Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Apr 2012 22:22 UTC
Google Interesting, if not inherently flawed, article by Farhad Manjoo. "Honan might be right that Google has violated its own definition of evil, but doesn't it matter that every one of its rivals also routinely violates Google's definition of evil?" I say flawed, because I value promises more than anything. Google has done things recently that break their initial promise. That sucks - there's no way around it. I do love Gruber's take, though: "It's not that Google is evil. It's that they're hypocrites. That's the difference between Google and its competitors." In other words, it's perfectly fine to be an evil scumbag company, as long as you're not claiming you're not. That's a rather... Warped view on morality.
Thread beginning with comment 512945
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The partial truth
by kwan_e on Thu 5th Apr 2012 16:36 UTC
Member since:

Let's face it, at least Google tries to stick to principles of openness and fair play as much as it is possible for a publicly traded company to do. Almost every other company has shrugged shoulders and asked "what's the point?"

We shouldn't excuse Google's bad points, but we can't use Google's bad points to excuse every other company's worse points.

We should hold companies to Google's standard, and we should continually push Google to achieve higher standards.

Reply Score: 3