If you look through all the open source projects, say on sourceforge (all 250,000 of them), a few are great, many are average and by far the largest part are abandoned, half-finished and/or complete garbage. It doesn't mean that open source means incompetent but it doesn't automatically mean competent either, you have to look at the specific project. Probably on the whole commercial products are better if only because people have money invested in them and they are less likely to get bored with them half way through.
You are mistaking "commercial" (and "people have money invested in them") and "open-source" as opposed rather than orthogonal concerns, there are is noncommercial closed-source software and commercial open-source software. If a closed-source project (commercial or otherwise) --is abandoned at an early stage, it doesn't have visibility like an open-source project hosted on Source Forge, github, or any other public system.
Since an "open-source" project doesn't become "open-source" until code is released with an open-source license, I suspect that far more closed-source projects (including ones which might have become open-source if they were ever released by the creator) are abandoned before a production-ready release than open source projects. Its just that far fewer people other than the creators ever have the opportunity to become aware of those projects.
Even the journalists that focus their entire career on tech subjects often don't gain any appreciable expertise in the field. Besides, journalists aren't meant to be experts, they're meant to know exactly enough that they know when they should be asking questions.
The problem here is that you are saying that they are supposed to be ~A but B, when ~A -> ~B.
Being able to understand new events in a field well enough to explain them usefully to non-technical audiences requires both skill at communication and substantial expertise in the field. The job of a journalist is essentially to act as a teacher without the luxury of substantial lead time to develop a lesson plan, and usually via a static medium where there is no feedback from the audience.
Well, the candidates could do what politicians do best: lie through their teeth. Then eliminate the tariffs as would be appropriate for a country seeking to participate in the GLOBAL ECONOMY .
Politicians (those that don't quickly become defeated former officeholders, at any rate) only lie through their teeth to people without the attention span, degree of concern, or resources to effectively hold them accountable when their promises don't line up with their actions.
Industries with billions of dollars of business at stake in the policy at issue often don't fit that description.
So exactly why is this stuff so bad? Agave syrup is much higher in fructose, so that has got to horrible, right? Yet many people who won't touch HFCS swear by Agave. Then there is honey. Some composition, plus mold fungi and pollen that might make you sick. People seem to have no problem with that.
If you are concerned with total intake of sugars/carbs/calories -- in which case you probably aren't consuming something that has the level of sweetening in most commercial products containing HFCS -- products like honey, agave nectar -- and presumably even HFCS if you could get it for non-industrial food production -- because they are sweeter per gram of sugars than sucrose, can be useful alternative sweeteners.
This is rather aside from the question of whether, in ready-to-eat foods (rather than cooking ingredients) already very high in sugars, high fructose corn syrup increases the harms of such foods.
Anyhow, the bigger issue isn't how bad HFCS is or isn't and whether that badness is universal or conditional. The issue is the attempt to deny people the ability to make their own decisions based on the information they have by relabeling the ingredient to distance itself from the information -- both accurate and inaccurate -- that consumers have about the ingredient under its existing name and thus impair the ability of consumers to make buying decisions that reflect their true preferences. This following the inadequate success (from the industry's perspective) of a propaganda campaign designed to change those preferences.
Yes but even if there was an exaggeration here, do we really need half our "stories" to be shilling for Google and social networking sites?
Even counted generously, less than half the stories were about those topics, and not all of those were positive stories. Negative stories about something are hardly "shilling" for the subject of the story.
If you add Apple products to the mix, you quickly see that this place has gone downhill.
If you want a consistent mix of subjects, got to an outlet that has a narrow, specific, charter applied top-down by an authoritative dictator or small body with stable interests.
Expecting that a site whose content is community driven that features open membership is going to have a stable content mix is...well, its something that could happen, especially in a basically stagnant community, but its not particularly something you'd expect in an active, live one.
I use to read EVERY story on the front page at one point. Now I'm lucky if I care about 2 a day.
Yeah, look, I've been reading Slashdot a lot longer than my ID would suggest. I get that its become less focussed, with more non-tech and much of the tech coverage from more drawn from industry analysis, CIO-oriented sources than developer oriented sources. And its not something I'm particularly fond of myself.
But I'm pretty sure that whining about it in comments isn't useful for much, especially when the specific complaints made are ludicrously hyperbolic.
