Sorry, Larry Page: Tech-Industry Viciousness Is Here To Stay

Nerval's Lobster writes "At this week's Google I/O in San Francisco, Google CEO Larry Page stood onstage and took unscripted questions from an auditorium of conference attendees. That's an unusual move for any chief executive, the sort of thing that risks giving their PR people a heart attack. But Page wasn't up there to offer insights into strategy or drop hints about upcoming products: he wanted to talk about how negativity in the tech industry stood in the way of innovation. 'Despite the faster change we have in the industry, we're still moving slow relative to the opportunities that we have,' he said. 'And some of that, I think, has to do with the negativity. Every story I read about Google, it's us versus some other company or some stupid thing.' Being negative, he added, is not how the tech industry makes progress. But minutes later, Page couldn't resist swiping at Oracle and Microsoft. And Google's battles are just one small element in the circular firing squad that comprises most of the tech industry: Apple versus Google versus Samsung versus Microsoft versus Oracle versus Salesforce versus lots of little startups. Those battles won't fade away anytime soon, because corporations have one goal: profit. And so long as other rivals' technological innovations or marketplace maneuvers stand in the way of that profit, the lawsuits and the CEO sniping will continue. The part of Page's talk that centered on peace and love played well to the audience at Google I/O; but it's easier to argue that the true mode of the tech industry, at its core, is Darwinian competition. Do you agree?"

Comments

This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard. Sometimes viciously. Mother nature has already shown us that dog-eat-dog is the best way to adapt, survive, and even thrive. The business world is the same way. Take your kum-buy-yah bullshit and go sell it to someone else. I have work to do so my company can kick your company's ass and put them out of business.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Salgak1]

Don't remind me, I just had a headhunter pitch a job to me, with her going on and on about their "diversity, respect, and social responsibility", and how the employer "strives to help you become the best person you can possibly be. . . ". I guess excellence and profit motivation aren't attractive anymore. . .

Re:This is America. We compete.

[AuMatar]

Except it hasn't. There's a reason why empathy and altruism exist, and both have shown positive correlation with the ability of the species to survive.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[alen]

are you kidding?

the USA and others are still willing to kill people over access to natural resources

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Socially I absolutely agree. Commerce should be a vicious shark tank though, that's the foundation of capitalism. Don't try to apply social methods to commerce, or commercial methods to society, and you're good. The government only needs to step in when the competition fades, that's when you get monopolies causing trouble.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[k6mfw]

usual... someone who is doing well says "too bad, life is tough, you gotta work hard, etc." but when someone else does it better, they scream, "unfair!"

Re:This is America. We compete.

[spire3661]

This clap-trap is insightful? Wouldnt it be nice if we could evolve to a point where we dont feel the need to trample our peers to survive? At our level of intelligence, cooperation is FAR more productive then competition.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[iluvcapra]

Evolutionary fitness of the United States is yet to be determined.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[RoknrolZombie]

Or shoes.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sound like she is trying to fill a token position.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

The diversity and social responsibility is being eaten up by these retards of the "Millenial" generation. This is the same group that can't figure out how to stop living with their parents while they wait for the perfect job to come around that somehow is going to save the world. In the meantime, if they do take that job, it's just cover for some smirking hipster to relentlessly abuse them and their idealism to make some money on their latest "innovation", like retouching photos to look shitty so that they look like you took them with a broken Polaroid camera.

If this is the future of the U.S., I'm glad I don't have any kids to watch this country circle the drain while everyone is navel gazing their way through life.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Sponge Bath]

dog-eat-dog is the best...

Norm Peterson: ...and I'm wearing Milk-Bone underwear.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[eth1]

Except it hasn't. There's a reason why empathy and altruism exist, and both have shown positive correlation with the ability of the species to survive.

*Species* yes, individuals, not as much. In our species, anyway, empathy and altruism might help the group, but you notice the successful *individuals* are often the ruthless ones.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also glad you don't have kids. Sounds like you don't need to worry too much about that.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Nadaka]

The libertariantards have been out in force recently. Remember that socialism is the devil and the only cure of the inequity of man is to ruthlessly crush your adversaries and climb up on top of their mutilated corpses while fondling your nearest Ayn Rand novel.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[bigstrat2003]

Making a profit and being a decent human being/member of society are not mutually exclusive. You can claim all you want that one has to be an asshole to get ahead in business, but it simply is not true.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Except it hasn't. There's a reason why empathy and altruism exist, and both have shown positive correlation with the ability of the species to survive"

Both empathy and altruism exist because at times both are beneficial to the individual exhibiting them. They are two tactics (among many) to use to further ones self interest.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

Realistically, nature shows us that dog-eat-dog is the easiest way. Easiest is not always the same as best. This is a critical failing of nearly all companies in nearly all industries though...

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Hentes]

And what does that have to do with negativity? Do you have to be optimistic to give to a charity or what? Criticism is the strongest force driving human progress.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

AND STAY OFF MY LAWN

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

the USA ... still willing to kill people over access to natural resources

No, the USA is not.

The US has had many wars over the past 200 years. Most were not materially advantageous. In fact, only the Gulf Wars is thought of as having the potential for a materially advantageous payback. However, Saddam Hussein would have been just as happy to sell us the oil as the Kuwait people, so no, natural resources is not why we fought even that war.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[flyneye]

I personally can't wait until the day this evolves into mafia-like battles and these erstwhile nerds start fighting with fists and guns like real men.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[flyneye]

Careful there, gotta watch those dom-type women, they got brass balls thisa biga; ( )( ).

  She might get out her nightstick and hurt me real, real bad, by the roadside- Billy Gibbons

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Ambassador Kosh]

We definitely make faster progress on scientific developments through cooperation instead of competition. Overall I think we have a lot of growing up to do as a species and especially as a society. Other countries that have gone for cooperation for medical treatment instead of competition are doing better per resources used than we are. Competition has a high overhead.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mother Nature has shown us that dog-help-dog like linux generate billions $ revenues and better products that dog-eat-dog. I don't know for America....but for Earth...we cooperate!

Re:This is America. We compete.

[c0lo]

This is America. We compete.

This is why you risk your neck against anyone that collaborate. On historically near term, most probably against BRICS.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

When corporations get altruistic and empathic, they get this way only for other corporations. The end result of this is a cartel, which is just as bad as a monopoly, economically speaking.

In theory, cooperation gives them the ability to offer us more, better, and cheaper. In practice (every single time), cooperation gives them a captive audience, so they offer lower quality, less choice, at higher prices. The ONLY thing that drives corporations to give us their best is competition.

This is inescapable, because it is a consequence of basic human nature.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[war4peace]

Competition makes sense up to some extent. But when you're literally drowning in an olympic-sized pool of bills, we're not talking about "dog-eat-dog", adaptation and survival. We're talking about something that's becoming pathological. It's somewhat of an "I-want-more" disease, where you're spiralling down the "give moah" path and there's no end in sight.

Wat these giants don't get is that their high level fight is making thousands of people suffer directly; no raises because armies of lawyers must be paid, layoffs because war chests must be filled, forced overtime because the other giant does the same to his people. This is madness and I shiver at the thought that someone else actually approves this sort of behavior.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah I just went through this speech with a agency person. Then like mid stream the big bulldog head of the account busts in and starts asking me questions.. totally bad cop good cop. I am so never going to apply at that agency ever again. I hate those places. They make the once i use to work for look like a nursery for infants.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Profits are for the corporate officers, all that other stuff is the same pablum they've been saying for decades instead of paying employees more money. All that stuff is great and is a necessary part of a good job, but when the focus is on the fluff that's just a way to keep the peons from focusing on the dollars.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard. Sometimes viciously. Mother nature has already shown us that dog-eat-dog is the best way to adapt, survive, and even thrive. The business world is the same way. Take your kum-buy-yah bullshit and go sell it to someone else. I have work to do so my company can kick your company's ass and put them out of business.

Hard. Sometimes viciously. Mother nature has already shown us that dog-eat-dog is the best way to adapt, survive, and even thrive. The business world is the same way. Take your kum-buy-yah bullshit and go sell it to someone else. I have work to do so my company can kick your company's ass and put them out of business.

And that is why the rest of the world hates you and will shut you down.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

HA! Just because you made some money delivering cheap shots from overseas during two major wars that barely touched your soil doesn't mean your philosophy is right.

Actually, history tells us that cooperation is a much better approach than competition. That is precisely why humans now dominate the planet, being an inferior species in terms of the position in the food chain. We learned how to work together towards a common goal, form social structures and use empathy and feelings to empower ourselves and our friends and families and whole nations and finally the whole species.

There's nothing we cannot do working together, and the only thing that stands between us and global harmony and rapid progress, are primitive, underdeveloped bullies and warmongers like yourself.

We've gone past evolution, and that is why we don't evolve any more as a species. Deal with it, and get on with the program nature has set for us by giving us extraordinary intelligence.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mother nature has already shown us that dog-eat-dog is the best way to adapt

No, we don't compete, we collude to our benefit. I can tell you don't run your own business, otherwise you would understand that direct and perfect competition with an adversary is expensive and inefficient. It's much better to strike a deal with them and split the market.

That's the American I know.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[ATMAvatar]

Hard. Sometimes viciously. Mother nature has already shown us that dog-eat-dog is the best way to adapt, survive, and even thrive. The business world is the same way. Take your kum-buy-yah bullshit and go sell it to someone else. I have work to do so my company can kick your company's ass and put them out of business.

