[Kii]

Apple is worth more then MS now isnt it, and google is catching up. I say its a good thing. Atleast we get something good out of it, Like a better Phone OS. I switched from an iphone to an android phone & I was honestly impressed. Google is moving technology forward. I'de say MS has to try & keep up with Apple & Google now. srsly no one wants a windows 7 phone...do they...?

[Advertisements]

*Please Delete* It said something about administrators Limiting posting time or what not and requested to repost.

Edited by Kii, 16 August 2010 - 10:02 PM.

[Kii]

*Please Delete* It said something about administrators Limiting posting time or what not and requested to repost.

Edited by Kii, 16 August 2010 - 10:02 PM.

[MS-Free]

To answer your question, does anyone know what Google's Campus mascot is? I kid you not, it's a T-rex:



I think that sums up their ultimate goal pretty well

Hmmm... that lends to a rather interesting dichotomy in attitude when you pair that with Google's informal motto: "Don't be evil."

Edited by MS-Free, 20 August 2010 - 12:07 PM.

[Kii]

To answer your question, does anyone know what Google's Campus mascot is? I kid you not, it's a T-rex:



I think that sums up their ultimate goal pretty well

Hmmm... that lends to a rather interesting dichotomy in attitude when you pair that with Google's informal motto: "Don't be evil."

Makes me think if we become evil, theyll make us go extinct. goodie.

[Seltox]

I'd have to say that no, Google aren't getting too powerful.

I find google to be an incredibly marvelous company, and their success can easily be measured with one thing. If you see an ad on TV, or somewhere, or just everyday people, only 30% of the time will they say "do a web search of us", it's "google us". The name of the company has actually become an accepted verb meaning "do a web search".

Anyway, onto why i'd prefer Google to have a lot of power than another company.

Google is a company that has vision, and they actually seem to take an approach of "Well, we have plenty enough money, so what can we do with it to make people happier?" Rather than saying "Well, we have plenty of money." and just leaving it there.

Googles Gmail was a large contributor in why hotmail had to raise their limits. I remember when I first used hotmail, you only had like 50mb or 100mb storage or something, then gmail came out offering like 1gb.

Google aren't selfish at all. They helped to fund Mozilla and helped them along with their firefox and stuff, WHILE they were developing their own Google Chrome. So they were technically helping the 'competition'.

I don't agree that google are coming towards a 'monopoly' on the market. I don't know if it's just me, or if it's just hopeful thinking, but I believe that they wouldn't 'let' this happen, and that they understand that many of the more innovative and brilliant ideas come from small independant groups. I believe Google would be more likely to endorse these groups and give them financial backing to develop their ideas than they would be to try and crush them out.

[AF_Money]

How do you know that some startup company didn't create one 1,000x better but it was bought up/smashed out of existance by Microsoft.
I'm not saying that MS has done that, but that's the inherent danger of a monopoly. Technology, etc. doesn't have to improve because there's nothing driving it forward... no young pups nipping at their heels when they can just squash it with pure market share.

MS isn't a totally amoral company or anything, they just have developed the exact same problems as every other monopoly. In order to maintain your monopoly you have to crush the newcomers. Good business? Sure. Ethical? Absolutely! Good for the consumer? Not so much.

As for MS ethics, remember that this is a company that threatened to pull Windows licencing from Gateway if they packaged Netscape with the system. That's just one example of extremely anti-competeiive behavior.

Google? They're not even a monopoly in search engines yet.

I suggest you research why apple exists in the first place. Steve and Bill go back a long way. They're 2 peas in a pod when it comes to buisness models. Closed source applications that limit everyone's freedom of information to only the information their particular company deems ok to provide. The fact that every windows disc comes with Windows Ulitmate edition and depending on the "liscense" you buy limits your accessability to the extra features or not. Just like when you have cable installed in your home, you get the full $200 package signal to your box, but the cable company installs a physical "filter" in your box attached to your house to limit the information you get based on the package you buy.

Google on the other hand is taking a more open approach as you can see with their android OS on todays smart phones. Although the new G2 phone from t-mobile is the first "un-rootable" android phone so lets hope thats not a trend that will continue...

[Troy]

The fact that every windows disc comes with Windows Ulitmate edition and depending on the "liscense" you buy limits your accessability to the extra features or not.

