Google Gets Away With What Microsoft Couldn't 481
FreshlyShornBalls writes "WebProNews is reporting that
Google's new beta toolbar apparently sports an "AutoLink" feature which appends hyperlinks to existing content. These hyperlinks, of course, point to their services, such as maps for addresses, isdn numbers for books, etc. Sounds an awful lot like Microsoft's "Smart Tags"." Update by J : ... except that Microsoft's proposal was in the monopoly browser while Google's software is a third-party add-on, and Microsoft's was (originally) on by default while Google's is a button to click.
Easy Tiger! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an opt-in feature designed to help people who want it. Google aren't ramming this down people's throats.
There is also the option to change the default mapping app - you can switch between Mapquest and Yahoo maps in addition to Google's offering. A nice touch - google didn't have to do that. It's just a shame this only works for US addresses right now.
Of course, this is all academic. It runs on IE, and the average
I of course detonated the PC I used to test the toolbar in a controlled explosion a few minutes ago.
Not a monolopy ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Googles optional toolbar points at their services, that is hardly an abuse of a monolopy. Heck, I don't even have a google tool bar, I don't want one.
But at work, I'm forced to have a windows machine.
Until or unless Google becomes a big monolopy who can force everyone to use their crap, the fact that Google does something that would be illegal for Microsoft to do is irrelevant.
Why is this so tough?
Re:Easy Tiger! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy Tiger! (Score:4, Insightful)
The obvious reply: Would you say the same if it was Microsoft?
The difference being microsoft controls the OS (Score:2, Insightful)
vs Google toolbar which you can optionally download. Don't like it, don't download it.
Simple.
Re:Easy Tiger! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It is simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Remove those rose-tinted glasses (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because its founders are young and "wacky" doesn't mean they can't make very corporate decisions in polo shirts instead of pinstripe shirts. The platitude about "thinking outside the box" already sounds trite coming from Google. The decision to fire a blogger for speaking up [infoworld.com] is proof that Google has a PR department just like any other corporate minded drone army.
Bill Gates was once young and just as idealistic as Sergey and Brin. Bill Gates once said that he was planning to give away most if not all of his fortune to charity - I bet he wasn't labelled "evil" back then
Re:Easy Tiger! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, there was an opt-in feature. When XP was installed, it told you to install a new passport account. You don't really need to setup MS passport , but most people seeing it thought it was, or were to indifferent to ignore it.
Why do they have to be exactly the same? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should Google treating its users with respect and consistently creating a quality product be worth nothing? This article sounds like it is using the logic of an eight year old.
Microsoft is the company known for being a big bully who uses its position of power to cram things down its users throats. It is the opposite of Google. This is why the reaction is different, and perfectly valid as well.
I am also much less inclined to trust Microsoft's search engine, Microsoft's maps, etc. than anything Google puts out there.
We have seen the enemy ..and it is us (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's Smarttags could have had great benefits and brought about semantic-web like features if only people weren't paranoid. After all, the website owner had full control over how and where smart tags were displayed on his page.
Now, 3 years later, Google does a stripped down version of the same to make themselves more money (MS' smart tag gave the website owner options - Google does not), and we all scream asking for the equivalent of DRM on web pages.
We who don't want to pay for the music and movies, who don't want to pay for software, who believe in the 'creative commons', throw a collective fit when a user agent wants to do something cool with the HTML already downloaded to the computer already.
It's been over a decade since the first browser - and all we have to show for it from Microsoft, Netscape, Opera and Mozilla put together is what? A new way of doing tables and tabs!
Stop cribbing and let someone innovate.
Re:It is simple (Score:5, Insightful)
trustworthiness (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not a monolopy ... (Score:4, Insightful)
You'r "forced" to have a windows machine at work? So did Bill Gates and his storm troopers kick down your door one day, shanghai you and chain you to a desk in some tech support hell?
Or are you "forced" in the same way that dairy worker is "forced" to work with dairy products or a carpenter is "forced" to work with wood?
Re:Easy Tiger! (Score:5, Insightful)
It really helped how it popped up every 20 minutes, "HEY! You could be the proud owner of a FREE passport account!!!" in those little speech bubbles. Makes it hard to ignore, especially when you know that if you go through the process that damn bubble will go away.
Re:Easy Tiger! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not a monolopy ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't be such an ass. If a company requires a Windows desktop PC, and you can't install anything else on it, then YES, you're forced to use a Windows machine. What's so hard to understand that (unless you're a Microsoft apologist)?
Re:Easy Tiger! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It is simple (Score:1, Insightful)
If MS does innovate, it usually means buying a company that did the innovating. My idea of innovation must be completely different than Microsofts. I see it as contributions to computer science and MS sees it as bring a product (however it was obtained) to market. And usually this spells the death of the innovating company.
