The In-Progress Plot To Kill Google 234
twitter writes "Four years after Steve Ballmer vowed to kill Google, Wired details Microsoft's, AT&T's, and big publishers' ongoing slog. The story is filled with astroturfers, lobbyists and others spending millions to manufacture FUD about privacy and monopoly in order to protect the obsolete business models of their patrons, who are mostly known for progress-halting monopoly and invasion of privacy. Their greatest coup to date was preventing Google from rescuing Yahoo."
conspiracy theories (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it FUD if there's some truth to it? (Score:1, Insightful)
LOL, Dude, you really went all in, didn't you?
If you are worried about privacy, just manage your cookies manually and don't put all eggs in one basket. OK?
What about the bank that keeps your money? (Score:5, Insightful)
I see no sense in mistrusting one large organization that keeps your virtual goods, while trusting another organization with your material wealth. If you mistrust Google, shouldn't you keep all your money under the mattress or buried in the garden?
Since when are concerns about privacy FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not Microsoft or anyone else is trying to "kill Google" doesn't change whether or not Google is trampling on privacy.
I for one don't trust ANY company to do anything except look out for its own interests.
The idea that Microsoft is bad, therefore Google is good is silly. They are both large corporations. Both want to find ways to get you to send them your money. Heck, I would love to find a way to convince you to send me your money. I find it disturbing that so many people seem to trust Google to the extent they seem to trust them.
Hate on Microsoft all you want, but don't make the dangerous assumption that "if MS is bad, then Google is good". Evaluate the actions of each company on its own merits, not in comparison to one another.
Re:conspiracy theories (Score:4, Insightful)
Google should love the idea of Microsoft buying Yahoo. One more albatross around Microsoft's neck, a lot more straws to grasp at while it flails around searching for direction, and a bunch of cash taken out of Microsoft's coffer = less resources.
And face it: yahoo is becoming a failure in many areas. Its search, while second best, still sucks. It's webmail stagnates since the early 2000s and the "new" yahoo mail is atrocious. Etc, etc, etc. Nothing better than to hobble MS than with a soon-to-be hasbeen. Just like Compaq and HP merger screwed both companies for years, this will be much worse.
As a consumer, I would like Yahoo to keep going, to innovate and update, to keep Google on its toes. But as Google, nothing would be better than to let Microsoft have at it.
they don't need to "manufacture" (Score:2, Insightful)
The story is filled with astroturfers, lobbyists and others spending millions to manufacture FUD about privacy and monopoly
Um...they don't need to manufacture. There are serious privacy and internet coherency issues. Google has already become a major, slim-but-possible single-point-of-failure.
It's so bad, I see people enter domain names for popular sites into the search bar and then click on the search results.
Monopoly Arena (Score:3, Insightful)
Let them all use fears of, and laws against, monopoly and privacy abuse to try to kill each other. Let's have a business atmosphere of damnation and recriminations for any raised evidence of monopoly and privacy abuse, brought on by experienced, rich, aggressive and well funded competitors. That's how our system is supposed to harness competition to drive enforcement of open access to a fairly competitive market governed by rules that protect us from unfair competition.
I'm not worried about Google. It's at least as smart, rich and connected as is Microsoft, and nearly as connected as AT&T. Let it slam them for their monopolies and abuses. It's got a lot more material to use than they do. Every move they make against each other along those lines is a move in the public service, against monopoly and privacy abuse.
And I'm not worried about Yahoo, either. It got a $half-billion in that original IPO, and $billions since. If it couldn't use its early lead, vast riches, top brand and huge audience to make it, it should die. And if Yahoo + Google is more monopolistic and worse for privacy, then dead Yahoo is better.
Whos to say google didn't submit this story? (Score:3, Insightful)
Whos to say google didn't submit this story?
Anyhow, google is what most non-technical users consider the internet to be. Infact the way people browse after watching an advert for car insurance proved it to me. Instead of going to the url which the advert mentioned, they just google "car insurence". To us that seems strange as we are good at remembering or working out urls, but to people who dont understand the net, or dont care about various tlds google is the perfect answer.
Its game over,
Re:What about the bank that keeps your money? (Score:1, Insightful)
The OP forgot that Google also knows which websites you visit via Google ads even if you don't use the search (also they use that too because they know what you click on).
