The idea that they should be allowed to put
google maps at the
top of searches for maps because "you
don't want to find worse products" are
ludicrous and draw
parallels with Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer
with Windows.
Wow - that sentence is so loaded with
fallacies it is
hard to know where to begin. Let's start here: What law is
there that says what Google has to put in its search
results? For one thing,
that is a free speech issue, isn't
it? Suppose you have a website. Could I
complain about what
you decide to put at the top?
You seem to justify
your point of view by complaining
about Google's "Dominant position". What
bearing does that
have on anything? You don't explain. Is there some law
against having a dominant position on line? If you build a
web site focusing
on a subject area that is better than mine
in that area, and people prefer your
site to mine, do I have
a right to complain?
You say Google has used
their dominant position in search
to expand into other areas, but you do not
show a shred of
evidence that there is anything wrong with this. That is
simply called "growth".
You draw parallels between Google search result
listings
and Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows.
That is
totally ludicrous. Microsoft controls a platform
that people are heavily
invested in. What investment do you
have in Google search? How hard would it be
for you to use
Bling instead? Do you have to download software off the
internet and install it to do that, like you would to use an
alternative
browser? Then the notion of comparing Google to
Microsoft in the first place,
how is there any comparison
between a convicted monopolist and a web search
company? The
economics between the two companies are like comparing
apples to
oranges. Microsoft developed a platform that
people are heavily invested in and
cannot easily move away
from, where as Google has a website you can click on or
not,
at a whim.
Google have no respect for people's
privacy,
and use personal data to make a lot of money for
themselves.
Another heavily loaded phrase. First you need
to define
what is "respect for privacy"? I think that term means
different
things to different people, so it is very hard to
make any kind of blanket
statement like that. For me, in
this context, respect for privacy means
somebody not
revealing personal details about me without permission such
as:
my name, address, and telephone number, sex, etc. and
beyond that, just about
any detail about my life that is
linked directly to me. I have no problem with
Google
collecting aggregate data and pooling data derived from
interactions
with me with that aggregate. This cannot be
linked directly to me by name.
However, others are
uncomfortable with even this and I respect that, and don't
want to start of a debate on the subject, which would be off
the point I am
trying to make here.
The point I am trying to make is: As you so
brilliantly
pointed out the obvious, that is how many companies make
money, by
gathering marketing data, and using or selling
data. Google is no different
here than hundreds of other
companies Facebook, Yahoo, Apple, and
Microsoft, so I don't see how
that gives your argument any weight or even
meaning. There
is no law against gathering marketing data.
Google do
have respect for people's privacy, as they
inform you exactly what data they
collect, give you some
control over that, and certainly don't give out any
personal
information. Beyond that, if you don't like Google, don't
use Google
or any of their products. It is a simply matter
of preference. Why are you here
complaining, when you could
be elsewhere on a site that makes you happy? You
don't need
to use Google. It is as simple as that. In summation on this
point,
you making a statement such as "Google has no respect
for privacy" to justify
your conclusion is totally bogus.
Implying that google are
doing good or
fighting for freedom is incredibly naive. Stick to the
analysis
of the law...
Analysis of the law... but you don't provide
us with any!
Are you trying to imply that Google has somehow transgressed
the
law? Well you will need more that a brief comment to
provide such an analyses.
Certainly simply slurring Google
does not provide us with any useful
information.
In the end, I find your comment appallingly empty of
substance, and a complete waste of space.
As far as Google doing good,
you do bring up a good
point. Google does a tremendous amount of good with
their
contributions to open source. I guess maybe you wouldn't
understand
that, but that means a great deal to a lot of us,
because it allows us to
escape Apple's prison and
Microsoft's predations. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