Not all species, nay, not even all human cultures and periods of history follow this rule. If you look across the continuum of group sizes, that's not even true at all levels in even the most competitive society. It's rather unfortunate (and rather telling of how immature we as a culture are) that so many aspects of our lives are ruled by cutthroat competition, where 0.9 + 0.95 + 1 = ~1 rather than something closer to 2.85.

We've figured out that at the smaller sizes, cooperation is superior. After all, small teams of people get more done than a whole bunch of individuals who are each working towards their own ends, especially if you tell the individuals that they have to expend some of their effort to fend off attacks from others and attack in kind. We still struggle at the sizes involved at the corporate level, where some companies unify vision and goals rather than pit each department against one another.

When there's some external stimulus (usually some common threat), people figure out real quick that it's better to work together. Perhaps one day, we will evolve to the point where people don't need prodding to stop the bullshit and put their resources to work towards common ends, or at least not spend so much effort opposing one another.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is slowly destroying the planet. It's not just monopolies. Mostly unfettered capitalism will destroy the planet if not checked.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[manu0601]

Humans have two modes of interaction: cooperation and competition. Cooperation is at work when building societies, and it is always odd to see that competitive corporations is allowed by a legal framework (patent, private property) that is a byproduct of cooperation-built society.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

Big fat bold faced lie! Mother nature has already shown us that dog-eat-dog is the best way to adapt, survive, and even thrive. LIES! That's a line that you got from Gordon Gekko "greed is good". That's *NOT* how nature works. Example: a small bird will spot an eagle and start tweeting out calls to warn other birds of the eagle's presence! You have *SEEN THIS*. In doing so its being selfless to the point of bringing attention to itself from the bird of prey, and makes it open to attack and being eaten. THAT'S what mother nature does. Greedy rat-bastardism is what you are talking about. Its not even strictly a part of capitalism (selling goods for a profit). Dickens wrote about people like you "Scrooge and Marley". You have said yourself: you are a dog, and you eat other dogs. Oh, and no, its not the best way to survive and thrive. I won't go into all the details, since you won't listen anyway, but game theory proves me out.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your kum-buy-yah elsewhere. Old people are useless and should be trampled down by the young and brave

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

"successful" individuals? You mean the rich? How many children they have? So how successful they are actually?

Re:This is America. We compete.

[MrKaos]

Hard. Sometimes viciously. Mother nature has already shown us that dog-eat-dog is the best way to adapt, survive, and even thrive.

Except that it didn't. What the science is showing us is that it was the Bonobo chimps tendancy for co-operation allowed them to rear and protect more young and develop the problem solving abilities that led to tool making and the evolutionary advantage of a larger brain.

It's a shame that you think that way because I always though Americans were at their best when they work with others for mutual benefit. Perhaps you think you are a rock-star technologist and have forgotten that it takes teamwork to create something worthwhile, i.e. co-operation.

Or maybe you are just the asshole at work that everybody cannot stand being around, the one who makes it a misery for everyone else at work and doesn't poses the social skills to be able to interact with people in a civil manner, i.e. The bully.

I've got news for you, your way of thinking, interacting and generally getting by in a generally sociopathic way is obselete. The kind man is invincible because he has no enemies and it's the same in business. If this wasn't the case you wouldn't have seen such a radical shift in that attitude of Microsoft as it does business. They know people hate them and only worked with them because they had to.

If you think that that kind of viciousness is a strength then it is little wonder there are so many people living in America below the poverty line. I doubt you feel any empathy for them as your belief system probably make you feel entitled to a job. You'll feel entitled to empathy when you and the company you work for are shown no mercy, torn limb from limb and spat back onto the gutter where you belong because you made so many people hate you.

Viciousness is the advantage of a fool.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[timq]

At it again? Calm down and take your pills, Steve.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[NewYork]

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." - W. Churchill

Re:This is America. We compete.

[ultranova]

Mother nature has already shown us that dog-eat-dog is the best way to adapt, survive, and even thrive.

Except that dogs adapt, survive and thrive by cooperating. In fact I'm pretty sure that a dog that resorts to cannibalism will be put down pretty fast, by humans or other dogs.

The business world is the same way.

Yes: cooperation is the best way to succeed there too. That's why we have anti-trust laws: peaceful cooperation is such a winning strategy that companies will always resort to it unless prevented by force.

I have work to do so my company can kick your company's ass and put them out of business.

I work for a paycheck, and entrepreneurs work for profit, but I guess some men just want to see the world burn.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's actually the opposite of what they are doing. It would almost be better if they did try and trample down the old people. That way they'd have to get a job and pay their own mortgage.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[crispin_bollocks]

That's often sold to the public as an altruistic mission.

Re:This is America. We compete.

[Sigg3.net]

You must have not read anything about evolution at all. Maybe you should try it.

Social cooperation is > individual risk and gain. No human can survives if left alone after birth. I think you'll find that social cooperation is even more economic both in terms of efficiency as well as financially. Also, dogs don't eat dogs unless you introduce some extraordinary circumstances.

But maybe you're just really sarcastic..?

Re:This is America. We compete.

[stenvar]

Except it hasn't. There's a reason why empathy and altruism exist, and both have shown positive correlation with the ability of the species to survive.

Yes, but they only operate at the level of small groups and require personal contact, and even there, it is a struggle to keep deception and fraud at bay. Trying to extend these concepts to large, anonymous groups of people isn't just wrong, it is manipulative.

Can we have...

[pongo000]

...a Larry Page channel so I can filter this shit out? How many more articles about Larry Page will be shoved down our collective throats before the week (month? year?) is out?

Re:Can we have...

[stanlyb]

Seconded. And please, make it paid channel. So i could save some money.

Re:Can we have...

[Farmer Tim]

Could be worse: Ray Kurzweil.

Re:Can we have...

[93 Escort Wagon]

No kidding. Last year he wouldn't talk; this year he won't shut up.

I think I preferred 2012 Larry.

Re:Can we have...

[tnk1]

Now, now. Ray may be extremely optimistic, but some of that stuff he comes up with is like reading a really retro science fiction anthology.

Retro, as in, we'd have flying cars and be regularly talking to aliens by 1985, and will have ascended into super-powerful energy beings by the year 2000.

The Singularity is an interesting concept, even if it's about as likely as me being proposed to by every lingerie model on Earth, on the same day.

Re:Can we have...

[Farmer Tim]

Yeah, that's the point: it's not really news. As much as I respect his accomplishments, Ray sounds like the boy who cried electric wolf these days.

Re:Can we have...

[geekoid]

He's a smart guy who makes some really good points that are worth thinking about.

I know, you need to get vindication against people in the industry who actually make a differences, since you never will.

Re:Can we have...

[Ambassador Kosh]

We do have flying cars though and have had them for a while. We just realized that there is a difference between the technology to make the cars and the technology required for the average user to use them. We still can't manage to get people to stop talking and texting while driving even though that is continually shown to be more dangerous than drunk driving. At least now the vehicles mostly crash into other vehicles or things close to roads. Imagine what people would crash into while texting in their flying cars.

Re:Can we have...

[tnk1]

Thing is, people are not thinking of flying cars as cars with wings on them when they talk about "flying cars". They're thinking of the Jetsons. Yeah, you can extend some wings on a car, turn on the aircraft engine, run down some stretch of road/runway and fly that way, but that's not what people think the future is all about. That's just a weird plane... thing. To have a true "flying car of the future" you have to be able to lift off in something that looks like it shouldn't be able to fly or hover in midair, but does anyway, due to SCIENCE!

Page was just dissembling anyway

[dhavleak]

It's not just that tech industry viciousness is here to stay -- it's also that Google is a pretty strong participant in it. Google's been pretty good at appropriating the language of open source when it suits them, and using EEE tactics once they have the upper hand.

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway

[Anubis IV]

^^^^^ This.

The honest truth is that all of these companies are vicious when it suits them, and conciliatory when it suits them. And it suits them when it means that it will make them more profit. Google, I honestly believe, was at one point the sort of altruistic company that many still paint it as, but with its rampant growth it has moved well past that point. Today's Google is far different from the Google of 10 years ago, and they are definitely the sort to engage in the embrace, extend, extinguish tactics you were talking about.

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... I was originally pretty happy about that comment, especially the part where they made the explicit comment about messaging systems being a mess for no really good reason... which they followed by announcing the new Hangouts where they seem to be giving up on XMPP compatibility. Seemed like a bit of stab in the back of going "Yes, we are all for interoperability in messaging services which is why we are discontinuing interoperability in our messaging service."

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway

[dhavleak]

Dude, that's the tip of the iceberg... you should see the things they've been doing to try to prevent windows phone from developing apps that use google services.. A couple of recent examples:

1) They tried to prevent WPs from syncing Gmail calendar and contact data (link). Note that this involves deliberately breaking something that wasn't broken. Making changes/improvements is cool -- but why not work with MS to ensure users don't get affected? How about a little heads up for a major change like that?
2) They've been hindering the development of a youtube app on WP (link). They've even deliberately broken third party youtube apps on WP more than once before this latest spat.

At least Apple and MS are honest about their intentions... I can't stand the doublespeak the comes out of Google's top leaders.

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

(Same AC here.)

I was sorta aware of that. Definitely not good. I was just surprised that they took the doublespeak to a whole new level with the new Hangouts announcement. I really shouldn't be.

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway

[IamTheRealMike]

(usual disclosure: I'm a Google engineer).

