4 ms·

Even assuming Google is not being malicious--and I think that's a broadly safe assumption--I'm still concerned. I'm am significantly over-reliant on Google's se

by tikhonj 14y ago

Even assuming Google is not being malicious--and I think that's a broadly safe assumption--I'm still concerned. I'm am significantly over-reliant on Google's serviced: my email, my calendar, my OpenID, my web search, my videos, my phone, my maps, my web browser... (Well, I do use Firefox now.) It's a single point of failure. A rather scary one at that. Some of these things do not have good alternatives. My phone? I could use an iPhone or Windows phone, but Apple and Microsoft are malicious. Also, they both hate Linux. But the other things? I probably could--and probably should--move some of them to a different service, if only in the interest of diversification. Of course, I've been meaning to do this for a while. But I haven't. In many different, usually small ways, I'm hooked into Google. That by itself worries me; in some cases, even if I did want to move to a different service, it would not be easy. Very importantly, this is not Google's fault at all--in fact, they're very good about making my data portable. It's entirely poor planning on my part. Yet it's still an issue. Perhaps the worst part--or the best part--is that I don't have any immediate problems with this situation. Everything works. Quite well. I just have a general sense of disquiet about it all. Just something to think about.

duncan_bayne 14y ago
Disquet. That's _exactly_ it, and I wish I'd thought to use that word in the first place. You're right that Google is still better than Apple and Microsoft. I'm still hoping that Ubuntu for phones gets some traction, I'd love for a truly general-purpose pocket computer.
- zjmichen 14y ago
  If Canonical doesn't turn evil too. Some of their actions give me pause. Oh but man I want Ubuntu phone to be good.
  - duncan_bayne 14y ago
    Ditto ... it could be so awesome. I can do most of my dev work on a low-spec ARM box, given a decent keyboard and display. Bluetooth keyboard, some sort of projector ... I'm excited.
jrockway 14y ago
Diversification is a good idea, but the cost seems higher than the benefit in this case. Let's say Google becomes evil and makes Android and Chrome evil: the solution is simple, fork Android and Chromium and continue on without the evil additions. Or, don't upgrade. If you "diversify" now, though, you miss out on cool Chrome features, or you spend your weekend maintaining a web browser fork when you could be at the beach. As for services like videos, calendars, email, and so on -- you can download your data regularly [1] and move to a new service when you feel like it. This lets you defer the cost of switching until you actually need to switch. If that happens to be never, you win. If that happens to be tomorrow, you still win. (But if you switch now, you pay the feature difference cost every day. If Google never becomes evil, then you've wasted your time.) [1] https://www.google.com/takeout/?pli=1 https://www.google.com/takeout/?pli=1 Think of it another way. Whenever I go to the grocery store, I typically buy "store brand" products. That means everything in my pantry is "over-reliant" on that one store. But in reality, that's not the case: if Whole Foods goes out of business, I can just shop at Trader Joe's instead, since flour and sugar is pretty much the same everywhere. My accumulated recipes will continue to work either way. (And while both stores exist, nothing is stopping me from shopping at them both other than the added time that visiting each store takes. But that cost is non-zero, which entices me to consolidate my shopping needs. For now.)
- fafner 14y ago
  > If you "diversify" now, though, you miss out on cool Chrome features, or you spend your weekend maintaining a web browser fork when you could be at the beach. Sorry but what you are saying doesn't make sense. It is your proposal (fork when Chrome turns evil) which could end up with him maintaining a web browser fork on the weekend. "[M]iss out on cool Chrome features" ... well you miss out on cool Firefox features if you don't switch now ... I think switching the browser is really the least complicated thing to do of all those things. > This lets you defer the cost of switching until you actually need to switch. If that happens to be never, you win. If that happens to be tomorrow, you still win. No. Because now you have the time to slowly migrate and adjust. When you are with your back a against the wall the "costs" can be much much higher.
  - 14y ago
peterclary 14y ago
Could you explain how Apple is malicious? That's quite an assertion and not one I've previously heard.
- zero_intp 14y ago
  Going 'thermonuclear' over product competition capricious, callus, and combative app store submission process anti-competitive & likely-illegal publication conspiracy hoarding profits overseas and refusing to pay taxes for the environment that spawned their successes. censorship of users media
  - peterclary 14y ago
    To some extent any standard competitive behavior, or corporate practice, may be regarded as malicious. You raise several points, so I'm going to try and respond to them all: 1. Going 'thermonuclear' over product competition. This is the behaviour which best fits the definition of "malicious", namely "having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone". Without taking a personal position here, I'd point out that Apple thought that what Google did was not simply "competition". 2. Capricious, callus [sic] and combative app store submission process: It's certainly true that the App Store process is non-ideal, but I don't think this is malicious, however it feels to be on the receiving end. Never ascribe to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by incompetence. I grant you that any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. 3. Anti-Competitive and likely-illegal publication conspiracy To whom is malice being intended here? Not the customers. Not the publishers. Amazon perhaps, but only in the sense that Apple is trying to create competition. Amazon appears to be destroying the value in the book market in order to establish a near monopoly on eBooks. Of course, it's hard to pity the publishers when they're the ones who insisted on DRM in the first place and turned it into a winner-take-all game. 4. Hoarding profits overseas. To whom are they being malicious? This appears to be pretty standard activity. 5. Refusing to pay taxes for the environment that spawned their successes. What kind of taxes are you talking about? What environment? 6. Censorship of users media I'm pretty sure I can copy whatever I like onto an iPad, iPhone or Mac without Apple removing it again, unless I missed a particularly juicy scandal (perhaps Apple censored it from my news feed). Do you mean that they limit what can be sold through their store? I think most store holders retain that right, including Amazon.
pseut 14y ago
Yeah, this was my thought process too (although I do use an iPhone unfortunately). The only point I'd add is that it seems unlikely that Google will move to be more open and more privacy conscious; any change seems likely to go the other direction (for obvious and understandable business purposes, not, as you said, maliciousness).

