Comments on: Google polishes competition charm offensive

A month-long appeal to paint Google as a friendly face in a big Internet comes to San Francisco in a potential preview of Google's anti-antitrust talking points.

[Aaron Kempf]

google breaks the law, they don't really innovate.. they're just a bunch of bullies who were lucky enough to bet on the right horse when they bought youtube.

I think that it's sad that google thinks that they're smart enough to tell _US_ how to build cars, and how to make green energy.

google is not efficient-- they lie-- there is no way that my house uses the same electricity as 3.1 million searches.

Sorry google-- you lie, and I hope that the government breaks you apart.

[HearnME]

you sound very uneducated about Google. Its system is huge and diverse as much as it is wide and "controlling."

As for finding them inefficient liars. Why don't you take a trip down to Mountain View, California and see for yourself how smoothly and happily they work.

[tm_anon]

Do you know how much electricity 3.1 million searches takes? Do you know how many searches are made per second on Google? Do you know how much electricity Google servers use per second?

It's very possible that 3.1 million Google searches use the same amount of electricity per second as your house does. Just think about it, are you doing every last thing to minimize the amount of electricity being used in your household at this very moment? Do you have all your light bulbs turned off and replaced with the absolute lowest wattage per lumen possible? Are all of your appliances Energy Star certified and chosen specifically for how efficiently they do the job? Are you currently running your air conditioner or do you have a ceiling fan to help move the air instead?

Google is highly efficient as has been studied and proven. Google servers have been designed to use the least amount of electricity possible, they are raised and they have internal UPS', meaning they recharge the UPS with excess power going through the power supply rather than letting that energy go to waste.

Google has been very innovative in their approach to many new areas. Google Docs, Google Earth, Chrome. I may not like the product or the way it's implemented and I may not like that Google does seem a bit too hungry for my information, that doesn't mean the product isn't innovative.

As for your claim that Google breaks the law, give evidence or don't make the claim. By making the claim with no evidence, you can and should be sued for liable. Saying you don't like a product is one thing, I stand up for your right to dislike whatever you decide to dislike. Claiming that product breaks the law, on the other hand, I stand up for the product makers right to sue you for every penny you have.

[t8]

There is nothing wrong with Google yet.

They don't tie you in like Microsoft.

The government should be looking at Microsoft not Google.

We end up paying way too much for an OS from Microsoft because they are a monopoly that was illegally obtained.

Customers pay Microsoft too much and Google is generally free.

Nothing wrong with Google. Hopefully I can say the same thing years from now.

[monkeyfun14]

@t8

Google just sells your information.

What has Microsoft done wrong recently?

Absolutely nothing.

And since when is it illegal to sell your product for as much as you want?
Apple does it.
And there is competition Apple and Linux.

[Michichael]

This is what's sad. You develop a great, relevant, useful product... keep it up to date and branch out applying this innovation to other regions... and you start getting called a monopoly by companies that don't want to have to compete with you based on real merits.

There is far too much corporate power over the political process. I think that all corporations need to have their influence in Washington curtailed - one five man representation per industry from the corporations and one five man panel from the public - with public financing only for their electives, no private financing at all.

Then we might start seeing some cutbacks in pork spending etc.

By the way - GET RID OF THE CIALIS AND CONDOM ADVERTS! Seriously, this website is going down the drain more and more. First the facebook integration, then the comment system won't even load if you block the adverts... come on guys.

[tenbosch]

Your comment seems a little hypicritical. First you dno't want anyone telling Google what they can or can't do. Then you go and tell Cnet how they should advertise. Personally, Condom Advertising is one of the most socially responsible things this country needs to do. And believe it or not, Cialis does help people with serious dysfunction.

[tm_anon]

How are you blocking ads? I have Adblock Plus and I can comment perfectly fine.

[Michichael]

I just use firefox and noscript so I don't have to bother with adverts half the time. TBH I probably should just update my hosts table to blackhole all of the advert sites, but the problem is why should I have to modify my hosts table/use third party software to block content that doesn't belong in the workplace?

Yes I agree condom advertising is good - do it on MTV, FOX, MySpace, Facebook, or whatever "leisure" sites. It doesn't belong on a tech news site. [I think most techies are smart enough to use a condom.]

[Seaspray0]

Tom Krazit, you have been doing a fantatic job for several months now. Excellent work! I love how you have pieced together the oposing viewpoints into a cohesive view of the whole. Please forward this to your boss. I want him/her to know that I think your journalism is now top notch.

