Please name on one hand large businesses which dispurse mac over pc in the workplace? now name 50 businesses that do the opposite wit pc?
Please name on one hand a bunch of hosting/cloud companies that sell mac servers over pc? Now name 50 businesses that do the opposite with pc?
It doesn't matter it's possible, its whats viable. Macs cant and never will compete as being "big person" computers, they are still just shiny one click calculators with big screens.
Making money from selling mp3 players and phones hardly places them as "highest selling profit margins in the computer industry" what now Yamaha is also now a car manufacturer because they put motors in their products too?
On the side of computational evolution Macs sit somewhere in between those kids learning computers and your standard Windows pc.
We dont see many Mac web servers (or any other type of server for that fact) or Mac only branded business software. Other then basic operations such as word processing and the occasional graphics app. Apples capability to facilitate serious business systems has always been next nonexistent.
I get annoyed from the fact that I'd love to be able to create iPhone apps that work in tandem with the systems I develop for my business, having proper business worthy apps that can be easily used in the palm of your hand is a great means to sell. So Android will be the tool of the future for this and will be the iPhone killer from the perspective that i can make a custom ERP solutions for a business then plug certain features into a smart phone that can accessed from a hotel room while an executive is on a business trip.
Apple wont go there because naturally they are not good enough too. Opening a dev environment or say games with multiple device support carry a lot of work associated with it, as a result of not going down that road they lose the means to make money distinctly from other software vendors (hence Microsoft continued success regardless of what Apple does)
You'd think Jobs would switch on and see the possible money making opportunities there, but my question is "why doesn't he?". I think a lot of it comes down to the lack of substance to his products and what he does to compensate is prevent this can of worms from ever being raised rather than solve the short comings in their products and really understand the concept of innovation.
Lets face it the guy went and took bsd, changed a few bits around added a really simple interface with one god damn mouse button. Imagine if Mac ever released a 2 clicker mouse, the amounts of confusion and hysteria that would cause for the poor bastards would be huge.
The way i see it if Android doesn't do it the Carriers will if the Carriers don't do it the manufacturers will do it (of course in this case iPhone wouldn't pose this problem) but for Android whose to stop Motorola from setting up an App store.
Eventually it will become a cat and mouse game, Voda will sell Android over the iPhone if they can make money out of the Apps, if Voda can make iPhone drop their pants or perhaps partake in a partner agreement so much the better for them.
Whatever the case maybe, iPhone/Android, they'll all eventually be closed environments controlled by whoever at whatever level, this is inevitable. Worse yet, if one Carrier does it expect all the others to follow suit in the hope to make the extra revenue.
As for the download.com watch that get blocked by the Carrier, worse yet watch them put preventative measures into to the "already" open environment to stop one from installing the open apps. Just like Apple stops flash from being used (cause its a means to circumvent the app development) so too will any open applications sets for Android.
The bigger the Android phone gets the more the incentive to value add comes with it, the byproduct is the lesser levels of innovation we as the consumer will receive. This is essence of big business at its finest.
What it boils down too, is if a bunch of geeks who want to make their own Fart Apps for Android get bent out of shape nobody (except them) are really going to care.
Sometimes geeks think they make up such a large part of societies thinking that their opinions on technology shape it, when will we learn that its pretty much the opposite to that and technology sales are governed by what sells, not whats technologically better.
The same can be said about google, of course their Search Engine makes money but how about the numerous companies they purchase and free services they offer? Ad placement can't be making them all profit positive.
Bing has yet to be called failure still early days there, I'd imagine there will be future team ups against Google with MS and Apple so if Apple is cobbling a search engine together whose to say that it isn't a re-branded Bing?
This is just another example of Google playing the good guy meanwhile getting a free pass by the nerd community because its Google. Any other business would be classed as evil doers and participating in unethical practices.
Face it, Google's a big company and collecting your data, yes you can switch if off if you can be bothered looking for it but 90% of its user base wont know the data is being mind or how, they are not asked upfront (which they should be) if they want their data to be collected upfront so Google is magically receiving more of peoples search sensitive information.
Web history, Google Desktop, Analytics, they might asewll release The Google Keylogger the "I'm not evil" edition and people would think its okay.
I hope the EU starts clipping their wings i really do. Enough is enough. Its cool they have legitimate reasons for doing what they are doing now, what happens in the future is unpredictable and in the hands of a very select few, if they choose to become evil you and I have simply shown them to door and given them the keys.
