taltamir taltamir

Google doesn't believe in choice!

▼

Google doesn't believe in choice!

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=36533
from JoeUser Forums

Google OS is going to be built upon google chrome... and it is going to be a failure!

Google chrome is the fastest browser on the market, it makes an excellent secondary browser to use alongside a REAL browser. But it will never work by itself. Why?

Again and again I see often requested features for chrome rejected by google staff with the following:

"we have a strong design philosophy against options (even "hidden" options like about:config)

It took 5 versions before google FINALLY caved in and allowed people the CHOICE of having a home page.

I don't want one myself, I personally prefer the goole new window alternative, but some people don't, thats what choices are for.

Google is refusing to implement a sidebar for bookmarks, they are refusing to allow people to choose whether backspace is treated as a "page back" button. They don't want you choosing to change key bindings or turn them on or off... even if you want to, even if you are willing to edit configuration pages (aka "hidden choices").

If google is to be believed, then this isn't a case of "we can't justify the manpower for this"... but a case of "we don't BELIEVE in giving you the CHOICE". If all they said was "we can't justify the manpower" then it would be a sign to start raising awareness of the issue, maybe make a petition to prove enough people care about it... Or maybe even get someone to submit a patch (the source is available after all) which google might integrate into its code.

It leads to an acceptable product when google chrome is your secondary or even tertiary browser... Something limited and crippled by design, but much much faster at what it ALLOWS you to do.

but can you imagine an entire OS from a company who ADMITS to "have a strong design philosophy against options"? I can't. Making the fastest (and a fairly secure) browser or OS isn't enough... Heck, even the cheapest (theoretically free?)

Henry Ford used to say "they can have a car in any color they want, as long as it is black". People DEMANDED he allow them to buy cars in other colors, and he wouldn't budge. This left room for competitors who sold cars that were inferior in every way shape or form... but allowed you the choice of color. And pretty soon they weren't so inferior. It wasn't until they dropped down to 20% market share that he finally caved and allowed people to choose their car's color.

How long will it take google to learn that lesson? For how long would be amazed and surprise to see people will rather pay MS for windows then get google OS for free...

32,687 views 56 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting psychoak, reply 45
You don't read your own thread?  Dr. Guy is indeed making those arguments.  He's espousing the evils of a monopoly while sketching out a very nice counterpoint argument by showing the rise of competitors as Google screws the pooch by getting complacent in their monopoly position.
End of psychoak's quote

Better reread my posts.  I made the statement that monopolies are bad.  I also made the statements that google is attempting to become a monopoly in several markets (and that is the nature of any corporation).  However, after that, all the rest is YOUR strawman, not mine.  Google may be the nicest monopoly in existence ever.  But I said I do not trust any monopoly based upon past practices of Monopolies. 

You and Gunslinger have a comprehension problem.  You take what I have said and impute your own values and then assign them to me.  But that is not what I said.  Go shoot your own strawman, but do not claim it is mine.

Quoting psychoak, reply 45
I didn't even go after yours, just that specific line of reasoning he's latched onto. I don't actually give a shit about the rest of it, but the continued butchery of basic economics tends to motivate me.
End of psychoak's quote

I will match your "economic" knowledge against mine any day.  Anecdotes are no substitute for basic fundamental knowledge.

Reply #52 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 40
You may see it as circular, but it is straight line.  They have to make money.  The goods are search.  And then they sold the highest hits, and sold ads to make the money.  Search got them there.  Ads.....Well who else does Firefox use to find out a site is a predator?  A monopoly is not defined by 100% of a market.  it is defined as effective control (in other words, they say jump and the market says how high).  Stardock just got gigged by one company, and you are claiming no monopoly?  To each his own.
End of Dr's quote

Gigged?  They resolved it fairly fast.  forums.wincustomize.com is back to normal right now, and we're still not sure if it's Google's ads or our other ad partner that was the problem.  The thing is, I am absolutely fine with what they did.  It is a defense mechanism for their users, and it works really well.  Google blocking our site due to potentially malicious software is not evidence of a monopoly out of control.