Er... that is not fact.

[Symmetrix]

Just visited a online record distro I frequent and this site hack attack came up and was sponsored by Google. It also alters the site graphics and every time you go to a new screen the warning pops up again. Why is this Google's business? I could see an add-on software program or something like that but talk about intrusive. Any comments? Will post the link to the site if anyone wants it.

Edited by Symmetrix, 20 February 2011 - 08:06 PM.

[jackson_smith]

Now you can upload your videos directly from Windows Live Movie Maker straight to YouTube...

...Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction...

[hfcg]

Google has a history of doing things right, what they do works very well.
I would like to see Google take on Walmart and all of the businesses that they own! (walmart is in to everything from cell phone use to check cashing places)
It is scary how much information Google has on people, but they have refused to share with big brother so good for them! (on not sharing)
You would be shocked at how many different businesses are owned by the same parent company.

[hfcg]

The fact that every windows disc comes with Windows Ulitmate edition and depending on the "liscense" you buy limits your accessability to the extra features or not.

Er... that is not fact.

I think that every version of Vista came on the DVD, but that is not the case with older versions of Windows.
I do not know about 7.

[jackson_smith]

Google has a history of doing things right, what they do works very well...
It is scary how much information Google has on people, but they have refused to share with big brother so good for them! (on not sharing)

While I don't necessarily agree that they have a history of doing things right, I do agree with the notion that what they do works very well! Just a few days ago, the FCC slapped 'em with a suit, demanding a twenty year audit of information in order to see how exactly they had collected the data on the people and chiefly b/c they violated their own privacy policy towards their customers. Not only that, don't you remember the kind of information those beta programs gathered that Google just "happened" to be testing when the little Google Maps bot-car was driving around taking pictures of almost everything? Of course, who can forget the AP fiasco, when Google took down all of AP's banner ads on their websites and affiliates (and in the middle of a contract with AP to boot!)

Do they really care about their customers' privacy? If they won't even respect a contract and change their story when confronted with the facts [i e "we only got fragmented data" then later "yeah uhmmm...we actually got whole e-mails but it was an accident!"], then why would they respect your privacy?

[hfcg]

Google has a history of doing things right, what they do works very well...
It is scary how much information Google has on people, but they have refused to share with big brother so good for them! (on not sharing)

While I don't necessarily agree that they have a history of doing things right, I do agree with the notion that what they do works very well! Just a few days ago, the FCC slapped 'em with a suit, demanding a twenty year audit of information in order to see how exactly they had collected the data on the people and chiefly b/c they violated their own privacy policy towards their customers. Not only that, don't you remember the kind of information those beta programs gathered that Google just "happened" to be testing when the little Google Maps bot-car was driving around taking pictures of almost everything? Of course, who can forget the AP fiasco, when Google took down all of AP's banner ads on their websites and affiliates (and in the middle of a contract with AP to boot!)

Do they really care about their customers' privacy? If they won't even respect a contract and change their story when confronted with the facts [i e "we only got fragmented data" then later "yeah uhmmm...we actually got whole e-mails but it was an accident!"], then why would they respect your privacy?

Google works very well.
The ONLY expectation of privacy any one has is in their home and anything they do not tell any one else.
I have to wonder about people who think they have a right to privacy in a public area.
The Internet is a public area, and is paid for with advertising dollars. You have no reasonable expectation to privacy on the Internet.
Dont misunderstand, I am a privacy fanatic. I am just realistic about it.

[jackson_smith]

I see what you're saying; you're saying that while you're an advocate for one's right to privacy at home, when it comes to internet privacy, one doesn't deserve it at all.

Is that correct?

[hfcg]

I see what you're saying; you're saying that while you're an advocate for one's right to privacy at home, when it comes to internet privacy, one doesn't deserve it at all.

Is that correct?

No, that is not correct.
I am saying that the Internet is not private, it is public. ou can not expect privacy in any public area.
That is like going to a public beach and expecting no one there to see you.
Look at it like this, go in to walmart and complain that the security cameras are violating your privacy. You have no right to privacy in walmart, same for any other public place. (and unless you own the Internet you have no right to privacy when ou use the Internet)