06/08/2011 § Ein Kommentar

Googlers sind Pussies, behauptet Brian S. Hall. So hat er auch seinen Blogbeitrag betitelt: „Google are Pussies„. Da er dankenswerterweise den Originaltext von Google, auf den er sich bezieht, vollständig zitiert hat, zitiere ich hier meinerseits seinen Originaltext inklusive Originalzitat von Google. Hehe. Unten dran kommen dann meine Gedanken zu dem Thema.

Zunächst zum Zitat von Brian S. Hall:

Google are pussies
Submitted by brian s hall on 4 August, 2011 – 00:10
Tags: Android Google

I love Google Maps. Like Google Search. Use Gmail.

But, increasingly, I’ve grown nervous about the vast scope Google has over the Internet. Users have virtually no place on the world wide web, no safe haven, no single moment, from Google’s reach.
They are a for-profit megacorp that holds more information about me, my family, and you and your family than any government — and they sell that information, every second of every day to the highest bidder.

They have typically between 75%-99% of the search market in countries around the world and doctor results to put selected results, typically the ones that most directly benefit Google, up at the top. While spending millions and millions of dollars lobbying governments around the world to shield them from monopoly laws, content and publishing laws, privacy laws, no-track regulations and more.

I am disgusted by Google and the way they seek to equalize all content. All content is not equal, this is a intellectual fallacy. Or, possibly, an anti-intellectual one. Google compounds this by taking all content they can access, and scrapes what they can’t, and then wraps their ads around it — to make money off everyone else’s content. Don’t like it? Just have Google bypass you.

Of course, screen scraping proves they won’t bypass you if they really want your content. If they don’t want it — meaning, can’t make any real money off it — they’re more than happy to use their monopoly power to make you invisible. Sort of like if the government didn’t like what you’ve been saying about them and decides not to give your business a postal address.

I also have come to dislike much of Google because they very quickly went from big company that sells my personal information to strangers, which makes me nervous, to a company that innovates at nothing yet spends *billions* of dollars from one business to enter new markets and destroy existing businesses.

Yelp gets popular? Copy their info, shove Yelp to the bottom of the page and put Google Places and reviews at the top.
Groupon won’t sell? Spend billions from other businesses to destroy them.
Twitter and Facebook innovate on search? Take their content, whine when they try and stop you then spend billions to prevent their growth and hopefully destroy them.

Apple working on a touchscreen smartphone? Spend billions from another business and copy everything you can, down to swipes and apps.
Need a smartphone operating system with Java. Take Java and use it for your own ends.

Need a location mapping technology and Skyhook won’t sell? Spend billions from your monopoly profits and strongarm your partners and drive Skyhook out of business.

Buy up the big travel search sites.
Claim you are open source but share nothing related to what your business claims to be about — search, and nothing related to how you make your money — advertising
Claim you are open and standards based but control who gets access to your smartphone operating system

Like all rich monopolists, they spend millions hiring high priced lobbyists and public relations teams inside the Beltway — for their direct benefit
The list goes on…

But I cover the smartphone wars. What has Google achieved by spending billions and billions of dollars from its old monopoly business into the smartphone business?

Their Android platform has quickly garnered right at 50% of the global market share for all new smartphone sales. In the US, Google Android has a 40% marketshare already. Not bad.

Android, you remember, being the smartphone platform Google purchased, spent billions on, gave away — to destroy others, including those who innovate — and cut deals with giant carriers to ensure a *non neutral* Internet to benefit..the users? Come on. To benefit Google, obviously.
Which begs the question:

If you have a monopoly business and generate monopoly profits and take those monopoly profits to another industry and *gave away* what your competitors (must) charge for, which led you to quickly capture the *dominant* maret share, would you…
…whine like a bitch?

Because Google does. And has. Just today:

I have worked in the tech sector for over two decades. Microsoft and Apple have always been at each other’s throats, so when they get into bed together you have to start wondering what’s going on. Here is what’s happening:

Android is on fire. More than 550,000 Android devices are activated every day, through a network of 39 manufacturers and 231 carriers. Android and other platforms are competing hard against each other, and that’s yielding cool new devices and amazing mobile apps for consumers.
But Android’s success has yielded something else: a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents.

They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android (which we provide free of charge) than Windows Phone 7; and even suingBarnes & Noble, HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it.

A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a “tax” for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation.

This anti-competitive strategy is also escalating the cost of patents way beyond what they’re really worth. The winning $4.5 billion for Nortel’s patent portfolio was nearly five times larger than the pre-auction estimate of $1 billion. Fortunately, the law frowns on the accumulation of dubious patents for anti-competitive means — which means these deals are likely to draw regulatory scrutiny, and this patent bubble will pop.

