Google About Openness 283
sopssa writes "Several sites, including TechCrunch and The Register, are reporting about an email Google's VP Jonathan Rosenberg sent to employees on Monday about the meaning of open. 'At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. ... Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in.' But are we likely to see Google open their search engine, advertising or the famous back-end system? In their words, that would mean Google and other companies would need to work harder and innovate more to keep their users, for everyone's benefit."
Typical proprietary bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
We want systems to be open, so that we can freely use them, but we will keep our own system proprietary. Where Google makes Open Source, it does so to disrupt other people's business, so that Google can continue to use open infrastructure. Sure, it's good business sense, but spare us the "we are the good guys" bullshit.
And why should they? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Say they do... (Score:5, Insightful)
actually, i think a lot would change if they opened up their search algorithm, since the first page on every search would be nothing but links to viagra and malware.
Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of control (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure this will go over well, but I have karma to burn and sometimes we need to turn the mirror back on ourselves.
Who is open? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, Im sold. (Score:5, Insightful)
this kind of memo by a vp, talking about 'open' like this. i think this is a serious indicator. totally in contrast to the behavior we see from other companies. i appreciate this.
the comment of the poster is hilarious btw - google values openness will google open its search engine. if google did that, it would lose all the power it can use to enforce the openness, and 'closed' would prevail, through the efforts of stranglehold corporations opposing them. no, opposing 'us', for i am on the same side with google apparently, from what i understand from that vp's memo.
regardless of how much one wants to be open, one should always employ wisdom.
Data liberation (Score:3, Insightful)
Answer is in TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
.' But are we likely to see Google open their search engine, advertising or the famous back-end system?
No, actually, we aren't. The email says [blogspot.com] so, in the fourth paragraph under Open Technology > Open Source:
While we are committed to opening the code for our developer tools, not all Google products are open source. Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in. In many cases, most notably our search and ads products, opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users. The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs, so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in. Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to "game" our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings, reducing our quality for everyone.
Re:Ok, Im sold. (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is dedicated, we're committed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And why should they? (Score:4, Insightful)
Read the article, then bash them. It is obvious you haven't. Opening their search algorithm would do more harm than good. Do you not think there is competition for search already? Bing, Yahoo, or countless others fail to come to mind?
It is easy to say this.... (Score:3, Insightful)
When most of your "profits" don't come from "open systems" but rather advertising, where you data mine every piece of information and sell it off in order to sustain the rest of the business which is "open". Sure it's open, because if they charged fees for closed programs, nobody would develop for them.
Only Apple can do that lately :(
Re:Google is dedicated, we're committed. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well- let's continue with the cooking metaphor. Leave the pig out it for a second.
Let's say the chicken has a great hand me down recipe from his great grand chicken. They implement that recipe and the restaurant's success is overwhelming based on that recipe. The chicken then decides to divulge everything about the technique used to create the dish- but not the actual recipe.
Why in, any environment, should the chicken be forced to reveal that recipe?
Re:Answer is in TFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Because none of those are needed to promote an open Internet experience... the data they provide is in an open format (for the most part... video is kind of tricky) so anyone getting an email from GMail will be able to display it properly. GMail server code doesn't have to be open for that to happen. You don't have to have an open Wave reader to let the user download the finished document in an open format that can be uploaded somewhere else (I haven't used Wave, but I suppose you should be able to download your document and open it in OpenOffice/Word... right?)
Re:Typical proprietary bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
I would, but I can't see the code to audit it and make an informed suggestion on it.
Re:Typical proprietary bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)
If they were truly an open company, their actions would include open sourcing their core business--the search and ad engines. Of course their goal is to "keep the Internet open." The Internet is their advertising platform, so they want as many people on it as possible. Why do you think they have a browser, mobile phone, and more?
You come off as the usual Google fanboy on Slashdot. Google's words are enough for you, and the fact they have free email or a free browser makes them an "open company." In reality, those are just tools to get you onto their advertising platform so they can index your content. This is a company whose CEO said privacy concerns are for wrongdoers.
Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro (Score:4, Insightful)
"Slashdot's anti-Google schtick?" What Slashdot are you reading? So one or two slightly critical articles means Slashdot is anti-Google?
Slashdot has been unrelenting Google's cheerleader for almost a decade. The reason for criticizing Google's lack of openness is to point out to people that Google is actually a closed source company that dangles free carrots in front of people to get them onto their advertising platform that will index all their emails, conversations, documents, and more. And we're supposed to trust the company because they said they're trustworthy. Do you realize how silly that sounds? Don't you think Slashdotters would mock the situation if it was any other company but Google?
Oh, give me a break. Statements like that guarantee an instant +5.
Google wants lock in like everyone else (Score:2, Insightful)
Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in.
I'd be more inclined to believe this if they did things like make the address book for Gmail easily accessible and easy to update and manage by third party applications. Yeah, you can export it and there are a few third party ways to do it but realistically your ability to synchronize contacts outside of Gmail is limited at best. I realize the reasons why they haven't done this but saying you want open standards without actually making the user data (the one thing I actually care about) open and accessible is disingenuous to me.
Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro (Score:1, Insightful)
Slashdot has been unrelenting Google's cheerleader for almost a decade.
Yeah, google "Chris DiBona". Er, bing or yahoo Chris DiBona.
Actually I suspect that after DiBona went over, the /. editors were hoping he could get them jobs, complete with stock options, 20 percent "genius time" and food served by Pacific fusion chefs. But as time passes, reality sets in.
Re:Google is dedicated, we're committed. (Score:3, Insightful)
A pig and a chicken are walking down a road. The chicken looks at the pig and says, "Hey, why don't we open a restaurant?" The pig looks back at the chicken and says, "Good idea, what do you want to call it?" The chicken thinks about it and says, "Why don't we call it 'Ham and Eggs'?" "I don't think so," says the pig, "I'd be committed, but you'd only be involved."
If the internet went all Silverlight in the next few years, Google would be dead. So they're committed to an open internet. Witness Chrome, ChromeOS and Android, all of which are made to keep the internet an open platform. Not a Google-controlled locked-down internet, like Microsoft has consistently tried to create (MSN, IE, ActiveX, Silverlight, etc...), but an open platform.
Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple was the big white knight around here the first half of decade. /. was cheering them on for using *iux (even it was BSDish), supporting CUPS, and then it was cheering for Webkit. Then the mood changed about 2006 - 2007 with the release of the iPhone and /. went from being pro Apple to anti-Apple and Google replaced them as the great white knight of opensource. Like Apple, that's been going on for 3 - 4 years, so now it's time for the mood to change to Google being the next evil(tm) company on /. /. is no different than any other media: build something up so it's more fun to rip them apart later.
corporate culture. (Score:3, Insightful)
there's something like that. corporate culture is created by the initial visionholders of a company. then, this affects their hirings. in the end entire corporation becomes something shaped with the vision, and continues to operate as such. there are numerous corporations which are maintaining a definitive culture over 100 years in europe. there are corporations which had their corporate culture shaped in front of our eyes, like microsoft. corporate culture makes or breaks corporations.
Challenge (Score:2, Insightful)
Money (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason they want the internet open is because that is where they make their money. No other reason. Nothing noble.
"I won't reply back to Anon. Cowards. Show the courage to log in so I'll know you get responses. You won't waste my time."
And that is just so much rubbish from your inferiority complex. Sometimes people write interesting stuff but just didn't go through the trouble of registering. And I have an account, but generally never read followups.