Google's Insular Nature 188
stockpicker_dude_78 writes "Robert Cringley has written a thought-provoking article on Google's insular nature, and compares them to the similar environment at Microsoft." From the article: "Google is secretive. This started as a deliberate marketing mystique, but endures today more as a really annoying company habit. Google folks don't understand why the rest of us have a problem with this, but then Google folks aren't like you and me. The result of this secrecy and Google's 'almighty algorithm' mentality is that the company makes changes -- and mistakes -- without informing its customers or even doing all that much to correct the problems."
price mystique (Score:5, Interesting)
Contrast to amazon.com which is priced much closer to earth because all their cards are on the table.
Google knows that at this point the switching cost to move to the next best thing when it arrives is low, so they have to sell the future and keep it secret and holy as long as possible.
Re:price mystique (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, secrecy is useful for an organization. When you are telling the world what you are doing, so you are telling your competition. So it's not all bad.
Re:price mystique (Score:2)
Or roughly in English: You have all to loose if you are no more mysterious, that's the real secret Google credo.
The problem of Google is to move forward without upsetting Microsoft too much. They need to occupy quietly more and more niches without upsetting the almighty MS, that's why the only solution is to be mysterious about their real long term strategy.
They just don't want to be the text Netscape and I don't think they will
Re:price mystique (Score:3, Insightful)
How many worthless initiatives does MS alone announce these days to defeat Google? Run read
And google can spend it's time conserving resources and
Re:price mystique (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points.
Re:price mystique (Score:2)
Yes, and the fun part is that they are happily letting the stock market do whatever they want while doing their own thing. Google's stock pirce could bottom out tomorow and I doubt that it would have much affect on their day-to-day buisness. Wall Street wouldn't be very happy, but it wouldn't do anything to hurt Google's actual cash flow (such as it is), nor their current projects. After all, they already got their money from the IPO, what happens to the stock p
Re:price mystique (Score:4, Insightful)
It would affect their day-to-day business when half their employees walk out because their options are now worthless.
Re:price mystique (Score:2)
I don't buy that crap about interesting problems, what exactly is interesting around rehashing web apps that never get out of beta, or working out how to make even more money from clickfraud?
Re:price mystique (Score:2)
Your in it for the money, you just happen to work in a place that pays you what you need to FEEL like your not in it for the money.
And therein lies the genius of the Human Resources Gnomes who secretly control our lives.
Christ, I am in it for the money. If I wasn't I'd be working on the really hard problems like 'how do I get more sleep' or 'what new games can I play with my kids today'.
Not in it for the money. Great, send you
Can't totally ignore stock price. (Score:2)
Also, if the price of their stock did drop too much, they would run the risk of an unfriendly takeover, unless of course the insiders still have most of the shares -- I'm not sure if they do or not. Either way, the stock would really have to tank for that to be likely.
Anyway, it's all fine for Google to pretend to be above the Wall Street games when the t
Re:Can't totally ignore stock price. (Score:2)
Zonk, we need to talk (Score:5, Funny)
"The signer agrees to publish only stories that praise Google as supreme ruler of the universe."
You may yet be spared if you delete this article.
Love,
Google
Re:Zonk, we need to talk (Score:2)
Wherefore art thou Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wherefore art thou Google (Score:4, Insightful)
impression counts aren't perfect either, since a similar strategy can be used to make them go away, but usually click thru models cost an order of margin more than impression models, since 99% of people on the internet just ignore the ads. thus it should take almost 100 times as many people being paid to make a 'impression' model advert 'simply go away' that factor means that anything short of a massive botnet swarm would be incapable of taking out the adverts of a large corporation like mcdonalds or coca cola.
I guess the bulk mail industry would just have a new side business to increase their profit margins, to compensate for the loss of 'clickthru' revenues from the popups on their botnet slaves.
Re:Wherefore art thou Google (Score:2)
If you're going to argue that, you might as well argue that retail is fundame
Re:Wherefore art thou Google (Score:2)
with the internet it's entirely different, click fraud Makes google (in place of k-mart) incredible amounts of money every year, at the expense of advertisers(hershey). so that's where your analogy ends, it's not a correct representation... let's do something mor
Re:Wherefore art thou Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wherefore art thou Google (Score:2)
That's not exactly what's happening. The article that you referenced [fool.com] is representative of one MF staffer, and it is posted a rebuttal to a different bullish [fool.com] post. From the article:
Oh noes! Google trys to make monies! (Score:5, Insightful)
Google attracts advertisers like Luis with the idea that their ads will be cheaper because, frankly, they are selling something that is only thinly traded. The dream is that the system scales and scales fairly, only it isn't fair at all because if Amazon wants to advertise an equation editor USING EXACTLY THE SAME AD TEXT AND FORMATTING AS LUIS -- their words will cost 100 times less than the same words bought by Luis. It's not that Amazon (or any other big Google advertiser) has better copy writers, it is just that they sell a broader range of things.
"A large percentage of impressions & clicks do have £0.01 minimum bids," said Jeff from Google, "but these are our very highest quality ads/advertisers."
In other words, the minimum word price is 1p, BUT NOT FOR YOU.
Um, yeah. The same words should be more effective coming from Amazon than from Cringely's friend Luis, because people are simply more likely to click.
You could run all this through an algorithm that maximizes expected revenue (AI people would call this "utility") for Google based on click probability, and you'd come up with pretty much what Google does.
I'm sorry. I'm not a Google fanboi, but this is ridiculous.
Re:Oh noes! Google trys to make monies! (Score:4, Insightful)
It all comes down to the AdWords algorithm and its intent, which isn't to help Luis OR Amazon, but to simply maximize profit for Google.
Why, yes, Cringely, I think you may have just figured it out. Good job, have a gold star, go to the head of the class. You finally passed ECON 101.
Re:Oh noes! Google trys to make monies! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this either/or is leaving a few major participants out of the equation: Google's users.
Profits notwithstanding, the primary intent of the AdWords algorithm is to provide relevant content to the user, including relevant ads. Present irrelevant content and ads, and the users disappear, and the revenue does likewise..
Re:Oh noes! Google trys to make monies! (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly... If I search on 'equation editor latex', I'd rather see
Equation editor -- Edit science/math equations in LaTex, import to Word
than
Low price equation editor at Walmart
and
Find antique equation editor at Ebay
and
Sexy Latex Bodysuits from Amazon.
I realize Cringley brought "the rich get richer" silliness into it, but the point is that if Google just whores themselves out to the biggest-budget spenders, they'll alienate the users who found AdWords different and useful compared to the typical web advertising noise.
Re:Oh noes! Google trys to make monies! (Score:5, Insightful)
-Kurt
Re:Oh noes! Google trys to make monies! (Score:2)
-Kurt"
I wholeheartedly agree.
Re:Oh noes! Google trys to make monies! (Score:4, Insightful)
But in both cases (WM/Google) the cost of doing business with a smaller supplier/advertiser is a higher percentage off the potential income. Spend more with Google, and you get better discounts that reflect that fact you're making them more money with basically the same amount of overhead (billing, etc.).
Re:Oh noes! Google trys to make monies! (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about that. There's a certain power in branding that you're overlooking. If I search for "Sonicare" and an Amazon ad for a Sonicare toothbrush comes up, I may well click on it because I have purchased from them befor
Re:Oh noes! Google trys to make monies! (Score:3, Insightful)
As it stands now, Google priced Luis out of advertising which means that if you search for "latex e
Re:Oh noes! Google trys to make monies! (Score:2)
The subject (Score:3, Insightful)
I know it sucks for the small guy, but the way AdSense works is logical and good for the consumer. Previously it was not enough clicks = irrelevant ad = no more ad impressions. Now it's not enough clicks = irrelevant ad = higher price. Both solutions make, er, (ad)sense.
Re:The subject (Score:2)
Doesn't it depend on the consumer? i.e. some consumers might be more interested in the ads that most exactly match their keywords (regardless of who posted them), whereas other customers might be more interested only in ads from relatively "trusted" advertisers (so as to avoid the spammers and the scammer
I have never had a problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
Pardon any mispellings. I have been hitting the Newcastle Brown Ale a bit much.
The point? (Score:1, Insightful)
This doesn't mean that Google is secretive or paranoid, just that Google is a large corporation. Corporatoins are not perfect, just like their legal equivalent.
Why is this news?
Why is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not. They're a bunch of guys with a great PR machine, who like to make money, and who are surrounded by a bunch of technonerds. Behind the hype, Google is the Walmart of the internet.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2)
Give [ibm.com] me [sun.com] a [hp.com] moment [oracle.com], and [redhat.com] I'm [sourceforge.net] sure [emc.com] I'll [apple.com] think [novell.com] of [sgi.com] one [netscape.com].
With all it's downsides (Score:1)
Maybe they were onto something? (Score:2)
People with skills can turn free or valueless things into things that can be sold and have tangible value, and they'll do it for a lot less than those things are worth, creating wealth for others. I think some guy [wikipedia.org] wrote something about that once.
Doesn't pass my smell test as an investment (Score:3, Insightful)
Not totally, if you were in early (IPO) you made money, but not now.
Look, I use Google all the time... but I fail to see how they make one dime from me.
By contrast, take eBay. I use them too -- at least I can see how they have directly made a few hundred bucks from me over the last few years, for services rendered.
ebay is 2/3 the price of goog (P/E ratios), so, right off the bat, goog stock ought to drop $100 USD just to be priced similar to eBay... then, maybe both of the aforementioned stocks could drop in value by half again, just to be priced more in line with other stocks... (P/E 20-ish).
Re:Doesn't pass my smell test as an investment (Score:3, Insightful)
If only logic like this dictated stock prices. But, instead, groupthink and herd mentality seem to be the prime factors in stock price movement. So if you're not much of a follower and don't think like the crowd, you'll tend to get burned in the Market.
It's a weird world,
-Kurt
Re:Doesn't pass my smell test as an investment (Score:2)
...groupthink and herd mentality...
Not to denigrate the average American (those here tend to be pretty engaging and intelligent), but isn't this what keeps clueless marketers (and peripherally, spam) in business?
Canadians are just as stupid as Americans (percentage-wise), it's just that the actual volume as compared to the US level of morons is insignifigant. America wins again - USA! USA! USA!
Re:Doesn't pass my smell test as an investment (Score:2, Redundant)
To compare Google to a dotcom seems more a misunderstanding of what is going on than anything else. While you may not like Google, the value of their stock, how they conduct their business, or whatever else... you can't say it's not worth it.
For example, in my company, we find that nearly 80% of all software purchases start with Google. Not with someone else. Google. In a multibillion dollar industry, that's a lot of searches. We have a lot of money we send
Re:Doesn't pass my smell test as an investment (Score:2)
That was my point.
Re:Doesn't pass my smell test as an investment (Score:2)
I'm fine with them making their money from advertising, their software is good, and free, so I'll use it. Their advertising is fairly effective according to the marketing guys I know, I'd buy some if I were a marketing guy.
But I don't see their revenue going up by 1000% tomorrow, so I'm going to pass on their stock.
Re:Doesn't pass my smell test as an investment (Score:2)
Stallman would kill us all.
Now let me go pull my pictures into Picassa.
It is damn good software..
Re:Doesn't pass my smell test as an investment (Score:2)
But damn I dig picassa.
Re:Doesn't pass my smell test as an investment (Score:2)
I'm sure that's what everyone said about Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Intel, etc. You didn't have to buy MSFT in 1986 to make money from it.
Look, I use Google all the time... but I fail to see how they make one dime from me.
Well, isn't that really your lack of understanding of their business, not theirs?
ebay is 2/3 the price of goog (P/E ratios), so, right off the bat, goog stock ought to drop $100 USD just to be priced similar to eBay... then
Re:Doesn't pass my smell test as an investment (Score:2)
Duh, or maybe they could expand into or even create new markets, like many other companies have done given similar cicumstances.
Anyway, I wasn't saying it would happen, I was saying IF people knew that with perfect knowledge the future growth then the stock price NOW should reflect that, hence basing an opinion entirely on a single P/E comparison with eBay is
Re:Doesn't pass my smell test as an investment (Score:1, Insightful)
It's the Google attitude (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing that's always bugged me about Google is the generalized sense of smug superiority the company seems to emanate. "Look at our amusing job position titles!" "No, don't ask us about what we do with all the data we collect!" "Here, look at the quirky benefits we provide for our employees!" "Please, stop pointing out that while we brag about how much we love open source software, most of our exciting free applications are only available for Windows!"
Google is the kid in high school who is smart (but not exceptionally so), works *very* hard to maintain 4.0 GPA and also sucks up to his teachers all the time. However, he gets very secretive and passive-aggressive when you point out his imperfections.
Re:It's the Google attitude (Score:4, Informative)
What, you mean like Picasa? [google.com]
Or maybe you mean Google Earth. [linuxtoday.com]
No, not native. But in the process they are contributing back to Wine. So you get Google apps in Linux and Wine is improved in the process. Sounds good to me.
Re:It's the Google attitude (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's the Google attitude (Score:2)
Your emphasises are misguided or possibly misguiding: What DiBona says is that the Wine patches for Picasa does not help a port of Earth, because it's not the same parts that prevent it from running. Quite possibly, if it's QT and GL, Wine has nothing to do with getting it to run.
They paid a Linux-based company (CodeWeavers) to improve a free software product (Wine) for everyones benefit. What, exactly, is the problem with that?
Re:It's the Google attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
isn't it logical to start on the most popular platform and if it pans out, expand [google.com]?
brag or no brag, they put their money/code where their mouth is (code [google.com]/SoC [google.com]/OpenBSD [undeadly.org])
Google is the kid in high school who is smart (but not exceptionally so), works *very* hard to maintain 4.0 GPA and also sucks up to his teachers all the time. However, he gets very secretive and passive-aggressive when you point out his imperfections.
looks to me that they always shut the fuck up and do their job. and churn out nifty products all the time. i guess that's what people don't like -- i mean, what kinda company are they if they don't toot their own horn all the time and fail to deliver? something must be rotten!Re:It's the Google attitude (Score:2)
"isn't it logical to start on the most popular platform and if it pans out, expand"
For any other company, yes, but I'm not so sure with Google. Google is where they are today in part because of geeks. Geeks were using Google when everyone else was using Yahoo and MSN search. When Google started putting out software, it was all for Windows -- and it's only been in the last, what 2 years? less?, that using Google became common among non-geeks (most of whom run Windows). In other words, their software wasn'
Re:It's the Google attitude (Score:3, Interesting)
At the risk of restarting this flame war, why would google make software for Linux? A lot of their stuff, like Google Earth, has no clear revenue stream for them on windows either. And hitting 93% of users is a lot more tempting than going for 3%.
Google is basically responsible for Firefox's income stream. I'd argue that does more for Linux than
Uh, well that's pretty easy to fix (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's the Google attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Cringely's article is very well researched and he brings to our attention some genuine issues with Google. Not to mention Google's spokesperson's descent into corporate bollick-speak (forgive me but that's really the only way to put it).
Google are hurtling towards that point where they lose credibility because the public positions they are forced to take are so obviously driven by their need to maintain shareholder rather than stakeholder (and by stakeholder I mean small and medium business customers and the wider, but influential, technical community) confidence.
I regretted not buying Google stock early on but, frankly, now I'm glad I didn't - if they don't crush the fraudulent AdWord click issue, they'll lose the plot completely and deserve all they get in the markets.
Re:It's the Google attitude (Score:2)
He's a high level exec, and as any high level exec in a company that size his primary role is setting strategy and tracking projects at the line item level and fronting his department to partners, the outside world and the rest of the executive layer. Is it a dem
Re:It's the Google attitude (Score:2)
Yes, he probably knows more then the PR SpokesBot but his own PR SpokesBot indoctrination combined with not having touched a compiler in 15 years create a unique form of PR SpokesBot that is dangerous and deadly.. Smart enough to fool the geeks but trained enough to not impact the stock price.
Re:It's the Google attitude (Score:2)
However I believe that this is a luxury and if the stock price tumbles that may change dramatically. They can afford 'not to play the game' right now because there is so much money in the game for everyone. If that changes, even a bit, the house can start to crumble and google could change.
As others have said, they are banking on out-innovating t
Re:It's the Google attitude (Score:1)
I'm not sure who says you're evil if your open source projects aren't exciting to you, but most of their OSS projects work OS neutral or for POSIX systems only, not Windows-only. (http://code.google.com/projects.html) They make most of their server stuff for server OSes, and most of their desktop stuff for desktop OSes. Oh no, they're making sen
Google is evil (Score:3, Funny)
Also, their UI is as inferior as Microsoft's.
To me, they ARE Micrsoft, and therefore evil.
Shame on all of you who bought their slogan... and congrats on Google for such smooth sales operations, fooling even the tech savvy whiz kids.
Re:Google is evil (Score:1)
Re:What was that zooming over my head? (Score:2)
Your point? (Score:5, Insightful)
They know as well as the rest of us that it will take about 3 days for everyone on the planet to dump Google as soon as a search engine without pages of fake sites filled with ads or just irrelivant sites is all you get no matter what you search for.
Remember AltaVista?
No reason for Google to give us 3 days notice
Re:Your point? (Score:1)
What is Google hiding?
I think I see your problem (Score:2)
Re:Your point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Used to be I wanted to find take out taxi or a random restaurant menu here in the DC area, no problem, first hit (I didn't event need to specify Alexandria VA or Alexandria LA), now I get a whole bunch of random crap, none which is what I'm looking for.
Even finding technical issues for stuff posting on mailing lists is a problem.
Advertising *is* diluting Google's product. It's the reason I switched from Yah
I think Google has already peaked (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, Here is a bogus blog site which is trying to Googlebomb [fluegenerator.com]. It looks like a blog site, but the site in question just grabs text from RSS feeds and makes a bogus blog, which also has ads which this spammer hopes to get high Google ratings with.
In my case, I had a bad transcription of the Lyrics to an early 1980s song have a high Google rank score at one point. It was a clearly personal web page. Well, back in 2002, it was one of the first ten links Googling for this particular song. These days, a Google search for this song gives you those sites which have made an ad-filled page with no content for every name in their database, those lyrics sites with too many popups, ads, and spyware (and who have copied my poorly-transcribed lyrics instead of the real lyrics), the Amazon page for this product--but my lyrics page is no where to be found.
Google's goden age has come and gone. Their searches are becoming less relevant and informitive, and big players like Microsoft are butting in to their territory (for people who don't think Microsoft can make an effective search engine: People said Microsoft couldn't make a decent browser in 1996).
These days, Myspace [myspace.com] is the place to be (In the USA, that hot chick will have a MySpace page and will give you their MySpace ID); You Tube [youtube.com] is a great place to easily get pirated TV content (cool rare 1980s music videos and Dr. Who TV shows, in my case); and DIGG [digg.com] is more relevant than Slashdot (but shares Slashdot's problem of having too many fanboys and flamers).
Re:I think Google has already peaked (Score:1)
and they would be right
Re:I think Google has already peaked (Score:3, Insightful)
I think most people on
Re:I think Google has already peaked (Score:2)
People are saying that in 2006 too.
Re:I think Google has already peaked (Score:2)
True, Google (and/or other search engines) may be indirectly responsible for th
What?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Darn those publicly traded companies! How dare they!
"Do No Evil" only really applies when you don't count making a profit as "Evil", folks.
It's interesting how geeks have turned on Google (Score:5, Interesting)
a company funded by stock investment it's ONLY priority (and one enforced by law) is returning profit to it's investors. The fly in the ointment though is now since Google is perceived to be hypocritical it's no longer a good investment. The bottom line is that for a lot of people who consider themselves to be rationalists geeks are effected by fundamentally irrational trends i.e. feelings towards a company as much as anyone else. Google good, google bad, depends on which week we are on. Would this article have been written before Google sold out to the Chinese? Probably not since the geeks hadn't turned on Google yet even though they were doing the EXACT things this article talks about before the Chinese debacle.
So yes I think in many ways the criticism of Google is a good thing, it's just too bad we had our irrational blinders on about OTHER Google blunders before the big Chinese sell out.
Is that how you see it? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can see this happening in a number of ways, but the increasing process of demonizing Google more and more (to the exclusion of having much energy left over to care about corporate interests which are legitimately harming the public good) is just the funniest.
You wanna know when Google got "evil"? It had nothing to do with China. Google got "evil" when they got successful. Self-proclaimed "geeks" got so used to rooting for the underdog that, pavlov style, as soon as Google became the overdog they started reflexively rooting against them.
I was reading Slashdot on the day that Google went IPO; people were already predicting, before the IPO, that Google would no longer be able to keep up a perception of being "good" while a for-profit, publicly traded company. And then the next day, when Google went IPO, they went ahead and started perceiving Google as "evil", without going to the bother of waiting for Google to actually do anything evil. Once Google finally went and got around to starting up a search site hosted in China*, these people started using this retroactively as the justification for their loose anger against Google. People who weren't looking for a reason to demonize Google barely even noticed the whole China thing.
* What, you think what Google did was "censoring search results"? The Chinese google search sites hosted in America and Taiwan aren't censored and still work just the same as they always did. It's just that now Google also has a local site hosted in China and adhering to China's censorship laws that people in China can use if they want unfettered access to Google without having to circumvent China's web filters every time they need to search for something. Is this an ethical thing for Google to do? Maybe, maybe not, with the balance probably being on "not". But by doing this, Google has hurt nobody; if Google hadn't done this, nobody would have been helped and all that would have happened is MSN would have become the default search engine in China. The only reason we view Google's presence in China as a problem is that we for whatever reason hold Google to the special standard that they shouldn't do business in China, a standard we do not hold Cisco, Yahoo, Microsoft, Fox News, CNN, McDonalds, or the U.S. Government to.
How can you tell when the Slashdot userbase has lost all sense, logic, or integrity? When they start agreeing with Cringely.
Re:Is that how you see it? (Score:2)
Re:Is that how you see it? (Score:2)
I'm not so sure about that... by doing this, Google hurt the market for web-filter-evasion software: people who would have had to circumvent the censors to get good search results now just take the easier path: use google.cn, and get good, censored search results. The effects of this are:
Re:Is that how you see it? (Score:2)
Pavlov's geeks, I love it.
Re:Is that how you see it? (Score:2)
How exactly does setting up an instance of the search engine that is "adhering to China's censorship laws" providing "unfettered access to Google"?
It may say Google there on the page, but it's certainly not the same thing that the rest of
Re:It's interesting how geeks have turned on Googl (Score:2)
I've got your legal citation right here (Score:2)
Sure can it's Dodge v.s. Ford a 1916 Supreme Court decision:
"Dodge v. Ford Motor Company
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, 204 Mich. 459, 170 N.W. 668. (Mich. 1919), was a famous case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford owed a duty to the shareholders of the Ford Motor Company to operate his business for profitable purposes as opposed to charitable purposes.
Facts
In 1916, the Ford
Re:I've got your legal citation right here (Score:2)
Wouldn't they be stupid (Score:2)
One handidcap is that their competition sniffs it out and takes away their advantage in getting enough lead time to come up front.
Do a search on Yahoo - the result page is identical to Google. Is that original Yahoo - no, copied from Google afaikt.
I enjoy Google - they are refreshing.
its quite interesting that.... (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a reason Cringley is a 2bit writer (Score:5, Insightful)
This reason is exemplified by Cringley misunderstanding that google (and microsoft, and coke, and countless other hugely successful firms) are successful *solely* because they own trade secrets, leveraged into strategy -- and not because of some stupid "mystique" concept invented by mediocre journalists because they don't know what the company is actually doing, but still get paid by the word.
Duh.
I only got this far... (Score:5, Funny)
Robert Cringley has written a thought-provoking article...
segmentation fault, core dumped
Re:I only got this far... (Score:2)
Re:I only got this far... (Score:2)
but seriously, it's true :(
The problem with tech reporters (Score:4, Insightful)
Who? Wha..? Who are these "the rest of us" that this guy speaks of? A similar phenomenon happens with Apple fandom sites. Basically, when a news site or reporter decides to focus only on one or two companies, s/he ends up not having enough news, and this causes a lot of frustration. And they usually end up going down the path of speculative reporting (which is usually really boring, long, and incorrect).
Yeah, but screw the stockholders (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is that the stock market is built on false (or at least dubious) perceptions. Google refuses to play that game. They don't tell ANYBODY what they're doing, which evens the playing field. The "big players" don't have any insider information, and so don't have a significant advantage over the "little players". I think it's great. Google basically says "We're not going to help the rich get richer."
That said, they are playing a dangerous game. Wall Street (and their ilk) essentially controls the U.S. economy. A given business pisses them off at their own peril. But at least Google is making the effort. And so far it has worked.
If the worst you can say about a company is.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now I myself can say worse things about Google, namely that I read through their defense of their collusion with China on censorship, and the more they defend it the clearer it is that their motivation is greed. I myself never got as aggressive as I would have in pursuing Chinese business opportunities because of being ill at ease about their government, and Google could have survived losing that market.
However, on the whole they are a good and generous company, possessed of the same amount of greed and other flaws as most generally good corporations or people have.
This could, of course, change.;-)
Really, most of us have a lot more flaws than being secretive.... I do (but I keep them secret;-) ).
I think I prefer this way. (Score:2)
SPARE ME.
Oh, looks like Google is trying to. Good for them.
eBay ads? *cough* *cough* (Score:2)
"It does not mean, however, that Mr. Dias or any other advertiser will be able to economically show ads that are not relevant and not consistent with user intent. If Mr. Dias or other advertisers want a large quantity of untargeted impressions, there are a variety of media that offer these relatively cost effectively (e.g., web banner ads, TV, newspapers, magazines)."
eBay ads? *cough* *cough*
Percentage instead of per--click (Score:2)
Google could help push the price up buy releasing the total amount in each pot and still report the number of clicks (although due to fraud this number is less and less import
Cringley's full of shit (Score:2)
Google has a blog that tells you what's going on.
Google puts its in-house development projects online as "beta" tools.
Google's ultra-simple front-page portal isn't about secrecy, it's about giving you exactly what you want when you go to Google's front-page.
Cringley needs to start thinking faster than he can type instead of the other way around.
Are they that secretive? (Score:2)
What are the things people think Google should publish which they are not at the moment?
Re:Here it comes...wait for it... (Score:1)
(I know you hurt there at the moment Gab
Totally (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Umm, turn it off! Re:Google toolbar/input color (Score:2)
It's a chilling return to the Microsoft and Netscape arrogance in terms of randomly extending and changing the behaviour of HTML rendering whenever they felt like it.