I still love Google. My loyalty is a function of the quality of their products. If their large market share produces a stagnation in innovation from a lack of competition, then another service will arise that will innovate, and I will wholeheartedly welcome it. The cost of entry for internet services is paltry relative to other industries. No matter how big Google gets, they will be easy to take down if their breadth becomes a burden.
Their "spyware" helps me find information and products I want. It's not like Google is stealing my bank account number or rummaging through my underwear drawer. I'm more than willing to part with certain information, if that information can help get me what I ultimately want.
If someone better comes along, folks will abandon Google with pure ease. It literally takes nothing to switch one's home/search page to someone else's... Just ask Microsoft, whose default MSN/Live search page is swapped out almost instantly in the majority of cases.
The only 'hooks' Google has is among folks who use GMail, and that's it. There's nothing else that would keep someone going to Google if they no longer wanted to. Even in that case, it takes little-to-no skill to transfer/save-out important emails and use someone else's mail provider.
Now - contrast this with other folks that have worn the 'monopoly' tag. Even today, you as an ordinary consumer cannot buy any laptop model you want from any large OEM without having to buy a Windows OS license for it, period. This is due to a partial OEM reliance on vendor money (in the form of 'co-marketing' dollars), and favorable bulk-licensing costs just to survive. In this case, there is a danger of monopoly abuse (and indeed, there have been cases of it).
With Google OTOH, nothing is stopping a competitor from building a better mousetrap and publishing it. Nothing prevents the vast majority of Google's users from switching to a competitor at whim and will, usually with just a couple of mouse-clicks.
This is why Google represents no real or present danger to the consumer, even if their current marketshare were 100%.
Now if someone can prove otherwise, I'd like to see it.
pentest, their products are no more spyware than other products are in the market today. Yes, they do send SOME information back to different places (just like IE and Firefox do) but not anything that is personally identifiable.
Well, I wouldn't call is spyware, but if you install Google Earth, you get their software auto-updater which then will isntall *all* the Google applications they currently offer. You have no choice in this- it will do it automatically and you cannot stop it outside of removing Google Earth and the updater entirely.
The Mac version of Google Earth auto installs it's updater without notice or warning on Macs, and runs in the background all the time taking up resources.
This even made CNET's Buzz Out Loud. I'm somewhat surprised it didn't show up on the main CNET page.
Go back to using Internet Explorer verswion 5. Because if it wasn't for the likes of Firefox/Mozilla and Safari/Webkit, that's exactly what you would be stuck with today... IE5.
"Go back to using Internet Explorer verswion 5. Because if it wasn't for the likes of Firefox/Mozilla and Safari/Webkit, that's exactly what you would be stuck with today... IE5. "
IE was improved because of competition by other products. Google doesn't want competition and by maintaining a near monopoly, are stifling that very competition...
If Google has no competition, then you may never have anything beyond Google Chrome v1.0
"IE was improved because of competition by other products"
...which is the short version of what I had already said.
"Google doesn't want competition and by maintaining a near monopoly, are stifling that very competition... "
Here's the trick - Google cannot "stifle" competition. The worst they can do is take an active role in de-referencing a competitor from their search results... but Google isn't the only way that word gets out.
Google has zero control over where any user goes online. Unless Chrome ever managed to be a default browser for the majority of new OEM installs, Google will not get that ability, either.
"If Google has no competition, then you may never have anything beyond Google Chrome v1.0"
Err, you do realize that Chrome and Safari are both based on WebKit, right? Also, since Google has little-to-no real competition now, your statement would indicate that somehow Microsoft, Opera, Apple, and Mozilla are having a hard time with their web browsers. Since IE is pushed as default on Windows (and is unremovable), and since Firefox has a far larger share than Chrome... what are you talking about?
IOW, please justify your logic - how would Google be able to do this?
This is very good for you. Unfortunately, when I use Google, I do not get the results I want- the results are skewed towards those that advertise more there, or have the results ranked by third parties. The results today do not reflect the same results we would have gotten even just two years ago. It has become very biased to the point that I have now had to go to other search engines to find results. Those other services aren't nearly as easy to use, but when I look at the total amount of time to get to the information I need and can use, then Google is no longer the top choice for my use.
