Slashdot Mirror
The In-Progress Plot To Kill Google
twitter writes "Four years after Steve Ballmer vowed to kill Google, Wired details Microsoft's, AT&T's, and big publishers' ongoing slog. The story is filled with astroturfers, lobbyists and others spending millions to manufacture FUD about privacy and monopoly in order to protect the obsolete business models of their patrons, who are mostly known for progress-halting monopoly and invasion of privacy. Their greatest coup to date was preventing Google from rescuing Yahoo."
Man, that blurb couldn't have been more paranoid-delusional if Oliver Stone directed it. Where do you get the idea that Google really wanted to "rescue" Yahoo? A solid company buys a failing company because the benefits and assets out-value the price.
[
LOL, Dude, you really went all in, didn't you?
If you are worried about privacy, just manage your cookies manually and don't put all eggs in one basket. OK?
I see no sense in mistrusting one large organization that keeps your virtual goods, while trusting another organization with your material wealth. If you mistrust Google, shouldn't you keep all your money under the mattress or buried in the garden?
Whether or not Microsoft or anyone else is trying to "kill Google" doesn't change whether or not Google is trampling on privacy.
I for one don't trust ANY company to do anything except look out for its own interests.
The idea that Microsoft is bad, therefore Google is good is silly. They are both large corporations. Both want to find ways to get you to send them your money. Heck, I would love to find a way to convince you to send me your money. I find it disturbing that so many people seem to trust Google to the extent they seem to trust them.
Hate on Microsoft all you want, but don't make the dangerous assumption that "if MS is bad, then Google is good". Evaluate the actions of each company on its own merits, not in comparison to one another.
The story is filled with astroturfers, lobbyists and others spending millions to manufacture FUD about privacy and monopoly
Um...they don't need to manufacture. There are serious privacy and internet coherency issues. Google has already become a major, slim-but-possible single-point-of-failure.
It's so bad, I see people enter domain names for popular sites into the search bar and then click on the search results.
Please help metamoderate.
Let them all use fears of, and laws against, monopoly and privacy abuse to try to kill each other. Let's have a business atmosphere of damnation and recriminations for any raised evidence of monopoly and privacy abuse, brought on by experienced, rich, aggressive and well funded competitors. That's how our system is supposed to harness competition to drive enforcement of open access to a fairly competitive market governed by rules that protect us from unfair competition.
I'm not worried about Google. It's at least as smart, rich and connected as is Microsoft, and nearly as connected as AT&T. Let it slam them for their monopolies and abuses. It's got a lot more material to use than they do. Every move they make against each other along those lines is a move in the public service, against monopoly and privacy abuse.
And I'm not worried about Yahoo, either. It got a $half-billion in that original IPO, and $billions since. If it couldn't use its early lead, vast riches, top brand and huge audience to make it, it should die. And if Yahoo + Google is more monopolistic and worse for privacy, then dead Yahoo is better.
--
make install -not war
Whos to say google didn't submit this story?
Anyhow, google is what most non-technical users consider the internet to be. Infact the way people browse after watching an advert for car insurance proved it to me. Instead of going to the url which the advert mentioned, they just google "car insurence". To us that seems strange as we are good at remembering or working out urls, but to people who dont understand the net, or dont care about various tlds google is the perfect answer.
Its game over,
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
As opposed to Microsoft who have no information on you at all .... ?
Most of the above services only apply in the USA and you had to sign up for (and read the agreement) the only exception I can see is search history (which is linked only to your ip address) all the rest you either signed away your rights to the information when you signed up, or is only linked to you if you want it to be
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
I think folks are forgetting one important point. The reason why I like Google is that their search engine works extremely well. In fact, how often does google search find what you're looking for? Plus the fact that the service is "free" and paid for by relevant advertising is great. I don't see Microsoft giving you free software now do I? Nor does Microsoft's software always work as well as they claim it does. Sure Google probably collects a huge amount of information but so does the government. You have to trust someone and so far Google has shown that it hasn't breached that trust. A standard rule in life is to initially trust someone until it's been broken once. Then it's an all out war. You can't be paranoid of everyone that's new. It just stops changes.
