" And its having this attitude that lets companies like Google get away with it. Around these parts if someone promises something verbally, not only is it enforceable in court, its considered a lie and bad character to then go back on the promise. Much like Google has in this case.

Re:Breach.

[quanticle]

Around these parts if someone promises something verbally, not only is it enforceable in court, its considered a lie and bad character to then go back on the promise.

It is indeed bad character on Google's part to go back on a verbal agreement like this. However, to get court enforcement for an agreement like this, you have to have something to backup your hearsay evidence. Saying, "But they said they would have an upgrade," isn't enough. If Ars can produce an e-mail, or a letter, or even a recorded presentation that corroborates their case, they might have some ground to stand on. However, without further evidence, its their word vs. Google's.

By the way, which countries do enforce verbal agreements? Isn't such a system open for abuse - e.g. I can accuse you of promising something you never agreed to?

Re:Breach.

[SeaFox]

It looks to me like they never got the upgrade promise in writing, and now they're whining that Google is failing to acknowledge a verbal promise made by the old dev. team. To which I say, "So what?" Isn't the first rule of corporate dealings, "Get it in writing or don't get it at all?"

Isn't this exactly the same as Microsoft's Software Assurance troubles? All those companies bought contracts for upgrades for their software for a set period of time, then Microsoft never actually released any new products, till the very end of the contract deadline - pretty much in response to some companies threatening to sue. The result is Windows Vista: shipped only half done.

I don't hear people saying "them's the breaks" on those threads.

Re:Breach.

[Night Goat]

The United States enforces verbal agreements. However, it's tough to prove that there was a verbal agreement, so it's best to go with a written one. I don't have a link for this to prove it, but I learned that this was the case in a business law class I took in high school.

Re:Breach.

[quanticle]

In that case, the upgrade was promised in writing, and shipped as promised. Because there weren't any specifications on the the quality of the upgrade, Microsoft was free to sacrifice quality to get the upgrade out the door. Besides, Software Assurance was supposed to be more like insurance than a contract. If Microsoft released an upgrade during the contract, then you got the upgrade for free (or reduced cost, I'm not sure). But I don't think there was any clause stating that Microsoft had to release an upgrade during the contract period.

Uncertainty

[beavis88]

What companies like Google don't realize is that it's the uncertainty that kills customers. Most of us won't really care if you're going to buy Urchin, move all the best pieces to Google Analytics, and then kill it off - just tell us what the fuck you are doing so we can plan accordingly. Dicking people around by pretending to support what you know will be a dead product is a good way to get people to hold grudges against you.

Re:Uncertainty

[trolltalk.com]

> "What companies like Google don't realize is that it's the uncertainty that kills customers. Most of us won't really care if you're going to buy Urchin, move all the best pieces to Google Analytics, and then kill it off - just tell us what the fuck you are doing so we can plan accordingly. Dicking people around by pretending to support what you know will be a dead product is a good way to get people to hold grudges against you."

You must be new here; it worked for Microsoft ...

In Soviet Googlestan, product updates kill YOU!

Re:Uncertainty

[lymond01]

What companies like Google don't realize is that it's the uncertainty that kills customers.

This.

Not that Google doesn't realize this, but they dropped the ball in this case. We have a few major systems being rolled out at the University, and the faculty web tools have sporadic uptimes. Fastest way to have faculty NOT use your tools? Have the system be down just ONCE when they want to use it. "It never works!" is what you'll get and they'll do it themselves from there on out.

Re:Uncertainty

[somersault]

Beavis: The future sucks. Change it.

Butthead: I'm way cool Beavis, but I cannot change the future.

Re:Uncertainty

[Typoboy]

That is the bane of my web-app existence. It's to the point where I try to be careful who I ask to test what at what time, because if it is scary enough, they won't come back.

Re:Uncertainty

[earnest murderer]

I'm not sure I'd limit it to "companies like", pushing the limits of what the law will permit in terms of consumer deception, even fraud, is broad and pervasive throughout the commercial sector. About all you can do is make noise and file a suit. Noise, lately, has been very effective if you can get enough interest in it. It shouldn't be very hard to write a piece equating their behavior here to a very reasonable lack of confidence in google checkout (a product Google cares very much about). If they're untrustworthy when they're outright taking your money, how much trust can you have when they aren't even the recipient of that cash?

Speaking of... whatever happened to all of those support contracts Microsoft made with the software upgrades included when they were trying to move people to XP. I hate to ask, but Google just returns a mountain of blogcest about vista.

Re:Uncertainty

[jalefkowit]

What companies like Google don't realize is that it's the uncertainty that kills customers.

What you don't realize is that, from Google's perspective, you're not the customer.

Google wants to data-mine the Web to better sell ads. Convincing sites to run their analytics through Google's hosted solution gives them a gold mine of data to use for this purpose.

In other words, the stats software is just bait that they can use to get people to provide data they can use to better serve their real customers -- the people who buy ads on Google's network.

Back when you were dealing with Urchin, you were the customer in a straightforward transaction of money-for-software. But those days are over, unfortunately.

Re:Uncertainty

[Slashdot Parent]

What you don't realize is that, from Google's perspective, you're not the customer Well, these Urchin users paid for support contracts and for upgrades. I think I'm willing to grant them "customer" status.

The problem is, these customers did not get what they paid for, and that is why they are upset. I can't say that I blame them.

Wouldn't you be mad if you paid for something and didn't get it, or if the company half-assed their commitments?

Re:Uncertainty

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, the stats software is just bait that they can use to get people to provide data they can use to better serve their real customers

You're way too optimistic. What it actually allows them is to track you accross 60% of websites using cookies.

Re:Uncertainty

[fm6]

You're assuming that killing off Urchin was the official game plan. More likely, the plan was to continue running it, gradually merging it into Google Analytics. But inept management and corporate politics prevented that from happening.

Re:Uncertainty

[hendridm]

In other words, the stats software is just bait that they can use to get people to provide data they can use to better serve their real customers -- the people who buy ads on Google's network.

Sooo... No product (users of GA), no customers (consumers of the data), no?

If anyone would know about an Urchin

[Shadow Wrought]

It would be an Anenome...

Re:If anyone would know about an Urchin

[Princeofcups]

>> It would be an Anenome (sic) ...

A sea urchin is an Echinoderm, like starfish and sea cucumbers.
An anemone is a Cnidaria, like coral and jelly fish.