There's obviously a lot of people on this site that have not used the most recent version of Windows or are running it on underpowered hardware.
Yes, there are.
Your linuxes may run on old hardware fine,
Also, reasonably recent, inexpensive hardware, like my Atom N270 netbook (where, incidentally, Windows XP also runs fine.)
but they miss much of the polish and usability that a Windows machine has.
I've been using Ubuntu and Windows side by side for quite a long time on similar hardware. There isn't a giant difference in "polish", though Windows is generally a bit ahead in comparisons of contemporary versions.
Not enough to justify actually paying for a Windows upgrade from an older Windows version, though, so unless you are buying new hardware with Windows bundled at no additional cost compared to the same hardware without windows, the choice is between old Windows and current Linux (if you have to choose. OTOH, dual boot works fine.)
Windows is also very consistent
No, its not. Heck, Microsoft applications other than those bundled with the OS often don't even respect the UI conventions of the OS.
And third-party applications are all over the map.
whereas linux/gnu has almost no consistency across the platform and no standards of development for applications.
KDE and GNOME do have conventions as much as Windows does, and third-party apps are just as unlikely to follow them faithfully as on Windows.
On the other point, it may well be that Google has given up on security as a main selling point
Speed and simplicity and speed* were always the heavily promoted features of Chrome. Almost all of the launch publicity focussed on the V8 JavaScript engine and its speed, and the rest was mostly on the minimalist, get-out-of-the-way UI.
Actually, I guess it depends on what sections he reads,
I don't think there is any combination of Slashdot sections for which the almost all of the most recent 20 stories (either now or when the post making the claim was posted) would concern either Social networking sites or Google products, though I will admit I haven't actually checked every possible combination of sections to see if there is any way to make the claim remotely approach the truth.
Part of my point was that Google sells Chrome as the 'secure' browser.
The problem with that point is that it is wrong on a couple of levels.
First, Google doesn't sell Chrome, it gives it away free.
Second, Google promotes Chrome primarily as a fast, free, and simple browser. The main Chrome page doesn't mention security at all. The Learn More page linked from the main page lists security after speed and simplicity.
Almost all of the last 20 or so stories have been about either social networking sites or Google and its products. Man, I remember when programming topics actually used to make it to the front page. You know, news for nerds.
Being generous and counting Android (even though it was only briefly owned by Google between the time Google bought it and the time Google transferred it to the Open Handset Alliance) as a "Google product", and going further with that generosity and counting a story about HTC Android phones as being about Android rather than the specific phones and thus a "Google product", I count 7 of the 18 current front-page stories that are either about social networking sites or Google and its product (one of which is about a forthcoming Google social networking product.)
Being even more generous and assuming that the two next most recent stories were also about social networking sites or Google and its products, that's still less than half of the last 20 stories.
Aren't "nerds" generally supposed to be detail-oriented and numerate?
They certainly should view it as a security war, security has been the primary selling point for chrome from the beginning.
The primary selling point for Chrome, at the beginning, was JavaScript speed, which is why most of the promotional effort focussed on the V8 engine and its speed.
If they aren't the best in this department, what would make anyone want to use chrome vs any of the other browsers that are superior in so many other ways?
I don't think Google is all that concerned over whether or not Chrome is the leading browser. They don't sell Chrome.
They do care if common browsers behave in ways which make web content and services using open standards attractive to users, because Google's core business is indexing that kind of content, analyzing it, and selling advertising that leverages services built on top of services using the indexes built from that content.
Chrome is largely a tool to get other browser manufacturers to adopt features that make it attractive for content developers to use formats and protocols that are conducive to Google's business.
Because Google believes that printing is a sinful activity which is bad for the environment and that you should just share it through Google Docs and provide them with more data to mine?
Chrome supports printing, it just doesn't have print preview. While I miss it sometimes, web pages tend to be (even with the differences between paged and screen media) WYSIWYG enough that print preview isn't a big deal to me. Obviously, it is for some people though.
People whose job it is to find bugs in Google software are Google employees. Their pay is not, I would assume, simply "by the bug", and I suspect that their pay is quite good.
Google happens to also give out bounties -- which many competitors don't -- as a kind of "thank you" to people who voluntarily report security bugs to Google. I'm not sure why you think that the standard for whether this is something nice or an "insult" is whether the bounty for the average bug is greater or less than the price of one share of Google stock.