We’re not naive; technology is a tough and ever-changing industry and we work very hard to stay focused on our own business and make better products. But in this instance we thought it was important to speak out and make it clear that we’re determined to preserve Android as a competitive choice for consumers, by stopping those who are trying to strangle it.

We’re looking intensely at a number of ways to do that. We’re encouraged that the Department of Justice forced the group I mentioned earlier to license the former Novell patents on fair terms, and that it’s looking into whether Microsoft and Apple acquired the Nortel patents for anti-competitive means.

We’re also looking at other ways to reduce the anti-competitive threats against Android by strengthening our own patent portfolio. Unless we act, consumers could face rising costs for Android devices — and fewer choices for their next phone.

Posted by David Drummond, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer

David Drummond, you are a pussy.

Larry, Sergey, you are pussies.

And I know why you’re such pussies. I know why you have monopoly profits in one business, use them to *destroy* other businesses, dominate the newest business (smartphones) and still whine like little whiny bitches.
Because Larry and Sergey, unlike Ballmer, Jobs, Gates and so many other tech rock stars — who had to fight battles, win wars and hack their way through to a new world — you went from high school to college to PhD to billionaire to multi billionaire.

You are pussies because, no matter how smart you are, which is no smarter than Bill Gates, you believe you have *earned* and *worked* to get to a point where Google is one of the richest companies in the world and you are among the richest people in the world.

Yes, you created the best search engine — for the time. And a method to monetize searches fell into your lap.
And for 20 years your biggest problem is where to put the cubes for the new employees this week.

You have deluded yourself into thinking you have earned a level of success where having billions and billions and being able to use those billions to always get what you want, whether through buying up or destroying is your *right*. Probably why Google hasn’t innovated a single fucking thing in over a decade.

Everything — every single fucking thing — since Bill Clinton has been a copy, a steal, a buy-out — or a take down.
And now, you pussies, you are in a fight with companies that are equally big, probably better run, and have something you don’t: scars, scars from real battles, and you run to the PR teams and the lobbyists and the government and cry: no fair.

Patents bad. We want! Give us!

Tell me, pussies. Which of the Oracle and Microsoft and Apple patents are „bogus“? You say it above. BOGUS PATENTS…Oracle, Apple, Microsoft.
Which ones? Don’t be a pussy. Tell us. Which ones are bogus?
And while you’re at it, tell us which patents are not bogus? Any? Do you believe in intellectual property? Property ownership? Or is it all there for Google’s taking?

While Apple and Microsoft and Nokia and Nortel and Blackberry and IBM and many others were actually *innovating* in smartphones and mobile technologies for over a decade you were busy making monopoly profits in a different market. Now you want into the big global smartphone market. And essentially want *all* the intellectual property of these companies to be effectively voided.

So you can continue to use your monopoly profits in a different business to kill off all the companies — all the innovators — and reap monopoly profits in this new business.


No, wait. Tell you what: release the Google algorithms, release your source code, open up Android — for real, along with Gmail and Maps and Voice Search and everything you’ve built into it. Put the Google advertising code into public escrow.
As a sign of good faith. To show that intellectual property shouldn’t be used „as a weapon“.

And then completely abandon Android. And Google Docs. And Gmail. After all, you claim today that all you want is „to stay focused on our own business and make better products.“
Fair enough. *All* your money comes from ads on PCs. Via search. That’s your business. Not Yelp. Not Groupon. Not Twitter. Not Facebook. Not iPhone and App Market.

Perhaps if you’d stop copying these others you could actually make better products. And perhaps a return to focus will stop you from being such pussies.
Google has a monopoly in search and derives monopoly profits from this business. Earned or not. Google wants to use its monopoly profits to enter and dominate other lines of business. In smartphones, this strategy is working. Already, 50% global market share. 40% in the US. But to get true monopoly share, true monopoly profits, it has to destroy Apple and Microsoft. That will not be easy, maybe not possible.

But, if Google can get the US government to essentially invalidate patent law, or prevent these companies from accessing patent rights, then Google has a chance.

This won’t happen.

Google has not innovated in a decade. But, they’ve been in many fights. Against relatively tiny, unarmed combatants. Now when they have a real fight on their hand, they run to the government.
Like pussies.

302 Comments and 0 Reactions

Jetzt bin ich dran.

