Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet IT

The World According to Google 214

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the don't-over-diversify dept.
Ant writes "BBC News has an interesting article and a streaming video documentary on Google. It has interviews with Google staff and people who dislike the company. From the article: 'In the 18 months since its stock market flotation, Google has been transformed from a company that prided itself on being simple and effective, into a multi-headed high tech beast which wants to get involved in everything.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The World According to Google More

The World According to Google

Comments Filter:

  • World Domination! (Score:5, Funny)

    by isecore ( 132059 ) <isecore@i s e c o r e.net> on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:03PM (#14533468) Homepage
    what's next from Google:

    WORLD DOMINATION! (currently in beta)

  • The Internet (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mercedo ( 822671 ) * on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:04PM (#14533471) Homepage Journal
    Those who rule the Internet rule the world.

    • Re:The Internet (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 )
      Those who rule the Internet rule the world.

      That's a bit hyperbolic, but is exactly why we don't want the UN running DNS.

      • And so (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TubeSteak ( 669689 )
        And so we should leave it in the hands of an organization susceptible to political pressure from the United States of America?

        Just throwing that idea out there.

        For example: I wanted to register Slashdot.xxx, but someone kicked up a fuss and now that isn't going to happen.
      • That's a bit hyperbolic, but is exactly why we don't want the UN running DNS.
        Yeah, if US policies had to pass some crappy "world test [washtimes.com]," our soldiers would miss out on a lot of combat pay and VA medical benefits!
        • I have no idea where you came up with that comment, and yes, I did read your article (typical Washington Times hyperbole). All US soldiers, sailors, and marines serving in a combat zone whether under US or UN perview receive combat pay. Furthermore, if you incur disabling injuries, no matter the source save self-inflicted, during your service you will receive either service related or VA disability benefits wherever you are. Hell, I'm receiving VA benefits (although I don't use them as they are totally u
      • That's a bit hyperbolic, but is exactly why we don't want the UN running DNS.

        I don't want the UN running DNS because (a) the US has done a reasonable job thus far, IMHO, and the practical drawbacks of possibly screwing up DNS are greater than any ideological concerns for me and (b) it's not as if, if the US and the UN come into serious conflict over this, that the UN couldn't set up alternate roots in the future -- but right now, I don't see the need.
    • This is especially true with the way the world has been evolving as of late. Globolization and the information revolution have made the internet rather important.

    • The Internet (Score:3, Funny)

      by masklinn ( 823351 )
      Serious business
    • Yes and then we can gain access to root and find the garbage file to execute the Da Vinci code and hold the world hostage!

  • Maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LeonGeeste ( 917243 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:08PM (#14533488) Journal
    ...they're getting involved in everything because they've been good at everything*? When they start failing, I guarantee you they'll stick to what they're good at.

    *except Google Earth. I still can't find the Sydney Opera House, no matter what keywords I use.

    • Re:Maybe... EH... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by voxel ( 70407 )
      Google lives alot off their web-search.

      Froogle: oh come on, this is REALLY BAD. Both Pricegrabber AND Pricewatch are better.

      Gmail: Storage, yes, OKAY UI yes. The UI isn't that great, there are lots of bugs STILL, Sometimes I can't even access my mail, and others report the same problem. Yahoo Mail has always been there for me, just didnt' give me the massive free storage. It's easy to give out 2.5 gigabytes of free storage though when you DONT LET PEOPLE SIGN UP.

      Google Video: I won't even give my own co

      • Re:Maybe... EH... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Derek Pomery ( 2028 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @02:05PM (#14533773)
        I've noticed a lot of people make certain comments about Google's web search that others can't reproduce.
        I'd like to ask you to try running a Google search with cookies erased and blocked and compare.
        Platform matters as well.
        For example, on my machine, a search for "wine" returns WineHQ first and www.wineandco.com second.
        It knows I'm more likely to be interested in WINE vs the drink, and in french results versus english.
        Platform affects this as well. And probably browser.

        On a Windows 2000 machine with Internet Explorer, wine.com is the first hit.
        • For me, Windows XP with IE6, winehq.com is the first hit.