Surely Google could easily afford 10 (maybe even 100) times as much, and that would undoubtedly get a lot more people interested in looking.
Probably they are at the level that Google feels maximizes the cost:benefit ratio.
If they want to win the security war, they should be ramping up the bounties each release.
I'm not sure they view this as a "security war" that they need to "win", but even if it was, all they need to do is stay ahead of the competition. What are Mozilla, Microsoft, Apple, or Opera doing in this area that suggests that Google's bounties are too small?
Having read hundreds of pages so far on my Kindle (just got it recently), I have to say that trying to do that on any sort of normal LCD screen would suck horribly.
Having read several full novels, and keeping a library of other reference books (both ePub and PDF) on my iPhone, and having worked with similar texts on netbook, laptop, and large-screen desktop LCD monitors, I have to say that the biggest issues with smartphone monitors are readability in direct sunlight and text size. The comfort issues with LCD screens in general aren't a big deal with phone-sized screens IME, while they are quite noticeable with netbook-size screens, and even more problematic with larger screens. I suspect that the problem is directly related to how much of your visual field is occupied by the bright background, which, even accounting for typical reading distance with each device, is much smaller with a phone than with a netbook, which is smaller than with a larger laptop or big desktop monitor.
(Which is, incidentally, why I'm not at all interested in an iPad as an eReader even though I'm happy enough with an iPhone in that role, even though the iPhone's screen size isn't great for some content. With a bigger screen, I definitely want e-Ink or something similar, not an emissive LCD.)
Now if they can make a colored E Ink screen that is as comfortable to read as the gray-scale one, then I might consider it.
Color e-Ink (or other reflective technology, like Qualcomm's "Mirasol") screens ought to be available this year or early next year (I know LG has announced plans to begin mass production on a 9.7" one this year, and I think there are others planned to hit the market next year.) But whether those screens will be in consumer targetted products or be used mostly for signage installations and other applications seems a bit less clear right now; the e-Reader price war seems to have cooled a lot of manufacturers interest in large format e-Readers aimed at the consumer marketplace, and I suspect that the same thing might apply to color e-Readers. (Though if Mirasol takes off for full-color displays, as I understand it, it probably means the end of the truly dedicated e-Reader market, since its not as slow as e-Ink and so there's no reason not to make "readers" using it more broadly functional; instead, you'll just get a tablet that's a good eReader, rather than just a tolerable one.)
This is a pretty intriguing idea. It's interesting to see how mobile phones are not only starting to encroach on netbooks/laptops, but also now on e-readers.
Ereader software on phones is not new. B&N and Amazon have had e-reader software tied to their bookstores (and capable of importing outside content) for iOS and Android for quite some time, and e-Reader software from other vendors (e.g., Lexcycle Stanza) has also been available. Plus, lots of ebooks are available for sale as apps in Apple's App Store (I don't know if the same is true for Android.)
The difference is that computers have a more standardized architecture than cell phones.
Since the latter (at least smartphones, which is what matters here) are a subclass of computers such that the entirety of the variation within phones is part of the variation with computers, this is clearly not true.
With computers, there wasn't much stopping you from upgrading you PC from DOS 5 to DOS 6, or putting windows 3.1 on there.
Well, except the difference in hardware requirements. (Less of a deal between DOS 5 + DOS 6 then between any version of DOS without Windows and the same version of DOS with Windows -- pre-95, when Windows was not a DOS replacement.)
It's not like the reviewer tried to hide who they are. From the summary, "reviewer Gary R. Sorkin" and the first review on Amazon is by the very same "Gary Sorkin".
Without the review having been posted here, many would never have heard of the book nor found it on amazon
Or been motivated to do some research and find out that the Gary Sorkin who did the review both here and on Amazon is from a book review service that advertises to authors that "The only wish we have is for your success as an author."
Change the standard directory names to things longer than 3 letters. Even if you're a hyper-involved PC-user (building and fixing your own and others with tons of tweaks), the dive into the various versions of linux is a complete vocabulary shock simply because nothing says what it is. Programs are oddly named and folder titles are super-abbreviated.
Well, its not Ubuntu, but I think GoboLinux has the right approach on this point.
The ideal scenario is for Google to support the protocols for something like Diaspora
Why?
What do the protocols for, e.g., Diaspora do that the open protocols for various social networking functions that Google already supports (some of which it developed) fail to do?