Those are all really bad examples.

Retiring ActiveSync for consumer accounts is not "trying to prevent Windows Phone from syncing calendar and contact data". Not even close. ActiveSync is a Microsoft-specific protocol which is so heavily protected by the patent system it requires fees. There are open equivalents for all its functionality. Perhaps if Microsoft doesn't want to implement CalDAV or CardDAV like its major competitors do and would rather its competitors pay them per-user license fees for the privilege of using a crappy syncing protocol, they should not be surprised when support for said protocol goes away. They can catch up with everyone else and support the non-licensed calendar and contact syncing protocols instead. For corporate users, well, they pay so the costs of ActiveSync can just be passed straight through.

By "hindering the development of a YouTube app" you actually mean requiring Microsoft to obey the terms of service, right? The sort of co-operation Page was talking about doesn't mean Microsoft can do whatever they want, demand whatever they want, and everyone gives it to them on a plate for nothing. It means cooperating to find a reasonable solution that works for everyone. In this case, there's already an HTML5 website Windows Phone users can access, and if WP becomes popular enough then probably Google would make a native app that follows content creators requirements and allows the site to be funded. Or maybe provide the access they need to build a proper app that does follow the ToS. After all, that's what happened with the iPhone app despite the iPhone being Android's biggest competitor (it started out written by Apple and later moved to being written by Google).

The sort of thing Microsoft does here is exactly what Larry was talking about. They must have known when they were developing the YouTube app that the features they added were not allowed - because it says so right in the YouTube ToS. So what was their goal here? Apparently to try and confuse people and try to score points when they got inevitably told to stop. And it's working on you, isn't it? It's exactly the same kind of immature behaviour they're pulling in so many other ways. This is not co-operation. It's playing politics instead of building better technology. Larry isn't the only one that's sick of it.

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an engineer at an advertising company. Go back to serving up some ads. What you wrote is horseshit - nice try, though.

(Usual disclosure: I'm a real software developer)

I'm a google engineer means you pretty much suck ass all day while you make money serving ads.

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironic since Android out of the box doesn't support CalDAV or CardDAV and requires third-party plug-ins (DMFS or Andrew McMillan's code). Not saying MSFT shouldn't support CalDAV/CardDAV but right now ONLY Apple (surprisingly) gets the green light here.

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway

[sydneyfong]

By "hindering the development of a YouTube app" you actually mean requiring Microsoft to obey the terms of service, right? The sort of co-operation Page was talking about doesn't mean Microsoft can do whatever they want, demand whatever they want, and everyone gives it to them on a plate for nothing. It means cooperating to find a reasonable solution that works for everyone. In this case, there's already an HTML5 website Windows Phone users can access, and if WP becomes popular enough then probably Google would make a native app that follows content creators requirements and allows the site to be funded. Or maybe provide the access they need to build a proper app that does follow the ToS. After all, that's what happened with the iPhone app despite the iPhone being Android's biggest competitor (it started out written by Apple and later moved to being written by Google).

This is sickening. If your views are representative of how everyone in Google thinks about the fiasco (I honestly hope not), the kool-aid you're drinking must be wonderful.

Perhaps "cooperation" in Google really means "just play by my rules but we won't help you unless there's profit to be made", but it's not how the world is understood by the normal person. Make no mistake, I do think Microsoft is being a dick when they decided to intentionally ignore Youtube terms and conditions when making their own app, but I don't think this vindicates the behavior of Google trying to block them from making a native app. Besides, if Microsoft is doing this as a calculated move to force Google back to the negotiation table for youtube API access, then that says a lot about Google's commitment to practice what they preach about "cooperation".

"Cooperation" doesn't mean "we'll help you if the venture becomes so profitable that we just can't ignore you", just as "cooperation" doesn't mean "we'll comply with your terms after you send us C&D letters". "Cooperation" doesn't mean "be nice to us, maybe one day we'll do a favor for you (no guarantees!)".

To be clear, I don't think there's a moral duty for Google to provide competitor's platforms with the best experience (if HTML5 was so great, why would Google bother to write a native app?) when using Google's services, after all, it's a dog eat dog world out there. However, the "cooperation", "play nice" message by your Great Infallible CEO is sickenly hypocritical at best. Hint: when you make the world a better place, you make the first step. You don't point fingers at everyone else demanding they comply with your grand visions and blaming them when it doesn't work out.

It's also funny how you lambast Microsoft over aggressive license fees, then in the same post justify how complying with Youtube's terms and licenses (c.f. "funded") is so important. I mean, proprietary is bad when you can't use it, right?

Disclaimer: I don't work for Microsoft.

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for Google. People there really think they are "making the world better". I didn't really fit in with my cynical mind :)

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to fucking a horse, you piece of shit.

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? You're certainly stupid enough.

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway

[dhavleak]

Retiring ActiveSync for consumer accounts is not "trying to prevent Windows Phone from syncing calendar and contact data". Not even close. ActiveSync is a Microsoft-specific protocol which is so heavily protected by the patent system it requires fees.

Right, MS developed ActiveSync, filed patents, and licenses ActiveSync (licenses = requires fees). Google licensed it, used it for quite a while, and decided to migrate away. Nothing wrong with any of that. It's how that's done that's at issue here -- Google tried to fuck Windows Phone users over. It's really that simple.

By "hindering the development of a YouTube app" you actually mean requiring Microsoft to obey the terms of service, right?

If that's your interpretation then you've prostituted your brain to your employer. Google has willfully prevented MS from making a TOS-compliant Youtube app that compares to the apps on iOS and Android. Google refuses to make such an app themselves. Google repeatedly suggests that WP8 users "use the browser" (it's even in their official cease-and-desist letter). Google would never for a second release an Android phone that follows that suggestion.

The sort of thing Microsoft does here is exactly what Larry was talking about.

Larry Page is probably involved in the decisions to block MS on the YouTube app. He's blowing sunshine up your ass and you're opening wider.

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck yourself.

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

If supporting ActiveSync would be very much financially advantageous for Google (i.e. Windows Phone whould have a really big market share), then Google would do whatever it takes to crawl into Microsoft's ass, despite all of your technical (and financial (..patents..)) arguments against providing ActiveSync, right?

(See also Web DRM, China, etc.)

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Your criticisms of ActiveSync have nothing to do with the timing of when the plug was pulled. If it really was a "crappy" sync protocol, then it's been crappy since the day Google Sync was launched. The only thing that's changed is the rising animosity between two competitors.

Also, did you miss the corporate memo where Google announced it was killing CalDAV as well? The timing went pretty well with MS acquiescing to implementing it in Windows Phone. Nothing underhanded going on there, I'm sure.

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

As in, "negatory'.

Dude, it's exactly this sort of negativity

[MikeTheGreat]

that Mr. Page was talking about!

Re:Dude, it's exactly this sort of negativity

[Anonymous Coward]

Negative? The human body is a beautiful thing, you insensitive clod!

Re:Dude, it's exactly this sort of negativity

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on the butt...

Lost in the Billionaire Bubble

[mbone]

I think that the real purpose of the Google I/O in San Francisco was to show just how clueless Google's top executives are in their "Billionaire Bubble."

Re:Lost in the Billionaire Bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

Bubble or filtered results?

Money..

[Vortran]

Money is power. Power corrupts. Ethical behavior is incompatible with the pursuit of profit. This is the essence of the old adage "Money is the root of all evil." Think about this very carefully while you consider what values of your own are compromised because you're a slave to your paycheck. Now multiply and amplify that ad infinitum.

Please read this twice if you feel the need to refute anything herein.

Re:Money..

[mbone]

Apparently markets corrupt as well, just by their nature.

Re:Money..

[Anonymous Coward]

Now multiply and amplify that ad nauseum

ftfy

Re:Money..

[spire3661]

I know so many people who would roast babies for a living if it was socially acceptable and paid well.

Re:Money..

[Farmer Tim]

Indeed...it's minimum wage, and babies are much better deep fried in a tempura batter.

Re:Money..

[eriks]

Not refuting anything you're saying (Because I agree wholeheartedly), but the quote from 1 Timothy is:

"For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."

Emphasis added, since I think that's the most important part of the quote. Money is just a tool. It may be a tool that we need to leave in the dustbin of history, and I'd personally like to see that happen, since there are many ways we could live without a monetary system entirely, but as a pragmatist, I don't see it happening anytime soon, at least not without a very strong catalyst.

Re:Money..

[Anonymous Coward]

Money is not the root of all evil. Money is the root of all good. The love of money is the root of all evil. Money is the root of all good because with money I can get an education, buy food to eat, buy a house to live in, buy clothes to protect myself from the elements, etc. Unless you live in some utopian society where there is no money (and in this case I would include any type of bartering as being a form of money) then all good things come to you via money.

Re:Money..

[geekoid]

Ethical behavior is incompatible with the pursuit of profit.
false.
"This is the essence of the old adage "Money is the root of all evil."'
its: "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil."

which is false, but at least get the damn quote right.

Re:Money..

[geekoid]

and the evil in the sentence means not adhere to there belief.

Re:Money..

[Anonymous Coward]

I posit that power is more of an amplifier. It enables you to do more, regardless of what you're doing. As has been said before: if you want to test a man's character, give him power.

Re:Money..

[superwiz]

Money is power. Power corrupts. Ethical behavior is incompatible with the pursuit of profit.

I'll give you two out of three.... which ain't bad.

All corruption begins with nepotism. No one can deny loved ones...it's part of what makes them their loves ones. Any behavior which is not done for profit is not ethical. Yep, I know you think it's sociopathic to think that way. I even realize that you think less of me because I know what you think and still disagree. The link breaks at the 2nd sentence though. Power attained through means other than profits is what corrupts. Political power, military power, power attained through love. All of these are powers which corrupt because they are attained without pursuit of profit. Ultimately, power comes through exploitation or through enabling. Power attained through enabling brings profits. Power attained through exploitation strip mines people around you and all strip mining does not last. Don't bring up the example of teachers as people enable without profits. They also enable without attaining power. The only ethical power comes from the pursuit of profit.

Re:Money..

[Anonymous Coward]

The adage is not "money is the root of all evil." It is "The _love_ of money is the root of all evil.
These are very different statements.
Please read your sources twice if you feel the need to cite them.

Re:Money..

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, that is some hardcore gibberish right there.

Media

[Sarten-X]

It's time for Sarten-X's semi-weekly anti-media rant.

The reason the news stories you read about are always us-vs.-them is because you're reading news stories. It's not what's really going on. In a newspaper, the story about the big technology company donating millions of dolalrs in products and support to a third-world country takes a nice little corner on page 12. Meanwhile, the front-page big headline is a story about the company that sues another company for just as much.

People love controversy, and the media is happy to supply it. It doesn't matter how good your company is or what your corporate charter's stated mission is, you're still portrayed as a Big Evil Company that's out to greedily gather money and decimate your adversaries. On the off chance that you keep your dealings clean enough to not get sued (and don't sue others), you can bet that the media will invent an adversary for you, combining the markets of your closest competitors into a shady conspiracy, just for the sake of a story.

Sorry, Larry Page: News-media viciousness is here to stay.

Re:Media

[mystikkman]

t doesn't matter how good your company is or what your corporate charter's stated mission is, you're still portrayed as a Big Evil Company that's out to greedily gather money and decimate your adversaries

Because they're are usually a Big Evil Company and the mission is just PR bullshit.

Example?

Lets take Google.

Google's mission from: http://www.google.com/about/

"Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful."

And Google does things like this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-admits-it-was-blocking-wp8-maps-2013-1

http://wmpoweruser.com/surprise-or-not-google-demands-microsoft-cease-and-desist-with-official-youtube-app/

Is it the press' fault that they need to cover this up by putting it on page 12 and concentrate on Google's clean image in the front page?

Re:Media

[Sarten-X]

And what would the media be without shills adding to the mud-slinging and muckraking?

Tolerable.

Re:Media

[geekoid]

Shocking they aren't perfect.

I'm not sure how the MS blocking comes into this discussion.

Negativity vs. Competition

[kevkingofthesea]

This submission, and the comments so far, have missed some key differences between negativity and competition. It is possible to compete without being negative towards your competitor. Good competition (from the consumer's point of view) involves both (all) sides striving to create the best product they can. Bad competition is when, rather than improving themselves, competitors seek to cut each other down.

Re:Negativity vs. Competition

[AxDx]

I'm glad someone made this point, and beat me to the punch. This is an example of competition. Hey JERK! I was gonna post that and bask in the glory of everyone telling me how insightful my comment is. Not fair! In fact I think that I can prove that I had the thought before you and sue you for actually getting it done before me. Butthead! I know where you live and I hope your car is insured .. Negativity. Now which one do you think is more productive and condussive of real progress?

Re:Negativity vs. Competition

[idontgno]

What you say is true but unpersuasive. The surest way to win is to make sure everyone else loses. And that is why negativity works.

If the "W" on the score card is the only thing that matters, almost anything is acceptable.

And, on a related side note, I've seen behaviors that make me believe that for some people, it's more important to make someone else lose than it is to make one's self win.

Re:Negativity vs. Competition

[kevkingofthesea]

They're a huge company - there are plenty of examples of both in their history. Google Fiber is one of the more recent examples of good competition from Google.

Re:Negativity vs. Competition

[DragonWriter]

> What you say is true but unpersuasive. The surest way to win is to make sure everyone else loses. And that is why negativity works.

In a non-zero-sum game, the surest way to win can be to take action which increases the total reward pool, and making sure everyone else loses may be suboptimal (and can even be a way to guarantee that you lose.)

Recognizing the actual payoff matrix in the game is key to winning, and many many things (in business and elsewhere) are not zero sum.

Re:Negativity vs. Competition

[readingaccount]

Negativity works, yes, but it's also affects society because it ends up being so pervasive that everyone is doing it. It's the reason fanboys are so fucking annoying and prevalent on tech sites - they WANT to denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with them because that negativity is rewarding apparently. Shit, if companies are acting like this with each other, why wouldn't impressionable young folk not act the same way?

It's surprising how hard it is to stick to one's morals and try to remain ethical in the face of everyone using a lack of morals and mutual respect in order to get ahead in the world. Human nature maybe, I dunno, but it shouldn't be necessary.

Google is no better...

[mystikkman]

Larry Page: Every story I read about Google, it's us versus some other company or some stupid thing.

He means like in these stories?

http://www.wpcentral.com/google-microsoft-remove-youtube-windows-phone-store

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-admits-it-was-blocking-wp8-maps-2013-1

Stupid thing indeed, to send lawyers to make things worse for Windows Phone users who are mere pawns in Google's strategic games.

For example, the imaging tech in Nokia's flagship Windows Phone is far better than Android phones, look at the below videos for proof.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/samsung-galaxy-s4-video-is-shakier-than-rivals-in-test-50011238/

How about advancing the state of the art for smartphone camera imaging tech through its loss making Motorola Unit instead of trying to compete by making Windows Phone worse by sending C&D take down letters?

Why doesn't Google use it's loss making Motorola to advance the state of smartphone camera tech like Nokia is doing instead of trying to prevent people from getting Windows Phone by sending C&Ds and takedowns?

Re:Google is no better...

[game kid]

Besides, Page is the same guy that got into a "shouting match" with Brin (I'll let Slashdot find the WSJ link this time, I've linked it enough) because Brin was getting in the way of sharing personal user info for money.

He's given the viciousness, and now he can go take it like the karma-challenged man he is.

Re:Google is no better...

[LordThyGod]

Stupid thing indeed, to send lawyers to make things worse for Windows Phone users who are mere pawns in Google's strategic games.

Buy a ms product and expect not to get shit on? Ah, come on! W phones should come with toilet paper.

Re:Google is no better...

[mystikkman]

Stupid thing indeed, to send lawyers to make things worse for Windows Phone users who are mere pawns in Google's strategic games.

Buy a ms product and expect not to get shit on? Ah, come on! W phones should come with toilet paper.

What? Google's is the one doing the shitting.

Anyway, right now WP has the best Youtube app right now and the only one with no ads and a preload button for later viewing.

http://www.wpcentral.com/windows-phone-8-version-metrotube-now-available

Re:Google is no better...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, it's the Microsoft shill complaining again. If you don't like the state of Google services on your phone then get an Android or iOS phone. Otherwise, please shut the fuck up. No one cares about your insignificant marketshare. Besides, you should be wallowing in your AWESOME MS services like a pig in dirt. Oh wait, that's right Microsoft provides shitty products and services. But hey, pigs like shit, right?

Re:Google is no better...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid thing indeed, to send lawyers to make things worse for Windows Phone users who are mere pawns in Google's strategic games.

Buy a ms product and expect not to get shit on? Ah, come on! W phones should come with toilet paper.

What? Google's is the one doing the shitting.

Anyway, right now WP has the best Youtube app right now and the only one with no ads and a preload button for later viewing.

http://www.wpcentral.com/windows-phone-8-version-metrotube-now-available

We don't get ads either, idiot. Have fun till the 22nd because that's when it gets shut down. And if it doesn't Google will make it go black.

tech has always been the scummiest industry

[alen]

15" and 17" monitors that really aren't that big due to the bezel
smaller than advertised hard drives
hyping features that will never happen a la microsoft
lying about the competition

everyone has done it, everyone has been the target of it. that's how it goes

Hypocritical coming from Google...

[recoiledsnake]

Google is no better at greed for money.

See how Google started removing borders around ads and made the shading super light in order to get ad clicks from older people and people with bad monitor calibration:

http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-it

http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-intentionally-trying-to-minimize-the-fact-that-these-are-ads/

Those carefully and scientifically calibrated colors must be worth atleast few hundred million of extra revenue from their cash cow by making gullible people click on ads mistaking them for real search results.

"Study:Contrast sensitivity gradually decreases with age"
http://www.eyeworld.org/article.php?sid=818&strict=0&morphologic=0&query=

Chrome is a trojan horse to weaken Mozilla which is becoming less powerful because Google uses its ad dollars to bundle Chrome with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates by default thereby reducing Firefox's share and has the nice side effect of reducing Google's payments to Mozilla for searches.

And Web DRM? Of course it's going to be a HTML standard very soon because IE, Safari and... ding! Chrome are going to be supporting it fully with 80% marketshare and people will blame Firefox if Netflix doesn't work in it and recommend you switch to Chrome to see movies! iOS, Android and Windows Phone, BBOS will add support for 100% tablet and phone support for the DRM.

Chrome on Chromebook already has the EME DRM module. Firefox and Opera are powerless to stop it. We have already seen this play out with the h.264 HTML5 video support in Chrome fiasco when Google promised it would drop H.264 from Chrome to push WebM but did not and Mozilla was left holding the bag with WebM and had to recently had to eat crow and add support for patent encumbered H264. The web is owned by the corporates, not individuals anymore, there was some hope when Firefox was at 40%, not anymore. And we all willingly gave them the power by believing in "open" and "do no evil" and switching in droves.