Imagine obligatory wiki links here.

jfs

Re:If anyone would know about an Urchin

[threaded]

I thought an Urchin was the old name for a Hedgehog, and that Sea Urchins are so named because they have lots of things sticking out of them, looking somewhat similar, if you sort of squint sideways with your head cocked to one side.

Re:If anyone would know about an Urchin

[Shadow Wrought]

So, in other words, I should clam up about what I don't fathom?

Re:If anyone would know about an Urchin

[griffjon]

Just don't try to mussel into the joke just for the halibut, fishing for +1 Funny, or you'll end up get "dock"ed karma.

Re:If anyone would know about an Urchin

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia says: "You are correct."

By the way, In German an Hedgehog is an "Igel" (not to be confused with the English word "eagle" which sounds the same) and a Sea Urchin is an "Seeigel" (not to be confused with the sea eagle, which still sounds the same).

Re:If anyone would know about an Urchin

[Shadow Wrought]

Abalone! You shelfishly want all the Carpa for yourself.

Re:If anyone would know about an Urchin

[jollyreaper]

Look, if you're gonna make fish puns, just quote the whole song and be done with it.

It was April the 41st, being a quadruple leap year
I was driving in downtown Atlantis
My Barracuda was in the shop, so I was in a rented Stingray, and it was overheating
So I pulled into a Shell station They said I'd blown a seal
I said, "Fix the damn thing and leave my private life out of it, okay pal?"

While they were doing that I walked over to a place called the oyster bar -- a real dive
But I knew the owner, he used to play for the Dolphins
I said, "Hi, Gil!!!"
You hafta yell, he's hard of herring

CHORUS:
Think I had a wet dream Cruisin' through the Gulf Stream Oooh-ooh-ooh-ooh Wet dream...

Gil was also down on his luck
Fact is, he was barely keeping his head below water
I gullied up to the sandbar He poured the usual
Rusty snail, hold the grunion, shaken, not stirred
With a peanut butter and jellyfish sandwich on the side -- heavy on the mako
I slipped him a fin -- on porpoise I was feeling good
I even dropped a sand dollar in the box for Jerry's Squids -- for the halibut

Well, the place was crowded We were packed in like sardines
They were all there to listen to the big band sounds of Tommy Dorsal -- what sole
Tommy was rockin' the place with a very popular tuna -- "Salmon Chanted Evening"
And the stage was surrounded by screaming groupers
Probably there to see the bass player

One of them was this cute little yellowtail
And she's giving ME the eye
So I figure, this is my chance for a little fun
You know -- a piece of Pisces

But she said things I just couldn't fathom
She was too deep, and seemed to be under a lot of pressure
Boy, could she drink
She drank like a... she drank A LOT...
I said, "What's your sign?" She said, "Aquarium" I said, "GREAT!!! Let's get tanked!"

I invited her up to my place for a little midnight bait
I said, "C'mon baby, it'll only take a few minnows"
She threw me that same old line
"Not tonight -- I got a haddock"

And she wasn't kiddin' either, 'cuz in came the biggest, meanest looking haddock I'd ever seen come down the pike
He was covered with mussels
He came over to me, he said, "Listen shrimp -- don't you come trolling around here"
What a crab This guy was steamed -- I could see the anchor in his eyes

I turned to him, I said, "Abalone -- You're just being shellfish"
Well, I knew it was going to be trouble, and so did Gil, 'cuz he was already on the phone to the cods
The haddock hits me with a sucker punch
I catch him with a left hook He eels over
It was a fluke, but there he was, lying on the deck, flat as a mackerel
Kelpless

I said, "Forget the cods, Gil, this guy's gonna need a sturgeon"
Well, the yellowtail was impressed with the way I landed her boyfriend
She came over to me, she said, "Hey big boy, you're really a game fish"
"What's your name?"
I said, "Marlin"

Well from then on, we had a whale of a time
I took her to dinner
I took her to dance
I bought her a bouquet of flounders
And then I went home with her
And what did I get for my trouble?
A case of the clams

Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 29.1).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 30.1)

Re:If anyone would know about an Urchin

[Shadow Wrought]

Look, if you're gonna make fish puns, just quote the whole song and be done with it.

You got me. It is Trawl Tuesday after all...

Re:If anyone would know about an Urchin

[drivinghighway61]

Whale my parent's concern for GP is nice, eel probably be fin.

Re:If anyone would know about an Urchin

[Anonymous Coward]

that was terrible, i think i'm going to be (sea) sick.

FOSS losers

[Generic Guy]

It makes one wonder how many of these companies eschewed open-source solutions, in favor of expensive "supported" software.

Hopefully enough of these examples will eventually reach the tipping point where PHBs will finally begin to wonder what exactly they're getting for their money.

Re:FOSS losers

[p0tat03]

Wait... So the company that doesn't want to worry about its own software, and therefore buys a support contract, will now be benefited by the "fix it yourself" nature of FOSS? I know the power of FOSS is being able to go into the code and alter/fix things that you don't like - but considering this company clearly doesn't want to have its own little team of coders doing something like that (hence buying the contract), what's the point?

More likely a rash of unsupportive developers will simply create room for companies that actually HONOR their support contracts...

Re:FOSS losers

[Intron]

"supported" and "open-source" are independent. The third independent variable is "being actively developed" which is the missing ingredient with Urchin. Since Ars provides zero details about the two major "issues" and is mostly complaining about not getting upgrades, I'm guessing that they were not bugs but new features that they wanted.

Re:FOSS losers

[the_womble]

The point is that FOSS does not leave you completely dependent on a single supplier: you can buy support and enhancements elsewhere. If there are lots of unsatisfied users, there is likely to be a fork.

Suppose Urchin had been FOSS. It would have been forked by now, and the devs of the forked version would be offering support.

Re:FOSS losers

[bruce_the_moose]

I got the radio-silence from their support even before the Google deal went down. No emailed response, the voice mail box was full. I ended up writing a snail-mail letter to Urchin's president pleading with him to have someone at least respond to one of my emails so that I knew I was getting through. I got a letter from him where he declared the circumstance was "unacceptable" and I finally got a response on the trouble ticket. I'm still waiting for the upgrade we were supposed to get. That said, I still like the product. Its reports are better than WebTrends, it's cheaper, and it runs on Unix.