If the protocols don't offer anything new, where is the large established user base for those protocols that Google supporting them in addition to its existing protocols would open up?
Their attention span seems notoriously short at times.
That's actually quite deliberate, as far as I can tell. Google's model is to get something working in front of real users quickly, have it adapt quickly, and, if it doesn't work well enough to be worth the costs of keeping it up, kill it. This lets them get lots of things in front of customers, giving them more chances to get hits (and letting them learn a lot from the flops.)
It also reduces the risks, since things they don't keep plugging on things till they are "done" before finding out that they need to be killed.
(This, of course, doesn't include things that are done, or nearly so, that they buy, but that's a different part of the model entirely.)
google did not control the carriers. they made a huge mistake in this design aspect.
Google doesn't own Android. It briefly owned it between the time it bought it and the time it transferred it to the Open Handset Alliance.
The whole point of the OHA is that: 1) Google (and the other software company members, individually or collectively) doesn't control it. 2) The carrier members don't control it. 3) The handset manufacturer members don't control it. 4) The semiconductor manufacturer members don't control it. 5) The commercialization members don't control it.
You could argue that Google is allowing this while they build up critical mass. You would hope that once google is firmly entrenched in the market they would start to dictate what defines the Android brand better.
Play nice with the carriers until they have to play nice with you or risk losing their Android users.
Google bought Android and transferred it to the Open Handset Alliance, while they are (I would assume) the dominant source of development effort for the platform, the OHA has 77 other member companies, including carriers, handset manufacturers, software/service companies like eBay, etc.
The diversity of players in the OHA was, I think, a deliberate strategic choice by Google that success and appeal to consumers would be driven by balancing the interests of those groups in the long-term, rather than making short-term compromises with some of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the whole point that the chips essentially dynamically overclock themselves based on demand and current heat profile?
You are mistaking "commercial" (and "people have money invested in them") and "open-source" as opposed rather than orthogonal concerns, there are is noncommercial closed-source software and commercial open-source software. If a closed-source project (commercial or otherwise) --is abandoned at an early stage, it doesn't have visibility like an open-source project hosted on Source Forge, github, or any other public system.
Since an "open-source" project doesn't become "open-source" until code is released with an open-source license, I suspect that far more closed-source projects (including ones which might have become open-source if they were ever released by the creator) are abandoned before a production-ready release than open source projects. Its just that far fewer people other than the creators ever have the opportunity to become aware of those projects.
The problem here is that you are saying that they are supposed to be ~A but B, when ~A -> ~B.
Being able to understand new events in a field well enough to explain them usefully to non-technical audiences requires both skill at communication and substantial expertise in the field. The job of a journalist is essentially to act as a teacher without the luxury of substantial lead time to develop a lesson plan, and usually via a static medium where there is no feedback from the audience.
Politicians (those that don't quickly become defeated former officeholders, at any rate) only lie through their teeth to people without the attention span, degree of concern, or resources to effectively hold them accountable when their promises don't line up with their actions.
Industries with billions of dollars of business at stake in the policy at issue often don't fit that description.
If you are concerned with total intake of sugars/carbs/calories -- in which case you probably aren't consuming something that has the level of sweetening in most commercial products containing HFCS -- products like honey, agave nectar -- and presumably even HFCS if you could get it for non-industrial food production -- because they are sweeter per gram of sugars than sucrose, can be useful alternative sweeteners.
This is rather aside from the question of whether, in ready-to-eat foods (rather than cooking ingredients) already very high in sugars, high fructose corn syrup increases the harms of such foods.
Anyhow, the bigger issue isn't how bad HFCS is or isn't and whether that badness is universal or conditional. The issue is the attempt to deny people the ability to make their own decisions based on the information they have by relabeling the ingredient to distance itself from the information -- both accurate and inaccurate -- that consumers have about the ingredient under its existing name and thus impair the ability of consumers to make buying decisions that reflect their true preferences. This following the inadequate success (from the industry's perspective) of a propaganda campaign designed to change those preferences.
Even counted generously, less than half the stories were about those topics, and not all of those were positive stories. Negative stories about something are hardly "shilling" for the subject of the story.
If you want a consistent mix of subjects, got to an outlet that has a narrow, specific, charter applied top-down by an authoritative dictator or small body with stable interests.