"Your honor, at the time of the crime, my clients brain was experiencing technical difficulties as bunch of kids with a horseshoe magnet we're DoSing the back of his head. I'd like to admit Article B in to evidence which are server logs clearly displaying that my client's soul had significant packet loss to and from his body during time of the aforementioned incident"
Exploits is the one of the many issues. How about change control, patching and schema changes, this has got catastrophe written all over it unless the API accounts for a lot more than whats written any serious database application reliant on it would require a strong set of change log rules, shifting data when needed, schema compliance checks before allowing access.
Im the first to agree but then i saw Microsoft's attempt at voice recognition and its just as poor.
There needs to be significant improvements as whole until this stuff works properly, sadly i think it's still got a long way to go.
Accents play a big part, also the rate at people speak join words, you can tell youtube's voice recognition is good, but it doesn't keep up in those areas at all.
The sentiment of what your saying is fair, and of course, what your saying is positive. But lets look at it a different way.
Microsoft is accused of playing tactics to maintain a strong market share in their industry, is it fair to obscone them for trying to keep this market share to continue the value of their company. What they did to Novel for example (but this only helps explain my point as well).
To the general population it isn't fair what companies like this do because they are at the disadvantage but to the shareholders its whats expected. Take fuel, cars, minerals, any industry and you'll see this to be the general consensus, whats best for the company, how to maximize profits. Not upsetting people is not on the top of their lists.
Is Google's board different? I would say no because that's the safe assumption, a floated company is a part of the free market, it means that anyone can buy into it, so unless god himself played a hand here you'd assume your typical business minds bought into the company.
Realistically Google has never had to change tact because they have gone from being a nothing business into a massive booming entity and as a result made all these people rich. If this changes desperation will sink in and the claws will come out.
Say a company came out with a search tool that eventually ate up Google's market share, drove their advertising revenue in half the share prices dropped. The people who own those shares will want blood, they'll want their investment to rekindle back to its former glory and they'll expect the CEO to do everything within his/her power to fix it (otherwise, he'll get the flick).
EC is going after Google, what I'm saying is this. Having the EC on Google ass may chop off this slow metamorphosis that i personally see is taking place. Realistically, this issue could pose as a distraction to Google in one way or another and slowing down the creation of commercial solutions.
The long term change I'm talking about is turning Google from being this hip friendly (amazingly profitable) company into a business that now has a serious bottom line that if under threat could put them in such a position to fight for territory.
Okay, lets me say it this way, Google makes X per month and Y to operate, if Z = X-Y that's their profit (saying loosely). Google takes Z and puts it into all this R&D (millions if not billions), Product Development, Marketing and Sales, Multi Tier Customer Support, an Executive Sales Dept (guys at this level expect pay checks of 250k to 350k per year), a Partner Management team, Account Management (the milkers after the farmers have been and gone), so on and so fourth. If it has the slightest dwindle of being unsuccessful the shareholders will want explanations on why so much of their Z is being eaten this year round.
If it gets to the point where too much is gone then they'll just as desperate as the other brands. Its not plane out greed here talking and these devil like business people prancing around with their pitch forks rubbing their hands together, its more realistic than that.
Here are some other points why Google is not a real IT brand yet:
- It needs to setup up a proper support and training infrastructure to deal with certified training of client staff. Their version of MCSE for example. - Serious government or private enterprise contract requires compliance in the security and support arenas. They need to pay to accredit these people and prove themselves in the industry eg CISSP accredited engineers. PCI Compliant infrastructures, I know Google this but it doesn't make their Clients compliant. - Partner Channel, setting up agreements with resellers to sell their goods, even setup the means for resellers to be trained to support Google products and then integrate themselves.
Google is far away from performing these task but it may seem like their future vision to embark on this. One day and they may be in thick of it as until now they haven't.
Your problem like the rest of the Google lovers out there, is your still all wound up by their original success story, a bunch of Avg Joes in their backyard make a Search Engine worth millions, they are real people just like all of us like us.
PFFFT, News flash, almost every company including Microsoft has the same fairy tale beginning, it makes no difference once they float the company, have a board of directors to answer too and start selling in competitive market places that's when they begin to play dirty.
I'll keep saying what I've always said ever since my original post "I dont believe Google to be evil today" but you keep saying I do. All I'm saying is that Google is merely a Marketing Brand, that's all it is.