I love Google at the moment. No other company has contributed to the Web more than Google. Google also pays website owners through Adsense and this gives revenue to website owners who are encouraged to make their sites better. My opinion is that if any company is in this position it should be Google. I couldn't imagine selfish Microsoft or un-innovative Yahoo helping out like this. If you took away Google, then we wouldn't have great search and other services like Google Earth, Google Docs and Picasa. Sorry but I couldn't see Microsoft ever innovating on the Web like Google has. They are too interested in Windows and they are too greedy to make the Web a great platform. All good that they do on the Web is only a response to Google.
Wow. you think google is innovative? They stole the idea of putting ads next to search results from Overture. They settled the law suite in 2004 after paying millions. They bought keyhole and changed name to google earth. They bought writely and changed it to google docs. Bought picasa and well, it is still Picasa. The point is; they are better executors and not inventors.
They innovate by doing things better than their competitors.
Overture put ads next to search and they didn't execute this very well. I know because I used Overture before Google. I also used Eads. I have a number of sites that are monetized by Adsense. Google were the only company that paid well enough to make me want to make my website better and pour resources into it and many other website owners can say the same. This alone, has made the Web a richer platform. I also use their cloud services in favour of software and I feel like I am a decade ahead of others with what I can currently do. It is my belief that most others will be doing the same in years from now. I am an early adopter and I am convinced that I will be watching others follow.
Also if Google became evil or became like Microsoft, then it would be easier to switch to a competitor than switching from Windows to say MAC or Linux. So what I am saying is that Google makes billions by giving people what they want. As soon as their customers stopped trusting them, then it is game over for Google. I don't believe Google is stupid enough to jeopardize this as there is too much money to lose if they lose people's trust.
better to trust google than to trust microsoft with info who knows Live search might even get you a blue screen {just kidding} I wonder why it has even 5% share it's a pitiful search engine it loads background pictures to slow you down the results r crappy and the whole site is just slow to load !
Yahoo was a good alternative a few years back but now they just cram too much info into a small space Google believes in the simple and Yahoo beleives in the complex which is why they'll be overtaken even in the email soon !
I thought about trying Yahoo the other day because I couldn't find an image on Google and this thought came to me, 'try another search engine'. Previous to that, I had kinda forgotten that I could google (:) on other search engines. So I went to yahoo.com and it forwarded me to this local portal for my country (New Zealand) that had ads and all this useless stuff that I wasn't interested in. Worse was the images link was gone. It was a different interface to the .com version of Yahoo, but as I said I was forced forward to this local version that didn't resemble Yahoo at all. My first thoughts were 'how will they ever compete with Google if they do that to customers'. Google should have taught them that a simple interface for all is the best strategy.
There's a difference between "no competition" and having sucky ass products that can't compete. You can love Yahoo and Microsoft all you want, I bet you love using inferior products in the rest of your life too, loser.
In order to celebrate Valentine's Day, a survey asks Americans what they would give up in order to telecommute. Five percent say "spouse," while 12 percent say "daily shower."
There is much outpouring from stars on Twitter at the death of Whitney Houston. Moreover, Houston-related themes dominate the site's top 10 trends. At least in the U.S.
The Web fulminates when it is revealed that executives from VEVO--vehement music industry antipirates--played a pirated stream of an NFL playoff game at a party. VEVO claims it left its Wi-Fi unsupervised. Have we heard that argument before?
Tor's "obfsproxy" technology would make encrypted data look innocuous and let it dodge government censors. That could help citizens in Iran reach blocked sites as antigovernment protests reportedly loom.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
A man's dream toy, a weapon-wielding remote-controlled toy spider, nets nearly half a million hits on YouTube in one day. Will it live up to the hype once it's released?
Google relies on its viewers.
If someone better comes along, folks will abandon Google with pure ease. It literally takes nothing to switch one's home/search page to someone else's... Just ask Microsoft, whose default MSN/Live search page is swapped out almost instantly in the majority of cases.
The only 'hooks' Google has is among folks who use GMail, and that's it. There's nothing else that would keep someone going to Google if they no longer wanted to. Even in that case, it takes little-to-no skill to transfer/save-out important emails and use someone else's mail provider.
