In Google we trust?
The more Google grows, the more it becomes a cause for concern for many people--and not simply its competitors. But should it?
On the one hand, Google has become a privacy bogeyman, dropping off the list of the top 20 companies trusted with customer privacy. Ironically, this has come at the same time that Google has upped its commitment to open data policies, which enable users to control their own data privacy policies. Are users suggesting that they can't trust themselves?
This abandonment of trust in Google also comes in the face of an ever-growing commitment within Google to open source. Google now hosts more than 200 open-source projects, ranging from the more obscure (Protocol Buffers) to the well-known (Chrome browser, Web Toolkit).
Perhaps the drop in trust derives from Google's refusal to stay in its search sandbox, expanding its reach well beyond the search engine to mobile, for example, with a range of new features planned for the Android mobile open-source platform.
But why the lack of trust? The more Google has expanded its appetite for influence and dominance of the Web, it has has circumscribed its ability to control through open data, open source, and open APIs. As Google hasn't always had a policy of openness, I'm increasingly impressed by the search giant's widening commitment to it, even as it has the potential to seriously close off the Web to competitors' and, ultimately, customers' detriment.
Is Google perfect? No. But it is also not a 1990s Microsoft-style monopoly. Many of us begrudged Microsoft its dominance because it has been protected through things such as proprietary file formats and (past) illegal tying arrangements. Google does not compete this way. It competes in the open.
Have we lost trust in Google simply because it is winning, and we innately suspect the worst of a company at its scale?
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. 
Google is doing everything it can to control how web progresses or in a way of it's liking.
That doesn't make it any different than MSFT.
Virtually all of the key infrastructure components of Google's net vision have been open sourced (Chrome, Android, Gears, Native Client, ...), so that the global community can participate in its development. How many Microsoft products have you seen open sourced so others can participate?
Google, for the most part, implements things using open standards. How many standards have you NOT seen Microsoft try to circumvent, in order to lock consumers and businesses in to their technology.
Google and Microsoft are VERY different and for this reason, I like Google.
I'll look forward to reading your list of searches. Give it time and those lists will be hacked. As for why Google made Chrome, it has nothing to do with compatibility, nothing to do with dependability and it honestly has nothing to do with speed. If Google had asked FF for a faster rendering engine, FF would have found a way to make a faster rendering engine. They have a search deal. Searching from the tool bar is nothing new, it's been around for a while now, but I'd rather that be done more like FF or Flock does it. Google is creating proprietary technology for the web, but open source is being used as the tool to do it. In other words, like MSFT, Google is taking open source tech and creating something that will lock us in to them, but since it's the net, it'll be worldwide. Google isn't a warm and friendly place, it's a business. None of the technology that's been created is anything that didn't exist already. The browser, the email program, the animation programming to replace flash. All the technologies Google has begun attempting to replace already exist currently, they just don't have the Google name attached. Give me a business with the guts to come out and say what they're doing without the guise of being "open" or give me true open source. No hidden agendas allowed.
I disagree. Google is creating solutions to problems that do not have good solutions today. For example:
1. GEARS: allows an online application to be used offline (i.e. when there is no internet connection).
2. NATIVE CLIENT: allows existing desktop applications (with some mods) to be delivered via the web and run with near desktop performance (important for games, imaging applications, etc.).
Re. CHROME, I suspect Google underwent the development to make architectural changes that fit better with their vision of a Network OS. If/when their Net OS sees the light of day, it will probably be more clear why they did certain things.
As long as Google open sources their work, anyone can see what they are doing...and contribute. And there is no obligation for anyone to use it. On the contrary, who knows what Microsoft is doing with IE, Windows or any of their other products since they are closed source?
Interesting point. It's true Google is not inventing anything new, however what Google is doing is making people aware of those tools/utilities by creating an easier User Interface similar to what Apple did to Unix with MacOS. Searching on the internet or email or chat is not new, as you have clearly stated. However, how many people do you know understand the Unix command (which is OS the internet is based upon) in order to do that search or send email or chat. All these have been in Unix since the beginning. What Google is doing is providing a UI for the users.
As for why release Chrome, the fact of the matter is Google is a publicly traded company and the only thing the shareholders care about is MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. Search is the bread and butter for Google. Sure it could have sat down with FF to improve but the first rule of business is to make money and that's exactly what Google is doing with Chrome. having its own product where it doesn't have to rely on any other vendor to collect and monitor user trends. Not saying that it is right but welcome to the world of capitalism where everything revolves around "how to please the shareholders".
And whats wrong with a company making an alternative to an already existing product?
If it wern't for companies making alternatives to existing products, we'd be stuck with one browser, one chat client, and one e-mail client.
More options of a single product is a good thing. As already said, it does improve the products in general through competition. But it also protects the consumer because they can then go to alternative options. Theres been absolutely no type of lock-in with google's products. I've got chrome installed, but still use FF as my primary browser. Chrome isn't stopping me from using FF, and it's not effecting the program.
If you don't like google, hey, fine. Don't use their products.
But you seem to be taking stabs at what COULD be done to control our web use, stuff which google hasn't done any kind of move toward and even has been working against.
Yes, at any time google could turn around and become the next Microsoft. But so far they haven't shown that. So far it's just been a small group of people freaking out over whats a typical practice in companies that are based around search and other web products.
