4 ms·

I don't think Gruber's upset that Google isn't open about these things — it's more than they claim to be open about everything, but clearly aren't. He's callin

by kneath 17y ago

I don't think Gruber's upset that Google isn't open about these things — it's more than they claim to be open about everything, but clearly aren't. He's calling Rosenberg out on his propaganda-like march of "Google is always open no matter what"

jfager 17y ago
But Rosenberg's blog post never says "Google is always open no matter what". Relevant quotes: These are the things we should be doing. In many cases we aren't there, but I hope that with this note we can start working to close the gap between reality and aspiration. and While we are committed to opening the code for our developer tools, not all Google products are open source. Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in. In many cases, most notably our search and ads products, opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users. The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs, so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in. Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to "game" our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings, reducing our quality for everyone. So as you are building your product or adding new features, stop and ask yourself: Would open sourcing this code promote the open Internet? Would it spur greater user, advertiser, and partner choice? Would it lead to greater competition and innovation?
- lg 17y ago
  I think the actual argument is bad anyway. Open-sourcing their product is a bad idea because malicious people will read the code and exploit its flaws? This is security by obscurity and it will not promote the open internet. I don't think it's wrong but it's not altruistic either.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    Yes, open sourcing how their search algorithm works would destroy the relevance of their search rankings. There's a multi-billion SEO market reverse engineering those algorithms.
    - gaius 17y ago
      Right, but there isn't a multi-billion-dollar market in reverse engineering AES, because it's published. And we all use it and it's fine - publication hasn't weakened it at all.
      - nvoorhies 17y ago
        AES does something completely different though. AES wants to make an insignificant change to the input result in a disproportionate change in the output. Any kind of scoring system where scoring ended up being essentially random like this would be useless. And any scoring system that's useful and open will tell you just how to increase your score.
rpdillon 17y ago
"they claim to be open about everything" You're mischaracterizing the memo so you can argue with it, which, incidentally, is exactly what Gruber did. Though so often incorrectly used on the internet, this, folks, is a genuine "strawman" argument.
- brisance 17y ago
  Essentially, he claims that open source code is high quality code, except Google's own closed source search and ad products, where opening it will reduce its quality. But isn't that the point of "open source" in the first place?

by kneath 17y ago

jfager 17y ago

But Rosenberg's blog post never says "Google is always open no matter what". Relevant quotes: These are the things we should be doing. In many cases we aren't there, but I hope that with this note we can start working to close the gap between reality and aspiration. and While we are committed to opening the code for our developer tools, not all Google products are open source. Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in. In many cases, most notably our search and ads products, opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users. The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs, so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in. Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to "game" our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings, reducing our quality for everyone. So as you are building your product or adding new features, stop and ask yourself: Would open sourcing this code promote the open Internet? Would it spur greater user, advertiser, and partner choice? Would it lead to greater competition and innovation?

lg 17y ago
I think the actual argument is bad anyway. Open-sourcing their product is a bad idea because malicious people will read the code and exploit its flaws? This is security by obscurity and it will not promote the open internet. I don't think it's wrong but it's not altruistic either.
- andreyf 17y ago
  Yes, open sourcing how their search algorithm works would destroy the relevance of their search rankings. There's a multi-billion SEO market reverse engineering those algorithms.
  - gaius 17y ago
    Right, but there isn't a multi-billion-dollar market in reverse engineering AES, because it's published. And we all use it and it's fine - publication hasn't weakened it at all.
    - nvoorhies 17y ago
      AES does something completely different though. AES wants to make an insignificant change to the input result in a disproportionate change in the output. Any kind of scoring system where scoring ended up being essentially random like this would be useless. And any scoring system that's useful and open will tell you just how to increase your score.

rpdillon 17y ago

"they claim to be open about everything" You're mischaracterizing the memo so you can argue with it, which, incidentally, is exactly what Gruber did. Though so often incorrectly used on the internet, this, folks, is a genuine "strawman" argument.

brisance 17y ago
Essentially, he claims that open source code is high quality code, except Google's own closed source search and ad products, where opening it will reduce its quality. But isn't that the point of "open source" in the first place?