Google: A little more like Microsoft every day
Recently, Google made a series of changes to its Chrome end-user license agreement, including the removal of language that describes how users can terminate their relationship with Google, as ReadWriteWeb discovered. Evil? Nah. That's likely just lawyers talking.
Or what about Google's efforts to get special treatment with broadband operators, paving a Google-centric "fast lane" on the Web?
Today's news from Computerworld, however, has Google looking more like the old Microsoft monopoly it replaces.
While Google's one-download assortment of Google code and third-party applications--the Google Pack--used to install the Mozilla Firefox browser by default, Google has now eliminated Firefox as the default browser in its Google Pack installation.
Yes, Firefox is still available as a choice to Google Pack users, but is this just one more step toward Google's own tightly integrated universe?
Microsoft, of course, is (or was) the master of the tie-in, using its dominance in Office or Windows to push customers to use Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, etc. Google has yet to reach the "push" phase, preferring instead to nudge, cajole, and pull would-be customers along, but its increasingly tenuous ties to Firefox suggest that its aim to unseat Microsoft can't accommodate third parties. Not for long, anyway.
Google, of course, is different. As a general rule, Google embraces openness. Perhaps the browser is just a different beast, given its critical importance to Google's services. Entrusting the gateway to Google's Web to third parties may simply not be viable.
Even so, I liked to think that third parties like Mozilla helped to ensure that Google would "not be evil." Time will tell if Google has the will power to keep itself honest.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
Perhaps the desktop is just a different beast, given its critical importance to Microsoft's Office. Entrusting the platform underneath Microsoft's primary source of revenue to third parties may simply not be viable.
:|
I think Google is really trying to leverage their brand, to capture market share from Microsoft. As good as Mozilla/Firefox are (I use Firefox), they just don't have the financial and brand strength to REALLY challenge Microsoft.
I suspect if Google is successful shaking a large percentage of the general population off IE, it will benefit other browsers as well. Kinda like breaking off with your first girlfriend. Once you finally make the move, you start to get comfortable dating around.
Google wants to use Chrome to better integrate with their own products, but they don't really offer a compelling reason to switch from Firefox. Their tiny market share reflects this.
There is benefit of the doubt and then there is a blind eye to the sins of your heros. Nothing GNU Under the Sun.
And do you really think Obama has nothing to do with Chicago's corruption scandals? Yeah. Right.
Damn waste of oxygen freeptards.
Microsoft's monopoly of the desktop
Apple's monopoly of the iPod
Google's monopoly of the web
what's next?!
I use Ubuntu, and I am happy with Firefox. However, I still would like to give Chrome a try, one of these days.
As well as Microsoft pushing people to use Windows Media Player on Windows, I for one enjoy being able to play some basic multimedia on a fresh install. The same thing happens with OS X and iTunes, and several Linux distributions with media players (Amarok, Rhythmbox) being bundled from the start. There is absolutely nothing preventing the user from firing up a search engine (also up to their choice of Google, Live Search, Yahoo, etc.) and finding Winamp or some other player.
We need to step back and realize that being evil does not equal turning a profit. Google is a company, first and foremost, not a charity organization.
Duh.
They have shareholders. They must generate as much cash as they can. That's the way it works. I love the culture of denial in Sillicon Valley. There seems to be this strange belief that Google and others are charities that will always do the "right thing."
Wow. That's delusion on a grand scale. Microsoft became a monopoly because it was very successful. Google, if they are lucky, will have the same problem once they grow large enough. The anti-trust police arlreay put the kabosh on their partnership with Yahoo and I'm sure the folks at Google are not looking to get smaller any time soon. On the contrary, a recession like the one we're in now allows the big players like Google to further extend their lead.
There is nothing wrong with Google agressively positioning Chrome. Just like there is nothing wrong with Microsoft doing the same thing with IE. Let the best man win.
-everything Google does is free
-they support standards
-their products are (generally) well written and efficient
-they constantly update their products in a non-intrusive manner
-their company isn't centered around an operating system
Wait... I thought you said Google is becoming more like Microsoft.
How much leadership/innovation have you ever seen out of Microsoft? They just wait until something catches on and then they pounce on it with all their monopoly power to crush the competition.
I much prefer Google's approach over Microsoft's.
Becoming more like Big Brother.
Google's tactics will eventually limit what we, the consumers, can choose.
I am not a free software evangelist. However, I grow to appreciate free software more and more everyday.
Get over it, Matt. You're still not talking about open source. You're still bashing Microsoft. You're still irrevelant to the topic you are paid by Cnet to discuss.
John
Also, when it comes to operating systems, I think the OS should have all of these utilities built into it. I do believe MS was smart to include a browser and media player. I also think WIndows should ship standard with virus protection built in. It just makes sense that the OS should manage its own security. Not having these things is like buying a car without a radio, or seats, or tires. It just makes sense to include all of these things up front. Sure there are other companies selling some higher end CD decks, but I still think the car should at least include a basic one. If Windows came without a media player and internet browser, then how would you go about installing these things? Go on the internet and download them? No... you can't because you don't have a browser to start out with...