Re:FOSS losers

[Ed Avis]

If the program you are using is free software, then you have a choice of who to get support from. Anyone can start a maintained, supported fork of the program and offer their services. This competition (or even just the possibility of competition) will tend to give a better deal to the customer.

With Urchin, the only people supporting it are those 'trained' and authorized by one company, Google. There is no chance for any independent third party to get the code and start offering services.

Maybe you're not a car mechanic yourself, but still you wouldn't buy a car with the hood welded shut.

Re:FOSS losers

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because hiring 2-3 developers and a domain expert at $150-$200K/piece (including overhead, healthcare, etc), waiting the average of 3-4 months it takes to build that team, and another 5-6 months to implement the solution, is far less risky. FOSS projects drop off the face of the earth far more often than commercial projects. Just do a cursory search on the SF or FM to see how many projects had legs for a year than activity died. Spending even 5 figures on licensing is usually a lot cheaper and less risky.

Re:FOSS losers

[Pootie Tang]

Although I see the point you are making, allow me to answer your questions.

1) How many went with the expensive software instead of open-source? All of them that picked Urchin obviously.

2) Wonder what exactly they're getting for thier money? I can't tell you specifically, but I don't think nothing is a good answer.

There are open source web log reporting solutions out there. The companies that went with Urchin did so for a reason. In some cases it may have been a bad reason, such as "someone to sue" or they weren't aware of the open source options. However I'm sure at least some companies went with Urchin because they felt it had useful features that weren't available in the open source alternatives.

Sure, they may be screwed now if there are bugs and they don't have the option of fixing them themselves. But there was no way of determining that was going to happen at the time. It's a risk. They might wind up in that situation, or they might wind up with web analytics that works better than the open source options.

I'm not arguing against open source, I'm just saying it's not always as black and white as you make it out to be.

On the bright side...

[mengel]

... you also couldn't find anyone from Urchin to arrange for a new support contract. So they weren't continuing to take your money and not provide suppport -- they wouldn't even take your money.

Here's the lowdown.

[Fireye]

Google purchased Urchin outright.

Google/Urchin provided support for a short while, and all was good. Then, Google/Urchin decided to outsource ALL support requests except major bugs. They "trained" authorized support personel from various companies, which are now listed under their resellers page. But, a good percentage of those people know jack about the inner working of Urchin. I feel sorry for them, honestly, because I doubt they were trained properly and there's very little solid documentation.

Urchin is EXTREMELY poorly documented. Want to know how to create your own report inside a profile? It's easy! Now, do you want to analyze some metric in a different way than Urchin does by default? Wow. Good luck. datamap.dm, I hardly knew thee. I still don't know it well, because there's very little documentation and zilch for examples about how the integral parts of the program work. Want to change how some .tpl (report templates) look or present information? Good luck, there is exactly zero documentation about it. Hell, the "support" personel I worked with didn't even know those files existed, or what they did.

So yeah, Google is certainly at fault somewhat, but a lot of the issues people have could have been resolved even prior to the acquirement of Urchin! Documentation will save us, or in it's absence damn us.

Another topic is that Urchin currently has two outstanding LARGE vulnerabilities, as published by US CERT. Google/Urchin was notified back in June or July about these security holes. They claimed a fix was in the works. It's now OCTOBER and they're totally silent on the issue. My support requests (directed directly at google, not at one of their support contractors) go unanswered. There hasn't been an update to the program in years. Google/Urchin is COMPLETELY silent about the Urchin standalone product.

I'm extremely happy that this is getting some public attention, because it bugs the bejeezus out of serious Urchin users.

Re:Here's the lowdown.

[jagdish]

Want to change how some .tpl (report templates) look or present information? Good luck, there is exactly zero documentation about it.

Yeah, and dont even get me started on the .tps reports.

Re:Here's the lowdown.

[midian_va]

we ran into the same support issues, ended up digging into the config files and doing things through trial and error. Unfortunately, the existing docs are complete crap, so its next to impossible to do anything really different with the product. Who knows if there will ever be a version 6. I think that, for the most part, we are abandoning the use of this product and moving onto something else.

It would have been nice to have google let us know that this product is essentially dead though :(

Re:Here's the lowdown.

[MadMidnightBomber]

Then, Google/Urchin decided to outsource ALL support requests except major bugs.

OK, how do I request a major bug?

Re:I blame Microsoft

[MrNaz]

I nominate you for Slashdotter of the year. Nobody, and I mean nobody, else here can compete with brazen, baseless, brainless anti-MS vitriol like that, which is saying something, given the company we're in. You, sir, deserve a medal.

Honestly, who cares?

[pair-a-noyd]

Google-analytics and urchin are both evil.
Can you say blocklist?

Sorry Mr. Submitter but you are preaching to a room full of dry eyes.

Re:Honestly, who cares?

[Fireye]

Errr, the version of Urchin he's referring to postprocesses Apache/IIS/Websphere/etc log files. You don't have to use cookies to track users (though it helps). ... so, disregarding cookies, why is Urchin evil?

Re:Honestly, who cares?

[Sporkinum]

Been blocking Urchin and Google-Analytics for years. Whenever I set up someone with Firefox, I do that for them as well. No cookies, no tracking gifs, etc.

Re:Honestly, who cares?

[D4rkn1ght]

I don't have anything against Urchin. But while some sites work fine, others just take forever load. This is why I block Urchin and Google-Analytics.

Re:I blame Microsoft

[quanticle]

Ok, I'll bite...

Price doesn't have to be the only basis for competition. You can compete on service, and quality of product as well. To make an analogy, look at the retail market. Walmart competes on price, and its pretty successful. Target, knowing that it can't beat Walmart on price, competes by having brighter stores, and higher quality goods. Recently, Target has had a higher growth rate than Walmart, indicating that atmosphere and quality are criteria used by consumers to evaluate stores.

Similarly, you don't have to compete on price with Microsoft, and if you do, you'll probably lose. The trick is to go for quality and service - something that Google has been going for, except in this case. That's why the continued disregard of existing Urchin customers was a blunder - it put a black mark against Google's reputation for good customer service.

Re:I blame Microsoft

[speaker of the truth]

This isn't an analogy. Its naught but flamebait. Very disappointing BadAnalogyGuy. Next time include an analogy and it might not be so bad.

Sue!

