Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Apr 2013 18:44 UTC
Google "Beneath the sheen of do-gooder ideology, FairSearch can be most charitably described as a Google watchdog. It seeks to fan the flames of disapproval where they've started organically, originate them where they haven't, and generally disseminate negativity toward the Google brand. Think of it as a PR firm working to destroy rather than create goodwill." To make matters worse, FairSearch' work isn't even very good.
Thread beginning with comment 558347
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Mixed feelings about this
by TechGeek on Sat 13th Apr 2013 05:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mixed feelings about this"
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Why do you assume that once their competition is gone they are going to turn into something worse than Microsoft? You seem to be missing one important thing in my opinion. Microsoft turned into a monster by eliminating the competition. Their monopoly came from shady business practices and a will to own the entire market. Google's success comes from being more innovative that the competition. Google is doing none of the things that Microsoft did to eliminate competition. In fact, they are for the most part going out of their way to promote open technologies.

I know its not popular, but contrary to most people's beliefs, you don't have to be a total douchebag if you run a corporation. There are some corporations that actually have a set of values. Do you think Red Hat is going to turn around some day and go all close source and scorn the open source community?

You can't compare companies like Google and Red Hat with other companies. They are companies whose business is built on community good will. When that's gone they will be out of business. Considering there are alternatives for everything Red Hat and Google do, do you really think they would stay in business is the community turned against them?

Reply Parent Score: 5

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I know its not popular, but contrary to most people's beliefs, you don't have to be a total douchebag if you run a corporation. There are some corporations that actually have a set of values.


'Values' and 'corporations' do not mix. Remember, we're talking about a company that got caught red-handed, driving down streets and slurping public wifi data, and then had the brazen brass balls to say they did it on accident. LMAO, are you f'ing kidding me? Google itself makes its money on advertising, so right off the bat, to steal a quote from a famous movie, they rank in my book somewhere between a cockroach and the white stuff that accumulates in the corner of your mouth when you're really thirsty. Hell, they recently yanked all of the ad blockers from the Play store, which drew the ire of many users, including myself.

I work for a company who claims to have values and to operate at the highest ethical standards, but it's only lip service at best; I've seen them do some pretty shady stuff, like dialing into clients' systems in the middle of the night and downloading their customer data. They do this because it is actually in the fine print of their contracts with the client, so they can get away with it. So what a company says and what it actually does are two completely different things.

Considering there are alternatives for everything Red Hat and Google do, do you really think they would stay in business is the community turned against them?


I don't really consider Redhat a threat; they're 'nice' because they have to be, and probably always will. Google, on the other hand, is a different story. Once they become the 'de facto' for many of their services/apps, where it becoems difficult-to-impossible to leave (like Youtube), it's gonna be game over. How do I know this? You ever heard the parable of the frog and the scorpion?

Reply Parent Score: 4

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

You are making an argument based on guilt by association. Sure Google has made some mistakes. But you can't write them off like they have been anti-competitive until they actually are. Or is the whole innocent until proven guilty thing beyond your reasoning?

Edited 2013-04-14 00:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Do you think Red Hat is going to turn around some day and go all close source and scorn the open source community?

Red hat is actually not a good example for the point that you are trying to make. They have demonstrated already that they will go as far as the license permits to gain advantages over their competitors. It was big news when they made the commit history of their RHEL kernel source non-public in order to combat Oracle Enterprise Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 4

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

That was unfortunate, but they have also gone out of their way to pay for closed source technology, including patents, and given them back to the community. Frankly, if Oracle wasn't trying to leach off Red Hat, it would have never been done. But like I said, no one is perfect.

Reply Parent Score: 4

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

They have demonstrated already that they will go as far as the license permits to gain advantages over their competitors. It was big news when they made the commit history of their RHEL kernel source non-public in order to combat Oracle Enterprise Linux.


Seeing as how GPL doesn't require you to make commit history available along with the source, they were going beyond the requirements of the licence in the first place.

Reply Parent Score: 4