Now boycotting all google products. Google is plain evil now and won'

explain?

 

It's funny to see how Google progressed from a basic, lightweight search bar to a gigantic corporation that has it's hands deep in the internet.

I don't like them because they got their hands on YouTube, quite possibly the most important website of Web 2.0. Shortly after their acquisition, YouTube had to get corporate. I'm also not too fond of Chrome.

As for Verizon working with them, I'm not surprised. They're another lot of evil bastards.

 

Youtube works fine for me. I've also never had any problems out of Verizon, then again I just have them for my cellphone service.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google-verizon-20100810,0,7352697.story

I don't see anything wrong with what the LA Times is saying about it. It seems pretty fair, in my opinion.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

If you're going to quote something, quote it correctly. I was referring to the article. Quotes are meaningless if taken out of context.

 

Erm, why? Because he wrote 'sent from my Droid'?

Also, I'd probably click on the link. The article states quite clearly that the tabloids got their panties in a twist and started making rumours up about Net Neutrality. Whilst it's a bummer that Google has helped Verizon build a system that throttles based on a list they prescribe, it's actually no worse (and in fact, is superior) than Verizon's old system of throttling everything at certain times of the day.

Obviously you don't remember what YouTube used to be like before Google took it over. It was as bad as Twitter in it's uptime, Chad Gurley's gurning face telling you that they were working on it constantly. The only reason now why YouTube is so slow nowadays is down to the far greater popularity it has achieved now it is stable.

Also, what's with the 'OMG! It's A CONSPIRACY!" nonsense? As someone knees deep in B2B technology reports, I can tell you quite succinctly that it is not Google's intention of limiting what can and cannot be done on the internet. The only problem they have is they have been forced into some kind of moral duty by their popularity to listen to copyright holders, else be sued for even sillier money than the numbers thrown at 'illegal filesharers'. They're trying their hardest to be good and honest, but it is pretty damn difficult once you start becoming a big, popular company.

Feel free to boycott them if you must, but to be honest I completely disagree with you and so will continue using their services.

 

It seems like this is the year to hate on Google. Until I see cast iron proof that they've done something to deserve hating, I'm holding off judgement.

 

Believe me, this is a long suffering argument between content providers and wireless telephone companies. Companies like Google, Dailymotion, the BBC, etc. are pushing heavily for internet-enabled devices to be given the provisions they need to shine. The telephone companies are pushing back by admitting that they actually don't have the capacity to give all users on smartphones the internet speed they want. The infrastructure is incapable of handling demand. The telephone companies are old-world thinkers who've made their money by restricting people, and charging them dollars for what costs them cents. Google couldn't force Verizon Mobile to stick to the same rules as wired internet at present - that would be like asking Walmart to stop selling food with added salt and artificial ingredients.

Even now, phone providers would rather lock you down to their own content portals and crippled browsers because it allows them to not have to spend money providing a fat pipe for internet access, and means they don't have to invest in systems that will actually lose them money in the long run with no benefit to them (even if it benefits their customers). Several companies still want their users to be accessing the 'mobile internet', not 'the internet'.

Just because Verizon and Google have set plans so that the FCC can block any attempts at throttling genuine traffic on wired networks doesn't mean they've stopped caring about wireless content. Google are the perfect players in the business now as they both have fingers in the mobile industry and understand the internet, and they have fumed over mobile restrictions for a long time (one of the reasons why they avoided getting into it until they could see a way of slowly chipping away at the old cell regimes).

Google's whole business strategy is based on the principle that they want to help people quickly find and access the information they want. It really doesn't make any sense for them to prevent people getting where they want to go quickly and easily.

 

Are you sure your not being a little naive there. Google's main business strategy is to make money.

Currently they do this by direct advertising which is dubious in its very nature (I'm thinking of the WI-FI data harvesting news here).

All in all they are not a big business and with that comes dodgy (but probably within the law?) practices, which boils down to whether you morally agree with their actions or not.

 

I apologise, I took it as read that a company's first priority is to make money. A business strategy is what you use to make money with.

Agree with the whole direct advertising thing, but sadly this is the future of marketing and is something that is popular in all advertising business - it's the holy grail of advertisements for many, disturbing as much as it is. However, the profiling data is only permitted to be held for a certain period of time, and you *can* opt out of it. To be honest, Google's AdSense system is by no means the scariest one out there.

It's true that Google did this on the back of their street scanning system. What's also true is that broadcast wireless names is public domain information, unfortunately. If you have a problem with people seeing your wireless network, you can always turn broadcasting off.

I do expect Google to eventually turn eviler, as they know full well the amount of hold they have over the market. The advantage of this, though, is they are constantly under public scrutiny for their actions - as such, there is relatively little they can actually get away with. Who truly knows whether the deal was far worse for the consumer before the news grabbed onto it and shook it. The fact that AT&T liberally admit that they wiretap your phone and give out all your personal data by accident would freak me out more, if I was American. As I am not, I only have hairbrained schemes like Phorm to worry about

 

Do Verizon and Google have to accomplish anything from a legislative standpoint to be able to do this, or can they just go do it?

If they do, I wouldn't hold it out as likely. If they don't, then that's definitely a problem.

 

I love how they utilize a motto called "Don't Be Evil".

 

wireless internet is NOT the future. security analysts even say not to send any information over wireless (ie dont buy shit on the internet when using wireless) it is so easily hacked into.

 

It's annoying how much wireless gets pushed these days, IMO it's way overrated, and apartment buildings are already starting to suffer from major interference when everyone has a fucking Wi-Fi router in their one bedroom apartment...then there's all those security issues.

 

I agree. And it's not just the security issues. As the internet evolves, the size of data transfers increases. Wireless LAN just can't offer the same bandwith as a regular connection. The next step is fiberglass.

About the google thing: fact is google is a company with shareholders. And shareholders want more money all the time.

 

I'm still all wired up. For good reasons.