This has been discussed ad nauseum, even in the last Slashdot article, but: no, Parakey does not do "everything an OS can do" from a technical perspective, which is the only perspective most people here care about. That should be obvious. The quote was in the context of average users--people like my mother--who are not thinking about concepts like memory management. The idea is that Parakey accomplishes the functions of an OS (and much more) from an *end-user's* perspective.
I'm confident the truth won't stand in the way of another 200 posts on this topic:)
Who cares what they could do? Should I condemn you because you could go and murder someone?
No, but you should condemn the government for having the ability to wiretap your calls, even if they don't exercise it.
There was no technical reason they couldn't have abused the system back then.
Yes...there was. When the Google marketing team used the AdWords network, they were technically unable to abuse the system. That's why they used the network in the first place—to ensure the trust of users and advertisers. You don't have to take my word for it; take Google's.
Sorry, I should have been more polite. But I do believe the extent of the practice is not relevant to the issue of whether it's good or not. Google knows keywords better than anyone; perhaps it knows that "photo sharing" is the most popular.
That's irrelevant, since the keyword that triggers the tip is "photo sharing," as you can see in the big image at the top of the post in question. Not only did you fail to read the article, you didn't even look at the pictures. This might be a first.
Yes, it had nothing to do with the fact that Google used to have a search referral program.
Firefox did not use the referral program. Software isn't even allowed to use the referral program under Google's policies (section on "Client Software") unless an exception is made by Google.
At any rate, all Google is saying is that ye can't use their trademarks in yer ads on their site. It's perfectly legal
...And again, that is the point: Google can use competitors' trademarks in its tip ads, but competitors can not use Google's trademarks in their Google ads. When Google was buying ads on its own network, it had to play by the same trademark rules.
Right? The other tools aren't as familiar or as elegant or as relevant. So at the end of the day this argument is moot.
I think you raise a very good point, but I don't think the argument is moot. Using a service and trusting a service are very different. When I trust a service, a competitor has to be significantly better to get me. When I'm neutral, the competitor has to be a little better. When I distrust a service, the competitor only has to be equal. Brand loyalty is important.
There are bandwidth hungry Firefox adverts everywhere (obviously) but I find it ironic that someone who recommends his products on his own blogging website blasts another website for recommending their products on their website.
Putting aside the fact that my blog is not the kettle to Google's pot, this isn't even true. There is one Firefox advertisement on my website—a button in the right-hand sidebar—and it is below links to Internet Explorer, Opera and Safari that have been there for a very long time. (The blog header has the Firefox logo in it, but it's not a link to Firefox.)
You got me. I had qualms at first about "Blake Ross was bribed by a lobby" showing up in searches of my name for all eternity, but then I thought--wait, I can get some karma points!
To solidify the illusion, I prepared another comment and posted it simultaneously.
Your argument seems to be that tips are not concerning because Google isn't using them for every service they have. I have trouble following that. Google could easily expand the feature if these initial tips do well. Or it could have chosen these products because they're not doing well and needed a boost, as seems to be the case with Picasa (which lags considerably in the natural rankings). I just don't see why the feature has to be more widespread before we can judge its merit.
in fact they don't even reorder THEIR OWN SEARCH RESULTS to list the Google service ahead of the Yahoo service
I think this has a lot to do with the "blind spots" I discuss in the post. People would get very upset if Google were tampering with the canonical "natural search results," and I don't imagine that could be kept secret for long (some ex-employee would leak it if webmasters didn't figure it out themselves). A tip is a new creature that can't be as easily condemned.
Hmmm, ever consider that the world might consider picasa the better software? Seriously, I use FF because I believe it to be better. I include links to the FF site. That increases it's rank. Suppose I link to picasa as photo software. Wait for it... It goes up in rank!!!!!
Picasa is nowhere near the top of the natural search results for "photo sharing". Actually, I can't currently find it anywhere in the first five pages. I believe the whole point of this conversation is that the only reason Picasa is at the top now (in tip form) is because Google has inserted it there.
Please read the post. *Think* about the post. And if you disagree, by all means, let's discuss it.
Frankly I find it interesting after Microsoft started giving them help with Vista compatibility that we hear this negative google talk
I knew someone would figure it out eventually. Yes, the Vista workshop was so valuable that I decided to cut all ties with Google. They may be supplying millions of dollars and free promotions across the globe, but... man, it was such a great workshop!
No, but I'm also not going to recommend blakeross.com whenever someone tries to visit tukaro.com. (If you don't understand why that's comparable, please at least read the post so we can debate it reasonably.)
I believe if you read the comments on the post you'll find that I reconsidered many of my opinions based on the opposite views presented there. But thanks for the kind words:)
I find it unusual that the Slashdot story frames my post in terms of advertisers given that the meat of the post begins:
This is clearly bad for competitors, and it's also a bad sign for Google. But I generally support anything that benefits users, including monopolistic packaging. I believe, for instance, that shipping Internet Explorer with Windows was a good move. So why are tips bad for users?
The post does discuss the implications of these tips from many perspectives, but I'm most concerned about their impact on users. I believe they're harmful because some users are going to end up not using the best products and services. And no, that's not "best" in my eyes; that's best in the world's judgment, which Google claims to reflect in its results.
That merely explains how to file a trademark complaint with Google.
My post does not claim it's trademark infringement, which you must know, since quoted it. The post says that Kodak could not create an ad containing "Picasa".
You've done this?
Yes.
What happens when you do it with "Kodak"?
That's exactly the point here. Google's tips are not subject to the same policies as AdWords ads, so irrespective of whether Kodak blocks ads from using its trademark, a tip could do it anyways. That wasn't the case when Google was using its own network.
Slashdot Mirror
This has been discussed ad nauseum, even in the last Slashdot article, but: no, Parakey does not do "everything an OS can do" from a technical perspective, which is the only perspective most people here care about. That should be obvious. The quote was in the context of average users--people like my mother--who are not thinking about concepts like memory management. The idea is that Parakey accomplishes the functions of an OS (and much more) from an *end-user's* perspective.
:)
I'm confident the truth won't stand in the way of another 200 posts on this topic
No, but you should condemn the government for having the ability to wiretap your calls, even if they don't exercise it.
Yes...there was. When the Google marketing team used the AdWords network, they were technically unable to abuse the system. That's why they used the network in the first place—to ensure the trust of users and advertisers. You don't have to take my word for it; take Google's.
Sorry, I should have been more polite. But I do believe the extent of the practice is not relevant to the issue of whether it's good or not. Google knows keywords better than anyone; perhaps it knows that "photo sharing" is the most popular.
That's irrelevant, since the keyword that triggers the tip is "photo sharing," as you can see in the big image at the top of the post in question. Not only did you fail to read the article, you didn't even look at the pictures. This might be a first.
Actually, the article mentions exactly the behavior you describe using stock symbols as the example. Did you read the article?
No, the point is that it could, whereas three weeks ago—when the company used and blogged about using its ad network—it could not.
By the way, the beautiful thing here is that you can go download the old Firefox builds and verify this for yourself. No need to take my word.
Firefox did not use the referral program. Software isn't even allowed to use the referral program under Google's policies (section on "Client Software") unless an exception is made by Google.
...And again, that is the point: Google can use competitors' trademarks in its tip ads, but competitors can not use Google's trademarks in their Google ads. When Google was buying ads on its own network, it had to play by the same trademark rules.
I think you raise a very good point, but I don't think the argument is moot. Using a service and trusting a service are very different. When I trust a service, a competitor has to be significantly better to get me. When I'm neutral, the competitor has to be a little better. When I distrust a service, the competitor only has to be equal. Brand loyalty is important.
Putting aside the fact that my blog is not the kettle to Google's pot, this isn't even true. There is one Firefox advertisement on my website—a button in the right-hand sidebar—and it is below links to Internet Explorer, Opera and Safari that have been there for a very long time. (The blog header has the Firefox logo in it, but it's not a link to Firefox.)
So irritated that I permanently link to Opera in the sidebar of my website. Damn that respectable ally! (And hey, there's always "browser" ;)
You got me. I had qualms at first about "Blake Ross was bribed by a lobby" showing up in searches of my name for all eternity, but then I thought--wait, I can get some karma points!
To solidify the illusion, I prepared another comment and posted it simultaneously.
Your argument seems to be that tips are not concerning because Google isn't using them for every service they have. I have trouble following that. Google could easily expand the feature if these initial tips do well. Or it could have chosen these products because they're not doing well and needed a boost, as seems to be the case with Picasa (which lags considerably in the natural rankings). I just don't see why the feature has to be more widespread before we can judge its merit.
I think this has a lot to do with the "blind spots" I discuss in the post. People would get very upset if Google were tampering with the canonical "natural search results," and I don't imagine that could be kept secret for long (some ex-employee would leak it if webmasters didn't figure it out themselves). A tip is a new creature that can't be as easily condemned.
Picasa is nowhere near the top of the natural search results for "photo sharing". Actually, I can't currently find it anywhere in the first five pages. I believe the whole point of this conversation is that the only reason Picasa is at the top now (in tip form) is because Google has inserted it there.
Please read the post. *Think* about the post. And if you disagree, by all means, let's discuss it.
I do fail to grasp the analogy. I truly have no idea why this is relevant to the topic, but I'm here and listening if you're willing to explain it.
I knew someone would figure it out eventually. Yes, the Vista workshop was so valuable that I decided to cut all ties with Google. They may be supplying millions of dollars and free promotions across the globe, but... man, it was such a great workshop!
That has nothing to do with the post.
Make a redundant implication, get a redundant response, I suppose.
No, but I'm also not going to recommend blakeross.com whenever someone tries to visit tukaro.com. (If you don't understand why that's comparable, please at least read the post so we can debate it reasonably.)
There are frequently ads for Firefox all over Google, sometimes right on the front page.
What an ironic comment given that a few posts up, someone is indignant that I'm "biting the hand that feeds" Firefox.
I guess I do wish there were a Firefox tip so I could argue against it, too, and defuse one unfounded accusation, leaving only 4419.
I believe if you read the comments on the post you'll find that I reconsidered many of my opinions based on the opposite views presented there. But thanks for the kind words :)
I find it unusual that the Slashdot story frames my post in terms of advertisers given that the meat of the post begins:
The post does discuss the implications of these tips from many perspectives, but I'm most concerned about their impact on users. I believe they're harmful because some users are going to end up not using the best products and services. And no, that's not "best" in my eyes; that's best in the world's judgment, which Google claims to reflect in its results.
My post does not claim it's trademark infringement, which you must know, since quoted it. The post says that Kodak could not create an ad containing "Picasa".
Yes.
That's exactly the point here. Google's tips are not subject to the same policies as AdWords ads, so irrespective of whether Kodak blocks ads from using its trademark, a tip could do it anyways. That wasn't the case when Google was using its own network.
Some people find it incomprehensible...