Google makes its social networking move

yes! i've been running out of people to stalk on myspace and facebook, so this may provide new opportunities.
 
Cause we really need another...

I used to like Google, but now they're just another corporate hungry hungry hippo. Soon look out for a Google clothing line and music studio.
 
Thats the thing about corporations. They may start out with good intentions. In fact, I'm sure they almost always do...a creator comes along with an idea...it takes off...then he/she decides to go public with it, than blammo...stockholders and investors get involved and they want to see NUMBERS.

Nowadays, believing that myspace is really run by TOM is like believing in Santa Claus.
 
Personally I don't think Google is doing that badly, I like them. Maybe it is a bit foolish to jump into the social networking boat but who knows maybe they'll have a revolutionary service. Google rarely makes a carbon copy and quickly slaps it out there just for cash, they tend to evaluate what's profitable to see what they should go into then spend tons of time developing something original and different. It's not like they haven't made mistakes but I think they are definitely heading in the right direction.
 
rlm7189 said:
Thats the thing about corporations. They may start out with good intentions...then he/she decides to go public with it, than blammo...stockholders and investors get involved and they want to see NUMBERS.
Click to expand...

This is an incredibly true statement. Watch this video on SAS, the best company in the world, profiled on 60 Minutes, on that very thing.
 
The point (and problem) is G**gle has TOO MUCH power for any one company/website. We are too dependent on them and THAT is a very dangerous thing.

More than 80% of all website traffic originates from G**gle. On top of that add the hundreds of thousands of websites that rely on revenue from G**gle AdSense. They also monitor our surfing habits via their search engine (they place a cookie that tracks our searches) and G**gle Analytics, which analyzes website's traffic (DVXuser has it). Not only that, but they scan every e-mail sent or received via Gmail.

But the worst part is they buy up the competition which hurts consumers because it provides us with less options. (Ex: G**gle "Earth" wasn't their invention, they bought it from a government contractor - and because there is no healthy competition that means the software develops at a slower rate). They also bought the world's most popular video hosting site (YouTube) when their own video hosting site couldn't compete. And now that they are entering the social networking market they can use ALL their power (G**gle search, YouTube, and Gmail) to send their new website ALL the web traffic they want. They will win (or buy out the winner) and web surfers will lose. ....And most won't even notice or care.

As rlm7189 said, G**gle didn't want to be evil when they started but they have become the epitome of evil and greed (thanks to our continued support - myself included). They are the Microsoft of the new century and I guarantee you there will be anti-trust law suits in the near future.

It's not surprising that their much hyped "PageRank" system, which people and businesses have spent fortunes building up, is now dead. They should have just focused on being the world's biggest and best search engine and let people like Tom and the YouTube guys do what they do best.


Note: G**gle is spelled wrong as a protest to their greed. Since they make their living from "keywords", then I don't want to give them the satisfaction of having their name be another keyword in search results. I invite you to start doing the same. Guugle, Gccgle, etc. Spell it however you want.

:)
 
Google screwed up my beloved Sketchup. Used to be a great software with total corporate interaction and now it's just not right.

Of course, this is capatilism. I think most business owners would love to have a bunch of money thrown at them by Google, etc.
 
Thanks, bballplaya283. :) Unfortunately, until there's an alternative, Isara feeds the greed machine too (although we stopped making money from them via AdSense).

Just hoping an alternative will give Whoogle a run for their money. The Wikipedia founders are suppose to be developing a search engine. And there were rumors of Microsoft buying Yahoo. Maybe one of those will pan out. Either way we need something that can compete with them or else all of us will lose.
 
I wouldn't compare Google with Microsoft. They're more like the new AOL as far as business structure is concerned... except they have the benefit of having technology that actually works... AOL just got the non-technically savvy people to buy their services that didn't know any better... Then again, maybe they just have a better business model than Microsoft OR AOL...
 
More people use Yahoo than Google for searching.

Surprised me to hear it, considering the way people verbed google.
 
GenJerDan - Although I wish that were true, it's not. G**gle is #1 for searching and has been for a while.

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-still-1-search-engine-in-us/4027/

They get more than twice as many search requests than Yahoo in the US and even more so overseas. In Asia they have almost a 100% share of the market since that's the only search engine people think exist (especially in southeast Asia). Ya-who?

Yahoo is, however, the #1 web site. People use them mainly for their e-mail, news, and weather, but not for search.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone watch that 60 Minutes thing I put up there on SAS? I'm hoping some people will take a look as it explores why SAS is so successful, and has so many happy clients, and so many happy employees: They're a very large firm that never went public with stock. No shareholders they have appease, no board members they have to pander to. No "make me rich with results now" greedy investors. That clip is about five years old, but corporate bottom-line atmosphere is definitely more caustic now than it was then.
 
There is no doubt that Google has a lot of perks to employees, and for that they are to be totally commended, without hesitation. It's how the world should be. In that aspect alone about 99% of the employers in the US (including every single one I've worked for) could learn a lesson from them. But the key diifference between them and SAS is that SAS is a private company, with no shareholders, and no board of directors. They are thus impervious to such influence. Their demand comes from customers, and a CEO with a 20 year track record of benevolence towards employees. Unless SAS and it's employees screw up, the company should remain stable for years to come. Google on the other hand, a lot of their capital comes not from products produced, or even service rendered, but from shareholder investments based on speculation. If Google doesn't perform in the future to shareholder's expectations, the company will be severely pinched, including employees.

I'm hesitant to bash Google however because of how they treat their employees. That level of sharing is awesome. And they don't (as of yet) have any scars upon them like Nike, who somehow ends up on lists of best places to work, all while having the majority of their work done by contractors in third world sweatshops. Nor like the CEO of Whole Foods (another "great company to work for" on some lists) who got caught pretending he was just a random investor on message boards espousing how great Whole Foods is to, not their employees, but to their shareholders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top