The difference is that there are laws protecting your money and the general public cares about money. People know what it means if someone screws with their money.
The laws surround privacy are fuzzy and getting fuzzier because the public doesn't understand or care. Speaking of which, I gotta go because a new episode of "Ow, my balls" is on.
Re:Is it FUD if there's some truth to it? (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to Microsoft who have no information on you at all .... ?
Most of the above services only apply in the USA and you had to sign up for (and read the agreement) the only exception I can see is search history (which is linked only to your ip address) all the rest you either signed away your rights to the information when you signed up, or is only linked to you if you want it to be
Google works well (Score:5, Insightful)
I think folks are forgetting one important point. The reason why I like Google is that their search engine works extremely well. In fact, how often does google search find what you're looking for? Plus the fact that the service is "free" and paid for by relevant advertising is great. I don't see Microsoft giving you free software now do I? Nor does Microsoft's software always work as well as they claim it does. Sure Google probably collects a huge amount of information but so does the government. You have to trust someone and so far Google has shown that it hasn't breached that trust. A standard rule in life is to initially trust someone until it's been broken once. Then it's an all out war. You can't be paranoid of everyone that's new. It just stops changes.
If anything I think this is just proof that companies that would force the money out of you and steal everything you have are afraid of Google just because it's not doing the same and winning the hearts of the public. Nice try but I don't think this will work.
Re:What about the bank that keeps your money? (Score:1, Insightful)
Totally different.
Banks are regulated, and the money is definitively yours. In most countries, your account is registered with government who insures that money. It is unlikely that a bank would steal your money. (Misspend it...perhaps... but even then the government bails them out).
But Google has no such regulatory obligations. They don't need to keep the information, yet they do. They could sell it, data mine it, or lose it. Even if someone got my account numbers that way, I'm insured. And if a bank released the records for my accounts it would not be personally damaging.
In the poster's example, Google has 10 times as much information as the bank, and does not insure you against loss.
Re:WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're working on the assumption all humans have the same psychology and that people in certain jobs don't get into those jobs because they have traits that are rather self-serving as opposed to being charitable and helpful.
Re:WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ? (Score:5, Insightful)
it's absolutely appalling to see people feel they have to tie every move which happens on top of the business world to some 'logical and rational market move' or some darwinian bullshit. ...
they are people. yes, a board of directors, executives CAN feel positive emotions, and CAN move out of goodwill, or a sense of honor, or any other similar emotion.
I disagree. Google is no longer a cute, friendly little startup. It is a massive corporation. And that is the operative word.
Corporations are primarily in business to make money for their shareholders. Sure, the people running the corporation MAY feel positive emotions, but at the end of the day they WILL choose the option that will bring in the most cash or they will be fired.
Part of the board's decision may be to promote a "do no evil" or environmentally friendly mentality. Don't get me wrong, the board may even genuinely believe such propaganda, but the stock holders don't care. They want to see the stock go up or the board members replaced.
At the business level, it is no longer about positive emotions, goodwill or honor. It's about cold hard cash. Business decisions must reflect that in either the short or long term.
Re:You cannot win with just engineers and algorith (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm an advertiser with Google, and allow me to say that those companies do not need to "politically bully". There's plenty of grassroots hatred to go around.
Everyone still has this misguided notion that Google is out there helping them out despite all evidence to the opposite.
I advertise on Google, and I'm saying right now they've pretty much got a monopoly. They have no serious competition. MSN lacks an algorithm, and Yahoo lacks competence in the PPC department. Google doesn't have to 'crush' competitors in the same way MS has in the past because their fanatical userbase keeps the competition forever in obscurity. Beyond that, they're terribly difficult to deal with. They often selectively enforce irrational rules, have support staff that flat out lie, gouging margins where they can, etc.
So far the closer people I've met are to the big G, the more paranoid about it they are.
They're not a victim. They're the godamn boogeyman. And yes, they probably have your credit card.
Re:WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ? (Score:3, Insightful)
they are people. yes, a board of directors, executives CAN feel positive emotions, and CAN move out of goodwill, or a sense of honor, or any other similar emotion.
