4 ms·

> Now it's just another large company - only concerned about maximizing profit. > Google was a company that, for a time, I loved. To me, they represented the a

by dictum 13y ago

> Now it's just another large company - only concerned about maximizing profit. > Google was a company that, for a time, I loved. To me, they represented the antithesis of Microsoft, a rebellion against a poisonous corporate culture dominated by profiteering that had no regard for its users. Maybe You're Just Not Their Target Demographic Anymore™ Google had better ideals, sure. But I'd say their current actions are actually making Google's products better for more people. Unfortunately, as their products improve for the majority of people, they become less accommodating[1] of early users and people who actually care about privacy, restraint in advertising, and domain-specific needs. However, OP doesn't provide specific examples of what Google did that made him worry, just a general discomfort with Google that's been voiced countless times since their IPO. I hate their general attitude about privacy, their gradual shoving of ads everywhere, and the usual we-are-open stuff used to divert questioning, but maybe it's time to admit that Google is just getting better at things that don't matter to you. [1]: It's a false choice, yes: they could keep honoring their initial principles and still grow and profit, but has any behemoth corporation ever done that?

lazyjones 13y ago
> But I'd say their current actions are actually making Google's products better for more people. Can you explain how forcing people to use their real names (or something that passes as such) is making Google's products better for more people? How about the inbox spam in Gmail, or the large ads they have been testing on Google itself apparently (http://www.seroundtable.com/google-adwords-huge-image-ad-17568.html http://www.seroundtable.com/google-adwords-huge-image-ad-175...) while they penalize large ads above the fold on indexed pages (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.at/2012/01/page-layout-algorithm-improvement.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.at/2012/01/page-la...), or, like someone else pointed out here, killing Reader? Frankly, I may not be their target demographic either, but for most of the recent changes they got flak over I simply have to shake my head and wonder what they were thinking and how they could actually claim to make things better for anyone but themselves. Perhaps I'm too stupid to understand ...
- dictum 13y ago
  Maybe I'm just jaded and never really saw Google as a a nice company with good intentions, but I just can't be sad about Google's new directions. My suggestion to everyone who's worried about Google: other companies would be really happy to service your needs. There are other companies offering e-mail services, ad services, internet search (the one thing there's no absolute replacement for yet[1], but with your patronage, a new competitor could get there), internet messaging, website analytics, maps, mobile operating systems... and new companies could appear in these areas. > Can you explain how forcing people to use their real names (or something that passes as such) is making Google's products better for more people? I dislike their new real names policy, but: human faces. Humans are drawn to other humans' faces. That's why they're pushing to use Google+ photos on ads. Also, people are drawn to names of people they know. That's why they nudged website owners to associate their domains with their personal Google+ accounts. They're essentially trying to make their services more like a social network so people discover YouTube videos while browsing YouTube, not Twitter or Facebook, for instance. A simpler explanation: Google is trying to remain relevant and grow even more using the same magic that made Facebook big: your friends. [1]: In my experience, DDG is good at searches related to programming, mediocre at searches related to non-tech stuff, and terrible at searches in languages other than English. It's getting better, though.
  - fennecfoxen 13y ago
    I think what it boils down to is that Google, for its users, used to be all about giving the Internet neat things. But now they're all "more wood behind fewer arrows" and shutting down things (Google Reader, real estate search, whatever) and are little more than an advertising company. The magic is gone, and that's a special kind of disappointment.
    - Khaine 13y ago
      Don't forget Eric Schmidt's crazy thoughts on privacy: * During an interview aired on December 3, 2009, on the CNBC documentary "Inside the Mind of Google," Schmidt was asked, "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" He replied: "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities." * At the Techonomy conference on August 4, 2010, Schmidt expressed that technology is good. And he said that the only way to manage the challenges is "much greater transparency and no anonymity." Schmidt also stated that in an era of asymmetric threats, "true anonymity is too dangerous." * In 2005 Google blacklisted CNET reporters from talking to Google employees for one year, until July 2006, after CNET published personal information on Schmidt, including his politician donations, hobbies, salary, and neighborhood, that had been obtained through Google searches. * In 2010 in an interview with the WSJ Schmidt stated that he thinks teenagers should be entitled to change their names upon reaching adulthood in order to separate themselves from the Google record of their youthful indiscretions. * In 2010 he also stated that "people aren't ready for the technology revolution that's going to happen to them" and that absolute privacy would prove too-unsafe in the future
ams6110 13y ago
Don't forget, as CEO of a public company, one of his primary responsibilities (probably THE primary responsibility in fact) is to maximize shareholder value. A public company can't just do whatever the founders want anymore, or operate like a charity.
- davmre 13y ago
  Sure, in some sense Larry has a responsibility to maximize shareholder value. But he has significantly more freedom than many CEOs do in how to approach that goal. "Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one. ... Therefore, we have implemented a corporate structure that is designed to protect Google's ability to innovate and retain its most distinctive characteristics. ... The main effect of this structure is likely to leave our team, especially Sergey and me, with increasingly significant control over the company's decisions and fate. ... We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served-as shareholders and in all other ways-by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains." -- http://investor.google.com/corporate/2004/ipo-founders-letter.html http://investor.google.com/corporate/2004/ipo-founders-lette...

by dictum 13y ago

lazyjones 13y ago

> But I'd say their current actions are actually making Google's products better for more people. Can you explain how forcing people to use their real names (or something that passes as such) is making Google's products better for more people? How about the inbox spam in Gmail, or the large ads they have been testing on Google itself apparently (http://www.seroundtable.com/google-adwords-huge-image-ad-17568.html http://www.seroundtable.com/google-adwords-huge-image-ad-175...) while they penalize large ads above the fold on indexed pages (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.at/2012/01/page-layout-algorithm-improvement.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.at/2012/01/page-la...), or, like someone else pointed out here, killing Reader? Frankly, I may not be their target demographic either, but for most of the recent changes they got flak over I simply have to shake my head and wonder what they were thinking and how they could actually claim to make things better for anyone but themselves. Perhaps I'm too stupid to understand ...

dictum 13y ago
Maybe I'm just jaded and never really saw Google as a a nice company with good intentions, but I just can't be sad about Google's new directions. My suggestion to everyone who's worried about Google: other companies would be really happy to service your needs. There are other companies offering e-mail services, ad services, internet search (the one thing there's no absolute replacement for yet[1], but with your patronage, a new competitor could get there), internet messaging, website analytics, maps, mobile operating systems... and new companies could appear in these areas. > Can you explain how forcing people to use their real names (or something that passes as such) is making Google's products better for more people? I dislike their new real names policy, but: human faces. Humans are drawn to other humans' faces. That's why they're pushing to use Google+ photos on ads. Also, people are drawn to names of people they know. That's why they nudged website owners to associate their domains with their personal Google+ accounts. They're essentially trying to make their services more like a social network so people discover YouTube videos while browsing YouTube, not Twitter or Facebook, for instance. A simpler explanation: Google is trying to remain relevant and grow even more using the same magic that made Facebook big: your friends. [1]: In my experience, DDG is good at searches related to programming, mediocre at searches related to non-tech stuff, and terrible at searches in languages other than English. It's getting better, though.
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  I think what it boils down to is that Google, for its users, used to be all about giving the Internet neat things. But now they're all "more wood behind fewer arrows" and shutting down things (Google Reader, real estate search, whatever) and are little more than an advertising company. The magic is gone, and that's a special kind of disappointment.
  - Khaine 13y ago
    Don't forget Eric Schmidt's crazy thoughts on privacy: * During an interview aired on December 3, 2009, on the CNBC documentary "Inside the Mind of Google," Schmidt was asked, "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" He replied: "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities." * At the Techonomy conference on August 4, 2010, Schmidt expressed that technology is good. And he said that the only way to manage the challenges is "much greater transparency and no anonymity." Schmidt also stated that in an era of asymmetric threats, "true anonymity is too dangerous." * In 2005 Google blacklisted CNET reporters from talking to Google employees for one year, until July 2006, after CNET published personal information on Schmidt, including his politician donations, hobbies, salary, and neighborhood, that had been obtained through Google searches. * In 2010 in an interview with the WSJ Schmidt stated that he thinks teenagers should be entitled to change their names upon reaching adulthood in order to separate themselves from the Google record of their youthful indiscretions. * In 2010 he also stated that "people aren't ready for the technology revolution that's going to happen to them" and that absolute privacy would prove too-unsafe in the future

ams6110 13y ago

Don't forget, as CEO of a public company, one of his primary responsibilities (probably THE primary responsibility in fact) is to maximize shareholder value. A public company can't just do whatever the founders want anymore, or operate like a charity.

davmre 13y ago
Sure, in some sense Larry has a responsibility to maximize shareholder value. But he has significantly more freedom than many CEOs do in how to approach that goal. "Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one. ... Therefore, we have implemented a corporate structure that is designed to protect Google's ability to innovate and retain its most distinctive characteristics. ... The main effect of this structure is likely to leave our team, especially Sergey and me, with increasingly significant control over the company's decisions and fate. ... We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served-as shareholders and in all other ways-by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains." -- http://investor.google.com/corporate/2004/ipo-founders-letter.html http://investor.google.com/corporate/2004/ipo-founders-lette...