To state that "Google cares about its users "is ridiculous, Google has the worst customer service systems for a "supposed" General IT brand and until support is setup properly in their company, not only front line support but proper SLA agreements with companies, and begin to support and sell their software and services properly (because it isnt the software itself that makes the money) then their just funky marketing brand doing no real harm in the industry, except making heaps of cash form advertising.
When Google does step up to the plate and delivers these things, they'll become as corrupted as these other brands we talk about. Its the nature of the beast Google's no different.
Completely speculative. Wait until they actually do something with it before complaining about it. It would be difficult for them to do something without anybody noticing, and everybody would switch really quick if they did.
Of course its speculative, this is my opinion your reading. More importantly, why do they do it? list the possible advantages of giving free DNS server access. I can only think of two things here a) capturing the hosts people look up for data mining (privacy) and b) the other is control possibly being able to create their own rules in DNS one day, heck if they get enough people out there to use the DNS whats to stop them from creating the.google TLD?
provide an example (even just one would be good), otherwise it is just rumor and anecdote, which is worthless
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Greenbaum/?p=130
You mean when you use on their free services, they index the data you put into their service for the purpose of advertising. Yes, and they are very clear about that. No, it is not evil. There are other free services you can use if you don't like that, and if you think they are being more honest than Google about what they are doing with your data.
They do sneaky stuff, not dumbass blatant in-your-face selling. Take a Adsense on a standard account for example, I've never seen the corporate accounts or what Google Certified SEO people get, but they use keyword specific information to help invite bidders on certain keywords, is this really a favor for the bidder? No, its an advantage for Google because it insights a more competitive bidding environment, a higher bidding environment means more money for them. So, if they do that at the lower level of the playing field, what are they doing at the bigger end of town?
All optional programs. None of them required to use any of the Google web services. None of them sneakily bundled with other apps that trick you into installing them (I'm looking at you Yahoo! toolbar). None of them hijack your browser and redirect everything through Google (I'm looking at you Bing toolbar). Also, they are very clear about what they are indexing. Some have very customizable options. All of them can be blocked completely with a good firewall.
I dont think I insinuated any thing like this, I said Google can and does track your web activity, I didn't accuse them of hijacking, etc. They track your information and all these applications help them to do it and they do a good job of it. Disabling Web History helps, it doesnt stop it.
Your avg Joe isn't configuring their firewall to block Google etc, its okay for the Geek but not everyone else.
Look, does Google do everything perfectly? No. If you are going to criticize them, China is a good topic. But they are a good company. They seek profit, yes, but they make a strong effort to behave in an ethical way. Something a lot of companies stopped doing a long time ago. And they make good products and useful developer tools. All in all, they have had a positive influence on the development of the Web.
I don't believe they've been a positive influence, but an influence that isn't shaded either way for me. I have yet to see Google actually invent something new, not Acquiring, not reinventing something and making it better, really creating something that that no-one else has done.
I also believe their not a serious IT brand, i believe they are a Marketing Company, hence the only thing that has ever made them money is their advertising services. The rule of thumb for Marketing is to collect as much information to aid them in making better Marketing strategies later down the track.
I guess all in all what I'm trying to say in the crux of it all, Google is just a brand like any other, they are in the IT industry as a unique player in such a way that they've held dominance in a certain place for a long. They are trying to
Why, is Google looked upon as being so good? There is nothing nice about Google, they are just like any large company attempting to keep their dominance.
Lets see, Google is giving people access to use their "Free" DNS service, I ask why? there is not charitable reason for this. It's simple you get enough market control over peoples DNS and you can start calling your own shots, Microsoft even tried this one on once upon a time.
Google, is notorious for sneaking in IP grabs on peoples data when using their Cloud services, granted they get caught out then play the "oh how did that get in the fine print? must be some sort of mistake" but the fact remains they still try it on.
Google grabs your personal data and sells it to advertising companies? Not evil?
If you use, Google desktop, Google toolbar, Google web history, or Google analytics (or a combination of any of these apps) and blamo you cant move on the web without Google knowing exactly every move you make. Yet, us geeks will weed out every other privacy concern on the internet and point the finger to the culprit and call them evil but Google? again seems to get another free ride.
Don't take all these bad points I raise and flag me a Google hate, no no no. Personally i think having the EC on your ass over the fact your to successful, I would consider as a badge of honor in the IT market. Microsoft was there, now its Google's turn.
