__/ [ nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] on Friday 20 April 2007 18:39 \__
> On Apr 20, 4:39 am, BearItAll <s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> flyer wrote:
>>
>> > Just food for thought.
>>
>> > Well at least it will contain some open source code. With Google helping
>> > China hide references to democracy, what was I thinking rooting them on.
>>
>> You don't get a choice, you have to provide the software within the
>> confines of the laws of the target country. Just as we have to with lesser
>> security for the likes of America and some other countries.
>>
>> > I really can't imagine Google staying clean after having accumulated all
>> > the power that they might achieve. I don't trust them at all -- I'm sure
>> > they spy on any searching.
>>
>> Google offer a good product which has made it a success. Should we
>> peanalise them for their success? No, let them carry on, if they turn out
>> later to be baddies we can always jump ship. At the moment though they are
>> very good for Open source generally.
>>
>> I don't care that Mr Google has billions of dallars, I do care though that
>> a search I enter into a seach engine brings up a list of good results,
>> without the muck-and-adverts that the others come up with. I am much more
>> likely to go into a sponsered link in google than I am a flashy advert or
>> the unrelated sponsered links that other search engines bring up.
>
>
> I basically agree with this, although in any corporation control can
> be suddenly taken over by unscrupulous individuals. Perhaps not
> likely with the Google guys, who retain a lot of personal power over
> how the company operates, but they will retire some day and changes
> will certainly occur. So, if you say it's bad for any company to have
> too large a fraction of the market, I agree, including the case of
> Google, but for now it doesn't seem too bad to me. I'm not a complete
> idealist about this, and neither are they (for example, agreeing to
> abide by Chinese censorship laws).
>
> The problem of their control over large masses of information will
> apply to any search company, Google's competitiors, too. It's a
> complicated and serious question. I don't know what the answer is.
>
> For now I'm glad for the competition they're giving Microsoft, and the
> threats they pose in areas other than search (web-based office
> applications, for example). Won't be good for Microsoft if all you
> need to run a business is a browser on a box.
Increasingly, this option is being explored by large companies. The cons and
pros have been listed many times before, but as browser technology evolves
(just look at Firefox 3.0), the advantages may outweigh the deficiencies.
Microsoft foresaw this in the mid 90s, but put its money on the desktop
where it can have total control.
Google earned a lot of cash (=power and talented developers) through
advertising and it is using this cash to do just about anything that makes
it stronger. Yesterday they acquired a Web teleconferencing company, IIRC.
Do I trust Google? No. Not quite. They already have lobbyists in Europe, but
their age of growth does not project the vanity and corruption of young
Micro-soft. The DoubleClick acquisition sounds the alarm though. It could
also empower Microosft's Yahoo lust, which is very, very bad.
--
~~ With kind regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | Disclaimer: no SCO code used to generate this post
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1036184k total, 375548k used, 660636k free, 71880k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
