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 503459
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: monopoly abuse
by Tony Swash on Sat 14th Jan 2012 19:48 UTC 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

RE[5]: monopoly abuse
by Tony Swash on Sat 14th Jan 2012 19:57 in reply to "RE[4]: monopoly abuse"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

I just posted my previous post and then I came across this article which seems to be a fairly cogent critique of what Google has done with Goole+ and Search. Worth a read I think.

http://searchengineland.com/to-understand-google-favoritism-think-y...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: monopoly abuse
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 14th Jan 2012 20:43 in reply to "RE[4]: monopoly abuse"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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


None of what you wrote is wrong.

The problem is that you usually act as if you are the only one who has seen the light, and that you must now bring the light to the poor unwashed masses locked in the darkness that is Google's cave. The problem is - the cave is already electrically lit with LED lights, a few people brought a snooker table, installed a bar, an arcade, several 50" big screen TVs, and loads of computers to hold a LAN party, while sunlight is let in through beautiful skylights.

The gist: don't act as if you are the only one who is aware of Google's enormous potential for evil. We know. We are fully aware. Just because we don't reiterate it every post in bold doesn't mean we think Google is all that is good in the world.

The cold and harsh truth is, though, that if you look at the track records of the three biggest companies in technology, Google's is a shade of heavenly white with a few dubious stains on it, whereas Apple's and Microsoft's are pitch-black. Google's, Microsoft's, and Apple's potentials for evil are all huge - it's just that one of these three has - so far - done relatively little with its potential.

That is not to say they will remain that way forever - just that as it stands now, if you put a gun to my head and asked me to trust any of these three, past behaviour indicates Google is your best bet.

For now.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: monopoly abuse
by Tony Swash on Sun 15th Jan 2012 00:11 in reply to "RE[5]: monopoly abuse"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22



The cold and harsh truth is, though, that if you look at the track records of the three biggest companies in technology, Google's is a shade of heavenly white with a few dubious stains on it, whereas Apple's and Microsoft's are pitch-black. Google's, Microsoft's, and Apple's potentials for evil are all huge - it's just that one of these three has - so far - done relatively little with its potential.

That is not to say they will remain that way forever - just that as it stands now, if you put a gun to my head and asked me to trust any of these three, past behaviour indicates Google is your best bet.

For now.


Genuine question: what do you think that Apple has done that is evil?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: monopoly abuse
by Neolander on Sun 15th Jan 2012 08:47 in reply to "RE[4]: monopoly abuse"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

All companies work for maximizing their income. Therefore, most companies will not hesitate to do anything evil (by our standards) if it can give them either more money or more control that can be used to sip more money.

Once you are aware of this, the main question becomes "is what this company is doing beneficial to me or people I like" ? Myself, I appreciate the "closed silos" argument given above and which you conveniently ignore : I really don't want a Facebook account, so I would appreciate it if I could have read-only access to the website by other means.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: monopoly abuse
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 16th Jan 2012 16:09 in reply to "RE[4]: monopoly abuse"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

So basically your revised argument is the same as your previous one, but with a few more repetitions of the "OMG advertising company" handwaving. It's hard to tell exactly what your point is, because you dance it around it some much, but it appears to be this:

Actions can only have beneficial results if the motivations for them are 100% "pure"/altruistic. Which is like arguing that it would be bad if someone accidentally discovered a cure for cancer in process of trying to develop a penis enlargement pill.

Oh, and:

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


In other words, you've made a self-serving assumption that people only support Google out of naïveté (also known as a "Strawman argument").

Reply Parent Score: 2