As for the email, does your source list how it arrived at the figures?  I would like to know that.  I do not know if they are 1, 2 or 3.  But considering Yahoo and Hotmail have been around for over 12 years, and gmail barely 5, that says something about their market penetration, now does it not? (Rome and Microsoft were not built in a day - or 5 years).
End of quote

Gmail has become as popular as it is today because Gmail is superior to the other email services.  It has very little to do with Google's search monopoly.  Yes, they have made great gains in 5 years, but they've also made the greatest changes to the way email works (large amounts of free storage, the label system, Labs, auto-threaded conversations, custom themes, etc.).  Their constant innovation has got them to 3rd place in 5 years, whereas Yahoo and Hotmail stagnated.  Do you really believe Gmail got to where it is because Google search somehow helped them get there?  Maybe in name only.

And none of them worth a snot.  And you forgot to mention Copernicus.  Which was the best there was until Google came along.

Google defines searches.  They were the best!  Now at least they are getting better since they have real competition.

End of quote

None of them are worth a snot because their algorithm isn't nearly as good as Google's.  Tell me, if Google's algorithm is the best, and if they're trying to push a "less is more" mentality, what exactly should they be changing in Google search?  Yes, they added Google Instant, but like I said before, I'd be willing to bet they were simply waiting for the right technology or the right time.  If your product is as perfect as can be (per your views), why change it?  I never once went to Google and thought "man, this search needs more innovative technology!"

And I will ask you once again: Show me where Google has done wrong and milked a market they own for every penny?

I thought we already discussed the Stardock issue.  A leech does not kill its host with one suck.  But it will if allowed to leech the host unfettered for a long time.  Google has not had time to leech a market dry yet.  But they almost got there (and are trying).  Again, you seem to want to see the end results before the interim steps.  I told you the end results, not that Google has always  done it.  Monopolies DO IT.  Are you going to argue that Monopolies do not do it?  or that Google is not a monopoly and never will be?  Which one?  And my question that started all of this has yet to be answered.

End of quote

I'm sorry but the Stardock issue is not evidence that Google is taking advantage of their monopoly.  They are not out to get us, they are trying to make the web a safer place.  Their algorithm obviously has a few issues, but that doesn't mean they were being evil.

I'm arguing that Google IS a monopoly in only one area: search.  And in that area, they have shown no evidence that they are screwing over their users.  You keep saying they will do it, but they've been a monopoly for years, when have they ever used search to do something considered to be "evil" or something that would screw their users?  The only thing I can think of is filtering their results in China, which they've admitted was wrong and backed out of a country where they ad 40% penetration.  Can any other company say they've done that, just to do the "right thing?"

What constitutes a monopoly (percent of market to be called a monopoly).  All you are doing so far is saying how much you love Google (fine, you do not have to hate them, I do not).  I am saying I do not like what they have become and are becoming (in markets).
End of quote

Tell me what they've become.

No reality. I see the natural progression of a company run amuk (Microsoft did not remain one forever afterall, but it sure hurt things until others could eat away at its stranglehold).  I know monopolies, and I see how they are created.  You will note that I have not said "Google did x, y and Z".  I have stated facts about Google and Monopolies.  You have made leaps of logic (some natural, some bizarre) and are trying to put words in my mouth.  Again, I do not have time to correct you.  If you want to be a cheer leader for Google - great!  If you want to debate monopolies and monopolistic tendencies - good! (I would love to, but I doubt this is the forum for such an adventure).  But please stop saying " you said, you did, you avowed" when the only one doing that is you.  And not accurately when you do it based upon what I have said.

I have stated facts, you have stated love.  But we are not stating such on the same subject, so there is no use in doing a "he said, she said" comedy.
End of quote

A company run amok?  Again, where is the evidence?  Where have they run amok?  The fact that they turned on Buzz for everyone by default?  Fine, that was a mistake, but that cannot be your only evidence for how an entire company is operating.  Google is doing great things and innovating left and right (just look at Android). 

See, now you're just arguing semantics.  I asked for evidence for where Google has gone wrong in the half-decade that they have been a search monopoly, and all I've heard is "monopolies do this" and "monopolies do that," yet shown no evidence for where Google has done this or gone in this direction.  Am I wrong?  Please, tell me how.

Bara

Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #53 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting GunslingerBara, reply 52

Gmail has become as popular as it is today because Gmail is superior to the other email services.  It has very little to do with Google's search monopoly.  Yes, they have made great gains in 5 years, but they've also made the greatest changes to the way email works (large amounts of free storage, the label system, Labs, auto-threaded conversations, custom themes, etc.).  Their constant innovation has got them to 3rd place in 5 years, whereas Yahoo and Hotmail stagnated.  Do you really believe Gmail got to where it is because Google search somehow helped them get there?  Maybe in name only.
End of GunslingerBara's quote

On that note, I actually like using Windows Live Mail/Hotmail again.  They finally got it close to the Gmail standard.  (The only thing that annoys me is the placement/size of the search bar, but I finally felt free to uninstall the WLM desktop app.)

</mostlyofftopic>

Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top

Google blocking our site due to potentially malicious software is not evidence of a monopoly out of control.
End of quote

No, but the lack of responsiveness is evidence of contempt for customers.  Again, not to say that Google is a monopoly now, but that is what monopolies do. 

A company run amok? Again, where is the evidence? Where have they run amok? The fact that they turned on Buzz for everyone by default? Fine, that was a mistake, but that cannot be your only evidence for how an entire company is operating. Google is doing great things and innovating left and right (just look at Android).
End of quote

Run amok?  a week after the False warnings, you were still complaining about a lack of response.  They collect illegal data and only after being outed do they even say "oops, our mistake".  And of course the best one "we did not know".  Yes, they are only competent in one area.  You can believe that.  I guess I am not as trusting as you.  I did not trust Microsoft 12 years ago when they killed Netscape.  Wait!  I guess I am not in the minority now (for all the complaints I have seen about the bropwser stagnation).

Google took searching the web into a quantum leap a decade ago.  And then they just raked in the money, and made sure their "favorites" became yours.  Bing is starting to chip away now at the stasis of the search market. And I am glad (I do not care if it was Microsoft, Yahoo, or even Oracle that did it).  I do not like Google's practices of late.  They are not a monopoly in their endeavors, but their name and money give them a lot of weight in whatever endeavor they enter.  Enhance or improve it? You got my vote!  Dominate it?  Not so much any more.

You will find precious little of my personal life on the web.  I do not trust it to be confidential, but at least most of the companies at least pay lip service to confidentiality.  Google only does when hit with a subpoena.

See, now you're just arguing semantics. I asked for evidence for where Google has gone wrong in the half-decade that they have been a search monopoly, and all I've heard is "monopolies do this" and "monopolies do that," yet shown no evidence for where Google has done this or gone in this direction. Am I wrong? Please, tell me how.
End of quote

Well, at least you are finally reading what I write.  And I thank you for that.  As you note, I do say monopolies this and that, because I deal with facts.  And you are also correct that I did not say "google does this and that", since they do not have many monopolies.  However, I do not want to see them become one, and that is what I have been saying.  Not that they cannot.  Just that we suffer when they (or any other company) do. And when they have.

But I did comment on their primary monopoly.  And the lack of innovation in the area for the past several years, which seems to be changing now that Bing has about 25% of the market.  Not that we "bing" things now, but at least Google is starting to pay attention to its first business now that Bing is better in some respects (bing phone numbers or AGW - better results with bing than Google).

Reply #55 from Sins Forums Top

Better reread my posts.  I made the statement that monopolies are bad.  I also made the statements that google is attempting to become a monopoly in several markets (and that is the nature of any corporation).  However, after that, all the rest is YOUR strawman, not mine.  Google may be the nicest monopoly in existence ever.  But I said I do not trust any monopoly based upon past practices of Monopolies.

You and Gunslinger have a comprehension problem.  You take what I have said and impute your own values and then assign them to me.  But that is not what I said.  Go shoot your own strawman, but do not claim it is mine.

