More like Microsoft with every passing minute

[localzuk]

Where do google sit in the popularity charts on your logs?

 

Number 1 of course. I've never said they weren't the dominant company.

 

And the other way around? It allows a giant company to quash their competition by advertising on their trademarks. Lets say you own a small company which make shoes, and you have a fairly brisk online trade. Nike are now allowed to buy your trademark so that when someone's searching for your brand name, Nike is the first thing they'll see.

 

Nope, I'm afraid I do see a problem with that.

 

That isn't Google's fault.

 

Wait, so now a monopoly does have to be worldwide?

 

You're the one going on about monopolies and using worldwide stats.

 

You could turn around and state that if you want, but Google still have a monopoly here in England. Pretending that they don't is willful foolishness.

 

No it wouldn't. They aren't a monopoly. They are the current dominant search company - just like Yahoo used to be.

 

I'm not moving the goalposts. I said that google have a monopoly and they do. I believe there's sufficient evidence that a full investigation into the matter should be launched, and I'm relieved that this is finally starting to happen (even if it is only with the matter of the book scanning so far - more will follow).

 

Switching from using global stats, comparing them with country stats, to using just stats for the UK. Those look like moving goal posts to me. Because you can't prove your point for global monopoly, you're now narrowing it down to just a single country.

 

I am not willing to wait and trust a company simply because they say that they don't do evil, and the nice big friendly courts haven't investigated them yet. We're talking here about a company who have a huge amount of influence - look at the number of ex-Google employees who have been appointed as advisors in the US.

 

So, you propose we scrap due process and start with the lynchings now then? Very modern.

 

For that matter look at the current proposal by the conservatives that your national health service records could be outsourced to google.

 

Google are a service provider, just like BT (who do a lot of outsourcing work for the NHS already). Don't go thinking this is a major change in tactics.

 

I'm not willing to wait until the damage is done before complaining about this company and calling for an investigation into them. Unfortunately I lack the political influence to do it, but I can at least try and make people aware of the unethical practices.

 

Yes, this is called 'armchair anger'. Where you dislike something and are willing to argue about it until you're blue in the face, and won't change your position no matter what. When what you could be doing is organising protests, letter writing campaigns etc... The worst thing a company can get is bad press, so why not get them into the press over these issues.

[SYNACK]

Not quite the same. Moving your business from MS software to non-MS is so expensive, and in some cases impossible as files from their range of products cannot be converted effectively to other versions.

 

Not to mention the fact MS were *convicted* of anti-competitive behaviour.

 

I know, it really is just totally wrong when things are differnt and don't work together. Just the other day I wanted to take the windscreen out of my car dnd put it in a differnt one. You know what I could not do it because the car company had selfishly and stupidly made their product unique and different. How monopolistinc and evil of them to not build everything exactly the same with no inovation and how dare they not activly support me in moving to their compeditor. I mean sure I chose the solution in the first place but now they are actually making me stick with it. Concequences, how dare they, don't they know I work in a school where such things are illegal. Bring on the unified collective where everything is grey and nothing can inovate ever.

 

Seriously, lots of stuff is moveable from one format to another and if another product wants to use that format is it not their responcibility to work with it. If everyone is so up and arms why did they not use RTF in the first place. It has been around for ever and is supported in almost anything. Oh wait they wanted inovation and are now pissy that the creator of that inovation will not take the time and expence to write themselves out of a job.

 

Oh and lets talk about the fairness of the legal system which you seem to hold in high estiem. The same system that will happily fine people hundreds of times the value of a piece of music or put people in jail for a longer period of time for drug possetion than violent crime.

 

I have exceptional difficulty understanding your viewpoints, you are perfectly entitled to have them but I can't help but picture you milling grain on some unused highway in a post 'fightclubesk' reality.

 

In my view Google is at least partially evil, and that is more dangerous because they deem themselves to be the constant good guys. Apple arogantly consider themselves to cool to be evil which is rather irritating. Microsoft is the only lot that have accepted their rap and is honest about their motives. It is commonly stated that acceptance is the first step to recovery after all.

