5 ms·

Despite everyone else seemingly being on the opposite side here, I agree with Brin. Google allow you basic functionality over your own data with them, such as

Despite everyone else seemingly being on the opposite side here, I agree with Brin. Google allow you basic functionality over your own data with them, such as the freedom to migrate to other services, which Facebook and Apple restrict (and profit from). And he is right that when companies horde user information and then control access to it (for profit) rather than provide it freely, it stifles innovation [though Google themselves do a little of this too]. I'm sure that Google could be doing a lot more to screw everybody's personal information for profit if they chose to, but they dont because they have at least some respect for the common user (though they are not perfect either). Also, as a side issue, the original (guardian) article is very poor in the sense that the journalist imposes their own narrative on top of what Brin is saying.

diminish 15y ago
I agree, new start-ups like mine (or Pinterest, Google) benefit from an open web. however all of them/us after going strong, we want to create a walled garden. Assuming that openness wins at the end, the whole idea is to keep the openness as a feature not as a starting point.
magicalist 15y ago
The original guardian article is pretty poor (not much of an "interview", it's pretty much just a regular story with a few quotes from Brin in it), but both the Wired article and this cnet article are really playing up the Facebook/Apple thing (and maybe that's why those stories are on the front page and the guardian article isn't). Notice, for instance, no mention of Facebook or Apple before the "it's scary" quote in the guardian article, but cnet makes it seem like he's referring specifically to them when he said that. On your larger point, I have to agree. If you think about preserving a universally accessible, open web, balkanized data in proprietary app datastores and a privately controlled internet within the internet are definitely two big threats (of course, China's censorship and Iran shutting down internet access and making their own are probably bigger threats, but that doesn't make for page views). Private data should remain private, but requiring a particular app, or a Facebook account, or a google+ account, to view what is supposed to be public content does actively work against the open web.
taligent 15y ago
Can we please stop with the misinformation. As it stands today. Facebook has more complete APIs and is much easier to get your data from them than Google+. And don't forget that Google makes significantly more profit from its users than Facebook does.
- chrisbroadfoot 15y ago
  > Facebook has more complete APIs and is much easier to get your data from them than Google+. Can you please quantify this?
  - rsynnott 15y ago
    They probably mean this: https://www.facebook.com/help/?page=116481065103985 https://www.facebook.com/help/?page=116481065103985 It doesn't look like the Google+ APIs provide anything even slightly as comprehensive, for now. Of course, what Brin is complaining about isn't that Facebook won't give your data to _you_; it's that they've been reticent about giving it to Google.
    - spot 15y ago
      he said what he's really talking about: you can get email addresses out of gmail but not out of facebook.
    - intended 15y ago
      Given the age of g+, it will take a little time before it reaches FB levels, I'd think.
danmaz74 15y ago
There is a real threat, but Google could answer to it in a much better way: By positioning Google Plus as "the open web alternative to Facebook". To do so, they should make G+ the identity/social graph platform on which third parties want to base their own services instead of FB connect. I'm sure they could do that, because Google can profit from people going around in the web, while FB needs to keep people as much as possible inside its walled garden. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like G+ is moving towards that direction.
- magicalist 15y ago
  It would be nice, though it would be even better if we could settle on a more federated model (like Mozilla's BrowserID). The lack of success with previous federated ID systems isn't encouraging, however.
  - danmaz74 15y ago
    In theory, I agree that a federated approach would be more desirable. But in practice that looks even more difficult to do right.

diminish 15y ago

I agree, new start-ups like mine (or Pinterest, Google) benefit from an open web. however all of them/us after going strong, we want to create a walled garden. Assuming that openness wins at the end, the whole idea is to keep the openness as a feature not as a starting point.

magicalist 15y ago

The original guardian article is pretty poor (not much of an "interview", it's pretty much just a regular story with a few quotes from Brin in it), but both the Wired article and this cnet article are really playing up the Facebook/Apple thing (and maybe that's why those stories are on the front page and the guardian article isn't). Notice, for instance, no mention of Facebook or Apple before the "it's scary" quote in the guardian article, but cnet makes it seem like he's referring specifically to them when he said that. On your larger point, I have to agree. If you think about preserving a universally accessible, open web, balkanized data in proprietary app datastores and a privately controlled internet within the internet are definitely two big threats (of course, China's censorship and Iran shutting down internet access and making their own are probably bigger threats, but that doesn't make for page views). Private data should remain private, but requiring a particular app, or a Facebook account, or a google+ account, to view what is supposed to be public content does actively work against the open web.

taligent 15y ago

Can we please stop with the misinformation. As it stands today. Facebook has more complete APIs and is much easier to get your data from them than Google+. And don't forget that Google makes significantly more profit from its users than Facebook does.

chrisbroadfoot 15y ago
> Facebook has more complete APIs and is much easier to get your data from them than Google+. Can you please quantify this?
- rsynnott 15y ago
  They probably mean this: https://www.facebook.com/help/?page=116481065103985 https://www.facebook.com/help/?page=116481065103985 It doesn't look like the Google+ APIs provide anything even slightly as comprehensive, for now. Of course, what Brin is complaining about isn't that Facebook won't give your data to _you_; it's that they've been reticent about giving it to Google.
  - spot 15y ago
    he said what he's really talking about: you can get email addresses out of gmail but not out of facebook.
  - intended 15y ago
    Given the age of g+, it will take a little time before it reaches FB levels, I'd think.

danmaz74 15y ago

There is a real threat, but Google could answer to it in a much better way: By positioning Google Plus as "the open web alternative to Facebook". To do so, they should make G+ the identity/social graph platform on which third parties want to base their own services instead of FB connect. I'm sure they could do that, because Google can profit from people going around in the web, while FB needs to keep people as much as possible inside its walled garden. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like G+ is moving towards that direction.

magicalist 15y ago
It would be nice, though it would be even better if we could settle on a more federated model (like Mozilla's BrowserID). The lack of success with previous federated ID systems isn't encouraging, however.
- danmaz74 15y ago
  In theory, I agree that a federated approach would be more desirable. But in practice that looks even more difficult to do right.