BREAKING: Google does something truly NON evil !!@!

[P3nT4gR4m]

It's not as much about deliberate lock-in on their part I'm talking about exactly. More what they did with M$ over including a free browser with their OS, back in the days when open source was imaginary, IP reigned supreme and competition was as cutthroat as competition is generally assumed to be. All I (honestly) think M$ were up to was trying to make their OS offer more features to the consumer and integrating a web browser was the next logical step. Of course they got slammed for it.

I should probably point out that, IMHO, many of the other antitrust allegations were perfectly reasonable.

ETA: That said I could imagine, several years of company evolution down the line, anything is possible.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

It's not as much about deliberate lock-in on their part I'm talking about exactly. More what they did with M$ over including a free browser with their OS, back in the days when open source was imaginary, IP reigned supreme and competition was as cutthroat as competition is generally assumed to be. All I (honestly) think M$ were up to was trying to make their OS offer more features to the consumer and integrating a web browser was the next logical step. Of course they got slammed for it.

I should probably point out that, IMHO, many of the other antitrust allegations were perfectly reasonable.

ETA: That said I could imagine, several years of company evolution down the line, anything is possible.

Well, I am not as altruistic about Microsoft... as early as the MS-DOS vs DR-DOS days, Microsoft was adding code to intentionally break their Windows Manager app if it detected Dr Dos instead of Ms DOS. The Internet Explorer issue was also similar... in Windows 95 once they began embedding IE, they also had code which "broke" other browsers.

I don't think Google will go that way because its too obvious... if they go Evil, they won't need the lock-in or the 'bundling'... they just need all that data to end up in their control, whatever the Interface may be. There's not so much value in competing at that level anymore (esp if you have Open Source geeks willing to do dev work for free...)

[P3nT4gR4m]

Point. The more I think about it the more I wonder just how much capacity for evil there actually is in a setup like Google. I guess they could sell datamining results to the highest bidder or bump search rankings but the risk to the company of being found out with their hands in the till like that have gotta move things to the realm of - just not worth it. You can't exactly advertise those kinds of services without incurring the wrath of the rest of the world so it'd have to be through shady subsidiary dealers still with the risk of being caught.

Why bother when you make so much moneybucks allready with the revolution in demographically targetted advertising that they have managed to pull off?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Point. The more I think about it the more I wonder just how much capacity for evil there actually is in a setup like Google. I guess they could sell datamining results to the highest bidder or bump search rankings but the risk to the company of being found out with their hands in the till like that have gotta move things to the realm of - just not worth it. You can't exactly advertise those kinds of services without incurring the wrath of the rest of the world so it'd have to be through shady subsidiary dealers still with the risk of being caught.

Why bother when you make so much moneybucks allready with the revolution in demographically targetted advertising that they have managed to pull off?

Cause all that data can be scanned in some pseudonymous manner to create even more precise 'targets' for ad sales... The better you know your customer, the more money you can charge for the ads.

Then again, maybe they're really altruistic.

Gosh that's hard to write without the lulz face....

[Captain Utopia]

Give them a couple of years, the retirement of some key people, a bit of an economic arse-up, leading directly to a shareholder-driven bid for new management and you has Evil Empire MkII. Only this one, like Rat rightly pointed out, has the DATA  +  + 

I agree - the potential for corruption is always there. Requiring eternal vigilance and all that. Although, in some ways because people expect MORE from Google, it likely has less freedom to frolic with evil than other corporations do.

Still, to me it looks like the general trend for corporations is to act more ethically. Although we're not completely out of the PR routine of do-evil-but-spin-feel-good-shit phase, it's becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the thin lie in an age when tools like Blogger and YouTube and Wikileaks are available to anyone who gives a fuck, and cable-news who - for all their faults - now feed often from scandals which break first over the internet.

Some of the shit only works on chrome-browser, no doubt some of the new shit will only work on chrome OS, next thing you know - ANTITRUST but why desert teh sinking ship while it's still floating?

Isn't Chrome OS arm-based? I'd love to see Microsoft have to port IE to arm.. although it'd likely be simpler to use the arm port of wine

[P3nT4gR4m]

Point. The more I think about it the more I wonder just how much capacity for evil there actually is in a setup like Google. I guess they could sell datamining results to the highest bidder or bump search rankings but the risk to the company of being found out with their hands in the till like that have gotta move things to the realm of - just not worth it. You can't exactly advertise those kinds of services without incurring the wrath of the rest of the world so it'd have to be through shady subsidiary dealers still with the risk of being caught.

Why bother when you make so much moneybucks allready with the revolution in demographically targetted advertising that they have managed to pull off?

Cause all that data can be scanned in some pseudonymous manner to create even more precise 'targets' for ad sales... The better you know your customer, the more money you can charge for the ads.

Then again, maybe they're really altruistic.

Gosh that's hard to write without the lulz face....

This is the part I've never had a problem with. So Google can now say to a retailer, f'rinstance, we'll only advertise to people who are, statistically guaranteed to want to buy your product but we'll charge more than a newspaper who can't guarantee jack shit, beyond some vague demographics.

So everyone only sees ads that are of interest to them. And the companies get a better conversion rate, ship more units and continue to grow. Yes there is a privacy issue but not the kind of privacy issue I have a problem with exactly. I mean it's not as if the guvmint are snooping through my emails or shit, it's more impersonal, no one is actually spying on me in a way that freaks me out as of yet and, to be perfectly honest, I'd rather see only ads that were of interest to me than for Sky sports or Disneyland.

[LMNO]

Still, to me it looks like the general trend for corporations is to act more ethically.

Right up until they start doing things "for your own good, because we know better."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Still, to me it looks like the general trend for corporations is to act more ethically.

Right up until they start doing things "for your own good, because we know better."

Coors Beverage Company.  Because they know which music is bad for you.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Still, to me it looks like the general trend for corporations is to act more ethically.

PAGING P.T. BARNUM...

[Captain Utopia]

Still, to me it looks like the general trend for corporations is to act more ethically.

Right up until they start doing things "for your own good, because we know better."

I agree - the potential for corruption is always there. Requiring eternal vigilance and all that.

[LMNO]

"Trust me.  All the data we have on you clearly shows that you will like the new season of Dancing with the Stars featuring Tony Danza and Sheena Easton."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Still, to me it looks like the general trend for corporations is to act more ethically.

Right up until they start doing things "for your own good, because we know better."

I agree - the potential for corruption is always there. Requiring eternal vigilance and all that.

I'd settle for a little vigilance, now.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Trust me.  All the data we have on you clearly shows that you will like the new season of Dancing with the Stars featuring Tony Danza and Sheena Easton."

They do that shit on purpose. 

[LMNO]

"Trust me.  All the data we have on you clearly shows that you will like the new season of Dancing with the Stars featuring Tony Danza and Sheena Easton."

They do that shit on purpose. 

Because it drives the sale of alcohol through the roof.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Trust me.  All the data we have on you clearly shows that you will like the new season of Dancing with the Stars featuring Tony Danza and Sheena Easton."

They do that shit on purpose. 

Because it drives the sale of alcohol through the roof.

Yeah, I can't watch TV at all.  If I was juiced to the gills on rum I probably could, but then they'd have to come and take me away.

The headlines alone would turn your stomach.