[localzuk]

I know, it really is just totally wrong when things are differnt and don't work together. Just the other day I wanted to take the windscreen out of my car dnd put it in a differnt one. You know what I could not do it because the car company had selfishly and stupidly made their product unique and different. How monopolistinc and evil of them to not build everything exactly the same with no inovation and how dare they not activly support me in moving to their compeditor. I mean sure I chose the solution in the first place but now they are actually making me stick with it. Concequences, how dare they, don't they know I work in a school where such things are illegal. Bring on the unified collective where everything is grey and nothing can inovate ever.

 

You don't have to buy your windshield from the manufacturer. I'm sure autoglass would do you one of theirs... Poor comparison.

 

Oh and lets talk about the fairness of the legal system which you seem to hold in high estiem. The same system that will happily fine people hundreds of times the value of a piece of music or put people in jail for a longer period of time for drug possetion than violent crime.

 

Didn't know the laws protecting people from anti-competitive company behaviour dealt with drugs and music copyrights. I'll just scrap my belief in fair trials then...

 

I have exceptional difficulty understanding your viewpoints, you are perfectly entitled to have them but I can't help but picture you milling grain on some unused highway in a post 'fightclubesk' reality.

 

My viewpoint is simple - Google are a company. They are currently edging towards some dodgy ground but until a court or regulator comes around and slaps them after a proper trial, and not anecdotal evidence, I will still use their services as I see fit.

 

In my view Google is at least partially evil, and that is more dangerous because they deem themselves to be the constant good guys. Apple arogantly consider themselves to cool to be evil which is rather irritating. Microsoft is the only lot that have accepted their rap and is honest about their motives. It is commonly stated that acceptance is the first step to recovery after all.

 

Personally, as I said, I go by what happens in court, if that's wrong in your mind so be it.

[jamesb]

Number 1 of course. I've never said they weren't the dominant company.

 

And I take it numbers 2-23 are also advertisers? Obviously any viable competitor would have a reasonable share of the market.

 

That isn't Google's fault.

 

No, it is Google's fault. Until recently Google would reserve trademarks if the owners requested it. Recently they've changed their policy on this so that their customers no longer have any right to protect their trademark in search queries.

 

Google have changed this policy, condoning and allowing this unethical behaviour, in order to make more money.

 

You're the one going on about monopolies and using worldwide stats.

 

I used the stats which I could find. My bad. I take it then that you're saying Google are just a sweet, small little company with no market position worth worrying about?

 

No it wouldn't. They aren't a monopoly. They are the current dominant search company - just like Yahoo used to be.

 

Microsoft aren't a monopoly. They are just the dominant software company.

 

So, you propose we scrap due process and start with the lynchings now then? Very modern.

 

When on earth did I suggest that? I just think that its not unreasonable to take sensible precautions against a company which appears to be highly unethical. No one's talking about lynchings, and we're not talking about people either. We're talking about a company, a corporate entity.

 

Waiting for a court case to be concluded before taking precautions is asking for trouble, these cases have taken years in the past and they will continue to do so. You need to make a sensible judgment based on your own knowledge of the situation, including anecdotal evidence and all other evidence you can gather.

 

If a car manufacturer makes substandard cars with a high level of dangerous failure, and this is known, should I wait for a product recall before I stop driving their car?

 

Google are a service provider, just like BT (who do a lot of outsourcing work for the NHS already). Don't go thinking this is a major change in tactics.

 

Google are an advertising agency with a worrying fascination with collecting personal data. Think what'll happen if they get your medical records. Log on to check the latest comment your doctor's put on and get the banner ads 'Buy antidepressants now!'.

 

Yes, this is called 'armchair anger'. Where you dislike something and are willing to argue about it until you're blue in the face, and won't change your position no matter what. When what you could be doing is organising protests, letter writing campaigns etc... The worst thing a company can get is bad press, so why not get them into the press over these issues.

 

I'm quite happy to change my position if someone can provide evidence that Google are in fact 'not evil' as they claim. What irks me about them is their attempt to pretend that they are good guys, when in fact they're just another profiteering company. That's the problem I have.

 

I'd love to be organising protests and similar, sadly I have a full-time job at which I often work late and many other interests. My life does not revolve around taking down Google (I don't even really want to see them taken down, just the acceptance that all they are is yet another profit-driven company who'll do anything in the name of a buck).

[localzuk]

Microsoft aren't a monopoly. They are just the dominant software company.