Re:Hypocritical coming from Google...

[Anonymous Coward]

And we all willingly gave them the power by believing in "open" and "do no evil" and switching in droves.

What? You somehow missed the simple fact that Google is first and foremost and advertising company? And that advertisers are evil manipulative vile people who will do everything in their power to make you do what they want you to do?

Re:Hypocritical coming from Google...

[inputdev]

It feels like I just read your post the other day.
Really, contrast? I think there is an element of advertisers wanting their ads to look legitimate - there are many competing interests. I can still tell the ads on google, maybe because I'm young enough. That is not quite enough for me to consider google evil.
DRM - drm still sucks, will continue to suck, and I don't see the end any time soon. I don't blame Chrome from DRM, I don't get why you do, other than saying that chrome is going to make sure that netflix works?
agreed that the web is owned by the corporates, and pretty much everything else is owned by the corporates...
It's simpler than people 'believing in "open" and "do no evil"' - people use whatever is available and good enough for what they need. You don't have to believe in Google to benefit from gmail.

Re:Hypocritical coming from Google...

[Lumpy]

I would gleefully go back to Mozilla if they stopped with the adding fluff and went back to being fast and correct. It's a bloated turd right now, over 1/2 the code needs to be thrown away.

Mozilla back to it's roots and become the fasted and smallest memory footprint out there? I would love it!

Re:Hypocritical coming from Google...

[yuhong]

The color in question is #fff8e7, BTW.

Re:Hypocritical coming from Google...

[yuhong]

Personally, on this laptop, it does look more whitish the more you tilt the display to the front.

Re:Hypocritical coming from Google...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://arewefastyet.com/

Check it out... In the past 2 years they are within current chrome speeds on all benchmarks. They are talking about going past it in the next 6 months. They are also the lowest usage in memory amongst all the browsers. With many of them starting in the 700 meg range just to open the browser..

Darwinian means evolution, patents IP not

[Anonymous Coward]

you are confusing Darwinian competition with anti-evolutionary practices of blocking patents, lawsuits to stop competition, and IP that was stolen in the first place and never should have been granted rights.

Until the patent and copyright systems are reformed, this is just going to get worse.

Re:Darwinian means evolution, patents IP not

[HeckRuler]

Whoa whoa whoa, "anti-evolutionary"? The rules surrounding intellectual property may be dirty, rotten, and underhanded maybe. But anti-evolutionary?

Son, evolution is a cold-hearted bitch and she doesn't care if it's a one-sided fight, she will straight-up murderize your entire clutch of eggs. Even if it means less food for everyone in the long run. As long as it helps her and her own, in the here and now, she's down with that. Evolution will toss ethics right out the window, baby, bathwater, and all, if it means she gets to send another gene into the future. That bitch plays hardball and is the first to turn in the other prisoner. It's no dilemma to her. She can make some truly beautiful and breath-taking things, but she has no goal or sense of morals, and the moment you put her in a corner she will sucker-punch the nearest fatty so she's not the first eaten.

Re:Darwinian means evolution, patents IP not

[PPH]

That opposable thumb you've got there buddy. Cease and desist using it. Or you'll hear from my attorney.

Re:Darwinian means evolution, patents IP not

[VortexCortex]

Son, evolution is a cold-hearted bitch and she doesn't care if it's a one-sided fight, she will straight-up murderize your entire clutch of eggs.

There is a difference between nature and evolution. You've personified the former, the latter doesn't act on anything but genes, and can't "murderize your entire clutch of eggs" unless you mean that through random mutation you've become sterile and your eggs are duds... In which case I reiterate: Can't murder what ain't alive.

Re:Darwinian means evolution, patents IP not

[HeckRuler]

No, evolution is still a cold-hearted bitch even when it's virtual bots trying to gain fitness points in a genetic algorithm to find the best way to trade stock. The entire point of the prisoner's dilema is that the optimal/rational route, the one that evolution takes, is to betray the other guy and grab what you can. The personification of nature and evolution both follow the same characteristics. The later certainly guided the former. If nature is a bitch, then evolution is the motherfucker that made it that way.

Google Vicious

[Anonymous Coward]

Check the tech history and deals. You aren't very far from Microsoft.

Larry

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather hear from Larry Laffer rather than Larry "Doubleface" Page any day of the week.

FOSS ain't exactly a love fest...

[jwthompson2]

FOSS ain't exactly a love fest, and they lack to direct profit motive of large corporations. Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds aren't consistently known for being just the nicest guys you've ever met. The only open source community that overtly talks about being nice and polite is the Ruby community with it's "Matz is nice, so we are nice" mantra that falls down just as often as it shows through. Competition and even brutal competition are part of life, for good and ill.

Re:FOSS ain't exactly a love fest...

[meta-monkey]

I love Rails, I tolerate Ruby, but man, "members of the Ruby community" are insufferable.

Re:FOSS ain't exactly a love fest...

[funky_vibes]

It depends on your definition of nice.
RMS and Linus do spend a majority of their free time helping unthankful and not very nice people. If that's not nice, I don't think there's anything that is.

Sounds like you think they're not nice when they prove someone wrong or tell them how stupid they are?
IMO, *not* doing that is bad and counterproductive.

That's why "Polite" communities tend to be the worst, full of double-faced behaviour and much lower productivity, due to the spoonfeeding of sensitive people.

Re:FOSS ain't exactly a love fest...

[Anonymous Coward]

You love Rails, so you must have suffered some serious brain injury?

We need both selfishness and altruism

[sjbe]

There's a reason why empathy and altruism exist, and both have shown positive correlation with the ability of the species to survive.

Species exist on a spectrum between complete selfishness (everything for me) and complete altruism (everything for the group). Some species tend more towards one end or the other of the spectrum. However the success of a species typically depends on the circumstances and the balance between the two. Our success depends on the tension between the two. Sometimes a little selfishness is good for the species as well as the individual. It's actually beneficial to society that I earn a good living instead of immediately donating every penny to charity. However never donating a dime isn't ideal either. The balance is somewhere in between.

E.O. Wilson wrote about this dynamic recently. Interesting read if that sort of thing tickles your fancy.

Profit is irrelevant

[SuperKendall]

To claim all of the antagonism is simply about profit is laughable; if it were then companies would logically work together to maximize profit across an industry.

Large company battles, ESPECIALLY in the case of technical companies, have never been about money. They have been about control and dominance and vision. Every company wants to be the one that controls where the future goes in the field they compete in.

Just look at any behavior large companies behave in, and almost never does it make sense from a profit perspective. But if you think about it in terms of strategic control, it almost always does (especially in hindsight).

Summary.

[SeNtM]

Can we all be a little less Star Wars and a little more Star Trek???

Re:Summary.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Have you seen the latest Star Trek?

Re:Summary.

[u64]

About being a little more Star Trek,

Picard: The economics of the future are somewhat different.
You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century.

Lily Sloane: No money. You mean, you don't get paid?

Picard: The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force of our lives.
We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.

  - Star Trek: First Contact

Somehow i think the notion of 'no money' sits uncomfortable with advertisement companies, such as Google.

Re:Summary.

[DragonWriter]

Somehow i think the notion of 'no money' sits uncomfortable with advertisement companies, such as Google.

Companies are abstractions that don't have comfort levels. Certainly, profit-seeking investors in any company (not just companies that make money by selling advertising placement) would be uncomfortable with not receiving money for their investment, as would people working in most companies (again, regardless of what business they are in) in the present economic context. Whether those people would be uncomfortable with a context in which money was unnecessary is far less clear, and either in terms of investors, founders, or employees, I don't see any reason to think that what the company sells would have any bearing on how much discomfort the people involved in it would feel in such a context.

fuck you im voting this down

[decora]

because for my comments to prosper, yours must suffer.

Ethics

[sjbe]

Ethical behavior is incompatible with the pursuit of profit.

Nonsense. Pursuit of profit *can* lead to unethical behavior but it does not follow that pursuit of profit *must* lead to unethical behavior. Buying something and then selling it to someone else for a higher price has no component that is fundamentally unethical. If you have a good I need and I'm willing to pay a price for it (a price that is low enough that it does not cause me injury) then we both get something we want/need and both are better off. There is nothing unethical about that exchange.

I won't even get in to the question of what you consider unethical behavior or why. Ethics are societal conventions and standards which differ between people and groups, not immutable laws of the universe. Perhaps you do consider pursuit of profit to be unethical. That does not mean that the rest of society must consider it so.

Re:Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ethics are societal conventions and standards which differ between people and groups, not immutable laws of the universe."

Nope. Ethics are immutable laws of the universe. I say this because a) I am a theist and thus have a metaphysical underpinning to this position, and b) I have had enough philosophy training to know that your position means that all your ethical statements are meaningless subjective nonsense--unbacked as they are, per -your- metaphysics, and as you here admit they are. If any given ethical postulate and -its exact opposite- are of equal validity depending on who you ask or social context, you may as well not even bring it up. It has no content or force.

Re:Ethics

[cheekyjohnson]

b) I have had enough philosophy training to know that your position means that all your ethical statements are meaningless subjective nonsense

I think that's because they pretty much are. Does that have anything to do with whether or not the position is correct? Not one bit.

you may as well not even bring it up. It has no content or force.

