Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Jan 2012 22:45 UTC, submitted by bowkota
Google It really hasn't been Google's week. First the entire internet exploded because of some uninteresting nonsense regarding social networking (really internet?), but today something happened that's actually a bad thing and worth talking about: in Kenya, Google has been caught accessing the databases of a competing business, and offering Google's own product to the people in the database. Google has already apologised, and is currently investigating the matter.
Thread beginning with comment 503357
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: monopoly abuse
by Tony Swash on Sat 14th Jan 2012 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE: monopoly abuse"
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

"I personally think the fact that their obviously favoring their products in search is a much bigger deal.

If Microsoft did that everyone would be calling for their head but Google gets a free pass, really?

]{


Twitter pulled out of a deal with Google. Facebook is entirely closed off. Nw they are complaining about Google+? Pussies. The fact of the matter is that had Google included Twitter and Facebook data anyway, those two (and the anti-Google/pro-Apple standing army with them) would have screamed bloody murder *as well*.

This is such non-news.
"

Your love fest with Google knows no bounds.

Google has one business model and one source of revenue: selling information about you (the product) to advertisers (the customer). If one stays focussed on the core business model of any company it is possible to understand their actions and impacts, buying into PR froth like "open versus closed" obscures rather than reveals.

Because of it's business model, selling information about you (the product) to advertisers (the customer), Google has ensure it has absolute access to all (repeat all) data about what everyone does on the web. In order to ensure that no one is collecting information it cannot access Google has done and will continue to do the following:

Use its monopoly search income to destroy other companies business model by offering a free alternative

Use its monopoly search income to buy out those collecting data that it wants

Use its monopoly of search to to apply intense pressure (the latest Google+ episode is a good example) on those who resist opening their kimonos for Google.

This is not a question of good or evil, it is a question of business models and impacts. I fear that, besotted by the freebies that Google tosses out (and they are lovely goodies), many fail to see that allowing Google to become the total owner of all user data on the web and to turn a blind eye as Google attacks and destroys those that block that process is short sighted. Google's business model, were it to achieve it's aim to become the universal intermediator of everyone (which it is quite close to achieving), will significantly undermine innovation. If companies and start-ups know that any web based innovation will bring Google breathing down their neck the moment that their work generates significant user data they will just not bother, or be in it merely to cash in if Google chooses to go the 'soft' route of a buy out.

If you really believe in an open web then Google is not a route to it.

http://brianshall.com/content/google-are-pussies-redux-and-you-owe-...

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: monopoly abuse
by Radio on Sat 14th Jan 2012 00:45 in reply to "RE[2]: monopoly abuse"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20


This article is so wrong I don't know where to begin. My goodness.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: monopoly abuse
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 14th Jan 2012 00:47 in reply to "RE[2]: monopoly abuse"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Your love fest with Google knows no bounds.


-1 for trolling.

Look up the article history on OSNews. Heck, just check the Android review. I'm not going to read a comment that starts with that nonsense.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: monopoly abuse
by Tony Swash on Sat 14th Jan 2012 10:55 in reply to "RE[3]: monopoly abuse"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"Your love fest with Google knows no bounds.


-1 for trolling.

Look up the article history on OSNews. Heck, just check the Android review. I'm not going to read a comment that starts with that nonsense.
"


I started my comment with that because you ended yours with this:

This is such non-news.


Your response conveniently means you don't have to respond to any of my points (which I thought were reasonably laid out). You think what happened with Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and Google search is a non-issue. Not worth of a discussion. Insignificant. I was suggesting that it is was indicative of a business model whose affects on the web and upon all of us was worth a critical look.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: monopoly abuse
by gan17 on Sat 14th Jan 2012 01:04 in reply to "RE[2]: monopoly abuse"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Got chased away from DailyTech again, I see.

Your love fest with Google knows no bounds.


I agree that Thom does give the impression that he's a Goo-lover at times, but it pales in comparison to the butt-f*ck fest you have going on with Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: monopoly abuse
by Tony Swash on Sat 14th Jan 2012 11:00 in reply to "RE[3]: monopoly abuse"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Got chased away from DailyTech again, I see.


Leaving aside our differences - have you noticed something wrong with the commenting system at Dailey Tech in recent days? Its seems to have frozen up. I wanted to know it wasn't a problem at my end. I tried accessing the site via different browsers and different OS's but the comments system seems to have locked up. Are you seeing this as well?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: monopoly abuse
by Soulbender on Sat 14th Jan 2012 03:51 in reply to "RE[2]: monopoly abuse"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Your love fest with Google knows no bounds.

Oh but it's but a drop in the ocean compared to your goatse bend-over for Apple.



Yes, nothing bolsters your case like linking to a random, ill-conceived and unsubstantiated rant on the internet.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: monopoly abuse
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 14th Jan 2012 15:50 in reply to "RE[3]: monopoly abuse"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"Your love fest with Google knows no bounds.

Oh but it's but a drop in the ocean compared to your goatse bend-over for Apple.
"

Careful now, he might accuse you of "Apple phobia" for mocking his "lifestyle choice".

http://www.osnews.com/thread?500815

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: monopoly abuse
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 14th Jan 2012 15:42 in reply to "RE[2]: monopoly abuse"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

If you really believe in an open web then Google is not a route to it.


So you're saying that in order to have an open web, we need have to user data locked up in silos. In other words, your Google anti-fanboyism is so single-minded that you blindly assume "it must be good if it's bad for Google."

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: monopoly abuse
by Tony Swash on Sat 14th Jan 2012 19:48 in reply to "RE[3]: monopoly abuse"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"If you really believe in an open web then Google is not a route to it.


So you're saying that in order to have an open web, we need have to user data locked up in silos. In other words, your Google anti-fanboyism is so single-minded that you blindly assume "it must be good if it's bad for Google."
"


What I am interested in is what is the core dynamic of the different tech giants and what this means for the broader tech scene. Because Google gives so much stuff, often very nice stuff, away for free and talks about being 'open' a lot, it's easy to not see what Google really does as a business and therefore what drives it and what one can expect from it.

As I said Google collects user data to sell advertising. That's it, that's it's sole business. That's the sole way that Google makes money. Everything it does is about ensuring it can collect the maximum user data and sell the most advertising. Google is a rambling entity and so it does many different things simultaneously sometimes very efficiently sometimes less so but everything it does is done to ensure that all user data of everyone on the web is accessible by Google.

This means that Google sees any areas of the internet that are closed to itself as being a threat, they need to be pried open or routed around (usually by just launching a free version and thus destroying the revenue stream of the closed area). Those closed areas are only closed to Google, they are not closed to users who might find them very useful or attractive (for example Facebook).

Sometimes this means Google champions open standards sometimes this means Google champions the rights of carriers and supports moves to end net neutrality. Google does not have a set of principals, merely a core business dynamic that produces a core corporate culture. If it's closed to Google then make it open up.

This may or may not alarm or concern one. It depends on what one thinks is important. It does mean though that if a new area of internet activity and of innovation develops which generates user data then it will automatically attract Google's attention. If the user data from the new activity is open for collection by Google and if it does not offer an alternative non-Google source of advertising then it may not move against that new area of activity. If it is closed to Google then it will almost certainly move against the new activity. I think that that probably militates against innovation in the long run.

I for one find Google's drive to be the universal intermediary on the internet a bit disturbing, I would prefer there to be many intermediaries none of them overwhelming dominate or powerful. Other people may think that getting lots of free stuff is so cool it doesn't matter.

The main thing though is to not pretend that Google is anything other than what it is. The world's largest advertising company.

Reply Parent Score: 4