Expecting that a site whose content is community driven that features open membership is going to have a stable content mix is...well, its something that could happen, especially in a basically stagnant community, but its not particularly something you'd expect in an active, live one.
Yeah, look, I've been reading Slashdot a lot longer than my ID would suggest. I get that its become less focussed, with more non-tech and much of the tech coverage from more drawn from industry analysis, CIO-oriented sources than developer oriented sources. And its not something I'm particularly fond of myself.
But I'm pretty sure that whining about it in comments isn't useful for much, especially when the specific complaints made are ludicrously hyperbolic.
Yes, there are.
Also, reasonably recent, inexpensive hardware, like my Atom N270 netbook (where, incidentally, Windows XP also runs fine.)
I've been using Ubuntu and Windows side by side for quite a long time on similar hardware. There isn't a giant difference in "polish", though Windows is generally a bit ahead in comparisons of contemporary versions.
Not enough to justify actually paying for a Windows upgrade from an older Windows version, though, so unless you are buying new hardware with Windows bundled at no additional cost compared to the same hardware without windows, the choice is between old Windows and current Linux (if you have to choose. OTOH, dual boot works fine.)
No, its not. Heck, Microsoft applications other than those bundled with the OS often don't even respect the UI conventions of the OS.
And third-party applications are all over the map.
KDE and GNOME do have conventions as much as Windows does, and third-party apps are just as unlikely to follow them faithfully as on Windows.
I think that's the plan...
Chrome:IE::ChromeOS:Windows
Speed and simplicity and speed* were always the heavily promoted features of Chrome. Almost all of the launch publicity focussed on the V8 JavaScript engine and its speed, and the rest was mostly on the minimalist, get-out-of-the-way UI.
* Yes, I mean that exactly the way I wrote it.
I don't think there is any combination of Slashdot sections for which the almost all of the most recent 20 stories (either now or when the post making the claim was posted) would concern either Social networking sites or Google products, though I will admit I haven't actually checked every possible combination of sections to see if there is any way to make the claim remotely approach the truth.
The problem with that point is that it is wrong on a couple of levels.
First, Google doesn't sell Chrome, it gives it away free.
Second, Google promotes Chrome primarily as a fast, free, and simple browser. The main Chrome page doesn't mention security at all. The Learn More page linked from the main page lists security after speed and simplicity.
Being generous and counting Android (even though it was only briefly owned by Google between the time Google bought it and the time Google transferred it to the Open Handset Alliance) as a "Google product", and going further with that generosity and counting a story about HTC Android phones as being about Android rather than the specific phones and thus a "Google product", I count 7 of the 18 current front-page stories that are either about social networking sites or Google and its product (one of which is about a forthcoming Google social networking product.)
Being even more generous and assuming that the two next most recent stories were also about social networking sites or Google and its products, that's still less than half of the last 20 stories.
Aren't "nerds" generally supposed to be detail-oriented and numerate?
The primary selling point for Chrome, at the beginning, was JavaScript speed, which is why most of the promotional effort focussed on the V8 engine and its speed.
I don't think Google is all that concerned over whether or not Chrome is the leading browser. They don't sell Chrome.
They do care if common browsers behave in ways which make web content and services using open standards attractive to users, because Google's core business is indexing that kind of content, analyzing it, and selling advertising that leverages services built on top of services using the indexes built from that content.
Chrome is largely a tool to get other browser manufacturers to adopt features that make it attractive for content developers to use formats and protocols that are conducive to Google's business.
Chrome supports printing, it just doesn't have print preview. While I miss it sometimes, web pages tend to be (even with the differences between paged and screen media) WYSIWYG enough that print preview isn't a big deal to me. Obviously, it is for some people though.
Um, I think you are confused.
People whose job it is to find bugs in Google software are Google employees. Their pay is not, I would assume, simply "by the bug", and I suspect that their pay is quite good.
Google happens to also give out bounties -- which many competitors don't -- as a kind of "thank you" to people who voluntarily report security bugs to Google. I'm not sure why you think that the standard for whether this is something nice or an "insult" is whether the bounty for the average bug is greater or less than the price of one share of Google stock.
Probably they are at the level that Google feels maximizes the cost:benefit ratio.
I'm not sure they view this as a "security war" that they need to "win", but even if it was, all they need to do is stay ahead of the competition. What are Mozilla, Microsoft, Apple, or Opera doing in this area that suggests that Google's bounties are too small?
