Google Snaps Up Stats Tool from Swedish Charity 106
paulraps writes "A stats program that began as a teaching aid for a university lecture has just been bought by Google for an undisclosed sum. The statistics tool, Trendalyzer, was developed by a professor and his son at Stockholm's Karolinska Institute. Unfortunately for the developers, the project has been run under the auspices of a charity, Gapminder, and financed over the last seven years by public money. Maybe that seemed smart at the time, but the professor, admitting that he won't see a dime of Google's cash, now seems regretful. As for what Google has purchased: 'Public organizations around the world invest 20 billion dollars a year producing different kinds of statistics. Until now, nobody has thought of collecting all the information in the same place. That should be possible with Trendalyzer, which will be able to present that quantity of data in a clear way as well as giving the user the ability to compare many different kinds of information.'"
huh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ulterior Motives (Score:5, Insightful)
Google, I dig you for now, but I'm not really sure that I care for the idea of having google own nearly all of the search data for every search done by every individual around the planet in the history of google and beyond combined with all of the world-wide traffic analysis data.
And as someone who would be targeted for this service -- why would I bother? There are plenty of free open source utilities out there that provide every ounce of data you could ever want and they're incredibly easy to configure and deploy.
No, the benefit here seems to be less for the end-users deploying the service and more for whoever google then turns around and sells the massive amounts of correlated information to. For instance, let's see every bit of data about a specific user so we can see everything from each search he does to his entire browsing trail. Bet we could sell that for a lot of money!
Hopefully you will still have a simple way as a user to prevent google from collecting this information just like you can do with their stupid Urchin service (by blocking it). And, sadly, people will still continue to use this new service because they'll sell out their mother's medical history and offer up a sample of their own blood and cholesterol ratings if it means getting something "for free".
Developers (Score:4, Insightful)
From the Gapminder site [gapminder.org]:
To me, this seems to imply that the professor and his son were the original developers, not the maintainers. Or perhaps just his son is going to Google?
Re:So we can look forward to more accurately.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now it seems that if you don't offer advertising and you don't make money off it, there is somehow no reason to be bothered with it. I offer a service and have for almost a decade now and I've spent about $30k on it. No ads. No fees. No nothing. It's a service. I love providing it. It's enjoyable. Could I make money on it? Sure. Have companies offered me a lot of money to buy it from me? Yeah. Will I sell it? Fuck no. What's the point of the web if it's just reduced to one giant market?
If this was developed with public money... (Score:5, Insightful)
People Do Things For Different Reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet life is not fair and often people have regrets and indulge in "what if" fantasies.
For something like this, even if the fellow gets no money, he can get publicity and recognition and might be able to leverage that into something to get him more money if that's what he wants.
The past is past and the price for obtaining "justice" and "fairness" can be quite high and more than one should have to pay; you can lose your future doing it.
Learn from the past and develop a plan to move forward and leverage on the lessons learned; the best revenge is always living well.
sure, like everyone would love to work for google (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ouch (Score:1, Insightful)
Wrong license? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait a minute.. (Score:4, Insightful)
And how did this software get under the control of the non-profit? Is the prof getting a salary from them?
That the summary says Google "snapped up" the software seems to suggest that Google snatched it out of their hands or something. I've got a feeling that money changed hands somewhere along the line. Somebody got paid, and I'm betting it was a bundle. Anybody who's smart enough to write an important bit of software ought be able to read a contract before he signs it. And if he thought that just because an organization is non-profit it means that it's not looking to get a pile of cash then maybe he's been vacationing on Pluto for the past few decades or doesn't read the business section of the newspaper. If he didn't write the software to make money, then he shouldn't cry because he didn't make money. If he wanted to make money from his software, then he should have asked a few questions before releasing the project.
I'm among the most anti-big corporation commentors around here, but I'm more intrigued by what's not in this article as by what's there. I'm not ready to hang an evil jacket on Google just for buying something that was for sale.