About as much as two people screaming at one another that they're absolutely correct. People who claim that morality is absolute really don't seem to be any better off in the end.

Re:Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then, may your assumed definition of "the end" be as you insist for you.

Re:Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

People who claim that morality is absolute really don't seem to be any better off in the end.

That kind of proves that morality -is- absolute, doesn't it? ;)

Re:Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. Pursuit of profit *can* lead to unethical behavior but it does not follow that pursuit of profit *must* lead to unethical behavior.

That is inherently nonsensical. Ironic considering your "nonsense" prefix.

Ethics and profit and distinct concepts but they are not parallel/unrelated. If it is profitable to dump toxic waste in a drinking water river instead of paying the expense of transporting and processing it then why would you not do it? Especially if the fine for being caught is still cheaper than the processing cost?

This is where the problem hits, either you pursue profit or you uphold ethics. You must choose which is more important, they will conflict eventually. In the case where there is no ethical problem (what you have chosen to single out and address) then profiting from it does not matter, your post is essentially little more than a misdirection or strawman because of that.

Another example that should be interesting: Bribery. Accepting a bribe is profitable, if you are a politician that is offered money to propose a law that hurts people who aren't you or your immediate family, why would you refuse to accept it?

Re:Ethics

[cheekyjohnson]

I fail to see your point, but that's how I see it.

Re:Ethics

[cheekyjohnson]

The magical moral fairy did tell me as much.

Geek Hubris

[dave562]

I would say that the negativity is exactly what makes the tech industry as successful as it is. Geeks, being the borderline socially inept creatures that we are, generally, tend to care very little about the feelings of others and have no hesitation calling each other out. It makes us better. It encourages us to make sure that our ideas are sound before we share them. Then once we share them, we are encouraged to refine them, because we have to. Geeks are vicious. We will call each other out. Geeks have pretty finely calibrated bullshit detectors. That is why so many of us have a hard time moving into management and dealing with executives and sales people.

Re:Geek Hubris

[Anonymous Coward]

Geeks, being the borderline socially inept creatures that we are, generally, tend to care very little about the feelings of others and have no hesitation calling each other out. It makes us better. It encourages us to make sure that our ideas are sound before we share them. Then once we share them, we are encouraged to refine them, because we have to. Geeks are vicious. We will call each other out. Geeks have pretty finely calibrated bullshit detectors.

“Randy was forever telling people, without rancor, that they were full of shit. That was the only way to get anything done in hacking. No one took it personally.” - Cryptonomicon

The *love* of money

[Swamii]

Ethical behavior is incompatible with the pursuit of profit. This is the essence of the old adage "Money is the root of all evil."

The actual quote:

"The love of money is the root of all evil."

This is an important distinction. When a man loves money more than personal morals and ethics, only then does his business become unethical.

Re:The *love* of money

[femtobyte]

When a man loves money more than personal morals and ethics

From where in the quote, or elsewhere in the scriptures from which the quote is drawn, are you getting the "more than" qualification? The text seems pretty clear that "the love of money" is problematic ("the root of all [kinds of] evil"), period. There is no exception made for "a little love of money is OK," any more than "a little love of murder is OK."

Re:The *love* of money

[geekoid]

It's implied in the context. You should read timothy 6.
anyways the whole point of the chapter is to keep the poor happy where they are ignorant and believing.

And the literal greek translation is: Root for all the evil is the love of money.

Just FYI.

Re:The *love* of money

[femtobyte]

And what in the context implies that "a little love of money" is OK? The context does imply that the rich --- with their corresponding great love of money --- are those most grievously ensnared by the evils coming from money-loving. But there is nothing promoting some "middle path" where a moderate amount of money loving becomes acceptable. The following verse (1 Tim 6:11) reads "and thou, O man of God, these things flee, and pursue righteousness, piety, faith, love, endurance, meekness". Elsewhere in the scriptures, indicating the contemporary theological background shaping the 1 Timothy text, love of God (and, by extension, love of God's beloved children, our fellow humankind) is presented as an absolute ideal for *all* one's attention --- love of other things (e.g. money) are presented as being, to *any* extent, competing against and infidelity to the totalizing demand to love God. Interpolations that money loving "in moderation" is OK are the products of later mammon-worship apologists working to reconcile the world's popular money-loving beliefs with Christianity.

And the literal greek translation is: Root for all the evil is the love of money.

I included the "[kinds of]" possible interpretation, as this is found in many modern translations --- I'm willing to grant the translators some credibility that they have decent scholarship behind their translation choices for "panton ton kakon" (and grant Paul some credibility for not making an overly-narrow statement; since in other epistles he isn't particularly a "blame everything on the rich" type). I'm not personally dedicated to that translation, but I don't think it detracts from the message that "loving money"="bad shit".

Business, like life, is war.

[TigerPlish]

Perhaps it's my upbringing, but I see life as war. Not a race, but a war.

Do onto others before they do unto you. That's the credo I feel this world operates on.

This goes doubly more for business. There are, and I've met, some good honest people out there doing great work with little reward, or even little desire of more reward. But for one of those, you have 10 who want nothing more than to kill every single competitor, steal their ideas, products, clients / customers, and then lie, cheat and steal their way through those customer's wallets.

Not nice, right? It is Darwinian. Kill the other business before they do it to you. Not the way it should be, but is the way it is.

I hate it. I detest it. And this is all learned by 3rd grade, I think. Even then I noticed "huh, the nasty kids and the cheats win and get ahead faster than the quiet, studious, nice ones."

Misrepresentation

[g2devi]

Larry wasn't swiping at Oracle and Microsoft any more than a person who is being picked on isn't bullying if he says "it's not fair".

As for negativity, it's not only here to stay, it is actually beneficial in some cases. Some companies add restrictions to their EULAs that state you are forbidden to comparing their product to others (e.g. via benchmarking). I'm sorry, it might be "negative" to say one product is better than another, but it's irrelevant. People want the best value for their money and not just "a good enough deal".

Imagine how poor the Linux kernel quality would be if Linus was too worried about offending contributors? Imagine where free software would be if Stallman wasn't so negative on even the hint of proprietary software?

What wasn't said

[Anonymous Coward]

What Larry was *really* saying is that what is impeding *his* technology is negativity towards *Google*. His statements, as with any CEO, are self-serving half-truths. He's just hoping the the techies in the audience are too naive to catch on.

Own fault, idiot.

[seebs]

A guy whose company uses stack ranking is not in a position to complain about non-cooperative behavior.

Re:Own fault, idiot.

[IamTheRealMike]

Google does not use stack ranking in the sense you are referring to it (the form that promotes competition between employees to avoid being in the bottom X% that gets fired or top Y% that gets promoted).

No free market

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on schedule... someone who makes a crap load of money griping how the market does not work they way HE wants it to. It should be more "civil"?
What is depressing is no one from the audience yelled at him. I recall seeing "All The Presidents Men" in a movie theater and hearing people hiss when anything related to Nixon was shown on the screen. People knew then how destructive and flat out murderously violent that sense of privilege is.

Here we have a rich, tech (supposedly giant)... musing... about what he perceives as ... something that is not helpful?
Not helpful to what?? Profits?

Do not EVER mistake these people as being good, moral or something to aspire to... He is after PROFIT...
Gates stole and suppressed innovations, tampered with the market.... spread doubt and fear when he saw fit.
I guarantee you this guy is no different.

You decide how big a unit you compete as

[presidenteloco]

A better way to look at evolutionary competition is that a competing entity can decide/try, as one possible adaptation strategy, to co-operate with one or more of its former competitors. This can be looked at as purely an evolutionarily selfish move. You have just decided to increase the size of your "self" by allying partially or totally with the other(s). If the co-operation works out, then there will then be a new set of bigger (and generally more capable) competitors competing at the next level (not to mention generally eliminating/eating the remaining smaller players.) So, co-operation can be looked at as just a strategy in competition, which has a downside (diluting of the identity of your former self into a larger new self), but can have the enormous upside of increasing your techniques, power, and resources in the next level of competition. That definition of the purpose and effect of cooperation is true all the way up until there are no more competitors, and that probably can't happen, since the "uncooperative and entropizing environment" can be defined as just another competitor that should probably be co-operated with instead.

Re:You decide how big a unit you compete as

[Anonymous Coward]

And your response is a perfect example of why one can't substitute "evolution-directed instincts broadly relatable to ethical choices" for -ethics-.

As soon as one conceptualizes the drives/instincts/emotions as simply another attribute of behavior, one is then naturally free to do what you are doing here--analyze the structure of the drives as an nonessential externality. That is, "game" it, rather than see oneself as obliged to adhere to it.

In fact, what your evolved instincts tell you to do is not only not synonymous with ethics, it doesn't even correlate much. Often, the -ethical- decision is precisely the opposite of what evolved drives tell one to do, and it is an issue of ethics precisely to the degree they do -not- follow them. Indeed, one may say that "ethics" only exists insofar as one is making a choice -not- determined by evolved motivators, that is, insofar as it is undriven free choice.

Re:You decide how big a unit you compete as

[presidenteloco]

What is the basis of this ethics of which you speak. And please (for the love of God) don't say God. What criteria do you use to judge if something is ethical? Do we not find that behaviour/decision that is considered ethical is identical with that which would tend to promote co-operation? i.e. behaviour that tends (whether intended as such or not) toward encouraging the creation of the larger co-operating whole?