End of quote

 

Obsessions with the term straw man(yeah, it's two words, the built in spell checker should be pointing this out) aside, you're still void of anything resembling factual accuracy in your historical assumptions.

 

History is replete with companies misbehaving.  Almost none of them were monopolies, and the ones that were, near universally government sanctioned, if not directly created.  You yourself have the straw man argument by claiming a company is problematic based on market share despite no evidence to support your claim.  When you posit that law abiding monopolies have a record of abusing their customers, you are perpetuating myth.  It simply doesn't exist.

 

I could spend the next several hours spouting encyclopedic knowledge on the subject of misbehaving companies exploiting their customers or putting them at risk in the last few decades.  Not one of them has been in a monopoly position.  It's a near endless list.

 

There's no evidence that they slow advancement either, quite the contrary.  Under Intel's monopoly position, computing power has advanced by leaps and bounds.  When they have been complacent, such as the initial P4 that underperformed it's predecessor, they've been penalized in market share.  Carnegie, a corrupt and coercive monopolist that used libel and slander to put his competitors out of business, rapidly modernized an aged steal industry and provided higher quality materials at lower cost.  Rockefeller did the same thing with oil, bringing the US from cart drawn wooden barrels to modern pipeline transport.  These are two examples of even coercive monopolies that were good for the population, if not for their competitors.  They're also the two companies idiots complaining about monopolies list first.  Microsoft is often the third.

 

Bad behavior isn't related to market share, it doesn't even correlate.  What it does correlate with are government sanctioned monopolies, an entirely different thing.

Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top

you're still void of anything resembling factual accuracy in your historical assumptions.
End of quote

Point them out then.

History is replete with companies misbehaving.
End of quote

Very true.  But note I did not say all bad companies were monopolies.  Again your logic is flawed.

Almost none of them were monopolies, and the ones that were, near universally government sanctioned, if not directly created.
End of quote

Given that only a very small percentage of companies are monopolies, I guess you are right - the majority of companies are a majority of companies.  And so your point is what?

You yourself have the straw man argument by claiming a company is problematic based on market share despite no evidence to support your claim.
End of quote

No, I asked a question which no one has answered yet.  So I have created no strawman about market share.

When you posit that law abiding monopolies have a record of abusing their customers, you are perpetuating myth.
End of quote

What myth would that be?  That the biggest monopoly of them all is immune to customer issues such as satisfaction?  Do not like your DMV?  Go to another "company".  I know, that is just a myth as well, right?

I could spend the next several hours spouting encyclopedic knowledge on the subject of misbehaving companies exploiting their customers or putting them at risk in the last few decades. Not one of them has been in a monopoly position. It's a near endless list.
End of quote

Another great "a majority of companies is a majority" argument.  You win that one.  I agree.  A majority of companies is a majority of companies.

There's no evidence that they slow advancement either, quite the contrary. Under Intel's monopoly position, computing power has advanced by leaps and bounds.
End of quote

One, I pointed out one instance of the slow advancement.  You can argue that IE6 was the end all of browsers if you want.  But most tech specialists would disagree with you.

I never said Intel was a monopoly, and do not believe it is.  Fortunately we have AMD and before that Motorola, NEC, IBM, HP and Sun.  Still have most of them too.

When they have been complacent, such as the initial P4 that underperformed it's predecessor, they've been penalized in market share.
End of quote

You contradict yourself.  If they were a monopoly, they would not care about market share as they would control enough of it that it is not a concern.  Please read Econ 101 (macro) on what is a monopoly.

Bad behavior isn't related to market share, it doesn't even correlate. What it does correlate with are government sanctioned monopolies, an entirely different thing.
End of quote

You have done a lot of trying to debunk the strawman that all bad behavior is by monopolies.  I will ask you now where that was ever stated?  And I made no differentiation between government sanctioned ones and ones that are created out of attrition (which do not exist due to laws).  because of copyrights and patents, all monopolies are sanctioned by the government.

And in case you are wondering, try this link. Spell checkers are not the last or best authority on spelling.