          I strongly suspect that we're simply hitting different data centers which have slightly different indexes/searches OR are using different regional sites. For me WineHQ has always been the first hit on Google without fail, mostly due to the pages massive pagerank. It's a simple abberation in their search results which they may one day fix manually (I guess most people who search for Wine don't care about Windows emulators) as it's so high profile, bu

        • I'm rather doubtful that platform matters when doing Google searches. Are you aware that Google has several different data centres around the world that do not always return exactly the same results? Also Google *does* show different results depending on whether you are using a localised Google or not, what preferences [google.com] you have set (e.g. only return English pages) or whether you are using a themed Google (e.g. Google Linux [google.com]).

          You never know though. Do you have any solid repeatable data (e.g. using proxies and
    • *except Google Earth. I still can't find the Sydney Opera House, no matter what keywords I use.

      Try "sydney opera house, australia". Works perfectly.

  • they are already into drinks (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:10PM (#14533495)
    http://www.google.com/googlegulp/ [google.com]

    Google gulp beta! 4 great flavors
  • This is a cool video about the subject, what would happen if Google and Amazon merged.

    http://www.robinsloan.com/epic/ [robinsloan.com]

  • "The World" according to Google? (Score:5, Funny)

    by bk4u ( 682315 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:11PM (#14533506) Homepage
    Hmmmm, turns up 2,840,000,000 hits

  • Has Microsoft So Damaged Our Precepts? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:13PM (#14533522)
    Has Microsoft been around so long and done so much damage to our notion of the underlying motivations and competences of computer companies?

    Who says large computer companies can't be both competent and not evil sleazebags.

  • Karma whoring video stream link (Score:5, Informative)

    by iangoldby ( 552781 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:13PM (#14533523) Homepage
    Here's the URL for the Real Video stream for those who don't want to watch in some horrible little JavaScript window:

    The Money programme investigates the internet search engine Google [bbc.co.uk].

    (Works here in the UK at least.)

  • Complaints from the Staff are Overblown. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by reporter ( 666905 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:18PM (#14533547) Homepage
    Given the fact that most of the staff at Google reaped $500,000 (or more) in stock valuation after the IPO, complaints from the staff amount to little more than whining about annoyances. Put yourself in their shoes. If you reaped that amount of money, would the morphing of Google into a high-tech beast really bug you?

    I certainly would not be bugged. I could care less.

    On a more positive note, my colleagues and I support Google 100% in its attempt to defy the Department of Justice. Despite Google's supporting Beijing in its attempt to suppress human rights and democracy, the company has taken a courageous stand in supporting human rights in the USA. Google was the last place where I would expect to find a champion of privacy rights.

    Go, Google! You are now my preferred search engine.

    • Re:Complaints from the Staff are Overblown. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:23PM (#14533570) Homepage Journal
      Google was the last place where I would expect to find a champion of privacy rights.

      Google would not exist if it lost our trust.
      In my eyes, they have to do everything possible to not break that trust.

      Remember without us, google are nothing.

      If they eventually cave in and supply identifiable information (ip addresses and search histories) then they have lost at least one customer.
    • Don't kid yourself google isn't fighting for your human rights, they're doing what costs them the least amount of money and makes them less responsible.

      The last thing they want to do is to have to filter results to "prevent" child porn from being distributed on the internet.

      If it were more cost effective they'd have just turned over the results. They know that any fuel they give to the DOJ will lead to Google having to spend more money then fighting to not turn the results over.

      I love google just as much a
      • You are exactly correct. I'll bet that someone with less clouded vision than whoever modded you "flamebait" will come along and fix it.

        Google is a corporation, like any other. People like to see it as still like it's underdog roots, but that fantasy was over long ago, and while they may be the knight that slays the Big Bad Microsoft, they will do so for money and, yes, domination, not because it's "good" not "evil". Google promotes the "do good, not evil" thing because it appeals to their audience, not be

    • Re:Complaints from the Staff are Overblown. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JeffSh ( 71237 ) <jeffslashdotNO@SPAMm0m0.org> on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:25PM (#14533584)
      to an idealist, especially the type of idealist employed at google pre-IPO, no amount of money would belay their concerns. this happens with any growing company though. the early employees rightfully miss the earlier environment. growth just makes everything seem blah-y and it's extremely difficult to maintain the same atmosphere as the early days.

      and even then, peoples perceptions of the "early days" are more often than not incorrect. i once heard it called happy sappy delusion syndrome, and the same thing happens to old video games you used to play when you were a kid.

      but getting back on track, regarding the money issue.. personally, i think it's a bit short sighted to say that any amount of money would placate me from my other concerns.