If anything I think this is just proof that companies that would force the money out of you and steal everything you have are afraid of Google just because it's not doing the same and winning the hearts of the public. Nice try but I don't think this will work.
You're working on the assumption all humans have the same psychology and that people in certain jobs don't get into those jobs because they have traits that are rather self-serving as opposed to being charitable and helpful.
it's absolutely appalling to see people feel they have to tie every move which happens on top of the business world to some 'logical and rational market move' or some darwinian bullshit. ...
they are people. yes, a board of directors, executives CAN feel positive emotions, and CAN move out of goodwill, or a sense of honor, or any other similar emotion.
I disagree. Google is no longer a cute, friendly little startup. It is a massive corporation. And that is the operative word.
Corporations are primarily in business to make money for their shareholders. Sure, the people running the corporation MAY feel positive emotions, but at the end of the day they WILL choose the option that will bring in the most cash or they will be fired.
Part of the board's decision may be to promote a "do no evil" or environmentally friendly mentality. Don't get me wrong, the board may even genuinely believe such propaganda, but the stock holders don't care. They want to see the stock go up or the board members replaced.
At the business level, it is no longer about positive emotions, goodwill or honor. It's about cold hard cash. Business decisions must reflect that in either the short or long term.
Shame on you for for believe the collection of shit that is this article. Yessir, a multi billion dollar company is getting bullied around by those mean ol' lobbyists :-(
I'm an advertiser with Google, and allow me to say that those companies do not need to "politically bully". There's plenty of grassroots hatred to go around.
Everyone still has this misguided notion that Google is out there helping them out despite all evidence to the opposite.
I advertise on Google, and I'm saying right now they've pretty much got a monopoly. They have no serious competition. MSN lacks an algorithm, and Yahoo lacks competence in the PPC department. Google doesn't have to 'crush' competitors in the same way MS has in the past because their fanatical userbase keeps the competition forever in obscurity. Beyond that, they're terribly difficult to deal with. They often selectively enforce irrational rules, have support staff that flat out lie, gouging margins where they can, etc.
So far the closer people I've met are to the big G, the more paranoid about it they are.
They're not a victim. They're the godamn boogeyman. And yes, they probably have your credit card.
Before you mod me funny, think, perhaps I was insightfully funny?
they are people. yes, a board of directors, executives CAN feel positive emotions, and CAN move out of goodwill, or a sense of honor, or any other similar emotion.
Are you joking? the day a board of directors would do anything for a reason other than to maximize profits, they would be sued straight away.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
This is why capitalism is not moral / fair/ goes against Christian values and will hopefully replaced by something better. The fact that shareholders only care about profits rather than the common good (this includes enviormental damage) is a falut of the system. p.s - the only religion I believe is Linux.
How do you know that they don't care? Have you asked them? A large amount of Google shares are owned by employees (of which the biggest chunk is the two founders and chief executive). Many of them are rich, and likely to care about more things than just making even more money.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
folder are inferior to tag, period.
If you want "folder" in GMail juste use one tag.
But you can be more flexible with multi-tag
my 2 cent
You're working on the assumption all humans have the same psychology and that people in certain jobs don't get into those jobs because they have traits that are rather self-serving as opposed to being charitable and helpful.
Indeed, one study I've read estimated that close to 1 in 20 men are incapable of sufficient empathy for it to be a significant motivator--- yes, 5% of men are sociopaths! Of course, not all such people are murdering freaks as movies and tv news would have you believe. The John Wayne Gacys of the world are merely the few sociopaths with poor impulse control. The vast majority of them are intelligent enough to have figured out that society expects empathy and have learned to fake it well enough to get by. Sociopaths may think we're all just objects to be used, but they can still recognize that we "objects" will throw them in a cage if they don't play the game according to the rules. Think of all the truly awful self-centered jerks you've ever had to deal with in your life--- particularly the ones that seemed charming at first--- and that 1:20 ratio starts to make sense. It's not a comforting thought, but it bears keeping in mind. Being a high functioning sociopath isn't something that would necessarily be evolutionarily selected out.