Re:You decide how big a unit you compete as

[presidenteloco]

"rather than see oneself as obliged to adhere to it." Obliged by what/whom to adhere to the ethical path? Would we not agree that our perception of what would be an ethical path in a given situation or in general must be influenced either by a culturally arrived at, or personally arrived at "code of ethics" or "heuristics for ethics"? And where do those come from? Are they not either inculcated by parents, story absorption, education, or cultural context and social pressure? And what is the source of all of those contextual elements being present front and centre in human society and existence? Might it not be an evolved cultural behaviour (as well as an evolved self-maintaining meme?), as well as perhaps a biological adaptation of our species to conceptualize and organize our behaviour so that we do well in the surrounding presence of that successful meme?

Apple, MS, Google got along on one issue!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget what happened the one time Google, Apple, MS, Oracle, etc were nice and got along. They colluded to drive down developer salaries! I think I like the competition better.

You're disgusting.

[Anonymous Coward]

That s**t works big time on chicks, though. If you're a guy, it's because the headhunter was a chick--she's projecting big time.

Don't be such an offensive sexist: that s**t also works big time on limp-wristed liberal males. However, in any case it's ultimately just window-dressing for the pecuniary interests.

Re:You're disgusting.

[flyneye]

Something that works, due to nature is offensive? Are you just offended because it didn't happen for you and you watched your friend go off to get laid?
Hey, it's springtime and Craigslist: Casual Encounters section is in FULL BLOOM everywhere.

Re:You're disgusting.

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to lack reading comprehension: I pointed out that these tactics also work on effeminate/liberal males. Perhaps this says more about the liberal males than it does about the women.

Regardless, the point the GGP was making was inaccurate, because the "if you're a guy..." assertion doesn't hold. For example, the headhunter might have thought she was speaking with a metrosexual, Left Coast male-type potential recruit, in which case the pitch would have been the "correct approach" (presuming "saving the world" came with a huge salary)—rather than the female headhunter merely "projecting" those effeminate job values simply because she is female.

Re:You're disgusting.

[flyneye]

You lack reading comprehension: I pointed out a jealousy over a friend (unisex) unless of course you're asexual which would make your assertion amusing.
It works on conservatives too and most religious affiliations. Nothing a savage headhunter might prize more than "turning out" a Metrosexual. Birds do it, bees do it, even educated trees do it. The Craigslist section I mentioned has something for everyone. I mean if you can't get laid there,( could be you, if you talk to others like you do here) you might as well pack it up and go do that research in the remote arctic, that you've been meaning to get around to.

Re:You're disgusting.

[speedplane]

claiming sexism while simultaneously making a homophobic remark... nice.

Re:You're disgusting.

[Anonymous Coward]

You lack reading comprehension and/or American cultural comprehension. In America, the headhunter is an independent agent who attempts to recruit employees for another company. There is no "getting laid" involved in the normal connotations of the employment recruitment context of this discussion.

And, of course, if this was your attempt at humor then I suggest you find other avocations to engage your time. Because—how do I put this politely?—the quality of your ability is abysmal. The use of double entendre requires wit that you demonstrably lack.

Oh, almost forgot. Here's your XKCD fortune: Words that End in GRY.

Re:You're disgusting.

[Anonymous Coward]

True. I formally retract any insult proffered to the homosexual community.

Please mentally substitute "effeminate" in my description of liberal males who pretend to care about "that s**t".

Re:You're disgusting.

[flyneye]

You lack a sense of humor and the ability to judge an audience, both necessary for getting laid. I pity you, you'll end up spending a lot of money.

Re:You're disgusting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sentence makes no sense. All I take from it is that you're trying to be a dick to the previous AC.

Re:You're disgusting.

[flyneye]

Well, it's the asexual organs you ACs have and you all look the same to me.

FRAND lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget, this is the same peace and love company that just got smacked down for abusing FRAND patents. As far as I'm concerned, that's the worst kind of behavior out of the bunch.

American Corporate Lifecycle

[Anonymous Coward]

The corporation is started by the entrepreneurs/engineers. (I've got this neat idea)

When it gets going, it's taken over by the lawyers. (Moar patents and let's sue somebody)

When the lawyers get tired, they give it to the accountants. (Move manufacturing to Outer Mongolia and send me your 24-month budget)

If there's anything left, the bankers get it. (The CEO needs moar money and moar quarterly earnings)

The bankers M&A it to death. (Strip those assets, baby, and merge the rest with Acme Waste and Bomb Disposal)

"Nature red in tooth and claw" has very little to do with it.

This is not the Federal Republic of Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, Larry, you're just going to have to earn it the hard way.

Microsoft stopped innovation...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and undermined any startup by stealing their idea and cramming it onto their platform. If that's Darmin. you can have it.

imagine how far we would be today if every startup with an idea Microsoft incorporated had made it and grown. We'd be way ahead of where we are today.

Profit is not required for Excellence

[mx b]

Excellence is very alive and well. Even she said it, "become the best person you can possibly be". I think most people especially of the younger crowd want to seek out ways to learn more and better themselves. Learn more, improve your skills and abilities, and be the best you can be.

The difference on "profit motivation" is money for money's sake is perhaps beginning to disappear from the younger generation. It is more widely recognized that wealth alone does not make everything great, for: what purpose is money if you never get to enjoy it? I for one (and many of my peers would agree) would prefer a smaller check (that is enough to pay bills and save for retirement, of course) and enjoy my hobbies and life with wife and family (or even spend some of that excess time learning more things for the job! always interesting things to learn), than to take a well-paying job that requires 60-80 hrs of work per week with few vacation days. If I am always at work and stressed, what good is the money?

I hope society settles on a nice work-life balance very soon. I personally believe we are started on that path, and the conversation is beginning to be had (as evidenced by this thread).

Re:Profit is not required for Excellence

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that if you espouse a "I don't require the returns from a 80 hr/week job to be happy" philosophy, the alternative is not a happy 40hr/wk existence, it's unemployment.

Every employer wants those 80 hr/ week people, whether the base rate is $8/hr or $50/hr.

Hope you like that sleeping bag.

Re:Profit is not required for Excellence

[bbelt16ag]

well if enough of you 80hr/week guys and gals would say no to that then us unemployed people could get a leg up. We could be your freaking helpers and get some much needed EXP

Millenials are Learning To Fix Mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the Millenials care about their fellow humans. The amount of hatred of the poor, distrust of anyone with a different viewpoint, and lack of empathy from the older generations is frankly sickening to me. It's like a whole generation of sociopaths hell-bent on getting their share of the wealth and enjoying their own retirement with all their needs taken care of, and fuck everyone else.

No one likes to live with the parents. When you add up skyrocketing cost of rent, skyrocketing college bills (which we trusted older people to give good advice! What was the advice? "Go to college", great help that was), the practical requirement of owning a car to work due to larger and larger cuts on public transportation which adds yet ANOTHER loan, and a minimum wage with declining buying power because of inflationary policies created to tackle financial problems created by our parents and grandparents, I can't help but feel like the youth are actually very BRAVE, HARD WORKERS for tackling that problem and trying to make it work. Entry level jobs pay like shit, and demand waaay more than a 40 hr work week. I know, I have been interviewing and taking jobs lately.

More of our money is taken out for taxes. You know what the majority of my taxes are? Social security, medicare, to fund programs that the older generations didn't take seriously and let politicians raid. And so now, instead of having money to save for a home, ALL OF MY MONEY is going to pay loans that the older generations TOLD US WE HAD TO TAKE OUT (every parent, every educator, insisted we must go to college! even if expensive, it will get paid back easily!... without telling us that the laws on student loans were changed and it actually doesn't work that way anymore), and pay for the retirement of older people that BLEW THEIR OWN RETIREMENT (or at the least, invested poorly in the stock market and lost it all due to lack of financial oversight).

Now, I believe everyone should live comfortably, and I am perfectly happy to have my taxes go to pay for your retirement and health care (unless you are lucky enough to have pension -- which great, but understand that it pretty much does not exist anymore, the young will not get pensions or good retirement plans, companies are trying to give us the worst deal possible to pad their bottom line). What angers me is when I am trying my best to provide for my family and help my nation, people like you come along calling us self-centered fools that will destroy the country.

The country is circling the drain right now because of policies implemented 10,20,30 years ago. It was not the young, it was YOU AND YOUR GENERATION. Now shut up and help, or at least have the decency to admit that the policies of past generations have failed and it is time to move on, try new things, and get our country moving again.

Re:Millenials are Learning To Fix Mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

You convinced me. They really do care.

Don't mind me, I'll be moving back in with my parents and showing the world I also care by changing my Facebook profile icon.

Check your naivete.

[stoploss]

the USA ... still willing to kill people over access to natural resources

No, the USA is not.

Here's one proof to the contrary: we were willing to overthrow a democratically-elected government merely to ensure our access to cheap bananas.

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état

Bananas, Mandrake? Children's Chiquita bananas?

So: planning to move the goalposts now?

Re:Check your naivete.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, while I agree with you, picking an act that is over older than 1/5 the age of the nation old, is probably not the best choice (though admittedly over the entire history of man, 50 years isn't that much). The we that is currently running the country has changed in form if not function.

Re:Check your naivete.

[stoploss]

The we that is currently running the country has changed in form if not function.

Please. You are deluding yourself. The United States is a hegemonic superpower... the only one remaining. As such, we meddle in the affairs of other countries in order to effect the outcomes we desire.