If its Google's turn to be more accountable for their actions so much the better, it might help tone down their "evilness" and put them in a more pleasant light in my own POV.
Personally, I preferred the Google we had 5 years ago, the Google we have now is a very different creature indeed.
I wonder if it has anything to do with Pineal Gland.
In any case I wonder if people who suffer the removal of this area start getting visions via touch, then start working for the police in an attempt to circumvent the approaching Apocalypse brought on by a corrupt politician.... oh wait... I've seen this before somewhere:D
You know, this might explain the giant hole between the original release of iPhone and the release of Android.
Apple created the SmartPhone market place and can carry the "I was here first badge". Of course we had other SmartPhones prior to this but the market was fairly restricted to business use not really domestic (everyone one from 16yr old kids to 70+ year old retirees use iPhone).
And I'll say it again, hoping i wont get marked a troll for stating a true but negative POV, but Google I believe missed the SmartPhone rush. Just like Apple missed the Personal Computer rush way back when.
A phrase from the movie Pirates of Silicon Valley -
Jobs: "Mines Better!" Gates: "It doesn't matter."
And i think this is the case again, maybe too early to tell but i just see so much development being done for iPhone specific apps and websites these days i find it difficult to believe Google will get the same attention so easily.
VHS vs Beta, MS vs Mac, Guitar Hero vs Rock Band, iPhone vs Andriod
I started a comment with the sentence "The good thing about the iPhone..." in a prior Google / Android article and what did i get for my troubles? an instant... Troll
Make no mistake, Googles hidden geek mafia run this here town.
Slashdot Mirror
Please name on one hand large businesses which dispurse mac over pc in the workplace? now name 50 businesses that do the opposite wit pc?
Please name on one hand a bunch of hosting/cloud companies that sell mac servers over pc? Now name 50 businesses that do the opposite with pc?
It doesn't matter it's possible, its whats viable. Macs cant and never will compete as being "big person" computers, they are still just shiny one click calculators with big screens.
Making money from selling mp3 players and phones hardly places them as "highest selling profit margins in the computer industry" what now Yamaha is also now a car manufacturer because they put motors in their products too?
On the side of computational evolution Macs sit somewhere in between those kids learning computers and your standard Windows pc.
We dont see many Mac web servers (or any other type of server for that fact) or Mac only branded business software. Other then basic operations such as word processing and the occasional graphics app. Apples capability to facilitate serious business systems has always been next nonexistent.
I get annoyed from the fact that I'd love to be able to create iPhone apps that work in tandem with the systems I develop for my business, having proper business worthy apps that can be easily used in the palm of your hand is a great means to sell. So Android will be the tool of the future for this and will be the iPhone killer from the perspective that i can make a custom ERP solutions for a business then plug certain features into a smart phone that can accessed from a hotel room while an executive is on a business trip.
Apple wont go there because naturally they are not good enough too. Opening a dev environment or say games with multiple device support carry a lot of work associated with it, as a result of not going down that road they lose the means to make money distinctly from other software vendors (hence Microsoft continued success regardless of what Apple does)
You'd think Jobs would switch on and see the possible money making opportunities there, but my question is "why doesn't he?". I think a lot of it comes down to the lack of substance to his products and what he does to compensate is prevent this can of worms from ever being raised rather than solve the short comings in their products and really understand the concept of innovation.
Lets face it the guy went and took bsd, changed a few bits around added a really simple interface with one god damn mouse button. Imagine if Mac ever released a 2 clicker mouse, the amounts of confusion and hysteria that would cause for the poor bastards would be huge.
This is Wolf 359 all over again!
Is i have to wait a year to play it :( My 1st xbox game and i seriously didn't leave the couch for days. Come back a year later GOW still a great game.
The way i see it if Android doesn't do it the Carriers will if the Carriers don't do it the manufacturers will do it (of course in this case iPhone wouldn't pose this problem) but for Android whose to stop Motorola from setting up an App store.
Eventually it will become a cat and mouse game, Voda will sell Android over the iPhone if they can make money out of the Apps, if Voda can make iPhone drop their pants or perhaps partake in a partner agreement so much the better for them.
Whatever the case maybe, iPhone/Android, they'll all eventually be closed environments controlled by whoever at whatever level, this is inevitable. Worse yet, if one Carrier does it expect all the others to follow suit in the hope to make the extra revenue.