[jbrandv]

I say go after the deep pockets of Google, demand a jury trial, profit! When they bought the company they also have to take on their customer support. I suspect that a jury would agree.

One word!

[bogaboga]

Greed!

Are they finally evil?

[speaker of the truth]

Come on, if Microsoft did this we'd be yelling loudly how bad they were.

Re:Are they finally evil?

[moderatorrater]

When Microsoft consistently buys companies with good products, improves them and releases them free, come tell me how they're the same level as Google. As it stands now, Google bought a company with a couple of products, built one of the products up and turned it into a free service with a huge following while not spending a lot of resources on the other product. The ignoring of the product was evil, the building up of google analytics was good, we come out with overall neutral.

Re:Are they finally evil?

[gentlemen_loser]

As it stands now, Google bought a company with a couple of products, built one of the products up and turned it into a free service with a huge following while not spending a lot of resources on the other product. The ignoring of the product was evil, the building up of google analytics was good, we come out with overall neutral.

So then, if I pat you on the head and kick your friend in the nuts, I am neutral and not evil, right? I am starting to get a little sick of Google getting a free pass. And to clear, free software (according to the FSF) means:

The word "free" in our name does not refer to price; it refers to freedom. First, the freedom to copy a program and redistribute it to your neighbors, so that they can use it as well as you. Second, the freedom to change a program, so that you can control it instead of it controlling you; for this, the source code must be made available to you.

Google's "free" software is not really free. Rather, it is merely another avenue by which to ram ads down the throat of the public. I am officially coining the term "Free as in Google".

I blame Microsoft too, for setting the standard.

[JoeCommodore]

This has been the MOU for Microsoft for years buy a company, speak the 'we support our users' talk, take the staff and code, drop the non-MS users and then tout how they are innovating and are the best thing there is.

Any of these ring a bell:
- Fox Software
- Bungie
- SubLogic

All of which made great programs that supported users of multiple platforms, MS bought them, said they were dedicated to enhacing the product across all platforms, made a half assed release or two and then dropped all other platforms due to 'lack of interest' (they claim it was customer lack of interest when it was more like Microsoft's). It's amazing MS Office for Mac has lasted as long as it has...

I am curious on what similarity, does Google limit the user by switching to Analytics- or what is missed by Analytics that isn't by Urchin?

What it really shows

[porkThreeWays]

Is that choosing commercial or proprietary software based on the notion you get better support is a myth. I can't even tell you how many PHB's I know that are scared to do anything without a support contract. The moral of the story: Your people should be able to solve 99.9% of all software problems on their own and rely on support as little as possible. Most support contracts I've dealt with have been mostly useless and we've generally had to solve all the hard problems in house. I've pretty much lost faith in support contracts meaning anything other than "a company to sue when things go wrong". But suing a company doesn't bring back lost customers and it doesn't bring back a company that doesn't exist anymore. Blaming others is a great cop out, but I'd never base a business around the blame game.

Re:What it really shows

[speaker of the truth]

Is that choosing commercial or proprietary software based on the notion you get better support is a myth. Given that OSS can ONLY make money from offering support (or by being sponsored by a large company) with all other things equal the likelihood is that the OSS people will offer better support, because unlike closed source companies the support is their bread and butter.

Re:What it really shows

[__aamnbm3774]

Given that OSS can ONLY make money from offering support....OSS people will offer better support

How did you come to that conclusion? Seems like FUD if you ask me.
If anything, OSS companies would try to oversell you on support, keep you on the phone longer, and result in shoddier software which require you to keep calling back.
Wouldn't that be a more likely corporate evolution of a company that ONLY obtains revenue from Support contracts??

Re:What it really shows

[wolff000]

That doesn't work in a whole loot of situations. It's great to have good people that can troubleshoot, if you can afford it. Most companies pay for support because it is still cheaper than hiring experts on every piece of software you have. one person can't know it all and if you have tailor software to suit your needs you really have to have support from the people that made it. In some instances in house is good but there are just as many instances where it is just not economical.

Re:What it really shows

[Belacgod]

Actually, for the PHB it makes sense. If there's a support contract and the support craps out, sure the product fails but the PHB has his ass covered, since it was demonstrably not his fault. Without a support contract, failure may be less likely but is more likely to come down on his head.

Re:What it really shows

[Anonymous Coward]

Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and loving it. Since yesterday, huh?

Re:What it really shows

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that OSS can ONLY make money from offering support (or by being sponsored by a large company) with all other things equal the likelihood is that the OSS people will offer better support, because unlike closed source companies the support is their bread and butter.

And by the exact same token, with all other things equal the likelihood is that the OSS products will need more support, isn't it?

Re:What it really shows

[cowwoc2001]

Exactly the opposite is true.

Think about it. OSS can only make money from support whereas support is associated with unwanted overhead for commercial products. As such, OSS products are more likely to be difficult to use to drive up their support profits (see Linux for example) whereas commercial products are much likely to be easier to use to drive their support costs down (see Windows for example).

Re:What it really shows

[toddestan]

How did you come to that conclusion? Seems like FUD if you ask me.
If anything, OSS companies would try to oversell you on support, keep you on the phone longer, and result in shoddier software which require you to keep calling back.
Wouldn't that be a more likely corporate evolution of a company that ONLY obtains revenue from Support contracts??

On the other hand, they are supporting a totally open product. If they dick around with you too much, you could always get support elsewhere or fix it in-house.

Re:What it really shows

[jackspenn]

I could argue that since OSS can only make money from support it means they will never build apps to be 100% user friendly and may intentionally keep things confusing from a user's perspective.

ok

[nomadic]

I'm trying to work up the passion to be outraged here, but it's kind of hard to care. This kind of thing happens all the time.

Re:ok

[Fireye]

Most people shouldn't be outraged about it. Honestly, most people shouldn't even care.

If the people who purchased upgrade support from URCHIN want to take them to court, they'd have a decent case.
If the people who purchased it after Google acquired it want a new version, your only decent recourse is to bitch and moan. And guess what? Google isn't listening. And neither should anyone else.

However, Google should release security fixes for the existing product.

Re:ok

[tehcyder]

I'm trying to work up the passion to be outraged here, but it's kind of hard to care. This kind of thing happens all the time.

Just pretend it's Microsoft instead of Google.