by tikhonj 14y ago

duncan_bayne 14y ago

Disquet. That's _exactly_ it, and I wish I'd thought to use that word in the first place. You're right that Google is still better than Apple and Microsoft. I'm still hoping that Ubuntu for phones gets some traction, I'd love for a truly general-purpose pocket computer.

zjmichen 14y ago
If Canonical doesn't turn evil too. Some of their actions give me pause. Oh but man I want Ubuntu phone to be good.
- duncan_bayne 14y ago
  Ditto ... it could be so awesome. I can do most of my dev work on a low-spec ARM box, given a decent keyboard and display. Bluetooth keyboard, some sort of projector ... I'm excited.

jrockway 14y ago

Diversification is a good idea, but the cost seems higher than the benefit in this case. Let's say Google becomes evil and makes Android and Chrome evil: the solution is simple, fork Android and Chromium and continue on without the evil additions. Or, don't upgrade. If you "diversify" now, though, you miss out on cool Chrome features, or you spend your weekend maintaining a web browser fork when you could be at the beach. As for services like videos, calendars, email, and so on -- you can download your data regularly [1] and move to a new service when you feel like it. This lets you defer the cost of switching until you actually need to switch. If that happens to be never, you win. If that happens to be tomorrow, you still win. (But if you switch now, you pay the feature difference cost every day. If Google never becomes evil, then you've wasted your time.) [1] https://www.google.com/takeout/?pli=1 https://www.google.com/takeout/?pli=1 Think of it another way. Whenever I go to the grocery store, I typically buy "store brand" products. That means everything in my pantry is "over-reliant" on that one store. But in reality, that's not the case: if Whole Foods goes out of business, I can just shop at Trader Joe's instead, since flour and sugar is pretty much the same everywhere. My accumulated recipes will continue to work either way. (And while both stores exist, nothing is stopping me from shopping at them both other than the added time that visiting each store takes. But that cost is non-zero, which entices me to consolidate my shopping needs. For now.)

fafner 14y ago
> If you "diversify" now, though, you miss out on cool Chrome features, or you spend your weekend maintaining a web browser fork when you could be at the beach. Sorry but what you are saying doesn't make sense. It is your proposal (fork when Chrome turns evil) which could end up with him maintaining a web browser fork on the weekend. "[M]iss out on cool Chrome features" ... well you miss out on cool Firefox features if you don't switch now ... I think switching the browser is really the least complicated thing to do of all those things. > This lets you defer the cost of switching until you actually need to switch. If that happens to be never, you win. If that happens to be tomorrow, you still win. No. Because now you have the time to slowly migrate and adjust. When you are with your back a against the wall the "costs" can be much much higher.
- 14y ago

peterclary 14y ago

Could you explain how Apple is malicious? That's quite an assertion and not one I've previously heard.

zero_intp 14y ago
Going 'thermonuclear' over product competition capricious, callus, and combative app store submission process anti-competitive & likely-illegal publication conspiracy hoarding profits overseas and refusing to pay taxes for the environment that spawned their successes. censorship of users media
- peterclary 14y ago
  To some extent any standard competitive behavior, or corporate practice, may be regarded as malicious. You raise several points, so I'm going to try and respond to them all: 1. Going 'thermonuclear' over product competition. This is the behaviour which best fits the definition of "malicious", namely "having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone". Without taking a personal position here, I'd point out that Apple thought that what Google did was not simply "competition". 2. Capricious, callus [sic] and combative app store submission process: It's certainly true that the App Store process is non-ideal, but I don't think this is malicious, however it feels to be on the receiving end. Never ascribe to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by incompetence. I grant you that any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. 3. Anti-Competitive and likely-illegal publication conspiracy To whom is malice being intended here? Not the customers. Not the publishers. Amazon perhaps, but only in the sense that Apple is trying to create competition. Amazon appears to be destroying the value in the book market in order to establish a near monopoly on eBooks. Of course, it's hard to pity the publishers when they're the ones who insisted on DRM in the first place and turned it into a winner-take-all game. 4. Hoarding profits overseas. To whom are they being malicious? This appears to be pretty standard activity. 5. Refusing to pay taxes for the environment that spawned their successes. What kind of taxes are you talking about? What environment? 6. Censorship of users media I'm pretty sure I can copy whatever I like onto an iPad, iPhone or Mac without Apple removing it again, unless I missed a particularly juicy scandal (perhaps Apple censored it from my news feed). Do you mean that they limit what can be sold through their store? I think most store holders retain that right, including Amazon.

pseut 14y ago

Yeah, this was my thought process too (although I do use an iPhone unfortunately). The only point I'd add is that it seems unlikely that Google will move to be more open and more privacy conscious; any change seems likely to go the other direction (for obvious and understandable business purposes, not, as you said, maliciousness).