 

Not gonna comment on the rest, busy now. But this bit I will point out - U.S. v. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact

[SYNACK]

You don't have to buy your windshield from the manufacturer. I'm sure autoglass would do you one of theirs... Poor comparison.

Simmilar glass but possibly not will all the same features (UV protection/sensors) and advancements, that is the point of my hypothetical windscreen. Besides I was also pointing out the difficulties of making a thing designed for something else work with a system or product that it was not intended to work with.

 

Didn't know the laws protecting people from anti-competitive company behaviour dealt with drugs and music copyrights. I'll just scrap my belief in fair trials then...

The laws are different but the system which they operate in is the same. If the system is compromised then anything that relies on it is also suspect. This is very simmilar to a computer system.

 

My viewpoint is simple - Google are a company. They are currently edging towards some dodgy ground but until a court or regulator comes around and slaps them after a proper trial, and not anecdotal evidence, I will still use their services as I see fit.

I use some of their service to, as I see fit. It is fine using them so long as you are aware of the risks and of your own viewpoint. If people only dealt with nice moral people then the world would collapse.

 

Personally, as I said, I go by what happens in court, if that's wrong in your mind so be it.

As I said previously you are entitled to your viewpoint, I mearly conveyed my difficulty in understanding it given the mitigating factors around some of its foundations. It is just my opinion and not to be taken as a personal critisisum or inditement, just an observation from my point of view.

[jamesb]

Cool, my first ever piece of negative rep.

 

Apparently for flaming , as best I can translate the associated comment.

Edited July 20, 2009 by jamesb

[mossj]

TBH although I can see the ethics (and now the laws)

 

Why should Apple not try with all its might to lock people using it's hardware to using it's software (or vice versa). It makes them moo dolla at the end of the day. Same with Microsoft why are they not allowed to ship it with IE, again it's there product they should be allowed to include what ever they want... If people don't like what there shipping it with THEN DON'T BUY IT

 

Don't like it don't buy it, is a motto I choose to use on a daily basis. I don't like itunes so guess what I didn't buy an Ipod, if people did this they would have to change there practice to carry on making there money.

 

P.S I like Microsoft and find it an annoyance that I now have to download IE8 when I get win7.

 

Just my two cents

Edited July 20, 2009 by mossj

[localzuk]

Cool, my first ever piece of negative rep.

 

Apparently for flaming , as best I can translate the associated comment.

 

It weren't me governor...

[CyberNerd]

My viewpoint is simple - Google are a company. They are currently edging towards some dodgy ground but until a court or regulator comes around and slaps them after a proper trial, and not anecdotal evidence, I will still use their services as I see fit.

 

They just got off scott free for deformation. outrageous!

Google cleared in defamation suit - ZDNet.co.uk

 

 

Microsoft aren't a monopoly. They are just the dominant software company.

 

I must have missed something here, I'm sure they got successfully prosecuted for being just that.

 

 

On a side note, here are some comparisons for ms google apple company sizes

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3613/3488863466_fa881013e0_o.png

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3186/3500340184_1607a3f03d_o.png

[jamesb]

I must have missed something here, I'm sure they got successfully prosecuted for being just that.

 

My point was more that there's very little difference except that they've lost a court case, and google haven't yet.

 

Incidentally I noticed today that Google are facing investigations by the EU as well as the US regarding their orphaned works monopoly.

 

As to the fact that Microsoft's so much larger - I know they're an evil monopoly, but they admit it. My problem is that Google don't admit it, and seem to take a lot of people in.

 

And for those charts, I refuse to consider them trustworthy information regarding Google.

 

Look at the source.

[CyberNerd]

 

Look at the source.

 

yeah, google finance. I doubt if they could get reliable figures about their own company. Don't trust em, it's probably a scam to get their stock value increased.

[localzuk]

They just got off scott free for deformation. outrageous!

Google cleared in defamation suit - ZDNet.co.uk

 

Hope that was sarcasm...

 

 

My point was more that there's very little difference except that they've lost a court case, and google haven't yet.

 

So one is innocent until *proven* guilty and the other has been proven guilty several times...

 

 

Incidentally I noticed today that Google are facing investigations by the EU as well as the US regarding their orphaned works monopoly.

 

As I said earlier. Investigation != guilt. I'm sure you'd be saying that if you were being investigated at work...