    • Re:Complaints from the Staff are Overblown. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Saven Marek ( 739395 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:47PM (#14533688)
      > I certainly would not be bugged. I could care less.

      How much less?
    • On a more positive note, my colleagues and I support Google 100% in its attempt to defy the Department of Justice. Despite Google's supporting Beijing in its attempt to suppress human rights and democracy, the company has taken a courageous stand in supporting human rights in the USA. Google was the last place where I would expect to find a champion of privacy rights.

      Repeat after me: Google Doesnt Give a Fuck. You said it yourself. They didn't make a stand in Beijing. Why do you think they made a stand h

      • Re:Repeat after me: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 )

        They didn't make a stand in Beijing. Why do you think they made a stand here?

        OK - I'll play Devil's advocate.

        Standing up for ideals with the Chinese Government would mean not operating in China. Standing up for ideals with the US Government did not mean no longer operating in the US.

        To be sure - that seems to indicate that ideals do not always lead business decissions. Although with China, there seems to be an ongoing theory that affecting change in China is best done by becoming valuable to China. Th

        • Standing up for ideals with the Chinese Government would mean not operating in China. Standing up for ideals with the US Government did not mean no longer operating in the US.

          Ah, but I thought our company motto was "Do No Evil", not "Do No Evil So Long As It Doesnt Affect Our Pocketbook" ... the fact of the matter is we should be concerned that Google has logs going back that far - industry practice doesn't make it right, for a company that considers itself to be morally superior - and a company that has
    • Despite Google's supporting Beijing in its attempt to suppress human rights and democracy, the company has taken a courageous stand in supporting human rights in the USA. Google was the last place where I would expect to find a champion of privacy rights.

      How quickly people forget the tracking Google cookie and the indefinite archiving of your search phrases and Gmail archives.

      And what does human rights have to do with the DoJ request?

  • Materialisation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LinuxDon ( 925232 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:21PM (#14533562)
    The thing with Google is that they went to the stock market and received insane amounts of money.
    Then the stock has risen to insane levels. To prevent the stock from crashing, they need to materialise and be more than just a bunch of IP. So now they are trying to jump at all markets at the same time and just wait for something that will work. When they have viable bussiness in different markets, they have something to fall back on when something else suddenly fails or temporarely performs badly. Also, investors won't freak out as easily when something goes wrong, which would cause the stock price to collapse.

    It's all very interesting to see how things wil evolve!

    • Re:Materialisation (Score:5, Funny)

      by quark101 ( 865412 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:30PM (#14533617)
      You are obviously mistaken my friend. Things like this don't evolve. A "higher intelligence" or "intelligent designer," as it may be, directs and leads their growth into new patterns and directions that would be too complex to arise on their own otherwise.
    • So now they are trying to jump at all markets at the same time and just wait for something that will work.

      Which is nothing more than what Microsoft has been trying to do for a long time. Logical, in a way, when you have insane amounts of money to invest in such things. The difference is that Google generally succeeds with these out-of-band endeavors (at least, they manage to drive up ad revenue, which is the only real metric by which Google can be judged at the moment) whereas Microsoft usually flops, to
  • Google's first and only real responsibility is producing a profit for it's shareholders; "Make money for our shareholders, Don't be Evil.". Making money is not a bad thing, and when you make a good product, money is the tangible reward, that's capitalism in a nutshell.

    Google claimed the thrown of search engines, but they know someone might one day build a better search engine technology. It's best not to have all your eggs in one basket. It's the responsibilty to the shareholders to ensure Google doesn'
    • Yes, publically traded companies are, for the most part, intended for the sole purpose of "maximizing shareholder equity."

      But is that all they should ever be about? A lot of people think that corporations are bad, and that their number one purpose should be (by law!) to "serve the public good", followed by any claims about money. This is what the people who founded the USA believed.

      Yes, there are non-profits that fill part of the public good gap, but isn't there room for something in between? "At Bwandan
    • [Offtopic]

      time is a perception of a being's consciousness
      time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+

      I love your sig, and I agree.

      [/Offtopic]

  • Spelling out the dangers... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Aphrika ( 756248 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:28PM (#14533608)
    "Google has been transformed... into a multi-headed high tech beast which wants to get involved in everything"

    And this is where it needs to be really careful, otherwise it will - by definition - start being the next Microsoft. Up until now they haven't done anything that I'd particularly object to, but as soon as they start using their gmail account system like a Microsoft Passport system for all their apps, I'll be outta there.