Why PHB's go with commercial services

[SuperBanana]

It makes one wonder how many of these companies eschewed open-source solutions, in favor of expensive "supported" software. Hopefully enough of these examples will eventually reach the tipping point where PHBs will finally begin to wonder what exactly they're getting for their money.

You don't understand why companies prefer commercial solutions.

If I buy services from a company and they fail to deliver, I have choices. Like suing them (example: breach of contract) and recovering damages. I can't do that if I install open-source software, unless I hire a firm to take care of the implementation, and *they* fuck up on what they promised they'd deliver.

Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it's broken.

Re:Why PHB's go with commercial services

[Ed Avis]

I think this is not a fair comparison. It should be

installing proprietary software and paying for it versus installing free software and paying for it

or if you want to compare the no-money case,

installing proprietary software without paying anything versus installing free software without paying anything

Re:Why PHB's go with commercial services

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand why companies prefer commercial solutions.

Oh, I understand all right. To some degree, it is CYA maneuvering. But once you peer beneath the veneer of "support" what are you really getting? Urchin is a good example because it is a fancy web-log reporting tool. Not necessarily beyond the capabilities of a few internal developers, or other existing tools in the OSS world.

I have choices. Like suing them

See, this is exactly the kind of problem with Career Management attitudes today. You yourself indicated that your final solution is to spend more money lawyering up, and even more money on an 'alternate' solution. The only real rationale for the purchase is to have someone else to yell at.

And PHBs keep getting away with it, because nobody seems to call them out on all the money they waste on empty promises and vaporware.

Re:Why PHB's go with commercial services

[Synn]

If I buy services from a company and they fail to deliver, I have choices. Like suing them (example: breach of contract) and recovering damages.

I'd love to see examples where this has actually happened. Commercial software companies fail to deliver at the time. It's routine. And yet it's always the admins and the users in the company that bought it that end up having to "pay" for it.

Re:Why PHB's go with commercial services

[Slashdot Parent]

If I buy services from a company and they fail to deliver, I have choices. Like suing them (example: breach of contract) and recovering damages. Awesome.

So riddle me this, batman. Users buy Urchin and also purchase a contract for support and upgrades. Urchin gets bought by Google, who breaches that contract by not releasing an upgrade, and failing to deliver support. Reminder: CUSTOMERS PAID FOR BOTH OF THEM!

Now, how come these customers aren't able to get any relief from the courts? How come their only recourse is to bitch about the problem on Slashdot?

I think that you'll find that in the Real World, if you pay for software/services in order to have someone to sue, you are definitely not getting your money's worth.

Re:Why PHB's go with commercial services

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... unless they invent some kind of fancy new "end user agreement," which limits your ability to sue them.

I'm sure Microsoft would still be in business today, had they only thought of this first.

Ohhh! Patent search time!

Re:Why PHB's go with commercial services

[exhilaration]

That's because those wonderful EULAs make it impossible to sue the software developers. The parent's post is an example of flawed, uninformed PHB thinking.

What did you expect

[aggles]

It is sad that Urchin (the product) is all but dead, but what did you expect? Google bought a Web analytics product to help sell ad-words. Its hosted version is free, has been much updated and is well worth the price you pay. Google is not deeply in the product business, except for their search engine appliance. It takes a huge infrastructure to compete with the leaders of Web analytics products and services, such as Omniture, WebTrends, Coremetrics, Visual Sciences and Unica. Its not in Google's business model to do this. What is really sad is that there are so few good web analytic products left. WebTrends, Unica (the old Sane NetTracker) and ClickTracks is about it. If you have been paying yearly support on the Urchin product to Google, you seriously need a lesson in dealing with software vendors. Oh wait - you just got one.

-aggles

How to Fix Google Analytics

[ajs318]

$ echo "127.0.0.1 googleanalytics.com" >> /etc/hosts
$ echo "127.0.0.1 www.googleanalytics.com" >> /etc/hosts

Does the trick every time .....

Re:How to Fix Google Analytics

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually have a vhost for both those on a webserver, and point my hosts at that:

                Servername www.google-analytics.com
                ServerAlias google-analytics.com
                DocumentRoot "/home/apache/htdocs/googleanal/"

and then have urchin.js which contains:

function urchinTracker()
{
                return;
}

This makes the web browser a lot happier.

Re:How to Fix Google Analytics

[Anonymous Coward]

DocumentRoot "/home/apache/htdocs/googleanal/"

For a moment I thought you were calling a command-line pr0n tool!

(Or a secret new Google project? "Now in alpha, only one cheek is available...")

Urchin was so-so, but it was ours.

[gentleolas]

The data center I was at paid $1500 for Urchin expecting upgrades. Given the log-file crawling of the stand-alone Urchin vs. Javascript embedding of Analytics, Urchin seemed more reliable in the numbers. Google Analytics has much better reporting, however. But why do both still use RegEx for filtering IP addresses? Can't they write a simpler interface for that common task?

Re:Urchin was so-so, but it was ours.

[Anonymous Coward]

Programmers love RegExps, for some reason. I can't make hide nor hair of them, even though they seem like they SHOULD be oh-so-simple. Damn lack-of-a-math-sided-brain.

This always happens

[boris111]

We have a 3rd Party App we use with our in house developed apps. The 3rd Party app was based in the Europe then bought by a company in Texas. We had a a very expensive support agreement in place with this company and the new larger company was not honoring it.

They proceeded to do some business posturing attempting to sell us into more of their products with the carrot of gaining access to their enhanced support. They were going up against an even bigger company (us) and it wasn't until our lawyers put the fear of god into them until they started honoring their support agreement. Sometimes I don't mind working for a Mega Corp.

Gone wrong?

[hhlost]

Saying that the acquisition went "terribly wrong" assumes that Google's true intention was to continue with support and updates as they supposedly said. Just like saying that the Bush Administration failed in Iraq assumes that the true intention was to bring peace, stability and democracy to that country.

Re:Gone wrong?

[netscan]

I was wondering how long it would take before someone would link Bush to this. /sigh. And seriously, just what exactly makes the parent's post "Insightful"? Is it the way they were able to shoehorn a Bush/Iraq jab into TOTALLY unrelated discussion?

Who doesn't block them with NoScript?

[CodeBuster]

I don't know about everyone else but I specifically block these scripts with NoScript. Who needs them? Certainly not the users.

Not a new story

[maggard]

Anyone remember Dodgeball.com? Google bought 'em when they were hot, everyone expected great things, check out their founder's resignation letter.