So overall I think this is a smart move on Google's part, and I'm anxious to see how Chrome develops. It's based on WebKit, so I don't see how this is so terrible. Also I very much believe that the culture at Google is nothing like that of Microsoft's. Same with Apple. Neither Apple nor Google are anything like MS. You're just paranoid about the "big scary company with lots of money and power and control!!!" There's nothing wrong with being big and powerful if your motives are virtuous. Also, everyone makes mistakes, even Google, and I don't think we should start attacking them every time they have a little mishap.
-Cory
They'd have to build terribly bloated products (Chrome is decidedly un-bloated), thumb their nose at the law (like MSoft did in Washington and Brussels), flout legal rulings on anti-trust behaviour (again in Washington & Brussels) and lie on the stand (Gates rocking back & forth prevaricating over meanings of simple English words).
Sure Google as screwed up ? but almost always back-tracked and set things right. EULA was re-written, search criteria retention reduced to 90 days. Heck ? if this were Microsoft ? it?d be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court after years of litigation. Come on.
Decades ago - Microsoft arrived - using a novel yet familiar business model.
They rushed into new, immature markets with poorly designed products & aggressive marketing ? and cornered us into accepting their design philosophies before we (or even they) could sufficiently think them through - or develop alternatives.
Like General Motors in the '50s, Microsoft played hardball.
When GM bought the land under Los Angeles? train-tracks in the 1940?s ? they ripped them out to prevent rail-based competition ? resulting in traffic jams that haunt LA to this day.
Microsoft did the same with Netscape and scores of others ? with similar results.
And like GM - Microsoft ran into difficulty when other - more determined - firms started marketing cleaner, simpler and more reliable alternatives to their products.
As Honda did to GM ? Mac did to Microsoft ? shaming them into costly redesigns.
Every generation has its fascinations. Back in the '30s it was shortwave radio, with kids huddled around glowing tube sets. In the '50s it was hot-rod cars. In the 60?s it was TV.
In the '70s it was Japanese electronics with ludicrous quantities of tiny buttons and bloated user-manuals that only a shut-in would ever read. The very same ?70s that spawned Bill Gates.
Finally in the '80s it was computers - with the same attendant overkill.
Interestingly ? as programmers spend less time inside their pc?s ? and more time on the web - they?ll probably migrate to integrated PC/TV sets ? eventually morphing into simple TV addicts once again -completing the virtuous cycle. Notice how PC magazines today cover more cameras, Ipods and TVs than programming languages ? the more things change, the more they stay the same. But I digress.
Back at Microsoft - what was "feature-rich" to hobbyists became tiresome "bloat-ware" to the rest of us. Even Bill Gates got caught on an Email cursing a developer over how difficult it was to run their new applications. It wasn?t the developer?s fault he had to work under Microsoft?s bloated methodologies - it was Bill?s fault.
Gates built his business on simple paranoia ? he had to be everything to everybody ? so no one ? absolutely no one ? would ever go elsewhere for solutions.
This paranoia resulted in the endless introduction of ?features? into an already shaky Windows architecture and across their product range ? driving them to the point of being unstable and un-maintainable. Even Microsoft has suffered under this bloated house-of-cards. The latest Windows service-pack advertised download time is more than 5 hours!
Imagine if you will ? the sight of millions of Microsoft customers at home across the world ? on every continent ? in every country ? in every time zone ? each spending 5 hours downloading bloat-ware patches. It staggers the mind. The strain on the communications lines alone must have been enormous.
It?s like teaching an elephant to tap-dance ? but with Billy Boy & The Bloatware Factory finally getting the message - hopefully - a cleaner Windows 7 will evolve. We?ll see.
Today?s generation is rediscovering simplicity. That's why Google is attracting joyful adherents with cleaner, faster and more sensible products ? like Chrome - with millions more enjoying Macs.
Microsoft hasn't learned from history - because it was too busy trying to write it.
Personally - as an IT manager - I'd love to dump every Microsoft product from my datacenter and start-over with something simpler and cleaner. But that won?t happen in my lifetime.
Maybe someday Google, or someone else, will get us there.
Hell ? if they?re smart - it might even be Microsoft.
Rob
Outside of search, Google's offerings are third rate.
Google software is nothing but a spyware trojan horse.
Unlike MS, Google wants to know everything about you.
Google is evil, always has been. Their business model depends on it.
Any company run by guys that run around squeaking "Don't Be Evil!", hey, you know is just a limited liability version of Jeffrey Dahmer.
- by lokanadam December 25, 2008 8:40 PM PST
- why isn't google search engine open source ?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(35 Comments)