Like with the chines reporters stuff that came out like a year ago. People complained about google censoring information for china. I don't agree with that, but it's not like google is the only one. Yahoo and MS do the same thing. In fact, yahoo even turned in rebel reporters that were using their services to the chines government. Google on the other hand, censors, but won't turn anyone in. And it's google that gets the brute of the complaints in this issue.
Yes, google could do better. But if you're going to complain about google, where are your complaints on yahoo, MS, and the other competitors? Google is being singled out for no real reason other than (as it appears to me) that they are the biggest.
To be fair, I can think of a few criticisms to Google, their recent youtube policy which automatically demotes popular videos with profanity and more dangerously their trend away from asking for search warrants when governments request data. Both of these issues are very large thorns-in-my side which I don't forgive them for. However I won't pretend they have not done a great amount of good as well.
http://politicsoftechnology.blogspot.com/
Do you trust TV stations, who give you "free" television programming? How do they make money? Advertising.
Do you trust newspapers and magazines? How do they make money? Sales, of course, but also Advertising.
Companies can't provide services free of charge, or they will go out of business. How would they pay for software development? the hardware? the electricity?
An alternative model would be for everyone to pay for the services. $20/month for the New York Times. $10/month for an email account, 10 cents/search, etc. Does that sound like a better model?
People need to consider how all the great internet services they use are paid for, before blindly criticizing advertising.
But somehow we've gotten it into our heads that media content is different. And, since ad-supported media content is the norm, of course no one wants to be a sucker and pay for it. Moreover, in the online world, the few people who are bothered by ads just install ad blockers. Besides, we do pay as consumers--where do you think the advertising money comes from?
But there is still a trust issue--and blocking ads doesn't change the fact that ad-supported media companies are beholden to advertisers. TV stations, newspapers, and magazines are,for the most part, beholden to advertising, and that does affect their content. Not a big deal if it's just about entertainment. But the stakes are a bit higher if we're talking about a tool that mediates access to much of the world's information.
Granted, even advertisers place value on the reputation that media companies and search engines cultivate for integrity. But it's a precarious balance. I'd certainly be more comfortable with a better alignment of interests. It is unfortunate that we're in a rut where people are so predisposed not to pay directly for media content.
Huge difference.
They actually know kind of. It's called rating
Also Google's way of advertising is much better than anyone else on the web: they only have that small test box on the top of your e-mails and you can choose what ever to show up in it instead of some ugly pictures in every corner in your inbox (Yahoo!) and the whole argument about advertising makes no sense at all! Look at the top of this page and you will see ads.Some websites make ads a very unpleasant experience for the user while others don't. I actually disable adBlock for Firefox for some website that I really like because every time I load their page it means more money for them and so I can still use their service.
Do I trust TV stations or newspapers and magazines? hell no! HELL NO! News outlets are more opinion than fact these days. And even entertainment largely includes a lot of not-so-hidden agendas.
Otherwise, I agree- Advertising definitely provides for a lot of these free services and that's fine with me.
@7aji88, ratings are not done by magic. My friend is a 'neilson family'- he knows full well that he is being watched and their viewing habits correspond to (I forget the real number, but) 100,000 viewers or so. Those other 100,000 viewers are NOT being monitored like MSSlayer states.
Knowing that a company earns 99% of its revenue from advertising makes some of us cautious, since we know that advertisers' interests rarely align with our own. Black-box relevance algorithms and data retention / privacy concerns don't help either.
While much of the criticism aimed at Google may be baseless, they have asked to be held to a higher standard. And, after all, with great power comes great responsibility.
Google stores your data and uses it for whatever it wants. It gives you no opt out. Although it needs to be opt-in only.
Google(and other search engines) assume they can index anything unless explicitly told not to. That is backwards. If there is no file to tell them to stay out, they should stay out, only if there is explicit permission should they index. I had my little robot text file to tell spiders to eff off and die, yet they still index everything they can find(luckily, not much, nearly everything is locked up pretty damn tight), including Google, so I had to explicitly ban any IP that resolves to anytihng remotely related to Google, Yahoo, MSN, ect, which of course is not foolproof, but is what it takes for this vile companies to respect privacy. .
Why is this important? Simple, search for Johnny Long and Google hacking and find out what dangerous information Google makes available to anyone with a third grade education. Granted, it is also the fault of the morons who have no business running a web server, but like Microsoft, Google makes it simple to hack and destroy computer systems and also damage people badly.
Google has no good intentions. Besides search, it produces nothing but third rate software that is really a trojan to spy on you. They don't believe in giving away software because they are benevolent, they do it to collect information on you.
Google Docs presentation serves as a good example of this. After you gave a presentation on Google Docs to an audience:
* People will not have to ask you in the future to access the latest version of your presentation and
* you will not even be able to notice that others are accessing your presentation, Google Docs will tell you instead that there are no Viewers for that presentation.
http://www.line-of-reasoning.com/issues/it-is-easy-to-start-an-online-presentation-on-google-docs-but-do-you-know-how-stop-it/
Next example: A year after a document on Google Docs was deleted (and the Google Docs trash emptied) parts of the document are still accessible on Google Docs:
http://www.line-of-reasoning.com/issues/privacy-issue-google-docs-seems-to-not-delete-but-only-hide-documents-when-the-trash-is-emptied/
As long as it is about sharing your documents you can trust Google, if it comes to privacy think again.
- by cyberDJ-2038765336053745013836 December 23, 2008 4:35 PM PST
- Google is the only company that can cause both Microsoft and Apple to rethink their strategies.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(23 Comments)And for that, I support everything it does.