Google is competitive, outside and inside. If a product doesn't have a strong voice, strong support, it'll get starved. There are lots of examples of this, where Google (or Yahoo or any other company) buys a smaller company and it's products just kinda evaporate.

Sometimes it is truly a mismatch in cultures. Other times the folks coming in get sucked into 'more interesting' projects and their original ones languish. Once in a while the goal of buying the company was to shut it down, or at least to deny it's benefits to a competitor.

Whatever the case whenever a buyout happens smart folks immediately put together transition plans, if only contingency ones.

In my career I've had CA buy and rape/pillage/burn (not always in that order!) any number of products we've depended upon. Yahoo! also has a record of ingesting, partially digesting, then eventually burping up a barely recognizable (and rarely for the better) version of the original service. Same for Amazon - anyone else recall Firefly, PlanetAll, A9 with street-views, etc.?

Urchin is just one more example of why committing to a product or service that isn't it's owner's primary interest is a risky gamble. Never assume the status quo; companies & priorities change and that's how inattentive customers get caught out.

Superior free software support

[Per Abrahamsen]

Additionally, if the software is popular and the original vendor provides poor support, someone else will step in with a better offer. A market economy is always better for the customer than a state granted monopoly.

[ BTW: I guess most people "make money" on free software not by support or sponsorship, by being paid in advance by the customer for the development. I know I do. ]

Re:Superior free software support

[speaker of the truth]

[ BTW: I guess most people "make money" on free software not by support or sponsorship, by being paid in advance by the customer for the development. I know I do. Wow when given the choice between paying for code they own the copyright to or paying for code that their competitors can then freely used, I figured most companies would go with the former rather then the latter. Kudos to you for finding companies that will do the former.

Re:Superior free software support

[Eivind Eklund]

Most companies only need functionality from software, not rights - their strategic advantage. Contributing back to the core open source project will usually give tactical advantages, such as other people maintaining the code. The competitors usually don't even run the same software.

This even goes for proprietary derivates of BSD licensed open codebases; FreeBSD has gotten a ton of stuff (e.g, the SCSI stack, the netgraph stack) from proprietary derivates.

Eivind.

Re:Superior free software support

[Anonymous Coward]

You're really still not very good at this Trolling lark are you?

Re:I blame Microsoft

[xtracto]

Walmart competes on price, and its pretty successful. Target, knowing that it can't beat Walmart on price, competes by having brighter stores, and higher quality goods

Yeah, I have heard that those rocks that Target sells are quite HiFi. However, I am not sure how "portable" they might be...

Umm, is it just me, or....

[OneSmartFellow]

... is the whole acquisition thing a complete mystery. I mean, today we hear about google buying Yet Another Social Networking Site 'Jaiku', what is innovative about that product ? Will anyone be surprised in 18 months when there is no more Jaiku.

What I don't understand is why Google buys any of these shitty companies and their lame products, except perhaps as a public service so that us normal people don't have to even bother with knowing about them at all.

Re:Umm, is it just me, or....

[Fireye]

Google acquired Urchin for a definite purpose. They saw the Urchin 6 On Demand service, and realized that it could have a large impact on how they target ads. They purchased Urchin, and converted Urchin 6 On Demand into Google Analytics.

Urchin 6 (standalone) was supposedly nearly finished. There are reviews of it out there on the web, along with screenshots. So in a sense, THAT individual product has disappeared, but it's legacy lives on in Google Analytics.

Sadly, I can't use Google Analytics, since our privacy policy restricts the use of cookies.

Re:Umm, is it just me, or....

[OneSmartFellow]

My point is... what exactly was novel about Urchin. From what I could tell it was a log file scraper. Never seen one of those before ! -- ducks --

For a serious comment...

[davidsyes]

On page 15 of my copy read in "CHINDIA: How China and India Are Revolutionizing Global Business", I read that one:

"Google principal scientist Krishna Bharat is settin up a Bangalore lab complete with colorful furniture, exercise balls, and a Yamaha organ -- like Google's Mountain View (Calif.) headquarters -- to work on core search-engine technology."

Maybe write him directly and ask him to supply some of those $10,000 a year developers, unless, that is, they've been re-tasked...

But, the book will set you back (see it as an investment of) $18.95, is 384 pages, and is worth it. It's by Newsweek, and mainly is a narrative compendium of many articles that give hints about what MAY be coming. It's not alarmist, but it IS illuminating and sobering for a LOT of people.

However, I'm tired of the bellyachers who forgot some/many of these prognostications/predictions in Weekly Reader from as far back in 1974. I'm not shocked. I HAVE been hurt (due to poor/non-existent savings) by the downturn, and spent years trying to recover, and earn only about 70% of what I did in 2001, but, I'm not shocked. The REAL problem is too many in the US aren't preparing.

Google drowning Urchin is just Google doing business. But, it might be nice if they return some bodies to the project/software, or release it to Open Source/Community developers, and then sponsor it. Ah, but then that might conflict with their existing plans. Well, Google should spin it off and sponsor or invest in Urchin.

Re:For a serious comment...

[davidsyes]

What URCHIN would deign to mark my comment as "offtopic" when I included a potential point of contact:

""Google principal scientist Krishna Bharat is settin up a Bangalore lab complete with colorful furniture, exercise balls, and a Yamaha organ -- like Google's Mountain View (Calif.) headquarters -- to work on core search-engine technology.""

Some people are lamenting the demise of the product Urchin, and may not know that they can pressure Google to revive it and uphold their end of the bargain, particularly since most US-originated hi-tech companies shift to Bangladesh or Beijing, and other places for the the cheaper cost of doing business. They HAVE cheaper bodies there and could probably stand to do some "good will" and could more cheaply do it there. They could even SPIN OFF of new ideas generated by the new pick-up team handling the dropped software.

Offtopic. Sheesh. No WONDER mainstream media regards self-professed geeks/knowledgeable people on Slasdot as crackpots (yeh, I DO post zany stuff, but not under the air of authority, or boasting low subscriber/registered user ID.)

Security issue with Urchin!!

[naasking]

For those companies that use Urchin, note that there is a potential security vulnerability that I came across on a copmany's ordering page just a few days ago. The company, who shall remain nameless, has since taken my suggestion and closed the security hole, but I don't know how many more ordering screens use Urchin in the same way.

The problem is thus:

1. The ordering screen where you enter your VISA card number is loaded over https
2. The ordering screen includes the urchin.js script file, but this file is loaded over unsecured http
3. This means that urchin.js could be replaced in transit with another script which could steal your personal info by, for instance, changing the form you are submitting to point to another server.

In this case, the Firefox "lock" icon displays an error: "Warning: Contains unauthenticated content". Unfortunately, this is very easy to miss. I only spotted it because I use the Petname Toolbar, which prevents phishing and spoofing. The toolbar would not let me set a petname for this site, because the unsecured content could literally change anything on the page, so it wasn't safe. If you don't already have the Petname Toolbar installed, I highly recommend that you install it.

Urchin could close this hole if they allowed urchin.js to be loaded over https, but the file isn't available over a secured link. To anyone using urchin.js, make sure you don't include that file on your secured pages.

What's even more disheartening, is that this site was verified as "hacker safe" by ScanAlert; missing such an obvious hole really decreases my confidence in their testing methods.

Re:Security issue with Urchin!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it available via https://ssl.google-analytics.com/urchin.js

Re:Security issue with Urchin!!

[naasking]

Excellent! To anyone else still browsing, the urchin.js is available over https after all. Thanks AC!

A better idea would be to simply copy the js file to your local server; that way, clients would load the file over the https connection they already established to your server, and your page won't break if Google Analytics upgrade the contents of the file.

Re:Security issue with Urchin!!

[s2jcpete]

A wee bit of googling will take you here: http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?answer=31846&topic=7175

Re:Security issue with Urchin!!

[Software]

Yes, but then your site won't get any updates to urchin.js (though maybe this is good after all?). I think Google should add something like this to their non-SSL urchin.js:

<script type="text/javascript">

if (window.location.href.substring(0, 5) == 'https')
{
alert("Please ask the webmaster to change urchin.js to load via HTTPS!");
}

</script>

Though I haven't actually tried this, I think it should work.

Re:Security issue with Urchin!!

[Bronster]

Except the injected "bad" urchin.js would of course not contain this, hence defeating the whole point...

Re:Security issue with Urchin!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Urchin could close this hole if they allowed urchin.js to be loaded over https, but the file isn't available over a secured link. To anyone using urchin.js, make sure you don't include that file on your secured pages."

This statement is inaccurate. The Google Analytics Help Center has instructions on how to get urchin.js through secure https.
http://www.google.com/support/googleanalytics/bin/answer.py?answer=55483

Re:Security issue with Urchin!!

[Software]

The point is that the webmaster would be informed of his error right away, rather than trying to figure out the problem after his users' credentials were stolen.

Although frankly, I'm not sure a JavaScript attack of the type in the GP (GGP? I lost count) is possible. Browsers have some pretty strict limits on cross-site scripting. But better safe than sorry.

Re:Security issue with Urchin!!

[naasking]

Although frankly, I'm not sure a JavaScript attack of the type in the GP (GGP? I lost count) is possible. Browsers have some pretty strict limits on cross-site scripting. But better safe than sorry.

Such an attack is quite trivial, and does not depend on cross-site scripting. The intercepted JS file simply needs to change the target of the form submission for every form on the page.

Standard Fare

[KillerCow]

The same thing happened to dodgeball when they were bought. Google buys companies for the people, not the product.

Support from Google? Are you joking?

[hackingbear]

I have dealt with them before. I couldn't get my adSense served and so I filled out the contact form. The only reply I got was from an automated email program. Nobody answered the support line. No where to buy a support contract. I got hold of some indirect friend working inside Google and he said he couldn't help me find a support person either.

It is the worst support I have ever seen.... but that's why google is so successful... they have so many users; they don't need to worry about YOU anymore.

Most online documentation vanished ...

[allankim]

Urchin.com had at one time extensive online docs, including a very good searchable knowledge base. IIRC most of these docs vanished shortly after the acquisition.

I too am happy this is getting some attention, as management needs to be reminded from time to time that no company is infallible. Even Google.

Ah, the famous google analytics...

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently remarked something strange. A lot of site where making request to www.google-analytics.com. I discovered that, because, often, there was a sufficient delay for Firefox to display that in it's status bar.
So I took the step of adding the line: 127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com in /etc/hosts.
Not for performance reason, but I'm more and more uneasy with Google data collection... And adding DoubleClick to the mix...
But then, I have discovered that some sites no longer work, most notably depositfiles.com.
Comment the line in hosts, it works. Uncomment, it doesn't.
Is google complicit of this, I don't know. But having a company knowing so much about you, even when you don't use knowingly their service is extremely troubling.
Do no evil is a great catch phrase. Perhaps the first evil is lying about doing no evil...

Re:I blame Microsoft too, for setting the standard

[weicco]

Ah, yes. The first rule of Slashdot: if that I happen to like is critized, move focus to MS.

XSS Patched

[cdoggyd]

Here's the email I received Monday: Thank you for your email and for asking about the cross-site scripting vulnerability you've encountered. To circumvent this technical issue, please update your installation of Urchin using the following links, depending on your platform: UNIX-type systems (FreeBSD, IRIX, Linux, MacOS-X, Solaris) http://download.urchin.com/support/Urchin5703_template_update_nonwin.zip Windows http://download.urchin.com/support/Urchin5703_template_update_win.zip Also, please see the following article for more information on the topic: http://www.google.com/support/urchin45/bin/answer.py?answer=76399&topic=7395

Urchin still lives on... in Google Analytics

[hacker]

Doesn't anyone use Google Analytics?

Urchin is featured prominently there, as well as in every website that uses Google Analytics.

<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">_uacct = "UA-296615-15"; urchinTracker();</script>

Re:Urchin still lives on... in Google Analytics

[Nazlfrag]

I think you meant:

<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
        _uacct = "UA-32013-5";
        _udn = "slashdot.org";
        urchinTracker();
</script>

Re:Urchin still lives on... in Google Analytics

[hacker]

Nope, I meant what I typed.

google and support of anything

[goffster]

Google's support for any product is generally worth only what you pay for them. i.e. Just try resolving a GoogleCheckout dispute, where you are the buyer...

The other myth: proprietary model and innovation

[Rob Y.]

Proprietary software lends itself to the dubious practice of buying the competition in order to shut them down. If you can't compete, and you have enough money, you can in many cases legally put the competition out of business.

