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 513107
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So basically...
by Lennie on Sat 7th Apr 2012 00:33 UTC
Member since:

So basically people are not smart enough to understand what they are losing by using Apple's closed environment and submitting all the private information to Facebook.

And to stay relevant Google has to come up with an answer, which means they'll have to be (more) evil to be able to compete.

Well, that sucks.

Edited 2012-04-07 00:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2