Now - contrast this with other folks that have worn the 'monopoly' tag. Even today, you as an ordinary consumer cannot buy any laptop model you want from any large OEM without having to buy a Windows OS license for it, period. This is due to a partial OEM reliance on vendor money (in the form of 'co-marketing' dollars), and favorable bulk-licensing costs just to survive. In this case, there is a danger of monopoly abuse (and indeed, there have been cases of it).
With Google OTOH, nothing is stopping a competitor from building a better mousetrap and publishing it. Nothing prevents the vast majority of Google's users from switching to a competitor at whim and will, usually with just a couple of mouse-clicks.
This is why Google represents no real or present danger to the consumer, even if their current marketshare were 100%.
Now if someone can prove otherwise, I'd like to see it.
/P
The Mac version of Google Earth auto installs it's updater without notice or warning on Macs, and runs in the background all the time taking up resources.
This even made CNET's Buzz Out Loud. I'm somewhat surprised it didn't show up on the main CNET page.
(I never use these apps, so please, show us where it allegedly happens).
Go back to using Internet Explorer verswion 5. Because if it wasn't for the likes of Firefox/Mozilla and Safari/Webkit, that's exactly what you would be stuck with today... IE5.
Must be a spammer or virus writer.
"Go back to using Internet Explorer verswion 5. Because if it wasn't for the likes of Firefox/Mozilla and Safari/Webkit, that's exactly what you would be stuck with today... IE5. "
IE was improved because of competition by other products. Google doesn't want competition and by maintaining a near monopoly, are stifling that very competition...
If Google has no competition, then you may never have anything beyond Google Chrome v1.0
...which is the short version of what I had already said.
"Google doesn't want competition and by maintaining a near monopoly, are stifling that very competition... "
Here's the trick - Google cannot "stifle" competition. The worst they can do is take an active role in de-referencing a competitor from their search results... but Google isn't the only way that word gets out.
Google has zero control over where any user goes online. Unless Chrome ever managed to be a default browser for the majority of new OEM installs, Google will not get that ability, either.
"If Google has no competition, then you may never have anything beyond Google Chrome v1.0"
Err, you do realize that Chrome and Safari are both based on WebKit, right? Also, since Google has little-to-no real competition now, your statement would indicate that somehow Microsoft, Opera, Apple, and Mozilla are having a hard time with their web browsers. Since IE is pushed as default on Windows (and is unremovable), and since Firefox has a far larger share than Chrome... what are you talking about?
IOW, please justify your logic - how would Google be able to do this?
its quick, easy, and returns the results I want
then crazy people come in and say that its so awesome so we have to shut it down and that s!@#
"its quick, easy, and returns the results I want"
This is very good for you. Unfortunately, when I use Google, I do not get the results I want- the results are skewed towards those that advertise more there, or have the results ranked by third parties. The results today do not reflect the same results we would have gotten even just two years ago. It has become very biased to the point that I have now had to go to other search engines to find results. Those other services aren't nearly as easy to use, but when I look at the total amount of time to get to the information I need and can use, then Google is no longer the top choice for my use.
Reduction of competition only hurts everyone.
Google has advanced search and reduced privacy. That is their legacy.
They innovate by doing things better than their competitors.
Overture put ads next to search and they didn't execute this very well. I know because I used Overture before Google. I also used Eads. I have a number of sites that are monetized by Adsense. Google were the only company that paid well enough to make me want to make my website better and pour resources into it and many other website owners can say the same. This alone, has made the Web a richer platform. I also use their cloud services in favour of software and I feel like I am a decade ahead of others with what I can currently do. It is my belief that most others will be doing the same in years from now. I am an early adopter and I am convinced that I will be watching others follow.
Also if Google became evil or became like Microsoft, then it would be easier to switch to a competitor than switching from Windows to say MAC or Linux. So what I am saying is that Google makes billions by giving people what they want. As soon as their customers stopped trusting them, then it is game over for Google. I don't believe Google is stupid enough to jeopardize this as there is too much money to lose if they lose people's trust.
When your entire software portfolio is designed to catalog your customers and you are a marketing company, you get what you deserve.
who knows Live search might even get you a blue screen {just kidding}
I wonder why it has even 5% share
it's a pitiful search engine
it loads background pictures to slow you down
the results r crappy and the whole site is just slow to load !
Yahoo was a good alternative a few years back
but now they just cram too much info into a small space
Google believes in the simple and Yahoo beleives in the complex
which is why they'll be overtaken even in the email soon !