In theory, no company would do this to the better of two products, but in practice it works out differently. The company I work for has been on a buying binge for the last 10 years. They now own almost all of the products in several vertical markets. That is, all except the clear market leader in each. So what they really have is multiple sets of competing product lines, none of which is full-featured enough to go head-to-head with the market leader.

The next step is not to pick one and flesh it out. It's to buy yet another company with a vaporware product that sounds good on paper and flesh that out. They use all the revenue streams of the existing products to finance the new one. The problem is that the new one will never be a market leader (for various reasons related to the reason it was sold as vaporware in the first place).

The end result is that a bunch of products that were each at one time potential contenders have been crippled, stymied, and ultimatly, most of them will be shut down. And some of those products (mine, specifically) contain some really nice innovations. Innovations that would make them competitive with the new vaporware product - but the company needn't worry about that, because they get to decide which potential customers these products will be marketed to. And any customer that could possibly be served by the new product line will never see those innovations, so the marketplace will never get a chance to decide on their value.

A sad state of affairs, made worse by some weird quirk in antitrust law that allows you to buy a huge market share in small increments, where it would not allow you to merge the leaders into a similar near-monopoly. All I know is that there have been about 6 corporate owners over the lifetime of the product line I work on. What I don't understand is how, assuming much of US business works this way, anybody makes any money.

Unlike? Are you kidding?

[C10H14N2]

Support contracts are most certainly the bread and butter of closed-source and hardware companies too. IBM's entire business model has been based on that for decades. Hell, not that long ago, they wouldn't actually SELL you ANYTHING--even the hardware was effectively packaged as an ongoing support contract. Look at SUN's business model today. They sell hardware and give away software, but the money is all in the support services.

Office Space

[RayHs]

This is what happens when you fire the guy that takes the specs from the customers and brings them to the engineers...

Not Every Time

[Slashdot Parent]

Many webmasters host urchin.js locally to speed up page load times. Google does not recommend this practice, but they also do not forbid it. I don't particularly feel like trawling through urchin.js, but a quick skim doesn't seem to have that file submitting to google-analytics.com. It seems to go, instead, to analytics.corp.google.com.

At any rate, I think that you'll find that the google analytics hostname is www.google-analytics.com (with a hyphen). I also think that the NoScript firefox plugin will protect you well against googal-analytics as well as a host of other tracking mechanisms.

Cheers!

Duh, lawsuit, duh....

[BarnabyWilde]

Soooo obvious....

Re:I blame Microsoft

[Lord Ender]

Two reasons you are an idiot:

1. Blaming a corporation for "greed" is like blaming water for being wet.
   
2. Calling Microsoft "M$." A joke can only be used a finite number of times before it ceases being funny. That joke ran its course about ten years ago.
   

Re:I blame Microsoft

[BlowHole666]

Ahh sorry for call Microsoft M$. Guess I did not know the Joke was up. Maybe I was too lazy to type out Microsoft so I used M$. Guess I should consult you first.

Greed ties into the Parent talking about how it was Microsofts fault Google had to purchase this company. Glad you did't get your morning blow job. Guess you think if you are an ass hole to me I will give you one. Well think again and get your head out of your ass.

Re:I blame Microsoft too, for setting the standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh SubLogic.. I can't believe they went for the contract. For those who don't know (probably most) Microsoft signed a contract with them for Flight Simulator in the 1980s. Microsoft got the rights for Flight Simulator for IBM PC and Mac, SubLogic retained the rights for the rest (Atari ST, Amiga, Atari 8-bit, Apple II, Commodore 64, as far as I know..) It's impressive that Flight Simulator 2 runs and looks as good as it does on the Atari 8-bit, considering it's got a 1mhz CPU.

Re:I blame Microsoft

[Dogtanian]

Wait, bear with me for a minute. ROAR! GRRR!!!! ROARRRRRRRRR!!! YABBA DABBA DOO!

Okay, now it's your turn.

Jotspot had the same problem.

[smallpaul]

No upgrades. No support.

Google is now ordinary

[Kris_J]

Google has been showing, again and again, that it has become an ordinary big corporate company. It is as efficient as an average corporation. It is managed as well as any big business. It can be trusted as much as you trust any big corporation. There is nothing special about it anymore.

So, do you really want them to have any of your personal information? Your email? Your weblog? Anything you care about?

Re:Urchin: Google's nappy-headed stepchild.

[Anonymous Coward]

Deserves more funny.

Re:The other myth: proprietary model and innovatio

[rtb61]

Lets put it another way, you don't buy competition and put them out of business. You buy a hard working staff who produced a quality product and provided excellent customer support and destroyed their careers for being to competitive, that'll teach those employees at other companies who are better than your employees. You punished customers who dared to invest in alternate products by destroying their investment, that'll teach those customers who dare to buy competing companies products.

Generally when I have been caught up with nonsense like this, I swap away from the company that has been bought out to another different company that's competes against the company doing the buying. It makes simple clear logical sense, the company doing the buying has to buy companies because they just aren't good enough to compete effectively, their products, support and price are sub-par, so they weren't good enough before so why would you expect them to be good enough now.

So when you expect as a customer, expect buyouts to result in failure, and make plans and initiate a product and supplier shift early in the piece, you find you significantly minimise your losses.

Wrongo

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the code is open and so the people who are having to pay for support can get the code fixed and not pay the support any more. And you can SEE it's a bad application (by inspection if you're paranoid, by installing [no license needed for a GPL app] for most cases) so if you have a crappy app, it either gets fixed or everyone can see it's crappy and not use it. OK, it doesn't have to be any BETTER than a CSS app, which still leaves a lot of room for improvement from the customer POV.

Re:I blame Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, bear with me for a minute.

ROAR! GRRR!!!! ROARRRRRRRRR!!! YABBA DABBA DOO!

Okay, now it's your turn.

Um, you do know that that is a perfectly good use of the word "bear", right? Were you trying to make a joke? If so, it wasn't a very good one... it's barely a pun.

Speaking of which - you don't think that it should have been spelled "bare", do you? I couldn't bear it, were that the case: There's no way I'd ever get bare with BadAnalogGuy, and I'm pretty sure that I speak for the vast majority of right-thinking Slashdotters when I say that.

Now, if he'd said "beer with me", I'd probably agree...