I firmly believe that an uncomfortably large percentage of people who rise to power positions--- be it political office or CEO's office--- are just such high-functioning sociopaths.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
The population of /. are prone to skepticim. They're mostly young libertarian geek males, and respond well to rebellion against 1) authority, 2) anything "irrational," and 3) invasion of privacy. They also love to expose contradiction, whether real or otherwise. FUD astroturfers understand this. They know that /. is a good place to plant the seed of their message: "Google is an evil behemoth, and wants to invade your life. They're like the next Microsoft, but worse."
Over what time frame?
After World War II, Merck delivered streptomycin to Japan to treat rampant tuberculosis that had arisen in the poverty of the war economy. The Japanese couldn't afford this, so Merck synthesized, shipped, and distributed the drug at it's own substantial expense. Merck shareholders sued against this obviously unprofitable act. The shareholders lost their suit, mostly around two arguments. First, that public goodwill, though difficult to value directly, is an investment in future business. Second, that employee morale can be similarly valued as a long-term investment.
As a fairly new employee of Google, I'll assert that Google has similar motivations. Google relies on the trust of the public for it's long-term profits, so a decision that makes money today but endangers public trust is a bad business decision that would risk the wrath of the shareholders. Second, Google's employees are at least as afraid of what the company could become as the public. If there was even a hint that Google was violating the public trust employee morale would evaporate and one of the big reasons that most of us geeks work there would be gone.
In short, Google is absolutely motivated by forces other than next month's profits and they would morons if they were to sacrifice their long-term interest for short-term profits. Lucky for me, it doesn't look like Google management has any morons. Some idealists, perhaps, who didn't expect the full court press from Microsoft et. al., but that's forgivable under the "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." metric.
Don't get me wrong, the board may even genuinely believe such propaganda, but the stock holders don't care. They want to see the stock go up or the board members replaced.
You're forgetting that sometimes good will is worth paying money for. Wal Mart probably won't disappear due to people thinking that it's a terrible business and horribly unethical, but it will keep Target alive. I know people who register at Target simply because registering at WalMart would split the gift givers between those who go to Wal Mart and those who refuse to, and vice versa on those giving gifts.
As for being environmentally friendly, there are a lot of people who will make purchases and other decisions based on those factors. If you're an internet company where the cost of switching is near 0 (which Google is), then part of remaining viable in the marketplace is making sure that people don't want to switch, and part of that is making sure that the news around your company doesn't cause people to have a bad taste in their mouth when they use your product. People liking Google and thinking that it's moral is absolutely vital to their business strategy, and the only sure way to make people think that you're moral is to be moral (and then publicize it).
Step 2) Make search engine accessible on the Internet.
Step 3) There is no step three.
If you manage Step 1, you'll "kill" Google in the same way Google killed Yahoo!.
Yes a board of directors is liable for it's actions and can be sued for not doing things that will further a companies goals. (Mind you this is different than always maximizing profits, something you also don't seem to understand.)
The idea behind suing the board because they didn't maximize profits is that the board is required to act in the best interest of the shareholders. Given that Google's motto has been "Do No Evil" from the beginning and that shareholders bought their shares with no evil as a company goal, it is safe to say that Google doing evil in favor of profits is not in the shareholders interest.
Hello Astroturfer! This isn't about "who's good" or "who's bad", this is about "what are the consequences".
What are the consequences of Google's actions? What are the consequences of Microsoft's actions?
What have they done in the past?
What would Google do to Yahoo's products like Yahoo Widgets or del.icio.us if they bought it? What would Microsoft do?
What did Google do to YouTube, or anything else they've bought?
What did Microsoft do to Hotmail? Well, they spent three years trying to convert a working UNIX-based environment over to Windows and finally declared victory using a UNIX hosted on Windows. Then they used it as a platform to push their proprietary "Passport" scheme.
As for Stallman, he's pulled enough dodgy stuff himself. GCC pulled a classic "embrace and extend" attack on competing open source C compilers (yes, there used to be several). He decided he didn't like Tcl and created a scheme to kill Tcl based on a scheme interpreter called "Guile". Take anything he says with a grain of salt.