4 ms·

From a comment there: It seems like everyone forgot the meaning of words like "negotiation", "compromise" and "unbinding-agreement", other tech companies weren

by yanw 16y ago

From a comment there: It seems like everyone forgot the meaning of words like "negotiation", "compromise" and "unbinding-agreement", other tech companies weren't fighting with Google for net neutrality, in fact they left them to handle the teleco fury on their own, and now that they have got some sort of agreement on the subject people are ignoring the good bits and feel that Google owes them something, which is ridiculous.

rtrunck 16y ago
I think the anti-google anger arrises because many people didn't expect Google to compromise on something that Google, previously, gave the impression of being so important.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  Expecting them to be able to get away without any compromise is naive. They are a company, not the supreme ruler. Thus I fall back on my grandma's old adage; a good compromise leaves nobody happy.
  - jleader 16y ago
    So how unhappy are the wireless companies?
- Terretta 16y ago
  Here, use our mobile OS. We're all about open. Ahoy, our mobile OS is outselling others? Look over there, stuff with wires is still open.
- danudey 16y ago
  I think the anti-Google anger arises because people misinterpreted Google's pro-consumer stance as a principled one, rather than opportunistic pandering. They're no worse than most other companies in terms of what they're doing, but they branded themselves heroes to the internet; now that it's in their best interests to go against their previous stance people feel like they've been sold a bill of goods.
nanairo 16y ago
Look: that's an attempt to change discussion. People are not angry at Google because they made a negotiation, and are fully aware of what compromising entails. So in this area Google gets as much flak as anyone else. But on top of that there's the fact that Google has always described himself as being more ethical than your average company. Hence when they break that trust people get more angry than your average company. Apple or Microsoft don't claim to be doing things out of the goodness of their heart: they are companies and they want to make money. Google pretended they were playing a different game and now that it looks like they aren't, people feel betrayed.
- yanw 16y ago
  So your problem with Google is that hey have tried something and failed but you are ok with companies that haven't even attempted anything?
  - nanairo 16y ago
    Not quite. First Google attempts seems to have been half-hearted to say the least. Google is not a start up: they have a lot of power, a lot of money, and a lot of connections. If they wanted to put real pressure they could. Second it was Google that put itself on the pedestal. They did not use half measures in the past: net neutrality was really really important. And they have tried to portrayed themselves as the customer's white knight. Just as two examples (with reference to Apple, but I am sure there are many more) remember how Google spoke of Apple and Apple's future with the iPhone: draconian, big-brother, etc... That was another case where they tried to speak the language of morality, not of business. Same thing here (the arstechnica article is very eloquent in that). Another example of how companies can push when they want take Apple who (allegedly) went to Verizon first but since Verizon didn't want to give up its privileges (their power over the phone) Apple went to AT&T. That probably meant less money for Apple and less market share. But Steve Jobs is so obsessive about these things that Apple can be quite blind in these cases (though that's something its fans like). And mind you: I am not saying Apple is any better than Google. These are just two examples of how Google tends to speak in moral terms, and how other companies have used their power. Basically Google is being accused of having been one huge hypocrite.
gamble 16y ago
Google's self-marketing is entirely based on how ethical they are. Google does no evil. Android is open. Whether true or not, Google has benefited from that image. They can't betray their supposed principles and expect no one to notice or care.
- shadowfox 16y ago
  Such imagery dies hard however

by yanw 16y ago

rtrunck 16y ago

I think the anti-google anger arrises because many people didn't expect Google to compromise on something that Google, previously, gave the impression of being so important.

sliverstorm 16y ago
Expecting them to be able to get away without any compromise is naive. They are a company, not the supreme ruler. Thus I fall back on my grandma's old adage; a good compromise leaves nobody happy.
- jleader 16y ago
  So how unhappy are the wireless companies?
Terretta 16y ago
Here, use our mobile OS. We're all about open. Ahoy, our mobile OS is outselling others? Look over there, stuff with wires is still open.
danudey 16y ago
I think the anti-Google anger arises because people misinterpreted Google's pro-consumer stance as a principled one, rather than opportunistic pandering. They're no worse than most other companies in terms of what they're doing, but they branded themselves heroes to the internet; now that it's in their best interests to go against their previous stance people feel like they've been sold a bill of goods.

nanairo 16y ago

Look: that's an attempt to change discussion. People are not angry at Google because they made a negotiation, and are fully aware of what compromising entails. So in this area Google gets as much flak as anyone else. But on top of that there's the fact that Google has always described himself as being more ethical than your average company. Hence when they break that trust people get more angry than your average company. Apple or Microsoft don't claim to be doing things out of the goodness of their heart: they are companies and they want to make money. Google pretended they were playing a different game and now that it looks like they aren't, people feel betrayed.

yanw 16y ago
So your problem with Google is that hey have tried something and failed but you are ok with companies that haven't even attempted anything?
- nanairo 16y ago
  Not quite. First Google attempts seems to have been half-hearted to say the least. Google is not a start up: they have a lot of power, a lot of money, and a lot of connections. If they wanted to put real pressure they could. Second it was Google that put itself on the pedestal. They did not use half measures in the past: net neutrality was really really important. And they have tried to portrayed themselves as the customer's white knight. Just as two examples (with reference to Apple, but I am sure there are many more) remember how Google spoke of Apple and Apple's future with the iPhone: draconian, big-brother, etc... That was another case where they tried to speak the language of morality, not of business. Same thing here (the arstechnica article is very eloquent in that). Another example of how companies can push when they want take Apple who (allegedly) went to Verizon first but since Verizon didn't want to give up its privileges (their power over the phone) Apple went to AT&T. That probably meant less money for Apple and less market share. But Steve Jobs is so obsessive about these things that Apple can be quite blind in these cases (though that's something its fans like). And mind you: I am not saying Apple is any better than Google. These are just two examples of how Google tends to speak in moral terms, and how other companies have used their power. Basically Google is being accused of having been one huge hypocrite.

gamble 16y ago

Google's self-marketing is entirely based on how ethical they are. Google does no evil. Android is open. Whether true or not, Google has benefited from that image. They can't betray their supposed principles and expect no one to notice or care.

shadowfox 16y ago
Such imagery dies hard however