[thelemurking]

I agree... he doesn't seem like the snooty little Apple fanboy anymore. He seems a lot more open and branched out. So +1 internets for him.

[SergeM256]

OK, Google is a monopoly. What are they supposed to do now to avoid being a monopoly? Limit number of searches per internet user?

[Seaspray0]

It's not against the law to be a monopoly. It is against the law to abuse the power it grants. This means google has to play under a different set of rules (i.e. cutting deals on advertising) and they will be more under the watchful eye of the department of justice. It's not easy for companies to do this when they were bred on being very competitive... but it can be done.

[flatrock19]

The first and only thing I've seen from Google that should bring up anti-trust issues is their exclusive right to have orphaned works available through their book search.

Other than that, I don't see how they are unfairly excluding competitors. Yes they have the majority of the search market. They have earned that market share fairly. They have continued to expand what can be searched and have continued to offer additional products which have built their name to the point where they are the first name that comes to mind in search and a number of other things.

That doesn't make them anti-competitive. That just means they have done their jobs better than their competitors.

Anti-trust laws were not meant to punish success. The fact that so many people thinks they do says a lot of bad things about how anti-capitalistic our educational institutions have become.

[Seaspray0]

"Anti-trust laws were not meant to punish success." True. They are there to prevent abuse by alot of it.

[MarcoP123]

It's amazing how many people remain so filled with emotion over big, successful companies. "Google is a bully and deserves to be taken apart." "Microsoft is a bully and deserves to be taken apart." Etc. Both have achieved their ranks because they have consistently provided great tools and solutions to the rest of us. And it's great that they're both battling each other -- in each other's primary turfs. The result can only be better solutions for all of us. (And if that means more profit for both of them, great for them.) More on http://domusinc.blogspot.com/2009/06/attacks-on-google-and-microsoft.html.

[t8]

Actually there is a huge difference between Google and Microsoft.

One people choose Google because they have the best stuff.
People are forced to use Windows because it comes with new PCs whether they like it or not.

Also, Microsoft gained it's monopoly illegally. It did deals with OEMs that menat Windows only. Then they bundled IE to take the browser market too.

Google doesn't force anyone to do anything. People use them because they want to.

Big difference. Please do not say that these 2 companies are the same. They are poles apart.

[cp256]

I am far more worried about Microsoft than Google. That may change in the future, but right now M$ is the big demon.

[emad_ramzy]

Google is a bully, not because they are a big company, it is because they do whatever they want and they just don't care. The "do no evil" company is becoming dangerously strong; imagine a company that lends its support to a crook and extortionist like Ed Magedson of the ripofreport fame, he is a well known crook and the whole world know that except Google. I boycotted Google since I found out about the strong relationship (I used Yahoo or the new Bing), it is about time that something be done about this company

[Ilgaz]

For years, whenever I hear "Google isn't a monopoly, users have choice", I check my Safari for OS X search area, see impossible to change (without hacks) Google written right at there and ignore the rest of their bla bla.
Sad thing is, I keep paying for OS X and yet I can't change default engine of its default browser and yet Windows users who gets it totally free can change it to Yahoo.
Does Apple really need couple of cents from their users searches?

[pcdude2143]

All I've seen from Google is good. I don't think we have worry about them.

How expensive do you want your Mac to be??? Apple probably does get paid for the search box. I say so what? You do have choice. The choice to use another browser.

Guy at store: "Why do you only make cookies with Nestle chocolate chips in them? That's wrong. I want to be able to choose any type of chip I want."

[YankeePoodle]

Tom in your profile, my be it is time to add Bing or MSN..
never mind Silicon Valley Elitism.

[espeed623]

Frankly, I don't see Google's Monopoly as the same type as Microsoft's Monopoly.

[t8]

Same.

One was obtained by innovation and better service, and the other was obtained with illegal deals with OEMs and any innovation was copied or stolen of others.

[epcraig]

Unlike Microsoft, Google has yet to be convicted of abusing their monopoly.

[t8]

That is right. That makes the two poles apart right now.

One is a criminal and the other isn't.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@t8:

Hmm... interesting point. So if two criminals both rob customers but only one gets charged, that means the other one is okay to keep doing it?

How do you justify this sort of viewpoint?

[HDIEagle]

@Vegaman_Dan:

How about "Innocent until proven guilty."

Let the criminal go keep doing it, he will either get caught or die of old age - and I'm leaning towards the former.
Hopefully I need not reiterate.