Persönliche Daten

Es heißt hier, Google würde den weltweit größten Schatz persönlicher Daten, der überhaupt existiert, an den Bestbieter verkaufen – täglich.
Das ist eine Verzerrung der Realität. Google verkauft nicht unsere persönlichen Daten – es benutzt unsere persönlichen Daten. Es targeted uns. Es entscheidet, wer welche Werbung sieht. Auf Basis unserer persönlichen Daten. Aber niemand erhält von Google eine Liste von Personen, die seine Werbung sieht. Niemand erhält eine Liste von Telefonnummern von Menschen, die sich für sein Produkt interessieren könnten.

Man kann Google eine Menge vorwerfen. Man möge Google also auch das vorwerfen, was man ihm vorwerfen kann, nicht irgendetwas anderes.
Präzise Ausdrucksweise für präzise Vorwürfe.

Ranking I

Den Google-Algorhythmus offenlegen? Das wäre das Dümmste, das man tun könnte. Die Folge wäre, dass die mit den nötigen Mitteln ihre Werbungen und Corporate Blogs wunderbar auf den Google-Algorhythmus abstimmen könnten und in jeder gewünschten Suche höher ranken würden als jeder andere, dessen Inhalte vielleicht relevanter und interessanter wären.


Es ist das Kapital von Google, dass die Nutzer dort finden, was sie suchen, nicht das, was ihnen irgendwer vorsetzen will. Das hat Google groß gemacht, und zwar verdientermaßen. Ich will wissen, was der „Laborroboter Ella“ ist, und ich finde es heraus. Ich erhalte nicht die besten Uni-Zertifikate in Robotronik, die am freien Markt erhältlich sind, für Geld und ohne wirklich zu studieren. Ich erhalte auch nicht willige Mädchen namens Ella, die in meiner Gegend wohnen. Beides will ich nicht finden. Ich will den Laborroboter, und ich bekomme ihn.

Danke, Google.

Ranking II

Allerdings, wo Brian S. Hall nicht ganz Unrecht hat: Manchmal schummelt Google. Google-eigene Produkte und die Wikipedia werden bevorzugt behandelt. Sie ranken immer höher als sie in einem fairen System ranken sollten. So waren die längste Zeit bei Namenssuchen die relevanten Facebook- und Twitter-Accounts sehr gut gerankt. Seit dem Start von Google plus sind sie in der Liste abgerutscht, dafür ist das Google-Profil höher bewertet und steht gleich an erster Stelle. Der Algorhythmus ist das nicht – es handelt sich um einen absichtlichen Eingriff zu Marketingzwecken.
Das ist ein Fehler, und er mag für Google plus und den Traffic auf Googles übrigen eigenen Systemen ganz angenehm sein, auf Dauer unterminiert er das Vertrauen in Google.

Vorsicht, Google.


Was Innovation angeht, ist Google plus ebenfalls kein Geniestreich. Es ist nichts anderes als Diaspora, kopiert und mit den Google-Services vernetzt.
Die Innovation auf Android stammt von begeisterten Android-Fans, die ihre Arbeitszeit und ihre Ideen freiwillig ins Projekt einbringen.

Whining like bitches

Schweigen ist Gold, behauptet man. Das stimmt aber nicht. Es hat nie gestimmt. Offene Kommunikation ist Gold.

Natürlich können die Googlers ihre Kämpfe im Dunklen ausfechten, unter der Oberfläche, ungesehen von der Welt. Aber wozu? Wer soll Verständnis für sie haben, wenn sie verlieren und schließlich wirklich jede Android-Version um 15 Dollar, 30 Dollar, 45 Dollar teurer wird?
Wenn das passiert, sind jene, die heute sagen, Google jammere wie ein Waschweib, die ersten, die Google Geldgier vorwerfen und behaupten, es sei ohnehin alles schon viel zu teuer.

Nein, Jammern ist die richtige Entscheidung, weil es demokratischer ist. Es verrät uns, was passiert. Wir erfahren, dass es diesen Kampf gibt und können entscheiden, ob wir auf der einen oder auf der anderen Seite stehen wollen.

Offenheit ja, Geheimniskrämerei nein.

Werbung und Content

Google stiehlt den armen Verlagen Geld, indem es seine Werbung um ihre mühsam erarbeiteten Inhalte kleistert? Wirklich?
Google verlinkt auf die Angebote, auf denen die Inhalte zu finden sind. Auf dem Weg dahin kommt man an der Werbung auf Google vorbei. Aber dann ist man bei der Werbung, die auf den Verlagsseiten geschaltet ist.
Es handelt sich um eine Win-Win-Situation.