 

As to the fact that Microsoft's so much larger - I know they're an evil monopoly, but they admit it. My problem is that Google don't admit it, and seem to take a lot of people in.

 

Yes, most people have this nasty habit of wanting proper evidence before casting something as 'evil'. Terrible isn't it?

 

And for those charts, I refuse to consider them trustworthy information regarding Google.

 

Look at Yahoo finance or Microsoft Finance then... They'll all give you the same numbers.

[jamesb]

So one is innocent until *proven* guilty and the other has been proven guilty several times...

 

I just don't think a lack of official judgment in the presence of evidence should prevent caution.

 

As I said earlier. Investigation != guilt. I'm sure you'd be saying that if you were being investigated at work...

 

Its quite clear that they're guilty in this case. They went ahead and scanned books, ignoring all copyright laws. They then settled in a way which gives them a monopoly over all orphaned works - including the right to sell them.

 

That, incidentally, means that an author outside the states who has not registered his right to his work in the states does not have his copyrighted protected with regards to Google, while it is protected under US law.

 

Yes, most people have this nasty habit of wanting proper evidence before casting something as 'evil'. Terrible isn't it?

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, any company with a motto of 'Don't be evil', no matter how unofficial, has to have some reason for it.

 

Look at Yahoo finance or Microsoft Finance then... They'll all give you the same numbers.

 

I don't trust any of them either. Me and my tinfoil hat are fine right here thanks.

[localzuk]

I just don't think a lack of official judgment in the presence of evidence should prevent caution.

 

There's caution and then there's paranoia and prejudice...

 

Its quite clear that they're guilty in this case. They went ahead and scanned books, ignoring all copyright laws. They then settled in a way which gives them a monopoly over all orphaned works - including the right to sell them.

 

That, incidentally, means that an author outside the states who has not registered his right to his work in the states does not have his copyrighted protected with regards to Google, while it is protected under US law.

 

I doubt either of us are qualified enough in the subject of IP law to discuss it effectively - hence my reliance on the legal system.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, any company with a motto of 'Don't be evil', no matter how unofficial, has to have some reason for it.

 

Or it could be due to the people who set up that company not wanting to be a bad company like they had seen Microsoft be? Eric Schmidt, for example, was very much anti-MS and argued against their abuses during their Sun trial (when he was at Sun). Assuming they're bad just because they say they're good is as sensible as saying the Red Cross is bad because they say they're doing good...

 

I don't trust any of them either. Me and my tinfoil hat are fine right here thanks.

 

That says it all

[jamesb]

There's caution and then there's paranoia and prejudice...

 

I don't trust big companies, I'll admit that. Plus Google has too much data-gathering, and more importantly too much influence over information for my liking. The potential damage they could do is huge.

 

I doubt either of us are qualified enough in the subject of IP law to discuss it effectively - hence my reliance on the legal system.

 

I try to keep up to date on it, and there's definitely something dodgy about the deal Google struck with American authors and publishers - a deal which covers international authors and publishers.

 

Or it could be due to the people who set up that company not wanting to be a bad company like they had seen Microsoft be? Eric Schmidt, for example, was very much anti-MS and argued against their abuses during their Sun trial (when he was at Sun). Assuming they're bad just because they say they're good is as sensible as saying the Red Cross is bad because they say they're doing good...

 

The Red Cross don't try and make a profit, different thing entirely. More importantly they've never felt it necessary to state that they're not evil.

 

That says it all

 

They're the height of fashion!

 

I accept that I'm paranoid, but it doesn't mean they're not out to get me. I'd rather be wrong and a fool, than change my mind and be both wrong, and brainwashed.

 

You mark my words, the Bilderberg group will turn out to be behind Google.

[localzuk]

I don't trust big companies, I'll admit that. Plus Google has too much data-gathering, and more importantly too much influence over information for my liking. The potential damage they could do is huge.

 

Google were a small company. But small companies have a habit of becoming big when what they're selling is popular and good. So, you should spend your life fearing all companies... Which will be very boring.

 

I try to keep up to date on it, and there's definitely something dodgy about the deal Google struck with American authors and publishers - a deal which covers international authors and publishers.

 

The Berne Convention covers international issues with regards to books, so regardless of what a US institution states, international authors are still protected by it.

