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."

Comments

Summary omission

[SupremoMan]

Summary omits any references to chair throwing :(

conspiracy theories

[Speare]

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.

Re:conspiracy theories

[morgan_greywolf]

No doubt. But keeping Yahoo alive and independent of Microsoft was and still is in Google's best interests, whether you call it a 'rescuing' or not. Microsoft wants Yahoo's search because their own sucks and they know it. Even Ballmer has admitted that his own impatience caused Microsoft to fail in search. Yahoo is the next best technology to Google's.

So of course Google wanted to 'rescue' Yahoo from the jaws of Microsoft.

Never attribute to heroism what can be explained by simple self-interest. ;)

Re:conspiracy theories

[Dun Malg]

I'm curious how Google's mail folders don't make sense. It was implied in your statement that Yahoo's folders make sense.

Going out on a limb here, as it's been several years since I abandoned my Yahoo email for my own mail server--- in my mother's basement, under my bed, next to my star wars underpants--- but I think it might be a "tags" vs "folders" issue. I've had one of my brother's friends tell me he didn't like Gmail because when you create a new "folder" for mail and a filter to sort it by, mail gets "copied" to two different folders! That's how it's supposed to work, but some folks just can't get over the fact that they have a Gmail tag for Ewok discussions and one for eBay auctions and that the email saying they've won an Ewok TV tray on eBay shows up IN BOTH PLACES!!!!1! Tags are a more flexible sorting system, but they require a certain mental shift to grok, and some people just have that "eighty column mind" thing going.

LEAVE GOOGLE ALONE!!!

[gsslay]

"Their greatest coup to date was preventing Google from rescuing Yahoo."

Poor Google. Selflessly throwing a lifeline to troubled Yahoo without a thought for their own safety or position. And do people thank them for it? Noooo. You'd think they were doing it for their own benefit.

What about the bank that keeps your money?

[mangu]

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?

Re:What about the bank that keeps your money?

[Fred_A]

If you mistrust Google, shouldn't you keep all your money under the mattress or buried in the garden?

You fool ! Google knows where the mattress is via Google Maps and the garden is plainly visible on Google Earth !

Since when are concerns about privacy FUD?

[digitalgiblet]

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.

Re:Since when are concerns about privacy FUD?

[biscuitlover]

I think that a lot of people think Google are good purely because they are now largely seen as the anti-MS... no other company has done remotely as much to scare the people at Redmond, and for that they should definitely be applauded. Paving the way to unseat a monopoly - however (un)likely the eventual unseating may be - is no small accomplishment and one that legions of us, pissed off with having to fund a monopolist all the time, should be quite appreciative of.

I do agree with your points though - I can just understand why people do like Google. There is also the fact that their mainstream tools usually just work. Can you say the same of MS?

WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ?

[unity100]

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.

excuse me guys, but, people on top of business world, board of directors, ceos, executives are ALL people. they have various emotions like anyone else. remember how a number of executives had totally crashed u.s. and world economy out of pure simple greed, letting go of all reasonable precautions and moves with the hedge fund gig.

the fact that up to this date many of the moves on top of business world have been done through selfish, negative interests does NOT mean that it has to be like that forever into the future.

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.

none of them are exempt from being homo sapiens sapiens, after all, which is what we all exactly are.

Re:WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ?

[Xest]

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.

Re:WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ?

[cyn1c77]

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.

Re:WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ?

[yossarianuk]

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.

Re:WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ?

[Ed Avis]

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.

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.

Re:WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ?

[Dun Malg]

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.

Re:WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ?

[quarterbuck]

In Google's case Stockholders don't really matter. When they IPO'd they made two kinds of stocks, Class A and Class B. Class A is what got sold, Class B is what the insiders (Larry and Sergey) hold. The most important thing is that Class B has infinitely more voting power than Class A stock. It means that Shareholders cannot vote out the board for "not being evil enough". Even better, Class B stocks cannot be sold to outsiders (if they are, the convert to Class A)
Google made this pretty clear when they IPO'd -- their letter to investors said that they were not trying to be just another corporation. They specified that the stocks the customers were getting was a claim on the profits, not a claim on voting rights.
Essentially, as long as the insiders stay honest, the company will stay honest. The quarterly numbers, stock prices are all meaningless to the board in this case.

Google works well

[foxalopex]

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.