Ja, die Verlage haben Probleme. Die Menschen lesen nicht mehr loyal nur eine Zeitung, sondern wechseln mal zu dieser, mal zu jener, je nachdem, wo die Web-Suche – über Google – sie hinführt.
Das ist aber nur insofern Googles Schuld, als Google ihnen diese Möglichkeit gibt. Und es ist nur insofern gut für Google, als Googles Werbungen immer auf dem Weg zum Inhalt liegen, gleich welcher Inhalt angesteuert wird.

Die „Schuld“ liegt letztlich bei uns. Bei uns Lesern. (Und Leserinnen natürlich, eh scho wissen.) Wir vergleichen verschiedene Medien. Wir wechseln hin und her. Wir sind illoyal. Wir sind frei.

Die Verlage wollen das natürlich ändern. Sie wollen Paywalls errichten, damit wir neben der Werbung, die wir auf ihren Seiten sehen, auch noch extra und direkt zahlen müssen. Sie wollen an den Einnahmen bei Google mitnaschen. Sie wollen über die Suche gefunden werden, aber nicht über Google News. Sie wollen, dass ihre Inhalte gecrawlt werden, aber nicht gecachet. Sie suchen Auswege aus ihrer Misere.

Aber ein Link bleibt ein Link. Sie werden von Google nicht bestohlen.

Ein Thema ist noch offen.


Aber jetzt sind wir schon ein bisschen lang geworden.
Patente verdienen schon einen eigenen Beitrag. Ein andermal.


Tagged:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

§ Eine Antwort auf Pussies?

  • ahabicher sagt:

    Hier noch der nächste Blogeintrag von Mr. Hall:

    Google at war with itself. Why Google has been unable to innovate over the past ten years.
    Submitted by brian s hall on 5 August, 2011 – 10:33
    Tags: Google

    [UPDATE: 6 Aug 2011: While somewhere in the black mountain hills of Dakota, I lost Internet access. This post was cut. It’s now restored. – Brian]

