...

View Full Version : Google the new Microsoft



KevinG
09-13-2007, 12:13 AM
I am starting to really dislike google. they have money to buy any new business they want, kill the brand and relabel it Google. they are very litigous, especially against hi tech start ups with (new) patents. i feel they are distorting the internet with over priced ppc, lame adsense controls and ever changing seo parameters to a point where they tell you how to build your own website. who made them the net police? by doing all this they are ensuring they control the net and i think people are starting to realise this. how long before you look up and appear on google maps with an ad across your forehead? the childs innocence has gone. there is an arrogance about them and i believe they are far more darker. yeh build more giant data centres. thats why i believe they are the new microsoft. here is the latest - http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39289227,00.htm?r=1

sorry for the rant, but i have been a member here for long enough and not moaned before.

oracleguy
09-13-2007, 12:25 AM
This was in the news a little while ago but I think people are overreacting.

Why? Because they aren't actually reading the excerpt:


By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, publish and distribute such content on Google services for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services.

The emphasis is mine. Basically what they are saying is if you post pictures in picasaweb for example and make them public and open, they can also use that content for anything they'd like.

While obviously as the article you linked to questions the exactly meaning of public. However it is substantially different them saying anything you store on our systems we own and can do whatever we want with.

In fact I'd imagine that there are lots of online sites that have similar clauses in their terms of service. Someone just found that in Google's and is trying to create some FUD because it is Google.

Is Google 'Sony' evil? No. Are they 'Microsoft' evil? Maybe but they certainly aren't the 'bunch of geeks having a good time' image that they used to try to be.

felgall
09-13-2007, 07:58 AM
Of course Google is the new Microsoft. We are currently going through a similar period between Google and Microsoft as there was between Microsoft and IBM in the late 80s early 90s. Before that IBM was the company people talked about regarding PCs (they even invented the term). In ten years time it will be Google this and Google that and Micro-who?

KevinG
09-13-2007, 08:25 AM
by the time people realise how powerful google are it will be too late and then we will have anti trust campaigns. microsoft had to live with such campaigns, whilst google have been spending 3-5 billion dollars p.a. on new companies. google will either have an ad on every site or be able to count and track every visitor to every site. i dont think google are evil as such, i just don't like reading comments such as eric schmidt talking about building barriers to market (to stop competition) and then the next minute google lobbying washington against someone else (microsoft) and there seems to be more such examples of google's double standards. its just disturbing google want to be everything online and can afford to buy companies at greatly inflated prices to ensure such dominance, which creates a situation where compaines want to be bought by google and therefore perhaps creating a first 'dibs' advantage.


anyway thanks for the comments, i was expecting a roasting but all i was doing was airing an opinion.

oracleguy
09-13-2007, 04:21 PM
Of course Google is the new Microsoft. We are currently going through a similar period between Google and Microsoft as there was between Microsoft and IBM in the late 80s early 90s. Before that IBM was the company people talked about regarding PCs (they even invented the term). In ten years time it will be Google this and Google that and Micro-who?

True, it used to be that Microsoft was the bunch of geeks and IBM was the big bad company. In another 15 years, there will be a repeat of the same thing, just different companies playing the roles.

It is true Google has their fingers in a lot of places however at least for the time being, they are making good products.

And KevinG, what is your aversion to Google putting ads of services and products it gives away for free?

Also too while I use Google's products regularly, my statements shouldn't be taken as fanboy-ism. I just don't really get worked up over things like this. It is sort of like what Six says on Battlestar Galactica: "All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again."

liorean
09-13-2007, 05:06 PM
Google is not the new Microsoft in the same way Microsoft was not the new IBM.


IBM was a full systems monopoly - they gave the software monopoly part to Microsoft and let competitors do compatible hardware, so of course they lost their monopoly.

Microsoft is an OS monopoly and an application and service provider. Google is an (mostly) online application and service provider. The more the world turns to online applications and services, the less important the OS and local applications becomes.



Thus, Google might displace Microsoft through making the local computer OS and applications less important and interchangeable in the same way IBM made their own hardware less important and interchangeable. But in difference to IBM, Microsoft haven't themselves been the facilitator of this changeover. (Well, aside from making a browser...)

bcarl314
09-13-2007, 06:45 PM
I agree, in fact, I've seen somethings recently that make me think google is taking a huge risk in their business approach. Their adwords program is one example. How are the "min bids" set? One weeks its based on the relevance of your key words in the add, next it's what the market will bare. My keywords are always going "active" and "inactive" without any input from me. Google seems to be saying "set your limit super high so we can always run your ad" and effectively pricing out the small players.

Which would be fine if the small business owner had other relevant avenues to place ads for an affordable price. Most small biz owners (i.e. mom and pops) have a budget in the $50 - $150 / month for online advertising. If that. Google doesn't seem to want to deal with that market at all.