Are you joking? the day a board of directors would do anything for a reason other than to maximize profits, they would be sued straight away.
Re:What about the bank that keeps your money? (Score:5, Insightful)
The day you feel that a bank is acting against your best interests, you go and withdraw all of your money. Your relationship with them is finished.
Now go to google and tell them that you want all information related to you in their database to be deleted, as of today.
Re:WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ? (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you know that they don't care? Have you asked them? A large amount of Google shares are owned by employees (of which the biggest chunk is the two founders and chief executive). Many of them are rich, and likely to care about more things than just making even more money.
on Yahoo folder vs GMail tag (Score:2, Insightful)
folder are inferior to tag, period.
If you want "folder" in GMail juste use one tag.
But you can be more flexible with multi-tag
my 2 cent
Re:WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're working on the assumption all humans have the same psychology and that people in certain jobs don't get into those jobs because they have traits that are rather self-serving as opposed to being charitable and helpful.
Indeed, one study I've read estimated that close to 1 in 20 men are incapable of sufficient empathy for it to be a significant motivator--- yes, 5% of men are sociopaths! Of course, not all such people are murdering freaks as movies and tv news would have you believe. The John Wayne Gacys of the world are merely the few sociopaths with poor impulse control. The vast majority of them are intelligent enough to have figured out that society expects empathy and have learned to fake it well enough to get by. Sociopaths may think we're all just objects to be used, but they can still recognize that we "objects" will throw them in a cage if they don't play the game according to the rules. Think of all the truly awful self-centered jerks you've ever had to deal with in your life--- particularly the ones that seemed charming at first--- and that 1:20 ratio starts to make sense. It's not a comforting thought, but it bears keeping in mind. Being a high functioning sociopath isn't something that would necessarily be evolutionarily selected out.
I firmly believe that an uncomfortably large percentage of people who rise to power positions--- be it political office or CEO's office--- are just such high-functioning sociopaths.
Slashdot: FUD astroturfer's home turf (Score:4, Insightful)
The population of /. are prone to skepticim. They're mostly young libertarian geek males, and respond well to rebellion against 1) authority, 2) anything "irrational," and 3) invasion of privacy. They also love to expose contradiction, whether real or otherwise. FUD astroturfers understand this. They know that /. is a good place to plant the seed of their message: "Google is an evil behemoth, and wants to invade your life. They're like the next Microsoft, but worse."
Re:Since when are concerns about privacy FUD? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course you can't give them a blanket "GOOD" label, but you can't put MS and google in the same category.
One company has done everything in its power to screw over the consumer (via monopoly rents) and hasn't given a damn about goodwill. The other one doesn't have a history of negative behavior.
Which one would a rational person trust more?
Re:conspiracy theories (Score:3, Insightful)
I recently switched my parents because they were complaining for some time they were getting too much spam (mostly their fault as they were signed on to stupid things, hopefully corrected that with advice that may have gone in one ear and out the other). But my motivation was simply the new gmail video chat - as they are the type that can't figure it out with an outside program - but hopefully something like that will finally allow me to keep in video contact with them.
But every time I look at Yahoo's mail, I feel I'm stuck in 2001. The most common sense thing: conversations as google tracks them, keeps inboxes so much more manageable. Tags are open-ended and great (when you designate them yourself, unlike current /. system which is low in value), but more than that: it always feels as it's evolving because it is.
Yahoo's new mail is so slow and I don't even know the point - maybe the new chat? The point isn't so much the millions of users Yahoo has, it's the stagnation that leads to eventual death and decline. Even a black hole with all it's mass dissipates slowly. And that's how I feel about a company in decline, getting less and less attention.
Often, I think Yahoo's mistake is this web portal mentality taken over from AOL. Looking at a hotmail or yahoo main page today (or a my yahoo page) was often an excercise in cluttered information overload and contrasted with Google's keep-it-simple approach. It turned into a portal with a search engine attached.
I like yahoo's finance, especially with no sign-in, the ticker still has stored what stocks I looked up. I'd hate to see Yahoo go, but they definitely need to focus on a core set of services to replace or update what became stale.
Re:WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Over what time frame?