I see you have attempted to move the goalposts: you assert we have somehow repented of our hegemonic actions sometime in the past ~60 years despite no official apologies, policies, laws, or treaties that would suggest anything like this has happened.

Okay, I think it's naive to believe we had nothing to do with the 2002 coup attempt against Chavez. Is that "ancient history" as well? Furthermore, you should explain why you believe our invasion of Iraq was based on noble intentions. Frankly, I believe it was performed due to either a grudge W. had against Saddam for plotting to kill H.W. or, more likely, a desire to ensure that Iraqi's fungible petroleum reentered the global market in order to ease competitive pressure from China on US oil consumption and/or to ensure that the global oil trade remained denominated in US dollars. The ubiquitous petrodollar ensures that the world continues to have a demand for US dollars so they can buy oil. This causes countries to sell their exports to us for US dollars in order to be able to turn around and buy oil from the Middle Eastern nations. This is how the US props up the unending, perennial trade deficits and insane government spending.

I could continue, but by this point you are either convinced or you are resolved to cling to the idea that the US is somehow righteous. Don't bother trying to move the goalposts again: these specific examples aren't critical to my assertions (because there are more).

Do I believe the US is the "Evil Empire of the World"? No. I am just realistic enough to understand that we are willing to engage in cruel, dirty tricks—including actions that lead to the death of innocents—in order to perpetuate our global dominance.

Life is more pleasant if you just embrace this fact and release your cognitive dissonance that attempts to reconcile US actions with your idealistic perspective of US foreign policy. Someday you may be correct about the US, but that day will be after we have lost our superpower status. Imperial Britain was every bit as cruel as I assert the US is (and has been), but the modern UK was neutered by the US after WWII (cf. what the US threatened to do to the GBP if the UK didn't come to heel in the 1956 Suez Crisis). As such, the UK more likely to be "gentle" to other nations.

Just like the US will likely become once we are eclipsed by an ascendant superpower. Of course, that superpower will be cruel in order to maintain dominance. There will be apologists who will assert that superpower is righteous and noble, and there will be still others who will disagree based on the superpower's actions. Thus the cycle will perpetuate.

Lack of Evidence

[SuperKendall]

At least the Millenials care about their fellow humans.

I have seen no indication of that whatsoever.

Oh sure they SAY they care. Actions? None at all. All efforts are token and vapid.

You can't even bring yourself to post with a real username; truly ironic. A model of impermanence that typifies your kind.

Re:Lack of Evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

I have seen no indication of that whatsoever.

One

You can't even bring yourself to post with a real username; truly ironic. A model of impermanence that typifies your kind.

Two

You score 1/3 on making valid points, grade F.

Negativity in the technology industry

[Anonymous Coward]

My thirty plus years of direct and indirect involvement in the technology industry tell me that the basic tenets of extensive greed for excessive profitability has not changed significantly in recent years, but that present status of severe negativity is more obvious in blatant and public obstructionism, litigation and intellectual property (Trademarks, Copyrights and Patents) fights that have grown considerably more viscous, and now involve many more highly paid lobbyists and substantial influence (payola) with members of Congress.

Why? Because in the the past, companies could more successfull employ "subtle" bullying tactics or market dominance to destroy competitors and potential competitors, or as a last resort "buy out" competitors for a "nominal fee" once the foe was decimated financially. Comptetiion today is on a more equal footing, particularly since new technologies in Social Media, mobile communications are ever changing with no one company with a complete and unshakable monopoly, and smaller entities are more feisty and ready to defend their interests in every way and at all costs, be damned.

A sad truth on the decline of humanity in regard less respect, humility and selfishness to a fault.

cooperation

[superwiz]

Yeah, pretty sure when people talk about cooperation, love, honor, etc IN THE WORKPLACE, they are not asking you accept the products of their work for free. They are asking you to work for free. $1500 for a prototype FOR DEVELOPERS. That is for people who will actually add value to the product. I am sorry, did I see Google release an IDE? There is a new C++ out is badly in need of an IDE. Did Google release that? Sure, they set up google code to give away other people's work. They enable a lot of business. They just don't enable a lot programming business -- only the programming business whose products they can have for free. They are in no position to ask for free code.

His speech was inspiring - a weclome relief

[Anonymous Coward]

I found Larry's speech inspiring. We are flooded with dramatic sounding stories full of drama about one company skewering or crushing another... At one point he said something like "we should step past the fighting and focus on building newer, better products"... Implicit in his argument seems to be the assumption that there are tons of neat things to invent and develop which don't currently exist. This makes sense to me. Thoughts?

More like depredation, exploitation and externaliz

[faustoc4]

More like depredation, exploitation and externalization

It's cpntemporary capitalism

[jodido]

The reason lawsuits are so widespread is that it's an easier way to make money than investing. Investing is risky--requires borrowing money, for example, and then you have to actually invent something, and then sell it. Why go to all the trouble when you can grab a billion or so with no risk?

Clearly its an engineering problem....

[3seas]

Had the software industry not intentionally been falsely constraining the users.... what the users could do for themselves...

nurture white in teeth and paw

[epine]

What does this story have to offer?

The world is a competitive place, except when it isn't. And why is that, exactly? Why do social insects exist? Why, for that matter, do social mammals exist? We wouldn't even have social networking unless the roots of cooperation in our genetics and culture are nearly as deep (and indispensable) as nature red in tooth and claw.

Competition will never not be present, which provides an excellent enclosed gondola for all the slippery-slopers out there. How nice is that? You can never be entirely wrong arguing that competition will always exist. Safe! Secure! You'll never say anything insightful, either, about how competition self-regulates into ritualized displays of dominance/submission without goring every participant.

Companies and fans acting like dicks

[readingaccount]

I get that companies have to be competitive, that's cool. It's a necessity. What I don't like are the public spats between them. Shit like Microsoft's Scroogled campaign (which is both insightful and hypocritical at the same time), the CEOs of all the companies talking about how their competitors are useless or stupid - particularly if you're sufficiently well informed to know they're talking BS and in fact are guilty of the very things they criticize their competitors for doing.

I also seriously dislike the fact that this industry has a HUGE number of fanboys. There's absolutely nothing wrong about liking the products a company creates, but when it starts to be come a situation where you'll defend them to the hilt even though they're not paying you, you don't work for them, and you're unable to accept differing opinions without resorting to flame wars - well it's enough to not bother with most forums on the net these days anymore.

I'm just so tired, so very fucking tired, of all the negativity in the tech world these days. All I want is to hear about new stuff, interesting developments, without the comments section of any site being filled with Google vs Microsoft vs Apple vs Linux fanboys, arguing between one another and reducing the ability to actually get some decent discourse going.

Maybe I'm just an idiot for thinking I can find decent discussions anymore on the net. Too many fucking idiots, and the behavior of corporations these days are not helping one bit. Why fanboys even exist to defend these bastards I have no idea.

Well Mr.Page

[Anonymous Coward]

Gaagle started off as one of those small companies and expanded into all sorts of tech, they claimed they wanted open groovy love for all, freedoms, pots of gold at the end of rainbows, now they are a monopoly like the Companies the Idiot Mr. Page called out. Those small companies or startups have great ideas, and great people to make it happen, it is becuase of morons like Page and his Company and the other "Big" tech companies that they either steal there ideas, wait till they fail and buy them out, or just shut them down via the old defunct patent system using lawsuits.

Tech would be much further ahead, and implemented among society if small, or startup companies did not have to fear for there lives. The larger companies do have the money and R&D to create tech at a faster rate but they want it cheap, and half ass'd, and sometimes if not most times they wait for someone else to come up with a solution, solutions smaller/start-up companies come up with.

How in the fuck did this guy become a CEO! And how many ass kissers are there that are going to applaud the blabber that spews from his mouth? Do they give out BS's in BS at colleges, you know what I believe that is part of the business course!
We should put what he says in a time capsule and open it 15-20 years from now and make him read it, and see if he has a response "who the hell said that, this guy is a jackass" that is you Mr. Page 15 years ago.

The core of the negative swipes

[bytesex]

is people with too much time on their hands.

one word...

[womby68]

hypocrisy hypocrisie àà¾à-àà åæ ipocrisia ÙÙØÙ å½å- hipocresÃa kiss my ass Mr. Page!!! you are the new evil...

Quit snorting Darwianian coke

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Yeah, the marketplace has exactly nothing to do with Darwinian jackshit.

The marketplace only exists because we conscious and moral-values-driven humans have conceived of, passed and enforce laws which create a very artificial system of regulations which we call "the marketplace".

It starts with the man-made, very fictional concept of a corporate entity, goes on to regulate that entities conduct wrt to other such entities, assigns consumers protections, defines product safety, workplace safety and pollution standards all of which strongly effect a corporation's bottom line, disallows the monopolies which would naturally come to pass, determines tax schedules and expresses what's ball and what's foul through tons of pages of accounting regulations, exchange rates, banking regulations etc etc etc all of which creates this thing called a market place .

We live a large part of our lives in the service of, and as the beneficiaries of, commerce and the idea that it's somehow a natural product of Darwinian evolution processes instead of centuries -in-the-making conscious human intervention is a joke.

So Page is right. The problem has nothing to do with the inherently Darwinian nature of the marketplace, it has to do with the laws which enable the circular firing squad that is tech litigation in the first place. Take away the guns- the ability to patent software- and all parties will have to refocus their energies on value creation instead of wanton competitor destruction.

Josef von Sternberg

[NewYork]

"The only way to succeed is to make people hate you." --Josef von Sternberg