    Google have already stated their world information-dominating objectives, and on its own that's something to be worried about, regardless of which company decides it'd be a nice mantra to have...
    • Up until now they haven't done anything that I'd particularly object to, but as soon as they start using their gmail account system like a Microsoft Passport system for all their apps, I'll be outta there.

      Well I hate to be the cause of you dumping Google, but it seems like they already do.

      Log into Gmail, and then go to the Google Search page. You'll probably have a few more links across the top of the page, notice? Go to Google Groups and you'll see (or at least, I do) that you've already been logged in.

      I

    • Universal login (Score:2, Informative)

      by wonk ( 169706 )
      "but as soon as they start using their gmail account system like a Microsoft Passport system for all their apps, I'll be outta there."

      They're already doing that - see Google Accounts [google.com].

  • Going Public Screws up Everything at most places (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Proudrooster ( 580120 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:39PM (#14533650) Homepage
    Ah, Going public. The excitement of Stock Options and being traded on the stock exchange. Everyone thinks paydays will get bigger and the company with thrive and grow.

    In reality, what happens is that you are know answerable to the will of mysterious stock holders. You start learning a new phrases and vocabularly like, "shareholder equity", "IPO", "Sarbanes-Oxley", "vesting period", "we must make decisions that increase shareholder value", and "the purpose of stock isn't to make employees rich."

    Soon after the IPO, raises and bonuses shrink. Healthcare gets slashed and perks vanish away. Why? Because executives who are now accountable to shareholders rank their company vs. competitors and create a scorecard. Suppose the shareholders were to find out that your CEO was paying better bonuses to employees than the industry standard. He might have to answer for that on an earnings conference call or meeting with the mysterious shareholders. Executives however always want raises, bonuses, perks, and cheap stock no matter what kind of job they do. Just ask the idiot running GM into the ground. [detnews.com] He should be well compensated no matter how poorly the company performs.

    I think Google thought they could go public and still maintain control of the company, but it looks like they are careening out of control. The absolute best thing that could happen is for Google's stock to crash, then have Google buy all the outstanding shares and convert back to a private company.

    There are still some really great privately held technology companies like SAS [sas.com] where life is good for employees. Am I bitter? Sure, I went through the whole IPO process and watched as executives were rolling in cash while they sold stock for which they had paid a mere $.01 per/share. Meanwhile, I had to hang onto my stock and stock options for a vesting period while the price plummeted and they all left to go find another company to rape and pillage. Does anyone know of a situation where going public was actually good for a company and it's employees?

  • Google Dish (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @01:40PM (#14533659) Homepage
    It has interviews with Google staff and people who dislike the company.

    It occurs to me that stuff like this that appears at Slashdot and elsewhere on a regular basis, it's just exactly like all the entertainment industry dish that goes on out there. It seems that geeks are really no different than all the other hoi polloi out there, their soap operas just have different characters...

  • Google's big problem - return on investment (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @02:07PM (#14533778) Homepage
    Google Search is great as a business. Not too expensive to run. No need to buy content. No need for a large customer support operation. Markets itself. Can support itself with minimal advertising. Great return on investment.

    Everything else Google has done since then has fewer of those properties. That's the problem. Their excessive market cap forces them to "grow" into less profitable markets. That's the real problem.

    Google should have taken on debt and gone private. They didn't need to raise money; they just needed to buy out the VCs. Then they could have stayed in their winning niche of "honest, non-obnoxious search".

    • "Everything else Google has done since then has fewer of those properties. "

      I don't know about that, their 'Video' approach seems pretty good choices to me, depending on how it procedes. They could end up as 'the place' to go for a nights viewing if they play their hand right and thats big money worldwide.

      "Then they could have stayed in their winning niche of "honest, non-obnoxious search"

      You work in a bank right? a clerk? A quantity surveyor? I don't think its in the nature of people who set up businesses
    • Had they followed your advice, Larry Page and Sergey Brin would not be multibillionaires as they currently are.

  • documentary, this trash?! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think people are quick to call anything a documentary these days, this is opinionated hidden agenda drivel. Someone always enjoys to hate the successful.