Re:Easy Tiger! (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit.
The website owner had complete control over the SmartTags.
And this is why your opening statement is bullshit. Google's solution empowers the user/consumer whereas Microsoft's empowered Microsoft and any it could co-opt into using Smart Tags.
Re:Not a monolopy ... (Score:2, Insightful)
So there are no other jobs? If using a Windows system is such a hardship that you catagorize it as being "forced" in the same way your "forced" to put on clothing or get out of bed in the morning then I would recomend a change of jobs. I've had jobs where I was "forced" to use Solaris, Macs, and yes even Linux.
It has been said that you are the master of your own destiny. So make a change or suck it up.
Re:It is simple (Score:4, Insightful)
BIG Difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of the difference is qualitative. In a smart tag envioronment, it felt like we were going to be advertised to - like text saying "broadband" might be linked to MSN broadband. In this case, it feels like Google is trying to be legitimately helpful in a way that also happens to generate cash for them. If I see directions on a page, having the option of asking Google to magically link that address into Google maps is a good thing.
The business model is different. Google makes money because they help you. You have lots of choices, and still choose Google, and all of us can use something else the moment they piss us off. Microsoft was shoehorning smart tags in because people don't know they have a choice in web browsers. Users would either be annoyed or oblivous to smart tags, but would put up with it for a (perceived) lack of options. Google needs users, users "need" Microsoft - that's the differing dynamic.
Re:Not a monolopy ... (Score:1, Insightful)
No it's more like the carpenter is forced to work with balsa wood and tools made by Cheap-O-Tin-Tools because they own 90% of the market.
No conviction (Score:2, Insightful)
As a convicted monopolist...
Microsoft was not "convicted" of anything. The company was the defendant in a civil action [usdoj.gov], not a crimial case. You sound like a fool using that ridiculous term.
Re:It is simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Giving Google absolute power is no better than giving Microsoft absolute power, the only difference is that Google does not seem corrupt enough to abuse it yet. And yet, absolute power is often cited as a CAUSE of corruption.
The reason that the U.S. Constitution limits presidential terms is because there may come a dictator who begins to tear the country apart. "We The People" have a chance to get rid of him easily after four years, but failing that, he's out for good after eight. It acts as a sort of sanity check - if the people are crazy enough to let him have a second term, they might be crazy enough to let him continue dictating for 20 years. These balances work to temper the power of people who are considered good, because people are corruptible. Corporations are people too.
Google certainly seems like a cool, nice company today, and I agree with that. But turning them into a monopoly over the search market is putting all our eggs in one basket. Letting them into our personal machines with their toolbar and desktop search tool is handing them extraordinary powers. We don't mind because we trust them because they're not evil, of course - but what if they turned evil tonight? We've allowed them to become so deeply entrenched in our lives...
Re:It is simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It is simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is a good company and I trust them until they break that trust.
ONE too many times? You have to be kidding, unless after that one time you just stopped using MS products forever (which is damn near impossible, even with my magical consumer dollar power. I have to work.)
Re:It is simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is good because it makes money by making things better for people, thus attracting customers.
Microsoft is evil because it makes money by making things worse for people (or at least not as good as the alternatives), relying on lock-in to avoid losing business.
MS would rather (and does) hold others back than push itself forward. therein is the "evil".
Re:It is simple (Score:3, Insightful)
I like the idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not a monolopy ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is he saying that he doesn't like his job? He's saying is that part of his job's requirement is that he uses windows. Not all that insane - its part of my job requirement. If I want to work here, then I too am *forced* to use windows. Its a condition that he'd rather not have, as part of a larger thing (employment) that he wants.
I want to have a comfortable, clean, house that I can live in. As part of that, I am forced to either clean it myself, or have someone else clean it. The fact that I am *forced* to either clean it or have someone else clean it doesn't at all mean I should burn down my house and go live in a cardboard box...it just means that not everything someone wants is 100% roses.
Since he is forced to use windows, as part of his job, and since a vast swath of folk are in the same boat, his concern still stands: its a captive audience that shouldn't have the smart tags *forced* on to them.
Re:It is simple (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this not wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, here comes Google with links to its own services that are funded by
So, in effect Google is making Slashdot nothing more than a big-ass marketing tool for Google while not reimbursing Slashdot for the privilege. In fact, with respect to marketing they are indeed reducing the potential for Slashdot to make money on its own web site using its own advertisers. And they also are not going to give Slashdot the option of opting out of the practice.
Given all of that, I think that I'd prefer Smart Tags, thank you.
earned trust.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How is this not wrong? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, in effect Google is making Slashdot nothing more than a big-ass marketing tool for Google while not reimbursing Slashdot for the privilege.