As for the download.com watch that get blocked by the Carrier, worse yet watch them put preventative measures into to the "already" open environment to stop one from installing the open apps. Just like Apple stops flash from being used (cause its a means to circumvent the app development) so too will any open applications sets for Android.
The bigger the Android phone gets the more the incentive to value add comes with it, the byproduct is the lesser levels of innovation we as the consumer will receive. This is essence of big business at its finest.
What it boils down too, is if a bunch of geeks who want to make their own Fart Apps for Android get bent out of shape nobody (except them) are really going to care.
Sometimes geeks think they make up such a large part of societies thinking that their opinions on technology shape it, when will we learn that its pretty much the opposite to that and technology sales are governed by what sells, not whats technologically better.
The same can be said about google, of course their Search Engine makes money but how about the numerous companies they purchase and free services they offer? Ad placement can't be making them all profit positive.
Bing has yet to be called failure still early days there, I'd imagine there will be future team ups against Google with MS and Apple so if Apple is cobbling a search engine together whose to say that it isn't a re-branded Bing?
This is just another example of Google playing the good guy meanwhile getting a free pass by the nerd community because its Google. Any other business would be classed as evil doers and participating in unethical practices.
Face it, Google's a big company and collecting your data, yes you can switch if off if you can be bothered looking for it but 90% of its user base wont know the data is being mind or how, they are not asked upfront (which they should be) if they want their data to be collected upfront so Google is magically receiving more of peoples search sensitive information.
Web history, Google Desktop, Analytics, they might asewll release The Google Keylogger the "I'm not evil" edition and people would think its okay.
I hope the EU starts clipping their wings i really do. Enough is enough. Its cool they have legitimate reasons for doing what they are doing now, what happens in the future is unpredictable and in the hands of a very select few, if they choose to become evil you and I have simply shown them to door and given them the keys.
So you can use the excuse in court ...
"Your honor, at the time of the crime, my clients brain was experiencing technical difficulties as bunch of kids with a horseshoe magnet we're DoSing the back of his head. I'd like to admit Article B in to evidence which are server logs clearly displaying that my client's soul had significant packet loss to and from his body during time of the aforementioned incident"
Well you've heard of the saying "Magnetic Personality" ... who would of thought!
Zoidberg!!!!
http://mirror.servut.us/kuvat/meinung/zoidberg_real.jpg
Exploits is the one of the many issues. How about change control, patching and schema changes, this has got catastrophe written all over it unless the API accounts for a lot more than whats written any serious database application reliant on it would require a strong set of change log rules, shifting data when needed, schema compliance checks before allowing access.
static char shellcode[]=
"\0x90\0x90\0x90\0x90\0x90\0x90\0x90\0x90\0x90\0x90\0x90"
"\0x90\0x90\0x90\0x90\0x90\0x90\0x90\0x90\0x90PaulineHanson++"
I wonder what the avg typing rate is with this ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BnLbv6QYcA
Im the first to agree but then i saw Microsoft's attempt at voice recognition and its just as poor.
There needs to be significant improvements as whole until this stuff works properly, sadly i think it's still got a long way to go.
Accents play a big part, also the rate at people speak join words, you can tell youtube's voice recognition is good, but it doesn't keep up in those areas at all.
The sentiment of what your saying is fair, and of course, what your saying is positive. But lets look at it a different way.
Microsoft is accused of playing tactics to maintain a strong market share in their industry, is it fair to obscone them for trying to keep this market share to continue the value of their company. What they did to Novel for example (but this only helps explain my point as well).
To the general population it isn't fair what companies like this do because they are at the disadvantage but to the shareholders its whats expected. Take fuel, cars, minerals, any industry and you'll see this to be the general consensus, whats best for the company, how to maximize profits. Not upsetting people is not on the top of their lists.
Is Google's board different? I would say no because that's the safe assumption, a floated company is a part of the free market, it means that anyone can buy into it, so unless god himself played a hand here you'd assume your typical business minds bought into the company.
Realistically Google has never had to change tact because they have gone from being a nothing business into a massive booming entity and as a result made all these people rich. If this changes desperation will sink in and the claws will come out.
Say a company came out with a search tool that eventually ate up Google's market share, drove their advertising revenue in half the share prices dropped. The people who own those shares will want blood, they'll want their investment to rekindle back to its former glory and they'll expect the CEO to do everything within his/her power to fix it (otherwise, he'll get the flick).