Having read several full novels, and keeping a library of other reference books (both ePub and PDF) on my iPhone, and having worked with similar texts on netbook, laptop, and large-screen desktop LCD monitors, I have to say that the biggest issues with smartphone monitors are readability in direct sunlight and text size. The comfort issues with LCD screens in general aren't a big deal with phone-sized screens IME, while they are quite noticeable with netbook-size screens, and even more problematic with larger screens. I suspect that the problem is directly related to how much of your visual field is occupied by the bright background, which, even accounting for typical reading distance with each device, is much smaller with a phone than with a netbook, which is smaller than with a larger laptop or big desktop monitor.
(Which is, incidentally, why I'm not at all interested in an iPad as an eReader even though I'm happy enough with an iPhone in that role, even though the iPhone's screen size isn't great for some content. With a bigger screen, I definitely want e-Ink or something similar, not an emissive LCD.)
Color e-Ink (or other reflective technology, like Qualcomm's "Mirasol") screens ought to be available this year or early next year (I know LG has announced plans to begin mass production on a 9.7" one this year, and I think there are others planned to hit the market next year.) But whether those screens will be in consumer targetted products or be used mostly for signage installations and other applications seems a bit less clear right now; the e-Reader price war seems to have cooled a lot of manufacturers interest in large format e-Readers aimed at the consumer marketplace, and I suspect that the same thing might apply to color e-Readers. (Though if Mirasol takes off for full-color displays, as I understand it, it probably means the end of the truly dedicated e-Reader market, since its not as slow as e-Ink and so there's no reason not to make "readers" using it more broadly functional; instead, you'll just get a tablet that's a good eReader, rather than just a tolerable one.)
Ereader software on phones is not new. B&N and Amazon have had e-reader software tied to their bookstores (and capable of importing outside content) for iOS and Android for quite some time, and e-Reader software from other vendors (e.g., Lexcycle Stanza) has also been available. Plus, lots of ebooks are available for sale as apps in Apple's App Store (I don't know if the same is true for Android.)
Since the latter (at least smartphones, which is what matters here) are a subclass of computers such that the entirety of the variation within phones is part of the variation with computers, this is clearly not true.
Well, except the difference in hardware requirements. (Less of a deal between DOS 5 + DOS 6 then between any version of DOS without Windows and the same version of DOS with Windows -- pre-95, when Windows was not a DOS replacement.)
Also a pretty big deal from DOS+Windows to Win95.
Or been motivated to do some research and find out that the Gary Sorkin who did the review both here and on Amazon is from a book review service that advertises to authors that "The only wish we have is for your success as an author."
Well, its not Ubuntu, but I think GoboLinux has the right approach on this point.
Why?
What do the protocols for, e.g., Diaspora do that the open protocols for various social networking functions that Google already supports (some of which it developed) fail to do?
If the protocols don't offer anything new, where is the large established user base for those protocols that Google supporting them in addition to its existing protocols would open up?
That's actually quite deliberate, as far as I can tell. Google's model is to get something working in front of real users quickly, have it adapt quickly, and, if it doesn't work well enough to be worth the costs of keeping it up, kill it. This lets them get lots of things in front of customers, giving them more chances to get hits (and letting them learn a lot from the flops.)
It also reduces the risks, since things they don't keep plugging on things till they are "done" before finding out that they need to be killed.
(This, of course, doesn't include things that are done, or nearly so, that they buy, but that's a different part of the model entirely.)
Google doesn't own Android. It briefly owned it between the time it bought it and the time it transferred it to the Open Handset Alliance.
The whole point of the OHA is that:
1) Google (and the other software company members, individually or collectively) doesn't control it.
2) The carrier members don't control it.
3) The handset manufacturer members don't control it.
4) The semiconductor manufacturer members don't control it.
5) The commercialization members don't control it.
Google bought Android and transferred it to the Open Handset Alliance, while they are (I would assume) the dominant source of development effort for the platform, the OHA has 77 other member companies, including carriers, handset manufacturers, software/service companies like eBay, etc.
The diversity of players in the OHA was, I think, a deliberate strategic choice by Google that success and appeal to consumers would be driven by balancing the interests of those groups in the long-term, rather than making short-term compromises with some of them.