3 ms·

So? that doesn't stop the other browsers (and it shouldn't). Google isn't the dominant player there and they can do whatever they want to grab market share, th

by yanw 15y ago

So? that doesn't stop the other browsers (and it shouldn't). Google isn't the dominant player there and they can do whatever they want to grab market share, there is nothing wrong with that.

omgtehlion 15y ago
And you want g..gle to be dominant player everywhere?
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is that Google wants to gain more market share there and you can't blame them for not promoting their competitors. It's like asking Apple to offer a choice of browsers in Mac OS, because Microsoft also does it (at least in Europe after EU forced them to do it).
  - hullo 15y ago
    Nobody has said Google had to do it. They just.. did. Until.. they didn't. The OP is questioning the hypocrisy, which is of course a common meme. Google wants to have it both ways. I'd wager having drawn attention that this particular decision will ultimately be reversed, as it can't possibly be as valuable as our collection assumption of google's will and benevolence.
  - omgtehlion 15y ago
    Maybe better choice would be removing this dialog in Chrome, not Chromium?
    - ash 15y ago
      Maybe, but then we wouldn't know about the details, right? :)
  - ellyagg 15y ago
    And that's fine. And Google's reputation for the morality of its decisions should be equivalent to Apple's in that case, as well. But it's not, and that's the reason to point out issues like these, to puncture the undeserved "goodness" reputation that Google cultivates, but is at odds with reality. When Google offers users a choice, it appears that they're being fair, but Google offers that choice because they know that they won't lose market share. If they did start losing market share, the "choice" would be gone. That's not a choice, that's a calculated decision to foster the "goodness" reputation.
itswindy 15y ago
is this Larry or Sergey? And when are you mass-penalizing travel sites not to compete with yours?
bryanlarsen 15y ago
When your motto is "don't be evil", don't be surprised when you're held to a higher standard.
- yanw 15y ago
  You think this "evil"? In other markets Chrome doesn't have a default search engine, in this one it does. If trying to protect your investment while keeping choice and providing an opensource browser is "evil" then your standards are too fucking high.
  - bryanlarsen 15y ago
    Defaulting a search engine isn't evil. But it's substantially less good than providing user choice the way google does everywhere else. But not providing that choice based solely on a user's location, that's worthy of criticism.
    - yanw 15y ago
      Having different business strategies for different markets is worthy of criticism?! The choice is there, you can change the settings, the ballot just doesn't popup.
    - stanleydrew 15y ago
      I don't understand this. You are not criticizing other browser makers despite the fact that they have never offered this ballot. And in fact if Chrome had never introduced a ballot, you wouldn't have the chance to criticize when it was removed. It just seems that by your standards Google would have come out better off having never introduced the ballot, which was a good idea.
      - ellyagg 15y ago
        I think the criticism here is hypocrisy. Google has a reputation of being extremely honest, open, fair, what-have-you. This reputation is exemplified by their offering a an initial choice in other markets. But, as this example illustrates, in the markets where it actually matters, they take that initial choice away. This is not really hard to understand. Google adores the reputation they have for somehow being above the fray and simply being the best. They cultivate this image. But over and over it's revealed that they are a normal company, who does things such as "delayed open source" to keep partners in line, purposely introducing systematic flaws in their Web search API, and of course the foregoing "special circumstances", all of which are sneaky ways to have the appearance of the image they want, while keeping their competitive advantage. I don't begrudge them these decisions, but all the Google fawning does get a little hard to take, as if they have some sort of moral superiority. The facts say otherwise. They are not altruistic. They do not make decisions that might hurt themselves in order to give others an equal chance. Google has replaced Apple is the PR machine extraordinaire in the modern corporate world.

by yanw 15y ago

So? that doesn't stop the other browsers (and it shouldn't). Google isn't the dominant player there and they can do whatever they want to grab market share, there is nothing wrong with that.

omgtehlion 15y ago

And you want g..gle to be dominant player everywhere?

nextparadigms 15y ago
Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is that Google wants to gain more market share there and you can't blame them for not promoting their competitors. It's like asking Apple to offer a choice of browsers in Mac OS, because Microsoft also does it (at least in Europe after EU forced them to do it).
- hullo 15y ago
  Nobody has said Google had to do it. They just.. did. Until.. they didn't. The OP is questioning the hypocrisy, which is of course a common meme. Google wants to have it both ways. I'd wager having drawn attention that this particular decision will ultimately be reversed, as it can't possibly be as valuable as our collection assumption of google's will and benevolence.
- omgtehlion 15y ago
  Maybe better choice would be removing this dialog in Chrome, not Chromium?
  - ash 15y ago
    Maybe, but then we wouldn't know about the details, right? :)
- ellyagg 15y ago
  And that's fine. And Google's reputation for the morality of its decisions should be equivalent to Apple's in that case, as well. But it's not, and that's the reason to point out issues like these, to puncture the undeserved "goodness" reputation that Google cultivates, but is at odds with reality. When Google offers users a choice, it appears that they're being fair, but Google offers that choice because they know that they won't lose market share. If they did start losing market share, the "choice" would be gone. That's not a choice, that's a calculated decision to foster the "goodness" reputation.

itswindy 15y ago

is this Larry or Sergey? And when are you mass-penalizing travel sites not to compete with yours?

bryanlarsen 15y ago

When your motto is "don't be evil", don't be surprised when you're held to a higher standard.

yanw 15y ago
You think this "evil"? In other markets Chrome doesn't have a default search engine, in this one it does. If trying to protect your investment while keeping choice and providing an opensource browser is "evil" then your standards are too fucking high.
- bryanlarsen 15y ago
  Defaulting a search engine isn't evil. But it's substantially less good than providing user choice the way google does everywhere else. But not providing that choice based solely on a user's location, that's worthy of criticism.
  - yanw 15y ago
    Having different business strategies for different markets is worthy of criticism?! The choice is there, you can change the settings, the ballot just doesn't popup.
  - stanleydrew 15y ago
    I don't understand this. You are not criticizing other browser makers despite the fact that they have never offered this ballot. And in fact if Chrome had never introduced a ballot, you wouldn't have the chance to criticize when it was removed. It just seems that by your standards Google would have come out better off having never introduced the ballot, which was a good idea.
    - ellyagg 15y ago
      I think the criticism here is hypocrisy. Google has a reputation of being extremely honest, open, fair, what-have-you. This reputation is exemplified by their offering a an initial choice in other markets. But, as this example illustrates, in the markets where it actually matters, they take that initial choice away. This is not really hard to understand. Google adores the reputation they have for somehow being above the fray and simply being the best. They cultivate this image. But over and over it's revealed that they are a normal company, who does things such as "delayed open source" to keep partners in line, purposely introducing systematic flaws in their Web search API, and of course the foregoing "special circumstances", all of which are sneaky ways to have the appearance of the image they want, while keeping their competitive advantage. I don't begrudge them these decisions, but all the Google fawning does get a little hard to take, as if they have some sort of moral superiority. The facts say otherwise. They are not altruistic. They do not make decisions that might hurt themselves in order to give others an equal chance. Google has replaced Apple is the PR machine extraordinaire in the modern corporate world.