    Google labs existed long before Google became a behemoth and they were always striving to corner every market (even ones that didn't exist yet); google talk, google desktop, the google cache blade, gmail, google news, picasa, etc. Most of these technologies were released before or were already in the works before they hit it big with wall street. And, the
  • I'm glad to see they mentioned click fraud. However Google seems to claim they're doing something about it. Personaly I think they have a policy of turning a blind eye to click fraud. I know of someone who was charged $100,000 for false google-ad clicks. They noticed a huge surge of clicks but no new business. After asking Google about click fraud they were informed that they'd have to prove it and submit the proof to Google in order to get a refund. So, they had to hire a 3rd party to monitor the cl
  • This ABC News video [go.com] (Flash [flash.com] for a streaming video required) shows the behind the scenes of Google [google.com]'s headquarter. Of course the host is jealous by all this [grin].

    Seen on Digg [digg.com] and posted on my AQFL [aqfl.net] Web site.
  • Google has to do something in order to grow, and searching won't sustain them forever. While they're fabulous for finding random websites, I've noticed that I use Wikipedia now if I want to find information about something, since I know there'll always be something useful there. I'm not talking about vital stuff, but if I'm curious about a band, or a model, or an animal or who Winston Churchill was, I no longer resort to Google.

    It's also my opinion that it's a good thing Google is doing this. They have the
  • Google knows that they're in Microsoft's sights, so they have to keep moving quickly.

    Microsoft has big guns, but they're slow to target. As long as you're not where they're targeting by the time they get around to firing, you're going to be OK.

  • Pot, Kettle (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mark Gordon ( 14545 ) on Sunday January 22, 2006 @03:26PM (#14534150) Homepage
    Maybe the BBC, historically one of the world's great information delivery organizations, has an interest in casting Google in a negative light? Microsoft isn't the only company that sees Google as a threat, after all.
    • Considering that the BBC is funded by tax payer's money, and does not run adds, I don't think Google is causing them any sleepless nights.

    • Re:Pot, Kettle (Score:3, Insightful)

      by meringuoid ( 568297 )
      Maybe the BBC, historically one of the world's great information delivery organizations, has an interest in casting Google in a negative light?

      I doubt it. Google is a colossal index of information. Google News can tell you what has happened recently in the world, but it only does so by linking the user to stories posted on other news sites.

      This is where the BBC scores; they're a huge news provider, and a lot of those Google links will come straight to them.

      Indeed, the threat Google might be said to po

  • A company starts with one core competency.

    As it grows, it learns and develops services on top of its core competency.

    They they grow and develop more core competencies according to their skill. Google went (maybe still are to some extent) on a hiring spree for smart and skilled engineers. Doesn't it make sense they would have the intelligence to expand to other areas? If an engineer or a company only stays with one core competency, that's the quickest way to a dead-end career path.

    Google is a star perform

  • I'm sorry, but after having watched the "documentary", I was slightly shocked. How is searching for your kid's condition on the Internet relevant to the success of Google? I mean sure, there's the obvious connection that is supposedly formed in anyone's mind upon seeing/hearing this: nobody could help her, she searched Google, she found help there -> Google is a life saver. That page that she found might as well have been a hypochondriac club website in which semi-professional people are paranoid about a

  • At least Google are doing something positive to "grow", as shareholders are so focused upon. I've not seen an instance where Google were the protagonists of a hostile takeover, or anti-competitive market manipulations. They simply have hired smart people and are looking to expand their core competencies the "right" way. Do No Evil is still being observed at the Googleplex.

    When I start to see (confirmed) stories that Google is adopting the business practices of Microsoft, then it will be a sad day, but

  • Are they pissed people arent using Ask Jeeves or something?

    I dislike evil multinational corporations as much as the next person, but Google has to be one of the least intrusive, evil companies around.

    Google also has a history of backing up their 'Do no evil' motto with actions, instead of PR motivated charity stunts most corporations perform. If there is any doubt, I suggest looking to Googles recent stand against Justice Departement requests to turn over users' private search records. This
  • People seem to think that Google is "Careening out of control" with new products and services.

    But what do you expect to happen when you let each and every employee devote 20% of thier time to whatever project interests them? Is Google supposed to sweep the output from this under the run and simply ignore it? Then what would be the point?

    What you see is a company that acts like an umbrella for a huge amount of efforts that are essentially startups with a lot of resources behind them.

    As Google has grown qui

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close