After World War II, Merck delivered streptomycin to Japan to treat rampant tuberculosis that had arisen in the poverty of the war economy. The Japanese couldn't afford this, so Merck synthesized, shipped, and distributed the drug at it's own substantial expense. Merck shareholders sued against this obviously unprofitable act. The shareholders lost their suit, mostly around two arguments. First, that public goodwill, though difficult to value directly, is an investment in future business. Second, that employee morale can be similarly valued as a long-term investment.
As a fairly new employee of Google, I'll assert that Google has similar motivations. Google relies on the trust of the public for it's long-term profits, so a decision that makes money today but endangers public trust is a bad business decision that would risk the wrath of the shareholders. Second, Google's employees are at least as afraid of what the company could become as the public. If there was even a hint that Google was violating the public trust employee morale would evaporate and one of the big reasons that most of us geeks work there would be gone.
In short, Google is absolutely motivated by forces other than next month's profits and they would morons if they were to sacrifice their long-term interest for short-term profits. Lucky for me, it doesn't look like Google management has any morons. Some idealists, perhaps, who didn't expect the full court press from Microsoft et. al., but that's forgivable under the "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." metric.
Re:WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, the board may even genuinely believe such propaganda, but the stock holders don't care. They want to see the stock go up or the board members replaced.
You're forgetting that sometimes good will is worth paying money for. Wal Mart probably won't disappear due to people thinking that it's a terrible business and horribly unethical, but it will keep Target alive. I know people who register at Target simply because registering at WalMart would split the gift givers between those who go to Wal Mart and those who refuse to, and vice versa on those giving gifts.
As for being environmentally friendly, there are a lot of people who will make purchases and other decisions based on those factors. If you're an internet company where the cost of switching is near 0 (which Google is), then part of remaining viable in the marketplace is making sure that people don't want to switch, and part of that is making sure that the news around your company doesn't cause people to have a bad taste in their mouth when they use your product. People liking Google and thinking that it's moral is absolutely vital to their business strategy, and the only sure way to make people think that you're moral is to be moral (and then publicize it).
How to Kill Google: a HOWTO (Score:4, Insightful)
Step 2) Make search engine accessible on the Internet.
Step 3) There is no step three.
If you manage Step 1, you'll "kill" Google in the same way Google killed Yahoo!.
Re:WHY the hell it cant be heroism ? or goodwill ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes a board of directors is liable for it's actions and can be sued for not doing things that will further a companies goals. (Mind you this is different than always maximizing profits, something you also don't seem to understand.)
The idea behind suing the board because they didn't maximize profits is that the board is required to act in the best interest of the shareholders. Given that Google's motto has been "Do No Evil" from the beginning and that shareholders bought their shares with no evil as a company goal, it is safe to say that Google doing evil in favor of profits is not in the shareholders interest.
Hello Astroturfer! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello Astroturfer! This isn't about "who's good" or "who's bad", this is about "what are the consequences".
What are the consequences of Google's actions? What are the consequences of Microsoft's actions?
What have they done in the past?
What would Google do to Yahoo's products like Yahoo Widgets or del.icio.us if they bought it? What would Microsoft do?
What did Google do to YouTube, or anything else they've bought?
What did Microsoft do to Hotmail? Well, they spent three years trying to convert a working UNIX-based environment over to Windows and finally declared victory using a UNIX hosted on Windows. Then they used it as a platform to push their proprietary "Passport" scheme.
As for Stallman, he's pulled enough dodgy stuff himself. GCC pulled a classic "embrace and extend" attack on competing open source C compilers (yes, there used to be several). He decided he didn't like Tcl and created a scheme to kill Tcl based on a scheme interpreter called "Guile". Take anything he says with a grain of salt.
Re:What about the bank that keeps your money? (Score:1, Insightful)
Go to your bank and try tell them you want your credit rating deleted. It'll work about as well.
Re:conspiracy theories (Score:2, Insightful)
People have already beaten the "folders vs. labels" argument to death. I just couldn't help but notice what you said above. I'm honestly curious--just how are Yahoo's filters superior? I just checked out both systems, and they appear (to me, at least) exactly the same. Except that Yahoo limits you to 15, and Google doesn't care how many you make.
Re:What about the bank that keeps your money? (Score:1, Insightful)
Now tell the bank you want them to stop assessing your credit...