Audible snicker, glatt. Took me a moment.

This's just one part of it, yeah. Also--am I repeating this for the thousandth time?--business users use applications which are qualified to work properly on certain operating systems and certain browsers. It's not an arbitrary choice on the part of the end-user, they just want their shit to work.

Can we all agree that there are two completely different OS/browser markets? MS Windows, IE, SQL Server, Visual Studio, .Net, etc. are not archaic dinosaurs which are forcing themselves on the market or exploiting people's lack of sophistication. They work just fine, for their intended purpose.

My problem with Google is they forgot about Dre.

As long as we agree that the "intended purpose" is creating an infrastructure that makes money for Microsoft.

Would it benefit the business community at large for the vendor of their primary infrastructure components to not make money, not have resources?

We agree that all businesses are in business to make money, right? But in the case where a bunch of other people's livelihoods are based on other businesses within the ecosystem, of course you want the entire ecosystem to be making money.

This is just like not liking 'top 40' bands because they are popular. You can't have blind spots where capitalism doesn't apply, or gets overruled by personal bias.

It would really benefit the "business community" to have no vendor and pay nothing for languages, frameworks, SQL database platforms, desktops, browsers and development environments that are free of charge and involve no licensure issues.

Google is no longer following the "do no evil" software development model.

TechCrunch
You’re Not Just The Product, You’re The Ads (And Your Friends Should Thank*You)
If it's your image, you should be able to copyright it and at least get royalties from it's use.

How long will it be until some eager lawyer starts suing Google
for using your image without permission in it's new business model.

Just a small devil's advocate here... part of the inherent, lifelong problem with advertising has been that it lies.

4 out of 5 dentists agree... when asked a loaded question that guides a clear answer
I'm Tiger Woods, and I love Bran Flakes... except actually, I hate them.
Best in its class... where class is defined so narrowly that it is the only candidate.


Everyone understands by now that all ads are complete crap. Many if not most people have TV systems that can skip them, and click-through rates are at all-time lows. The most important factor in whether I buy a product is if people I know and trust say it's good. You can't even trust strangers on the internet because fake reviews are so prevalent.

There's something nice about the idea of getting recommendations from your friends without those friends having to do any work to convey that information. Obviously there are some sensitive products that no one wants to talk about, but if you really like a certain product, why wouldn't you want to allow people to know that you like it?

My quarrel with Facebook and then Google is/was with the idea that
they are selling "you" without compensating you for the resource.
Likewise, they are selling "you" to others without you knowing where, when, and to whom.

If someone called and asked you to endorse a product, but refused to tell you
how they were going to use that endorsement, would you still give it to them ?

e.g., a silly example...just because you "liked" or "+1'ed" a bar-casino
(or a STD Clinic :eek:) while on vacation last year, are you OK with your kids,
friends, or members of your church randomly seeing that on their iphone ... years from now ?

I'm old school... believing that bad things happen when someone has access to
and/or uses personal information about "you" to make $ for themselves,
especially if they claim to "own" that information and will not allow you to delete or restrict it's use.
... like your medical information being used by insurance companies or employers, etc.

Likewise, for kids who are vulnerable to bullying by classmates over even the smallest of details in the lives.

Your quarrel with Google is that they are a business and are profitable.

I don't mind my friends seeing what I think is good. I kinda like it. It keeps me in their heads. That has value to me.

I also don't mind people making money. Guess what, it's just a medium of exchange.

What I don't like is speculation about what Google MIGHT do in the future. I would rather criticize based on what they've actually done, instead of what might happen in some sort of dis-utopian future.

My medical information has never been used by insurance companies, and so I wonder what happened to all those arguments for the last 20 years where people told me that was happening or going to happen. That was all just bullshit. It turned out that a law was passed making my medical information incredibly private. And that law (HIPPA) is so widely respected, it prevents even good things from happening to my medical information.

No, I used to admire Google greatly. It competed successfully with MS and
made the internet a wonderful advance worldwide. The various projects
(MAPS, Scholar, ... etc.) were beyond what any company or person had done before.

FaceBook/Twitter/etc were entertainment fluff, but so be it.

What changed was when FB declared ownership of the data people had
been allowed/enticed to load into their database under the company's
implied shell of semi-privacy ( "friending" )

Google changed when Jobs died and a new CEO took the company in a whole new direction.
Google followed suit of FB and declared ownership of everything people had entered or used in their projects.
Now they are declaring they can use your G-mails, MAPS, or any
other information they have to sell "you" to any other company.

My problem with Google is not that they are a business,
but that they have abused the power they gained.

"declared ownership" fucking christ even the words you choose. "Declared" how. You mean they issued a news release? "Ownership" how. They need my permission to do anything with what I've given them, and both FB and Google have respected that boundary with extensive and careful privacy settings. How is that ownership?

Settle down, every new Google announcement is not for you to pick over to determine the end of the world or the beginning of "evil", whatever that means to you. "If you give permission, your friends will now see your picture." OHH EVIL!!! THIS MEANS THEY WILL DEFINITELY PUT MY IMAGE ON PUBLIC BILLBOARDS AND THE WORST PART IS I WILL SEE NO RECOMPENSE!!! THEY WILL BREAK INTO MY HOUSE AND LOOK THROUGH MY DRAWERS AND STEAL MY SPARE RUBBER BANDS!!!

Wow ! Sorry UT to rile you.

All that you've expressed as your opinions is that, your opinion.
So be it. I have no problem with whatever you decide for yourself.

I would appreciate the same consideration... without the conjectures and rhetoric.

I'm sorry but I am prepared to go to all caps lock on this issue.