    Reaction to my „Google are pussies“ post continues to generate (surprisingly) massive pageviews and heated reaction.
    There are, I suspect, two primary reasons for this:
    Readers are shocked and/or delighted by my language and style of writing. Good. I like to think I’m a good writer (heh) but in this particular instance, I believe it has more to do with the fact that I write the way I talk. Men are taught to not write the way they talk. Thus, posts such as mine are rare. This is further compounded by the fact that men are reminded, in numerous ways, to not in fact talk the way they really do talk. It’s not polite, not politically correct, not acceptable language, not business like, anti-women in a nation where women probably are doing better than men yada yada. Those who attempt to break free from such bonds are cheered by some, derided by others; no matter if they achieve success.
    Rarely are big companies, such as Google, that have lots of power and on their game, financially speaking, so publicly called out as I have done. In this case, strong reaction to my post leads me to believe that for all the good Google has done — or likes to claim they have done — that untold numbers, still effectively without a voice, are legitimately nervous about Google’s size, scope, search monopoly, power over their Internet livelihood and the company’s eager willingness to leverage monopoly profits from one business to take over numerous other businesses. Additionally, the fact is, and this is unarguable, that Google wields enormous power over the world wide web; said web now the business place, market, office, playground, social circle and second home for billions.
    There is something else in the original post, however, that I think has led to the generation of so much discussion re Google. My rather bold-ludicrous-obvious claim that outside of search, Google has not innovated in ten years.
    Not in smartphones/smartphone operating systems. Not in social media. Not in wireless technologies. Not in travel information, not in restaurant reviews, not in group buying, not even in display advertising, etc. etc. etc.
    I am not going to defend my claim. Rather, I am going to suggest why I believe the claim is true — that outside of search Google has not innovated. In a word:
    Divisions within Google, more so than battles with competitors, has prevent Google from innovating. Wikipedia defines innovation thusly:
    Innovation is a change in the thought process for doing something, or the useful application of new inventions or discoveries. It may refer to an incremental emergent or radical and revolutionary changes in thinking, products, processes, or organizations.
    To achieve such innovation, focus, passion, dedication, opportunity, maybe even more so than resources, are required. Isn’t Google a place that offers all of this and more?
    No. Google is a house divided. Its pieces deeply, possibly permanently decoupled from one another, unable to draw strength from strength, unsure of the other, suspicious of those outside its group.
    I believe that there has been no innovation outside core (PC-driven) search because there is a fundamental *division* inside Google, and I admit, I have never worked there. This division, and actually I believe there are several such divisions, prevents Google from inovation, from breakthroughs, from, well, creating the kinds of cool stuff that would lead them to patent such creations — and vigorously defending them.
    These are:
    Division of purpose: what is Google’s purpose? To organize the world’s information? If so, why do they continue to buy and build content, information, platforms, apps, social media, document services and more? Why ever place Google ‚owned‘ content differently than anyone else’s? Google wants to organize the world’s information except when they want to own it, or control it, on those instances such ownership generates more cash. This creates a division in what to do, what to focus on, what to build, what to buy.
    Division of mission: focusing on search and the highly Brazil-esque ‚information retrieval‘ might be the mission of some within Google, but *all* the money comes from ads on computer screens. Such ads might benefit from the very best search and information retrieval, but the fact is that these are not always working in synch.
    Division of the future: all of Google’s money comes from PC-era creations. The PC is a dying ecosystem. The future belongs to the mobile device; smartphones and tablets. Very little money flows to Google even via Google-based services from within tablets and smartphones. Very little. This division is the kind that can permanently split a company.
    Division of customer: mock those ’sheeple‘ who buy Apple products all you want, but the fact is, nearly every penny Apple makes comes from the people that buy its products. Google makes no money off its users, but off those who want the data Google has collected on its users. A wrenching division if there ever was one. In a brutally competitive global economy, not collecting any money from your customers may not be sustainable. Any wonder Google seeks to destroy those that make competing smartphone platforms, search engines, travel sites, dating sites, recommendation engines, etc.? Google customers are not loyal because they have no stake in the game, no matter how hard Google tries to get its ‚users‘ to stay within the fold. Google has no customers, only users.
    Division of labor: over the past ten years Google has grown by leaps and bounds, surpassing in size nearly every other company on the planet. Innovating in growth mode is nearly impossible. At least, innovating on customer-facing concerns is nearly impossible. The division of labor in Google is further compounded by the fact that many in Google have already achieved multi-billionaire/multi-millionaire status while thousands of others have been there for several years — all while the stock grew like nothing more than some old world company. All of which is further compounded by the issues noted above. Should the staff that work on Android — smartphones, the future of computing — get more attention and resources than, say, those working on the old products — that generate all the cash? More cleaves in the organization.
    Division of scale: in today’s business climate, the focus is on the customer, the single business, single individual or group. Google is and always has been focused on scale.
    Division of the person: Since its founding, Google has taken the digital breadcrumbs, of which there are thousands, of all its users, of which there are tens of millions, and used this aggregated data to improve search results and search speed — and offer better information to advertisers. Systems in place to achieve the necessary scale to capture and store and analyze and distribute such data are part of the core function of Google. Except, the world has changed. Despite the massive amounts of data Google has, advertisers may get *improved* results from platforms, such as Facebook, that are highly personalized. Facebook knows our real name, our real home, our real friends, our real interests. Google has become desperate to match Facebook’s breadth of reach of *personal* knowledge. Google+ is merely the latest incarnation of this effort. Google Voice, Checkout and more are part of it. Again, the old Google — of scale and anonymized data fights the new Google, of deeply personalized information.
    Division of access: everything Google does is web-based. Google lives on the web. Question: does the app? Old Google offered its services, Microsoft-like, via the web. Now, users access information, sometimes better information, via apps, on mobile devices. We access information now via touch, via voice, in groups, with friends, in highly dynamic settings and highly temporal modes. Google, in organizing the world’s information, has no clear understanding of this. Not yet, at least. Thus, the embrace of the app, except for when they reject such ‚closed‘ systems. The constant doctoring of its algorithm to attempt to understand the various „signals“ that today’s users cast off. Google as founded was not designed for this world.
    Division of free: Google has used monopoly profits and its great search engine to equalize content, all content; breaking it down to 1s and 0s, to be stored, then served up as necessary. All for free, the money coming on the backend, from advertisers. Only, like with the app, Apple’s vision, where some content should cost money and some should cost a great deal of money, has gained traction. Google’s response has been to buy content, cut deals with select content providers, open an app store, plan to open a music store. While continuing to promote the very notion that all content is free. Only, some is less free than others.
    Google is a company at war with many others; Facebook and Microsoft in particular, but also Apple, Yelp, Groupon and any others that wish to leverage any portion of a person’s digital life. And, everything dear reader is digital — or soon will be.
    Google is also a company at war with itself. Until these divisions within Google are remedied, the company will continue to fail to innovate.

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:


Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Verbinde mit %s

Was ist das?

Du liest momentan Pussies? auf misoskop.


%d Bloggern gefällt das: