Is Google Evil?

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by omegaman66

But some people here are point out that google is evil for reasons that are certainly not evil. Google is suppose to try to out compete its competitors.

Google engages in unfair competition.

Originally Posted by omegaman66

Google is suppose to try to get the best products and stuff ...

Google provides services that are, not best of breed, but just good enough, at the least possible cost to them, for attracting those addicted to "free."

Originally Posted by omegaman66

... and if they bought such things that doesn't make them evil. Buying technology is not evil???

Google does not buy to improve their offerings. Google buys competitors so as to put them out of business.

Originally Posted by omegaman66

Trying to make your business #1 is not evil. Trying to remain #1 is not evil!!!

It is when your goal is to a monopoly.

Originally Posted by omegaman66

Just stick to the things that are wrong.

Of which you've hit on more than a few.

Odd, though, that you failed to notice that; or, to make mention of Big G's insatiable thirst for personal data.

Originally Posted by omegaman66

First of all: I am not taking the side that google is or is not evil.

Well, while that's what you said, you also proceeded to rattle off some Google's fault, proclaiming them to be virtues.

__________________

[deepsand]

Google is facing even more anti-trust allegation, this time for locking Android phones into using only their search applications.

From Google Faces Antitrust Complaints in Korea on Android Popularity, we read:

Google has banned South Korean phone manufacturers from including Web search applications made by other companies under its marketing contracts, Seongnam-based NHN said in its statement. Google has delayed certifying the use of its software for handset makers that violated the condition, the South Korean company said.

Daum learned about Google’s practices while trying to have its applications installed and has evidence to prove its claims, the Seoul-based company said.

__________________

[sallygirl]

Heres two articles in the last few days showing how things are changing fast, Bing is gaining fast and google is losing fast....

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/201...3591302714106/

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2637...earch-business

One wonders if the evil google will end up in the dust bin, history has shown us that despotic regimes always collapse.

[omegaman66]

No, I did not post anything about google that is evil. You misinterpret my post.

For example buying a competitor to add something you don't have is not evil it is smart. You then go on to say that they did something evil by buying some of the competition. This is NOT in contradiction to what I said. I said buying up another company isn't evil... didn't say it could never be evil. Instead of saying the evil thing that google does they made generic statements that encompass both evil and non evil purchases.

example 2: "Google provides services that are, not best of breed, but just good enough, at the least possible cost to them, for attracting those addicted to "free."

How is this evil???

example 3: "Trying to make your business #1 is not evil. Trying to remain #1 is not evil!!!
It is when your goal is to a monopoly."

All businesses should try to be number 1. I didn't mention monopoly. My statement is true. If you want to bash google for trying to become a monopoly that is fine but don't say that trying to be #1 is evil.

etc etc etc.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by omegaman66

No, I did not post anything about google that is evil. You misinterpret my post.

To the contrary, I pointed out that those things which you celebrate are in fact causes for concern re. Google's motives and manners.

Originally Posted by omegaman66

For example buying a competitor to add something you don't have is not evil it is smart. You then go on to say that they did something evil by buying some of the competition. This is NOT in contradiction to what I said. I said buying up another company isn't evil... didn't say it could never be evil. Instead of saying the evil thing that google does they made generic statements that encompass both evil and non evil purchases.

As stated, Google does not buy so as to improve its offerings, but to simply eliminate competition and/or to grow its stable of cheap services so as to attract the "we want it free" crowd.

Take a good hard look at all of that which Google has bought. Look at how much of that has ended up on the trash heap.

Of that which they've kept and used, compare the product before and after it was acquired by Google. Case in point: Urchin (before) vs Google Analytics (after.)

Look at what Google has copied from others. Compare the quality of Google's product/service with others. Case in point, Google Apps and Gmail.

Originally Posted by omegaman66

"Google provides services that are, not best of breed, but just good enough, at the least possible cost to them, for attracting those addicted to "free."

How is this evil???

Because it diminishes the demand for quality product and services, thus making producing them more costly for others, with the result that many such vanish from the marketplace or become affordable by only a wealthy few. By way of example, if someone were to give away cheap crappy cars, the supply of reliable cars would decrease and their prices would go up.

Originally Posted by omegaman66

"Trying to make your business #1 is not evil. Trying to remain #1 is not evil!!!
It is when your goal is to a monopoly."

And, being a monopoly is Google's goal!

Originally Posted by omegaman66

All businesses should try to be number 1. I didn't mention monopoly. My statement is true. If you want to bash google for trying to become a monopoly that is fine but don't say that trying to be #1 is evil.

True, you did not mention "monopoly." In fact, from your statements here, it is clear that you deliberately avoid the subject.

BTW, did you notice that two of the top ten winners from Google's Farmer/Panda update just happened to be Google services? Just the latest in a string of things that make you go "hm-mm."

__________________

[omegaman66]

True, you did not mention "monopoly." In fact, from your statements here, it is clear that you deliberately avoid the subject.

That is right I did deliberately avoid that subject because there are laws against such monopolistic activities and I do not condone such activities are suggest that google has not done any such activities.

My entire point is NOT that google is as clean as the wind driven snow but that people are making statements that google is evil for reasons that do not constitute being evil. Other assertions which I am not refuting point out reasons that they are evil.

As and example if a murderer is caught he should be sentence via the laws pertaining to murder and not murder and kidnapping. If you have a murderer there is no reason to make up charges when you already have the goods on him for murder.

My only point is people here are pissed at google for a whole host of reasons and are condeming google for some reasons that are simply good business practices and are not evil. People here act as though google is there for them and not for google. We might want google to behave in our best interest but when they don't for business reasons that doesn't make them evil... even if they are evil for something else.

[cameronese]

For a particular company trying to control the entile Internet is indeed evil enough.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by omegaman66

That is right I did deliberately avoid that subject because there are laws against such monopolistic activities and I do not condone such activities are suggest that google has not done any such activities.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Google seeks to be amonpoly, and that more than a few nations are more deeply investigating Google's behavior in such regards. Pretending otherwise serves as no good defense.

Originally Posted by omegaman66

My entire point is NOT that google is as clean as the wind driven snow but that people are making statements that google is evil for reasons that do not constitute being evil.

Be that as it may, their are very many who do not concur, that do not condone practices which you seem to defend.

Originally Posted by omegaman66

My only point is people here are pissed at google for a whole host of reasons and are condeming google for some reasons that are simply good business practices and are not evil.

What is good for a business is frequently bad for others. You cannot disassociate the acts of a business from the consequences inflicted on others.

We condemn Google, not for its successes, but for not being a good corporate citizen.

__________________

[abhiamke]

Google is not evil because it's help for search many kind of information , it's depend our opinion.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by abhiamke

Google is not evil because it's help for search many kind of information , it's depend our opinion.

The Devil has always stood ready to help you find what you want.

__________________

[sallygirl]

United States readies probe on Google's search dominance....
http://www.smh.com.au/business/world...430-1e1lm.html

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by sallygirl

United States readies probe on Google's search dominance....
http://www.smh.com.au/business/world...430-1e1lm.html

They've been "readying" such for over a year. I'll be impressed only if and when the words become actions.

__________________

[snakeair]

Nice blog post by Mr. Wall.

How Google Creates Black Hats

The #1 goal for any organization is self-preservation. When people feel things are fairly just & they are just getting by they are fine with squeezing out more efficiency in what they do and figuring out ways to pay the bills. But when people feel the table is tilted at some point they stop caring and do whatever it takes.

Ex Post Facto

Some longtime AdWords advertisers have recently been punished for affiliate ads they ran 8 years ago where some of the sites they promoted at some point fell out of Google's graces through an ad system which never allows you to delete your history & offers ex post facto regulations that turn a regular advertiser arbitrarily into a spammer.

What's worse is that sometimes the data Google ties together creates guilt where there is nothing but innocence.

Continued at: http://www.seobook.com/how-google-creates-black-hats

I like the video he used in this blog post.

[serveruptime]

Who is Matt Blacks? Sounds like a chess master. People are evilier than google. Google is just a reflection of people in the grand scheme of things.

He's far from being the devil in desguise
Just wants to pour your heart (and soul) into contextual expressionism.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by serveruptime

Who is Matt Blacks?

Well, who is he?

Originally Posted by serveruptime

People are evilier than google. Google is just a reflection of people in the grand scheme of things.

To be precise, Google is people, some of whom are evil, and sufficiently well placed within Google's chain of command so as to indulge their unsavory desires.

__________________

[deepsand]

In the company of thieves.

California class action lawsuit puts Apple at the center of a conspiracy involving Google, Adobe, Intel and others to keep employee wages down.

__________________

[sallygirl]

There was a really sad story on T.V. here just now, the story was about a business in the Philippines (im not in the philippines) and the business wrote content for other websites around the world, Im guessing some of the big websites that were hit in the farmer update. 30 people lost their jobs due to the farmer update which caused a downturn in business. One of those was a married man with 5 children, after being told he lost his job he went into the bathroom and killed himself, he left behind a wife and 5 children. And keep in mind this is a country with no welfare. Others at the business were crying and screaming, it was heart breaking, it made me cry.
Google keeps ranting about webmasters being good internet citizens and how we should do the right thing, but what about Googles responsibility to be good corporate citizens.
We now have confirmation that people have died as a result of the farmer update mess. Will google step up and take some responsibility for this. I doubt it..they will just keep carrying on in the same old way blaming everying else. What a terrible tragedy. How the internet started out as something so good and ended as something so evil is beyond me.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by sallygirl

... what about Googles responsibility to be good corporate citizens.

Precisely what I earlier notedto one who seemed to feel that Google was being unfairly taken to task simply for being successful.

Google is being condemned by many, not for what they've accomplished, but how and at what cost to others.

__________________

[snakeair]

In the Manufacturing Consent DVD a newspaper executive highlighted that they liked to have a 60/40 ratio between ads and content.

Google says that if over half your page's content is ads then your pages are of insufficient value.

What Google engineers miss when delivering sermons to webmasters is that Google is fine with disappearing their organic search results for self promotion & even advertises that consumers can't tell the difference between their search ads and the organic results.

You see, tricking people is bad. Unless you are Google. In which case you have to hit the quarterly numbers.

Everyone else needs to read Google platitudes, create deep content, and pray to turn the corner before bankruptcy hits.

Matt Cutts stated that you should make your products like Apple products by packaging them nicely.

Continued at: http://www.seobook.com/google-panda-algorithm-exploit

I like the blank check.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by snakeair

I like the blank check.

How much will you be donating?

__________________