Additionally, I've found that their search algorithm over the past 3 - 6 months has become more "geeky" in it's use. If I'm looking for something any way relating to programming, google kicks butt. But if I'm actually looking to BUY some product, or looking for information that is not computer related, I've been finding msn and yahoo are FAR more relevant.

Inigoesdr
09-13-2007, 06:53 PM
Google is not the new Microsoft. They are not forcing anything down your throat. If you don't like them/their services then don't use them. No one is forcing you to adapt your site to their SEO, to use AdSense, or use Google Maps. I find it ironic for you to complain about their SEO/etc. when you intentionally set that up for better placement on their search engine, and you complain about their free services having ads...

Fumigator
09-13-2007, 07:26 PM
That's just the point, Inigoesdr, online business is driven and created by people searching Google. For an online business to boycot Google would be the same as in the 90's refusing to write a program that worked with Windows or DOS because you wanted to boycot Microsoft. Sure, you'll get your way, but not many people are going to buy your product.

It's in this way that Google has us all by the short hairs and we have to like it.


But anyway I clicked on this thread hoping it was a good joke :(

Inigoesdr
09-13-2007, 08:13 PM
That's just the point, Inigoesdr, online business is driven and created by people searching Google. For an online business to boycot Google would be the same as in the 90's refusing to write a program that worked with Windows or DOS because you wanted to boycot Microsoft. Sure, you'll get your way, but not many people are going to buy your product.

It's in this way that Google has us all by the short hairs and we have to like it.
I understand your concern, but it's still your choice to do business with them. If you want to utilize their services you'll have to deal with their terms. If their terms are too much of a problem for you, you can use other ad services.

It is in Google's best interest to maximize their profits, so they'll do what they feel will help them accomplish this. I think people may forget that Google, despite their mixed reputations and public images, is still a private company thats ultimate purpose is to make money.

But anyway I clicked on this thread hoping it was a good joke :(
Me too :(

Fumigator
09-13-2007, 09:28 PM
I would say I agree with you for the most part, as capitalism is awesome and creates a robust and prosperous economy. In its raw form this is really a debate about monopolies and how capitalism deals with monopolies. Microsoft has had to bob and weave with the anti-trust arm of the govt for decades and it appears that Google is going down the same road. It's quite a paradox of capitalism when a company does so well that it blows away the competition but has to then be reigned in and forced to allow competitors to catch up.

oracleguy
09-13-2007, 09:34 PM
Additionally, I've found that their search algorithm over the past 3 - 6 months has become more "geeky" in it's use. If I'm looking for something any way relating to programming, google kicks butt. But if I'm actually looking to BUY some product, or looking for information that is not computer related, I've been finding msn and yahoo are FAR more relevant.

Well when looking to buy something, use Froogle. It works fairly well.

Inigoesdr
09-14-2007, 02:54 AM
It's quite a paradox of capitalism when a company does so well that it blows away the competition but has to then be reigned in and forced to allow competitors to catch up.

It certainly is. Capitalism isn't perfect, but at present it's the best we've got. The checks and balances are essential though. :)

oracleguy
09-14-2007, 06:50 PM
Here is a nice pack of lies from Microsoft on Google though: http://www.apcmag.com/7161/interview_craig_mundie_microsofts_technology_chief_taking_over_from_bi

root123
09-18-2007, 11:16 AM
There is no chance of Google becoming Microsoft or Microsoft becoming Google. Microsoft will continue to dominate it's favorite position while Innovative Google excells with what it does best - SEARCH.

abduraooft
09-18-2007, 12:22 PM
There is no chance of Google becoming Microsoft or Microsoft becoming Google. Microsoft will continue to dominate it's favorite position while Innovative Google excells with what it does best - SEARCH.
Only SEARCH? How can you forget the innovations in Gmail and Google Apps (http://www.google.com/a/),

KevinG
09-18-2007, 12:53 PM
sorry root123 but i think the other big 2 have caught up with google in terms of search. abduraooft, what innovations??? they bought companies and rebranded them as per my original post. they did not innovate google apps or adsense (overture litigation), adwords, apps (writey) etc etc.

i used to like google, but when you hear of data centres the size of 4 football fields being built around the world it makes you wonder if this good guy image can last. i like yahoo in that they are innovative to a degree i.e. yahoo answers. but google, though a different beast seem to want to lock down and control the net. there needs to be more competition, but google are a machine that patent patent infringe patent litigate patent buy and patent.

google news = headline control. i heard that from someone else.
google apps = data scraping

i am just airing my opinion. i know the "dont use gogole then" answer. but i just awanted peoples point of views as i feel slightly alarmed at a company that can average 5 billion per annum on acquisitions and has such media control.



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum