Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sorry, Larry Page: Tech-Industry Viciousness Is Here To Stay

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.

Google 201

Nerval's Lobster writes "At this week's Google I/O in San Francisco, Google CEO Larry Page stood onstage and took unscripted questions from an auditorium of conference attendees. That's an unusual move for any chief executive, the sort of thing that risks giving their PR people a heart attack. But Page wasn't up there to offer insights into strategy or drop hints about upcoming products: he wanted to talk about how negativity in the tech industry stood in the way of innovation. 'Despite the faster change we have in the industry, we're still moving slow relative to the opportunities that we have,' he said. 'And some of that, I think, has to do with the negativity. Every story I read about Google, it's us versus some other company or some stupid thing.' Being negative, he added, is not how the tech industry makes progress. But minutes later, Page couldn't resist swiping at Oracle and Microsoft. And Google's battles are just one small element in the circular firing squad that comprises most of the tech industry: Apple versus Google versus Samsung versus Microsoft versus Oracle versus Salesforce versus lots of little startups. Those battles won't fade away anytime soon, because corporations have one goal: profit. And so long as other rivals' technological innovations or marketplace maneuvers stand in the way of that profit, the lawsuits and the CEO sniping will continue. The part of Page's talk that centered on peace and love played well to the audience at Google I/O; but it's easier to argue that the true mode of the tech industry, at its core, is Darwinian competition. Do you agree?"

cancel ×

201 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This is America. We compete. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43754963)

Hard. Sometimes viciously. Mother nature has already shown us that dog-eat-dog is the best way to adapt, survive, and even thrive. The business world is the same way. Take your kum-buy-yah bullshit and go sell it to someone else. I have work to do so my company can kick your company's ass and put them out of business.

Re:This is America. We compete. (4, Interesting)

Salgak1 (20136) | about a year ago | (#43755027)

Don't remind me, I just had a headhunter pitch a job to me, with her going on and on about their "diversity, respect, and social responsibility", and how the employer "strives to help you become the best person you can possibly be. . . ". I guess excellence and profit motivation aren't attractive anymore. . .

Re:This is America. We compete. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43755081)

That s**t works big time on chicks, though. If you're a guy, it's because the headhunter was a chick--she's projecting big time.

You're disgusting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43756175)

That s**t works big time on chicks, though. If you're a guy, it's because the headhunter was a chick--she's projecting big time.

Don't be such an offensive sexist: that s**t also works big time on limp-wristed liberal males. However, in any case it's ultimately just window-dressing for the pecuniary interests.

Re:This is America. We compete. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43755453)

Sound like she is trying to fill a token position.

Re:This is America. We compete. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43755555)

The diversity and social responsibility is being eaten up by these retards of the "Millenial" generation. This is the same group that can't figure out how to stop living with their parents while they wait for the perfect job to come around that somehow is going to save the world. In the meantime, if they do take that job, it's just cover for some smirking hipster to relentlessly abuse them and their idealism to make some money on their latest "innovation", like retouching photos to look shitty so that they look like you took them with a broken Polaroid camera.

If this is the future of the U.S., I'm glad I don't have any kids to watch this country circle the drain while everyone is navel gazing their way through life.

Re:This is America. We compete. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43755949)

I'm also glad you don't have kids. Sounds like you don't need to worry too much about that.

Google is no better... (2, Insightful)

mystikkman (1487801) | about a year ago | (#43755115)

Larry Page: Every story I read about Google, it's us versus some other company or some stupid thing.

He means like in these stories?

http://www.wpcentral.com/google-microsoft-remove-youtube-windows-phone-store [wpcentral.com]

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-admits-it-was-blocking-wp8-maps-2013-1 [businessinsider.com]

Stupid thing indeed, to send lawyers to make things worse for Windows Phone users who are mere pawns in Google's strategic games.

For example, the imaging tech in Nokia's flagship Windows Phone is far better than Android phones, look at the below videos for proof.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/samsung-galaxy-s4-video-is-shakier-than-rivals-in-test-50011238/ [cnet.co.uk]

How about advancing the state of the art for smartphone camera imaging tech through its loss making Motorola Unit instead of trying to compete by making Windows Phone worse by sending C&D take down letters?

Why doesn't Google use it's loss making Motorola to advance the state of smartphone camera tech like Nokia is doing instead of trying to prevent people from getting Windows Phone by sending C&Ds and takedowns?

Re:Google is no better... (3, Informative)

game kid (805301) | about a year ago | (#43755371)

Besides, Page is the same guy that got into a "shouting match" with Brin (I'll let Slashdot find the WSJ link this time, I've linked it enough) because Brin was getting in the way of sharing personal user info for money.

He's given the viciousness, and now he can go take it like the karma-challenged man he is.

Re:This is America. We compete. (5, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | about a year ago | (#43755155)

Except it hasn't. There's a reason why empathy and altruism exist, and both have shown positive correlation with the ability of the species to survive.

Re:This is America. We compete. (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43755179)

are you kidding?

the USA and others are still willing to kill people over access to natural resources

Re:This is America. We compete. (5, Funny)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year ago | (#43755301)

Evolutionary fitness of the United States is yet to be determined.

Re:This is America. We compete. (2)

RoknrolZombie (2504888) | about a year ago | (#43755387)

Or shoes.

Re:This is America. We compete. (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43755245)

Socially I absolutely agree. Commerce should be a vicious shark tank though, that's the foundation of capitalism. Don't try to apply social methods to commerce, or commercial methods to society, and you're good. The government only needs to step in when the competition fades, that's when you get monopolies causing trouble.

We need both selfishness and altruism (5, Interesting)

sjbe (173966) | about a year ago | (#43755267)

There's a reason why empathy and altruism exist, and both have shown positive correlation with the ability of the species to survive.

Species exist on a spectrum between complete selfishness (everything for me) and complete altruism (everything for the group). Some species tend more towards one end or the other of the spectrum. However the success of a species typically depends on the circumstances and the balance between the two. Our success depends on the tension between the two. Sometimes a little selfishness is good for the species as well as the individual. It's actually beneficial to society that I earn a good living instead of immediately donating every penny to charity. However never donating a dime isn't ideal either. The balance is somewhere in between.

E.O. Wilson wrote about this [amazon.com] dynamic recently. Interesting read if that sort of thing tickles your fancy.

You decide how big a unit you compete as (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | about a year ago | (#43755973)

A better way to look at evolutionary competition is that a competing entity can decide/try, as one possible adaptation strategy, to co-operate with one or more of its former competitors. This can be looked at as purely an evolutionarily selfish move. You have just decided to increase the size of your "self" by allying partially or totally with the other(s). If the co-operation works out, then there will then be a new set of bigger (and generally more capable) competitors competing at the next level (not to mention generally eliminating/eating the remaining smaller players.) So, co-operation can be looked at as just a strategy in competition, which has a downside (diluting of the identity of your former self into a larger new self), but can have the enormous upside of increasing your techniques, power, and resources in the next level of competition. That definition of the purpose and effect of cooperation is true all the way up until there are no more competitors, and that probably can't happen, since the "uncooperative and entropizing environment" can be defined as just another competitor that should probably be co-operated with instead.

Re:You decide how big a unit you compete as (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43756571)

And your response is a perfect example of why one can't substitute "evolution-directed instincts broadly relatable to ethical choices" for -ethics-.

As soon as one conceptualizes the drives/instincts/emotions as simply another attribute of behavior, one is then naturally free to do what you are doing here--analyze the structure of the drives as an nonessential externality. That is, "game" it, rather than see oneself as obliged to adhere to it.

In fact, what your evolved instincts tell you to do is not only not synonymous with ethics, it doesn't even correlate much. Often, the -ethical- decision is precisely the opposite of what evolved drives tell one to do, and it is an issue of ethics precisely to the degree they do -not- follow them. Indeed, one may say that "ethics" only exists insofar as one is making a choice -not- determined by evolved motivators, that is, insofar as it is undriven free choice.

Re:You decide how big a unit you compete as (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | about a year ago | (#43756901)

What is the basis of this ethics of which you speak. And please (for the love of God) don't say God. What criteria do you use to judge if something is ethical? Do we not find that behaviour/decision that is considered ethical is identical with that which would tend to promote co-operation? i.e. behaviour that tends (whether intended as such or not) toward encouraging the creation of the larger co-operating whole?

Re:This is America. We compete. (1)

eth1 (94901) | about a year ago | (#43755739)

Except it hasn't. There's a reason why empathy and altruism exist, and both have shown positive correlation with the ability of the species to survive.

*Species* yes, individuals, not as much. In our species, anyway, empathy and altruism might help the group, but you notice the successful *individuals* are often the ruthless ones.

Re:This is America. We compete. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43756347)

"Except it hasn't. There's a reason why empathy and altruism exist, and both have shown positive correlation with the ability of the species to survive"

Both empathy and altruism exist because at times both are beneficial to the individual exhibiting them. They are two tactics (among many) to use to further ones self interest.

Re:This is America. We compete. (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#43756907)

And what does that have to do with negativity? Do you have to be optimistic to give to a charity or what? Criticism is the strongest force driving human progress.

Re:This is America. We compete. (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | about a year ago | (#43755273)

usual... someone who is doing well says "too bad, life is tough, you gotta work hard, etc." but when someone else does it better, they scream, "unfair!"

Re:This is America. We compete. (5, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#43755275)

This clap-trap is insightful? Wouldnt it be nice if we could evolve to a point where we dont feel the need to trample our peers to survive? At our level of intelligence, cooperation is FAR more productive then competition.

Re:This is America. We compete. (2, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43756019)

The libertariantards have been out in force recently. Remember that socialism is the devil and the only cure of the inequity of man is to ruthlessly crush your adversaries and climb up on top of their mutilated corpses while fondling your nearest Ayn Rand novel.

Re:This is America. We compete. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43756431)

Like when people cooperate together to destroy other people? You mean like that?

And how do you arrive at something to cooperate over without first having had a competition of things?

fuck you im voting this down (1, Troll)

decora (1710862) | about a year ago | (#43755341)

because for my comments to prosper, yours must suffer.

Re:This is America. We compete. (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year ago | (#43755623)

dog-eat-dog is the best...

Norm Peterson: ...and I'm wearing Milk-Bone underwear.

Re:This is America. We compete. (2)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about a year ago | (#43756121)

Making a profit and being a decent human being/member of society are not mutually exclusive. You can claim all you want that one has to be an asshole to get ahead in business, but it simply is not true.

Re:This is America. We compete. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43756501)

Realistically, nature shows us that dog-eat-dog is the easiest way. Easiest is not always the same as best. This is a critical failing of nearly all companies in nearly all industries though...

Can we have... (0)

pongo000 (97357) | about a year ago | (#43754977)

...a Larry Page channel so I can filter this shit out? How many more articles about Larry Page will be shoved down our collective throats before the week (month? year?) is out?

Re:Can we have... (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#43754993)

Seconded. And please, make it paid channel. So i could save some money.

Re:Can we have... (2)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about a year ago | (#43755053)

Could be worse: Ray Kurzweil.

Re:Can we have... (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year ago | (#43755585)

Now, now. Ray may be extremely optimistic, but some of that stuff he comes up with is like reading a really retro science fiction anthology.

Retro, as in, we'd have flying cars and be regularly talking to aliens by 1985, and will have ascended into super-powerful energy beings by the year 2000.

The Singularity is an interesting concept, even if it's about as likely as me being proposed to by every lingerie model on Earth, on the same day.

Re:Can we have... (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about a year ago | (#43755907)

Yeah, that's the point: it's not really news. As much as I respect his accomplishments, Ray sounds like the boy who cried electric wolf these days.

Re:Can we have... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#43755159)

No kidding. Last year he wouldn't talk; this year he won't shut up.

I think I preferred 2012 Larry.

Re:Can we have... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43756829)

He's a smart guy who makes some really good points that are worth thinking about.

I know, you need to get vindication against people in the industry who actually make a differences, since you never will.

butts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43754987)

butts butts butts

Dude, it's exactly this sort of negativity (1)

MikeTheGreat (34142) | about a year ago | (#43755025)

that Mr. Page was talking about!

Re:Dude, it's exactly this sort of negativity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43756211)

Negative? The human body is a beautiful thing, you insensitive clod!

Page was just dissembling anyway (5, Insightful)

dhavleak (912889) | about a year ago | (#43755001)

It's not just that tech industry viciousness is here to stay -- it's also that Google is a pretty strong participant in it. Google's been pretty good at appropriating the language of open source when it suits them, and using EEE tactics once they have the upper hand.

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway (4, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year ago | (#43755425)

^^^^^ This.

The honest truth is that all of these companies are vicious when it suits them, and conciliatory when it suits them. And it suits them when it means that it will make them more profit. Google, I honestly believe, was at one point the sort of altruistic company that many still paint it as, but with its rampant growth it has moved well past that point. Today's Google is far different from the Google of 10 years ago, and they are definitely the sort to engage in the embrace, extend, extinguish tactics you were talking about.

Re:Page was just dissembling anyway (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43756061)

Yeah... I was originally pretty happy about that comment, especially the part where they made the explicit comment about messaging systems being a mess for no really good reason... which they followed by announcing the new Hangouts where they seem to be giving up on XMPP compatibility [google.com] . Seemed like a bit of stab in the back of going "Yes, we are all for interoperability in messaging services which is why we are discontinuing interoperability in our messaging service."

No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43755021)

As in, "negatory'.

Lost in the Billionaire Bubble (2)

mbone (558574) | about a year ago | (#43755041)

I think that the real purpose of the Google I/O in San Francisco was to show just how clueless Google's top executives are in their "Billionaire Bubble."

Re:Lost in the Billionaire Bubble (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43755175)

Bubble or filtered results?

Money.. (4, Insightful)

Vortran (253538) | about a year ago | (#43755043)

Money is power. Power corrupts. Ethical behavior is incompatible with the pursuit of profit. This is the essence of the old adage "Money is the root of all evil." Think about this very carefully while you consider what values of your own are compromised because you're a slave to your paycheck. Now multiply and amplify that ad infinitum.

Please read this twice if you feel the need to refute anything herein.

Hypocritical coming from Google... (4, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about a year ago | (#43755157)

Google is no better at greed for money.

See how Google started removing borders around ads and made the shading super light in order to get ad clicks from older people and people with bad monitor calibration:

http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-it [ppcblog.com]

http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-intentionally-trying-to-minimize-the-fact-that-these-are-ads/ [blumenthals.com]

Those carefully and scientifically calibrated colors must be worth atleast few hundred million of extra revenue from their cash cow by making gullible people click on ads mistaking them for real search results.

"Study:Contrast sensitivity gradually decreases with age"
http://www.eyeworld.org/article.php?sid=818&strict=0&morphologic=0&query= [eyeworld.org]

Chrome is a trojan horse to weaken Mozilla which is becoming less powerful because Google uses its ad dollars to bundle Chrome with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates by default thereby reducing Firefox's share and has the nice side effect of reducing Google's payments to Mozilla for searches.

And Web DRM? Of course it's going to be a HTML standard very soon because IE, Safari and... ding! Chrome are going to be supporting it fully with 80% marketshare and people will blame Firefox if Netflix doesn't work in it and recommend you switch to Chrome to see movies! iOS, Android and Windows Phone, BBOS will add support for 100% tablet and phone support for the DRM.

Chrome on Chromebook already has the EME DRM module. Firefox and Opera are powerless to stop it. We have already seen this play out with the h.264 HTML5 video support in Chrome fiasco when Google promised it would drop H.264 from Chrome to push WebM but did not and Mozilla was left holding the bag with WebM and had to recently had to eat crow and add support for patent encumbered H264. The web is owned by the corporates, not individuals anymore, there was some hope when Firefox was at 40%, not anymore. And we all willingly gave them the power by believing in "open" and "do no evil" and switching in droves.

Re:Hypocritical coming from Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43755315)

And we all willingly gave them the power by believing in "open" and "do no evil" and switching in droves.

What? You somehow missed the simple fact that Google is first and foremost and advertising company? And that advertisers are evil manipulative vile people who will do everything in their power to make you do what they want you to do?

Re:Hypocritical coming from Google... (1)

inputdev (1252080) | about a year ago | (#43755413)

It feels like I just read your post the other day.
Really, contrast? I think there is an element of advertisers wanting their ads to look legitimate - there are many competing interests. I can still tell the ads on google, maybe because I'm young enough. That is not quite enough for me to consider google evil.
DRM - drm still sucks, will continue to suck, and I don't see the end any time soon. I don't blame Chrome from DRM, I don't get why you do, other than saying that chrome is going to make sure that netflix works?
agreed that the web is owned by the corporates, and pretty much everything else is owned by the corporates...
It's simpler than people 'believing in "open" and "do no evil"' - people use whatever is available and good enough for what they need. You don't have to believe in Google to benefit from gmail.

Re:Hypocritical coming from Google... (1)

yuhong (1378501) | about a year ago | (#43755707)

Personally, on this laptop, it does look more whitish the more you tilt the display to the front.

Re:Hypocritical coming from Google... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#43755639)

I would gleefully go back to Mozilla if they stopped with the adding fluff and went back to being fast and correct. It's a bloated turd right now, over 1/2 the code needs to be thrown away.

Mozilla back to it's roots and become the fasted and smallest memory footprint out there? I would love it!

Re:Hypocritical coming from Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43755837)

http://arewefastyet.com/

Check it out... In the past 2 years they are within current chrome speeds on all benchmarks. They are talking about going past it in the next 6 months. They are also the lowest usage in memory amongst all the browsers. With many of them starting in the 700 meg range just to open the browser..

Re:Hypocritical coming from Google... (1)

yuhong (1378501) | about a year ago | (#43755699)

The color in question is #fff8e7, BTW.

Re:Money.. (1)

mbone (558574) | about a year ago | (#43755259)

Apparently markets corrupt [sciencemag.org] as well, just by their nature.

Re:Money.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43755279)

Now multiply and amplify that ad nauseum

ftfy

Re:Money.. (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#43755307)

I know so many people who would roast babies for a living if it was socially acceptable and paid well.

Re:Money.. (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about a year ago | (#43755451)

Indeed...it's minimum wage, and babies are much better deep fried in a tempura batter.

Re:Money.. (4, Informative)

eriks (31863) | about a year ago | (#43755473)

Not refuting anything you're saying (Because I agree wholeheartedly), but the quote from 1 Timothy is:

"For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."

Emphasis added, since I think that's the most important part of the quote. Money is just a tool. It may be a tool that we need to leave in the dustbin of history, and I'd personally like to see that happen, since there are many ways we could live without a monetary system entirely, but as a pragmatist, I don't see it happening anytime soon, at least not without a very strong catalyst.

Re:Money.. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43756897)

and the evil in the sentence means not adhere to there belief.

Ethics (4, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about a year ago | (#43755495)

Ethical behavior is incompatible with the pursuit of profit.

Nonsense. Pursuit of profit *can* lead to unethical behavior but it does not follow that pursuit of profit *must* lead to unethical behavior. Buying something and then selling it to someone else for a higher price has no component that is fundamentally unethical. If you have a good I need and I'm willing to pay a price for it (a price that is low enough that it does not cause me injury) then we both get something we want/need and both are better off. There is nothing unethical about that exchange.

I won't even get in to the question of what you consider unethical behavior or why. Ethics are societal conventions and standards which differ between people and groups, not immutable laws of the universe. Perhaps you do consider pursuit of profit to be unethical. That does not mean that the rest of society must consider it so.

Re:Ethics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43756127)

"Ethics are societal conventions and standards which differ between people and groups, not immutable laws of the universe."

Nope. Ethics are immutable laws of the universe. I say this because a) I am a theist and thus have a metaphysical underpinning to this position, and b) I have had enough philosophy training to know that your position means that all your ethical statements are meaningless subjective nonsense--unbacked as they are, per -your- metaphysics, and as you here admit they are. If any given ethical postulate and -its exact opposite- are of equal validity depending on who you ask or social context, you may as well not even bring it up. It has no content or force.

Re:Ethics (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year ago | (#43756423)

b) I have had enough philosophy training to know that your position means that all your ethical statements are meaningless subjective nonsense

I think that's because they pretty much are. Does that have anything to do with whether or not the position is correct? Not one bit.

you may as well not even bring it up. It has no content or force.

About as much as two people screaming at one another that they're absolutely correct. People who claim that morality is absolute really don't seem to be any better off in the end.

Re:Ethics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43756659)

Well then, may your assumed definition of "the end" be as you insist for you.

Re:Ethics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43756763)

People who claim that morality is absolute really don't seem to be any better off in the end.

That kind of proves that morality -is- absolute, doesn't it? ;)

The *love* of money (5, Insightful)

Swamii (594522) | about a year ago | (#43755673)

Ethical behavior is incompatible with the pursuit of profit. This is the essence of the old adage "Money is the root of all evil."

The actual quote [biblegateway.com] :

"The love of money is the root of all evil."

This is an important distinction. When a man loves money more than personal morals and ethics, only then does his business become unethical.

Re:The *love* of money (2)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#43756457)

When a man loves money more than personal morals and ethics

From where in the quote, or elsewhere in the scriptures from which the quote is drawn, are you getting the "more than" qualification? The text seems pretty clear that "the love of money" is problematic ("the root of all [kinds of] evil"), period. There is no exception made for "a little love of money is OK," any more than "a little love of murder is OK."

Re:Money.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43755923)

Money is not the root of all evil. Money is the root of all good. The love of money is the root of all evil. Money is the root of all good because with money I can get an education, buy food to eat, buy a house to live in, buy clothes to protect myself from the elements, etc. Unless you live in some utopian society where there is no money (and in this case I would include any type of bartering as being a form of money) then all good things come to you via money.

Re:Money.. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year ago | (#43756859)

Ethical behavior is incompatible with the pursuit of profit.
false.
"This is the essence of the old adage "Money is the root of all evil."'
its: "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil."

which is false, but at least get the damn quote right.

Media (5, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43755071)

It's time for Sarten-X's semi-weekly anti-media rant.

The reason the news stories you read about are always us-vs.-them is because you're reading news stories. It's not what's really going on. In a newspaper, the story about the big technology company donating millions of dolalrs in products and support to a third-world country takes a nice little corner on page 12. Meanwhile, the front-page big headline is a story about the company that sues another company for just as much.

People love controversy, and the media is happy to supply it. It doesn't matter how good your company is or what your corporate charter's stated mission is, you're still portrayed as a Big Evil Company that's out to greedily gather money and decimate your adversaries. On the off chance that you keep your dealings clean enough to not get sued (and don't sue others), you can bet that the media will invent an adversary for you, combining the markets of your closest competitors into a shady conspiracy, just for the sake of a story.

Sorry, Larry Page: News-media viciousness is here to stay.

Re:Media (0, Redundant)

mystikkman (1487801) | about a year ago | (#43755645)

t doesn't matter how good your company is or what your corporate charter's stated mission is, you're still portrayed as a Big Evil Company that's out to greedily gather money and decimate your adversaries

Because they're are usually a Big Evil Company and the mission is just PR bullshit.

Example?

Lets take Google.

Google's mission from: http://www.google.com/about/ [google.com]

"Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful."

And Google does things like this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-admits-it-was-blocking-wp8-maps-2013-1 [businessinsider.com]

http://wmpoweruser.com/surprise-or-not-google-demands-microsoft-cease-and-desist-with-official-youtube-app/ [wmpoweruser.com]

Is it the press' fault that they need to cover this up by putting it on page 12 and concentrate on Google's clean image in the front page?

Re:Media (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43755817)

And what would the media be without shills adding to the mud-slinging and muckraking?

Tolerable.

Negativity vs. Competition (4, Insightful)

kevkingofthesea (2668309) | about a year ago | (#43755075)

This submission, and the comments so far, have missed some key differences between negativity and competition. It is possible to compete without being negative towards your competitor. Good competition (from the consumer's point of view) involves both (all) sides striving to create the best product they can. Bad competition is when, rather than improving themselves, competitors seek to cut each other down.

Re:Negativity vs. Competition (1)

AxDx (1184351) | about a year ago | (#43755569)

I'm glad someone made this point, and beat me to the punch. This is an example of competition. Hey JERK! I was gonna post that and bask in the glory of everyone telling me how insightful my comment is. Not fair! In fact I think that I can prove that I had the thought before you and sue you for actually getting it done before me. Butthead! I know where you live and I hope your car is insured .. Negativity. Now which one do you think is more productive and condussive of real progress?

Re:Negativity vs. Competition (-1, Redundant)

mystikkman (1487801) | about a year ago | (#43755691)

This submission, and the comments so far, have missed some key differences between negativity and competition. It is possible to compete without being negative towards your competitor. Good competition (from the consumer's point of view) involves both (all) sides striving to create the best product they can. Bad competition is when, rather than improving themselves, competitors seek to cut each other down.

And Google is indulging in bad competition: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3760879&cid=43755115 [slashdot.org]

Re:Negativity vs. Competition (1)

kevkingofthesea (2668309) | about a year ago | (#43756631)

They're a huge company - there are plenty of examples of both in their history. Google Fiber is one of the more recent examples of good competition from Google.

Re:Negativity vs. Competition (2)

idontgno (624372) | about a year ago | (#43756147)

What you say is true but unpersuasive. The surest way to win is to make sure everyone else loses. And that is why negativity works.

If the "W" on the score card is the only thing that matters, almost anything is acceptable.

And, on a related side note, I've seen behaviors that make me believe that for some people, it's more important to make someone else lose than it is to make one's self win.

tech has always been the scummiest industry (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43755143)

15" and 17" monitors that really aren't that big due to the bezel
smaller than advertised hard drives
hyping features that will never happen a la microsoft
lying about the competition

everyone has done it, everyone has been the target of it. that's how it goes

Darwinian means evolution, patents IP not (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43755183)

you are confusing Darwinian competition with anti-evolutionary practices of blocking patents, lawsuits to stop competition, and IP that was stolen in the first place and never should have been granted rights.

Until the patent and copyright systems are reformed, this is just going to get worse.

Re:Darwinian means evolution, patents IP not (4, Insightful)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about a year ago | (#43755537)

Whoa whoa whoa, "anti-evolutionary"? The rules surrounding intellectual property may be dirty, rotten, and underhanded maybe. But anti-evolutionary?

Son, evolution is a cold-hearted bitch and she doesn't care if it's a one-sided fight, she will straight-up murderize your entire clutch of eggs. Even if it means less food for everyone in the long run. As long as it helps her and her own, in the here and now, she's down with that. Evolution will toss ethics right out the window, baby, bathwater, and all, if it means she gets to send another gene into the future. That bitch plays hardball and is the first to turn in the other prisoner. It's no dilemma to her. She can make some truly beautiful and breath-taking things, but she has no goal or sense of morals, and the moment you put her in a corner she will sucker-punch the nearest fatty so she's not the first eaten.

Re:Darwinian means evolution, patents IP not (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#43756413)

That opposable thumb you've got there buddy. Cease and desist using it. Or you'll hear from my attorney.

Google Vicious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43755203)

Check the tech history and deals. You aren't very far from Microsoft.

Larry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43755219)

I'd rather hear from Larry Laffer rather than Larry "Doubleface" Page any day of the week.

FOSS ain't exactly a love fest... (3, Insightful)

jwthompson2 (749521) | about a year ago | (#43755231)

FOSS ain't exactly a love fest, and they lack to direct profit motive of large corporations. Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds aren't consistently known for being just the nicest guys you've ever met. The only open source community that overtly talks about being nice and polite is the Ruby community with it's "Matz is nice, so we are nice" mantra that falls down just as often as it shows through. Competition and even brutal competition are part of life, for good and ill.

Re:FOSS ain't exactly a love fest... (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#43756073)

I love Rails, I tolerate Ruby, but man, "members of the Ruby community" are insufferable.

Profit is irrelevant (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#43755287)

To claim all of the antagonism is simply about profit is laughable; if it were then companies would logically work together to maximize profit across an industry.

Large company battles, ESPECIALLY in the case of technical companies, have never been about money. They have been about control and dominance and vision. Every company wants to be the one that controls where the future goes in the field they compete in.

Just look at any behavior large companies behave in, and almost never does it make sense from a profit perspective. But if you think about it in terms of strategic control, it almost always does (especially in hindsight).

Summary. (3, Insightful)

SeNtM (965176) | about a year ago | (#43755317)

Can we all be a little less Star Wars and a little more Star Trek???

Re:Summary. (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about a year ago | (#43755575)

Have you seen the latest Star Trek?

Re:Summary. (2)

u64 (1450711) | about a year ago | (#43755705)

About being a little more Star Trek,

Picard: The economics of the future are somewhat different.
You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century.

Lily Sloane: No money. You mean, you don't get paid?

Picard: The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force of our lives.
We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.

  - Star Trek: First Contact

Somehow i think the notion of 'no money' sits uncomfortable with advertisement companies, such as Google.

YOU MOTHERFUCKER (-1)

puddingebola (2036796) | about a year ago | (#43755401)

YOU Motherfucker, you're going down for posting this story! I'll destroy your piece of shit website and make sure you never work at a tech company anywhere!

Geek Hubris (1)

dave562 (969951) | about a year ago | (#43755593)

I would say that the negativity is exactly what makes the tech industry as successful as it is. Geeks, being the borderline socially inept creatures that we are, generally, tend to care very little about the feelings of others and have no hesitation calling each other out. It makes us better. It encourages us to make sure that our ideas are sound before we share them. Then once we share them, we are encouraged to refine them, because we have to. Geeks are vicious. We will call each other out. Geeks have pretty finely calibrated bullshit detectors. That is why so many of us have a hard time moving into management and dealing with executives and sales people.

Business, like life, is war. (1)

TigerPlish (174064) | about a year ago | (#43755683)

Perhaps it's my upbringing, but I see life as war. Not a race, but a war.

Do onto others before they do unto you. That's the credo I feel this world operates on.

This goes doubly more for business. There are, and I've met, some good honest people out there doing great work with little reward, or even little desire of more reward. But for one of those, you have 10 who want nothing more than to kill every single competitor, steal their ideas, products, clients / customers, and then lie, cheat and steal their way through those customer's wallets.

Not nice, right? It is Darwinian. Kill the other business before they do it to you. Not the way it should be, but is the way it is.

I hate it. I detest it. And this is all learned by 3rd grade, I think. Even then I noticed "huh, the nasty kids and the cheats win and get ahead faster than the quiet, studious, nice ones."

Misrepresentation (2)

g2devi (898503) | about a year ago | (#43755759)

Larry wasn't swiping at Oracle and Microsoft any more than a person who is being picked on isn't bullying if he says "it's not fair".

As for negativity, it's not only here to stay, it is actually beneficial in some cases. Some companies add restrictions to their EULAs that state you are forbidden to comparing their product to others (e.g. via benchmarking). I'm sorry, it might be "negative" to say one product is better than another, but it's irrelevant. People want the best value for their money and not just "a good enough deal".

Imagine how poor the Linux kernel quality would be if Linus was too worried about offending contributors? Imagine where free software would be if Stallman wasn't so negative on even the hint of proprietary software?

What wasn't said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43755785)

What Larry was *really* saying is that what is impeding *his* technology is negativity towards *Google*. His statements, as with any CEO, are self-serving half-truths. He's just hoping the the techies in the audience are too naive to catch on.

Own fault, idiot. (2)

seebs (15766) | about a year ago | (#43755793)

A guy whose company uses stack ranking is not in a position to complain about non-cooperative behavior.

No free market (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43755813)

Right on schedule... someone who makes a crap load of money griping how the market does not work they way HE wants it to. It should be more "civil"?
What is depressing is no one from the audience yelled at him. I recall seeing "All The Presidents Men" in a movie theater and hearing people hiss when anything related to Nixon was shown on the screen. People knew then how destructive and flat out murderously violent that sense of privilege is.

Here we have a rich, tech (supposedly giant)... musing... about what he perceives as ... something that is not helpful?
Not helpful to what?? Profits?

Do not EVER mistake these people as being good, moral or something to aspire to... He is after PROFIT...
Gates stole and suppressed innovations, tampered with the market.... spread doubt and fear when he saw fit.
I guarantee you this guy is no different.

Apple, MS, Google got along on one issue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43756051)

Don't forget what happened the one time Google, Apple, MS, Oracle, etc were nice and got along. They colluded to drive down developer salaries! I think I like the competition better.

FRAND lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43756343)

Let's not forget, this is the same peace and love company that just got smacked down for abusing FRAND patents. As far as I'm concerned, that's the worst kind of behavior out of the bunch.

American Corporate Lifecycle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43756373)

The corporation is started by the entrepreneurs/engineers. (I've got this neat idea)

When it gets going, it's taken over by the lawyers. (Moar patents and let's sue somebody)

When the lawyers get tired, they give it to the accountants. (Move manufacturing to Outer Mongolia and send me your 24-month budget)

If there's anything left, the bankers get it. (The CEO needs moar money and moar quarterly earnings)

The bankers M&A it to death. (Strip those assets, baby, and merge the rest with Acme Waste and Bomb Disposal)

"Nature red in tooth and claw" has very little to do with it.

This is not the Federal Republic of Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43756511)

Sorry, Larry, you're just going to have to earn it the hard way.

Microsoft stopped innovation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43756837)

...and undermined any startup by stealing their idea and cramming it onto their platform. If that's Darmin. you can have it.

imagine how far we would be today if every startup with an idea Microsoft incorporated had made it and grown. We'd be way ahead of where we are today.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?