EC is going after Google, what I'm saying is this. Having the EC on Google ass may chop off this slow metamorphosis that i personally see is taking place. Realistically, this issue could pose as a distraction to Google in one way or another and slowing down the creation of commercial solutions.
The long term change I'm talking about is turning Google from being this hip friendly (amazingly profitable) company into a business that now has a serious bottom line that if under threat could put them in such a position to fight for territory.
Okay, lets me say it this way, Google makes X per month and Y to operate, if Z = X-Y that's their profit (saying loosely). Google takes Z and puts it into all this R&D (millions if not billions), Product Development, Marketing and Sales, Multi Tier Customer Support, an Executive Sales Dept (guys at this level expect pay checks of 250k to 350k per year), a Partner Management team, Account Management (the milkers after the farmers have been and gone), so on and so fourth. If it has the slightest dwindle of being unsuccessful the shareholders will want explanations on why so much of their Z is being eaten this year round.
If it gets to the point where too much is gone then they'll just as desperate as the other brands. Its not plane out greed here talking and these devil like business people prancing around with their pitch forks rubbing their hands together, its more realistic than that.
Here are some other points why Google is not a real IT brand yet:
- It needs to setup up a proper support and training infrastructure to deal with certified training of client staff. Their version of MCSE for example.
- Serious government or private enterprise contract requires compliance in the security and support arenas. They need to pay to accredit these people and prove themselves in the industry eg CISSP accredited engineers. PCI Compliant infrastructures, I know Google this but it doesn't make their Clients compliant.
- Partner Channel, setting up agreements with resellers to sell their goods, even setup the means for resellers to be trained to support Google products and then integrate themselves.
Google is far away from performing these task but it may seem like their future vision to embark on this. One day and they may be in thick of it as until now they haven't.
Your problem like the rest of the Google lovers out there, is your still all wound up by their original success story, a bunch of Avg Joes in their backyard make a Search Engine worth millions, they are real people just like all of us like us.
PFFFT, News flash, almost every company including Microsoft has the same fairy tale beginning, it makes no difference once they float the company, have a board of directors to answer too and start selling in competitive market places that's when they begin to play dirty.
I'll keep saying what I've always said ever since my original post "I dont believe Google to be evil today" but you keep saying I do. All I'm saying is that Google is merely a Marketing Brand, that's all it is.
To state that "Google cares about its users "is ridiculous, Google has the worst customer service systems for a "supposed" General IT brand and until support is setup properly in their company, not only front line support but proper SLA agreements with companies, and begin to support and sell their software and services properly (because it isnt the software itself that makes the money) then their just funky marketing brand doing no real harm in the industry, except making heaps of cash form advertising.
When Google does step up to the plate and delivers these things, they'll become as corrupted as these other brands we talk about. Its the nature of the beast Google's no different.
Completely speculative. Wait until they actually do something with it before complaining about it. It would be difficult for them to do something without anybody noticing, and everybody would switch really quick if they did.
Of course its speculative, this is my opinion your reading. More importantly, why do they do it? list the possible advantages of giving free DNS server access. I can only think of two things here a) capturing the hosts people look up for data mining (privacy) and b) the other is control possibly being able to create their own rules in DNS one day, heck if they get enough people out there to use the DNS whats to stop them from creating the .google TLD?
provide an example (even just one would be good), otherwise it is just rumor and anecdote, which is worthless
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Greenbaum/?p=130
You mean when you use on their free services, they index the data you put into their service for the purpose of advertising. Yes, and they are very clear about that. No, it is not evil. There are other free services you can use if you don't like that, and if you think they are being more honest than Google about what they are doing with your data.
They do sneaky stuff, not dumbass blatant in-your-face selling. Take a Adsense on a standard account for example, I've never seen the corporate accounts or what Google Certified SEO people get, but they use keyword specific information to help invite bidders on certain keywords, is this really a favor for the bidder? No, its an advantage for Google because it insights a more competitive bidding environment, a higher bidding environment means more money for them. So, if they do that at the lower level of the playing field, what are they doing at the bigger end of town?
All optional programs. None of them required to use any of the Google web services. None of them sneakily bundled with other apps that trick you into installing them (I'm looking at you Yahoo! toolbar). None of them hijack your browser and redirect everything through Google (I'm looking at you Bing toolbar). Also, they are very clear about what they are indexing. Some have very customizable options. All of them can be blocked completely with a good firewall.
