Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  Mike Lat, 6 Feb 2006 @ 5:50am

  
  

  No Subject Given

  It sucks. The google guys are so intellengent and innovative they should have the right to this kind of thing. Everybodies so bloody worried about them, but I've handed over my trust a long time ago. They've done nothing but provide simple free services, and their ads are the first non-intrusive advertising to come and revolutionize the internet. They've done nothing but make things better for everybody, theres really no reason to distrust them.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    John W, 6 Feb 2006 @ 6:11am

    
    

    Re: No Subject Given

    Although I've done the same (turn trust of much private stuff to Google), I do believe it's healthy for a society to have a "guarded" trust of companies that are in such positions. Otherwise if the company happens to change owners or philosophies and the tactics change you might find your personal information is now submitted to people you didn't think would have it.
    
    So I'm just saying, it's fine to trust Google...I have. But I'd keep up on the fine-print so you avoid getting burned in the future (not saying you will, but guarded trust is healthy).
    

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Greg M, 6 Feb 2006 @ 6:26am

      
      

      Re: No Subject Given

      When the company gets big, you have to watch out. Do you want to be more paranoid? Think about this:
      How do you know if half of the article you are reading right now wasn't sensored? Some government could have secretly paid google to sensor it.
      As google gets bigger and bigger, it will be all about profits for the share holders and less about simple tools for you to use.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Kaleb Callahan, 6 Feb 2006 @ 6:10am

  
  

  Google doubts? Bah!

  Doubting google is a bda idea. Like the guy above, I handed over my trust to google many a year ago. The geniuses at google will hopefully keep up the innovative ideas that has made them an indispensable resource on the internet.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  some one, 6 Feb 2006 @ 6:35am

  
  

  Amazon Becoming More Google-Like Day By Day

  largely through lack of any better option i'd say that most of us have given ourselves over to google in one form or another - which is all the more reason to be vigilant. not necessarily distrustful, but bad policies and the erosion of our rights and privacy rarely happens by leaps and bounds. it happens gradually, a centimeter at a time, and we don't notice until it is too late.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Lee, 6 Feb 2006 @ 7:15am

    
    

    Re: Amazon Becoming More Google-Like Day By Day

    I have had problems with google, they still have sites that are long since dead displaying :( some of which y law were removed from the internet but google still lets you view in catche :( some of which I had to by law get removed... Google still refuses to act. It took 9 months to get a picture removed from the images display after being removed from the site and the site's catche for some unknown reason as still displaying. *worried* im worried google will start to slack off even more than it is doing now. I understand they get a lot of complaints and other things to worry about... but at times they seem to put money before its users.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2006 @ 7:18am

  
  

  No Subject Given

  Greed.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  wolff000, 6 Feb 2006 @ 7:27am

  
  

  Always Question

  I do think Google is a company that stays on the bleeding edge of tech. Their services are excellent and I use them as much as possible. They have definately helped the web community with the text based ads they created. Saying all that I still believe they should not be trusted. Corporation in America have proven time and time again that they can't be. If you look back over the decades lots of businesses have popped up with what appears to be very idyllic business practices but most don't stay that way, or were just covering up some skeletons in the closet really well. In todays society we can't fool ourselves into thinking big businesss is going to start working for the greater good. I love what Google has done for the web. I also take all their good works with a grain of salt. Their motto today may be "don't be evil", but nothing says they can't change that tomorrow.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Tyshaun, 6 Feb 2006 @ 7:55am

  
  

  maybe it's a good thing?

  Am I the only one that things people trying to immitate Google is a good thing? It seems like a lot of people like Googles offering and business model, seems to me it's a positive thing that other companies are adopting them, at least in part.
  
  As long as Google continues to do what it's doing (innovating), it will always be at the head of the pack. Hey, if the pack keeps following Google, that's wonderful for the consumer.
  
  The other thing this does is almost force Google to continue to innovate rather than rest on it's current offerings. If Google realizes that the competitors are only a step a way, I hope they're smart enough to know that the only way to stay top dog is to keep putting new stuff out there.
  
  Just a thought,
  ruff ruff

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    kurt, 6 Feb 2006 @ 8:55am

    
    

    Re: maybe it's a good thing?

    I see you point but don't buy it. Why wouldn't Amazon and others want to innovate beyond Google? If every company is epigone on Google I don't see that as being good. We need companies who force some mutually beneficial epigones. Why have 1 innovator when we can have 10?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Tyshaun, 6 Feb 2006 @ 9:41am

      
      

      Re: maybe it's a good thing?

      I see you point but don't buy it. Why wouldn't Amazon and others want to innovate beyond Google? If every company is epigone on Google I don't see that as being good. We need companies who force some mutually beneficial epigones. Why have 1 innovator when we can have 10?

      Innovation costs money. Why pay money for R&D when you can just copy someone elses stuff. It's usually a lot easier to reverse-engineer an interface or code than it is to come up with it in the first place.

      Google is an innovative company because it entered the market later in the game than others (like AOL) and as a result either had to inoovate to gain market share, or never get market share to begin with. Windows might be a good example of a non-innovating company. Aside from a few bells and whistles, to me Windows XP has similar functionality to 2000, which had similar functionality to 95/NT. I think a reason for that is that Windows really has no true competitor to push it to innovate (please refrain from the linux/MacOS chorus, I know they exist but their market share is still miniscule compared to Windows).

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]