Similarly, the Yellow pages provide information on services and goods mentioned on Slashdot. A Slashdot user may read about a new CPU, then look in the yellow pages for a computer store. So, in effect the yellow pages are making Slashdot nothing more than a big-ass marketing tool for the yellow pages while not reimbursing Slashdot for the privilege. Those bastards!
This is a tool the user has to specifically download, then enable for a page. There are even provisions that allow you to set other map providers, etc. as the resource. Google went out of their way to play nice on this one. The alternative is that no one should be allowed to parse the text of a web site and run programs on that text, without reimbursing the owner of the site. Right now I run a number of services on text in every application, including Slashdot in my browser. One of them looks up words in Google. Are you saying this is improper? I mean I might read Slashdot, highlight "AMD 64," right click and select lookup in Google, and then buy one, all without compensating Slashdot. This new Google toolbar feature is the same thing, except streamlined. I probably won't use it, but Slashdot has no right to tell me what programs I can or can't run on their text. They offer it for public consumption and I look at ads while reading it. Their is no reason to pay them twice.
Re:No conviction (Score:4, Insightful)
He's not even right "technically." There are civil as well as convictions, as 5 minutes with google will show. A vast amount of legal literature on civil law supports this use of terminology, as does the more common dictionary:
What Microsoft did was a violation of the law. The court convicted them of said violation, i.e. offense. The method of redress involves civil law, but that does not change the fact that a court has convicted Microsoft of abusing its monopoly position, both in terms of common English parlence, and in terms of (at least) layperson's legal language. Perhaps a lawyer might parse it somewhat differently, but if Groklaw is any guide, it doesn't appear so.
What we have here are Microsoft apologists desperately trying to bluster and intimidate the rest of us into changing our correct usage of the language through ad homonim attacks and disparagements in an effort to redefine the very terminology and control the language used in any discussion of their beloved monopolist.
They would have us believe that our use of the term "convicted monopolist" with respect to Microsoft is incorrect, when in fact it is perfectly correct, both in laypersons' terms and in casual legal terms (at the very least).
who controls rendering? (Score:2, Insightful)
A corporation isn't a person (Score:4, Insightful)
"...One central theme of the documentary is an attempt to assess the "personality" of the corporate "person" by using diagnostic criteria like the DSM-IV; Robert Hare, a University of British Columbia Psychology Professor and FBI consultant, compares the modern, profit-driven corporation to that of a clinically diagnosed psychopath..."
By the way I am not a communist hippy but a proud owner of two company's and think that honesty and business can go together.
Depending who take responsibility for the actions of the corporation some companies act better than others, the problem with public companies is that nobody wants to take responsibility for their negatives actions. Stockholders want no responsibility but profit and CEO's claim they have to obey to stockholders.
Re:Easy Tiger! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not a monolopy ... (Score:3, Insightful)
so it is a perfectly valid comment to indicate that in that instance Microsoft is NOT forcing him to use windows - his company is. different story completely.
There's no such thing as basic laws of humanity (Score:2, Insightful)
Throughout humanity, there is a basic standard of right and wrong.We may disagree on some of the smaller points of it, but the general principles are there. Don't steal, don't murder, don't lie, etc. Evil is something that breaks one of these basic rules.
You talk about it as if it's universal and has been understood by all cultures, maybe even thinking of it as part of human nature. What about adultery (not all cultures banned it, and I hope your wife wanting to have sex with me is not a small point for you)? What about white lies? What about death sentence, is the American governmeent evil? What about war? What about not mixing with black people, is every white person from before the 20th century evil?
In general MS and Google are neither evil because neither of them are breaking these basic laws of humanity.
So, if we don't break a couple of rules then we are good, just like the ten commandments, How convinient!, but I hope in my hearth the human beings are much more complex than that. Now, there's also your interpretation of every one of those rules (which cause most of the christian religious separation BTW).
"Don't murder", murder what, only human beings? If so, don't murder any human being? What if I assist on the process but I didn't pull the plug? What if I decided to kill my baby instead of your wife (who is now pregnant, hehe =) )?, that's certainly murder. Am I expected to keep my mother alive for 5 years even if she has no life, cannot speak or move, and, after I have no money left, take a second mortage, sell my cars, and stop my kids from going to school to keep my mother quasi-alive another year (because if I don't, then I'm an evil person)?
"Don't steal". Is a revolution, where you take some land away from another country, stealing? Is an unwanted popup taking space which wasn't authorized stealing?
Human begins are much more complex and what you talk about are social rules (not laws of humanity!) that would help people live well in a certain type of society where those rules apply. You can change those rules and we'll have another society where human beings are still alive, eventhough it's better or worse.