3 ms·

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 cho

by 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

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.