I dont think I insinuated any thing like this, I said Google can and does track your web activity, I didn't accuse them of hijacking, etc. They track your information and all these applications help them to do it and they do a good job of it. Disabling Web History helps, it doesnt stop it.
Your avg Joe isn't configuring their firewall to block Google etc, its okay for the Geek but not everyone else.
Look, does Google do everything perfectly? No. If you are going to criticize them, China is a good topic. But they are a good company. They seek profit, yes, but they make a strong effort to behave in an ethical way. Something a lot of companies stopped doing a long time ago. And they make good products and useful developer tools. All in all, they have had a positive influence on the development of the Web.
I don't believe they've been a positive influence, but an influence that isn't shaded either way for me. I have yet to see Google actually invent something new, not Acquiring, not reinventing something and making it better, really creating something that that no-one else has done.
I also believe their not a serious IT brand, i believe they are a Marketing Company, hence the only thing that has ever made them money is their advertising services. The rule of thumb for Marketing is to collect as much information to aid them in making better Marketing strategies later down the track.
I guess all in all what I'm trying to say in the crux of it all, Google is just a brand like any other, they are in the IT industry as a unique player in such a way that they've held dominance in a certain place for a long. They are trying to
Yes someone needs to mod you up.
Why, is Google looked upon as being so good? There is nothing nice about Google, they are just like any large company attempting to keep their dominance.
Lets see, Google is giving people access to use their "Free" DNS service, I ask why? there is not charitable reason for this. It's simple you get enough market control over peoples DNS and you can start calling your own shots, Microsoft even tried this one on once upon a time.
Google, is notorious for sneaking in IP grabs on peoples data when using their Cloud services, granted they get caught out then play the "oh how did that get in the fine print? must be some sort of mistake" but the fact remains they still try it on.
Google grabs your personal data and sells it to advertising companies? Not evil?
If you use, Google desktop, Google toolbar, Google web history, or Google analytics (or a combination of any of these apps) and blamo you cant move on the web without Google knowing exactly every move you make. Yet, us geeks will weed out every other privacy concern on the internet and point the finger to the culprit and call them evil but Google? again seems to get another free ride.
Don't take all these bad points I raise and flag me a Google hate, no no no. Personally i think having the EC on your ass over the fact your to successful, I would consider as a badge of honor in the IT market. Microsoft was there, now its Google's turn.
If its Google's turn to be more accountable for their actions so much the better, it might help tone down their "evilness" and put them in a more pleasant light in my own POV.
Personally, I preferred the Google we had 5 years ago, the Google we have now is a very different creature indeed.
I guess his slashdot account wont be used for a while
http://slashdot.org/~iceman
If porn industry augments this fantastic new technology and attaches a fleshlight too it ...
You can get off!
I wonder if it has anything to do with Pineal Gland.
In any case I wonder if people who suffer the removal of this area start getting visions via touch, then start working for the police in an attempt to circumvent the approaching Apocalypse brought on by a corrupt politician .... oh wait ... I've seen this before somewhere :D
It was a joke implied from what was said in the parent. So far I haven't lost any sleep over it.
You know, this might explain the giant hole between the original release of iPhone and the release of Android.
Apple created the SmartPhone market place and can carry the "I was here first badge". Of course we had other SmartPhones prior to this but the market was fairly restricted to business use not really domestic (everyone one from 16yr old kids to 70+ year old retirees use iPhone).
And I'll say it again, hoping i wont get marked a troll for stating a true but negative POV, but Google I believe missed the SmartPhone rush. Just like Apple missed the Personal Computer rush way back when.
A phrase from the movie Pirates of Silicon Valley -
Jobs: "Mines Better!"
Gates: "It doesn't matter."
And i think this is the case again, maybe too early to tell but i just see so much development being done for iPhone specific apps and websites these days i find it difficult to believe Google will get the same attention so easily.
VHS vs Beta, MS vs Mac, Guitar Hero vs Rock Band, iPhone vs Andriod
I started a comment with the sentence "The good thing about the iPhone ..." in a prior Google / Android article and what did i get for my troubles? an instant ... Troll
Make no mistake, Googles hidden geek mafia run this here town.
Here we go ...
IDP Multimedia Notebook
Cheaper enough for you? Plus this one is built to last :)