Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Aug 2012 23:17 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 531627
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by kwan_e on Tue 21st Aug 2012 11:17
in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
That, and also I think there's enough Google fanboys around to give a biased viewpoint for free :p
I fail to understand what's wrong with bias. Nothing in the world falls exactly in the middle of any axis. The only thing that is wrong is sticking to a point along the axis where the truth of a matter isn't.
RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by Laurence on Tue 21st Aug 2012 14:20
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
I fail to understand what's wrong with bias. Nothing in the world falls exactly in the middle of any axis. The only thing that is wrong is sticking to a point along the axis where the truth of a matter isn't.
I never said there was anything wrong with a bias and I don't even see how any of that is even relevant to point.
Oracle: bad image thus pays people to promote the company.
Google: good image thus doesn't need to pay people to promote the company.
It's really no different to any other form of advertising, from Oracles perspective.




Member since:
2007-03-26
That, and also I think there's enough Google fanboys around to give a biased viewpoint for free :p
But in all seriousness, Google do have a much better public image compared with Oracle. So it's really not that hard to believe that Oracle would spend more to pay bloggers to represent a positive image for the company.