 

The Red Cross don't try and make a profit, different thing entirely. More importantly they've never felt it necessary to state that they're not evil.

 

They don't say they're not evil. They started their company with the motto 'do no evil', not the same thing.

 

They're the height of fashion!

 

You'll be fearing the tinfoil hat companies soon then, when they become big?

[jamesb]

Google were a small company. But small companies have a habit of becoming big when what they're selling is popular and good. So, you should spend your life fearing all companies... Which will be very boring.

 

There are a few big companies I don't fear, when they're at least somewhat honest about their motives. Also when they're not trying to track every single bit of data about me.

 

The Berne Convention covers international issues with regards to books, so regardless of what a US institution states, international authors are still protected by it.

 

And yet Google is ignoring this.

 

They don't say they're not evil. They started their company with the motto 'do no evil', not the same thing.

 

I don't wake up in the morning and say 'I'll do no evil today', I just don't do it because its blatantly obvious. Someone who needs to remind themself to do no evil has something seriously wrong with their priorities.

 

You'll be fearing the tinfoil hat companies soon then, when they become big?

 

I only use ethically sourced tinfoil from local companies.

[localzuk]

There are a few big companies I don't fear, when they're at least somewhat honest about their motives. Also when they're not trying to track every single bit of data about me.

 

You think Google are the only search engine into harvesting data?

 

And yet Google is ignoring this.

 

Maybe, that's for the courts to find out.

 

I don't wake up in the morning and say 'I'll do no evil today', I just don't do it because its blatantly obvious. Someone who needs to remind themself to do no evil has something seriously wrong with their priorities.

 

Or, it is a valid marketing idea. The Bodyshop marketted itself as ethical, as do the Co-op. Why can't Google? Just because they're a data company doesn't mean they can't do that...

 

I only use ethically sourced tinfoil from local companies.

 

But most tin foil is aluminium foil, and extracting aluminium is unethical

[jamesb]

You think Google are the only search engine into harvesting data?

 

Of course not, but that doesn't make it any better.

 

Maybe, that's for the courts to find out.

 

The courts are currently investigating it. The evidence is quite clear, as are the objections by various associations.

 

Or, it is a valid marketing idea. The Bodyshop marketted itself as ethical, as do the Co-op. Why can't Google? Just because they're a data company doesn't mean they can't do that...

 

The Co-op are what they say, they're a co-operative of members who include many of their customers. No pretense, no secrecy. The Bodyshop are equally open about their processes, these companies are willing to back up their claim to ethics. Google are secretive to conspiratorial levels.

 

But most tin foil is aluminium foil, and extracting aluminium is unethical

 

I use only ethically recycled aluminium foil, thereby contributing to world peace and happiness.

[localzuk]

Of course not, but that doesn't make it any better.

 

It does mean that you are singling out a single company though...

 

The Co-op are what they say, they're a co-operative of members who include many of their customers. No pretense, no secrecy. The Bodyshop are equally open about their processes, these companies are willing to back up their claim to ethics. Google are secretive to conspiratorial levels.

 

What would you like to see Google doing to prove that they live by their mantra?

 

I use only ethically recycled aluminium foil, thereby contributing to world peace and happiness.

 

Ah, but there you go - both recycling and extracting aluminium uses massive amounts of energy... So it's all evil!

[jamesb]

It does mean that you are singling out a single company though...

 

Not at all, I'm only singling out Google because they were the one that came up. I have rants prepared against many companies, but Google are the one under discussion at this moment in time.

 

What would you like to see Google doing to prove that they live by their mantra?

 

Letting customers using their advertising services know exactly what they're spending their money on and where and how their adverts will appear. Going back to their old method of preventing bidding on registered trademarks where the trademark owner has raised a complaint about their competitors being able to purchase searches on that trademark. Not bringing in exceptionally dodgy systems like 'automatic matching' as opt-in systems. Not violating copyright on a massive scale in order to secure an unfair monopoly on out-of-print books.

 

Those'd be good for starters.

 

Ah, but there you go - both recycling and extracting aluminium uses massive amounts of energy... So it's all evil!

 

Nope, the recycling plant is run by a little old lady I know using a solar furnace.

 

Besides, she knits very stylish tinfoil hats.

[Heebeejeebee]

 

They're all evil and we're all evil for using them.

 

end

 

HBJB