On 9/14/2011 5:41 PM, Murani Lewis wrote:

Gizmodo doesn’t endear many positive thoughts from me but this article is spot on.  Google could care less if they succeed they just want to be in the equation.  They are called exactly what they are an ad agency.

Doug Simmons:

You said it Murani! That was some Pulitzer shit from Gizmodo right there, Google is bad because they’re good at what they do to the point that the goodness of their services relative to things like mapquest has earned them enough power to become even better at making appealing and useful services and price some services competitively or even in some cases at a loss.

Who wins? Google and everyone who uses Google, including the people who pay Google to make their businesses or causes successful for the least amount of money. Laying out free fiber Internet just to shake down people for their data and money with more people on the Internet. This article is criticizing Google for getting people on the Internet for free (they forgot to mention blanketing Mountain View with free wifi), and you don’t stop to think that you’re either reading very poor writing, as is to be expected on Gizmodo, or that the author is being satirical or trolling dipshits like you?

No industry is safe — name one industry that Google has effectively shut down. Monopolies are illegal in the US and elsewhere. When they surface, the government tends to act erring on the side of caution. Microsoft knows this firsthand, as does its phone partner AT&T who is in the process of being reminded of it.

You are unmoved by things like the robot cars that will save the environment and make things more practical for a lot of people because Google will presumably figure out how to profit from it, right? Seriously? Is it unreasonable or awesome of you to high five this article, which whether you agree with it or not is pretty shitty, without even looking around for any signs of Google being philanthropic? Or would you argue that any seemingly-genuine philanthropy in which they’d engage is just to improve their image so they can get away with more evil?

I realize it’s so easy if not compulsory to dislike or even hate Google when you bought a Windows Phone and kept tabs on it flopping, but come on. What you should be is a little depressed that websites like Gizmodo get away with writing so stupidly. This is a half-assed critique, probably intended to appear that way because that’s good enough for you to think it’s awesome and it’s lame enough for people like me to flip out at panda pounding commie douche nozzles like yourself for eating it up. Fuck you.

Murani:

Are they not an ad agency?  They do stuff apparently for the lulz too.  Don’t worry though, people are getting wise to them and sooner or later Bing will be firmly entrenched and Microsot will go back to being the big bad wolf and Google can return to its good-natured ways.  When you’re on top you have a target painted squarely on your back.  It is what it is.

Simmons:

Oh terrific we’ve got an "it is what it is" guy. Well shit Murani, I suppose things are what they are you dumb fuck. 

They’re a lot of things Murani. The most direct source of most of their money is brokering ads. If you have an audience, you can use Google to line you up with someone who wants to promote something and trusts Google that your audience is a good target. If you’re trying to sell something, get elected, raise money for your charity, get some hits on your website, Google, unless you’re in the market for things like brand prestige you think you’re better off finding on NBC Nightly News or a page in the Wall Street Journal, sells you access to the eyes of people who are more likely to be interesting in what you’re pushing and they’re better than that than everyone, largely thanks to all the free services they provide.

They do charge for some services, like Google Docs (which is what you’re using to be a jackoff right now, though for free and without ads).

Among the things they promote are Microsoft’s services. Microsoft uses Youtube, for example, and in addition to AdWords, as a vehicle for promotion all the time. So I guess while you’re too good for Google, at least one company you like does business with them in a non-litigious way, among other ways.

I submit that Google is a prolific company and that keeping companies like Microsoft on their toes is a good thing. Many of Microsoft’s products and services would be a lot shittier or a lot more .. nonexistent if it weren’t for Google. I wish the Bing guys the best (though I’d prefer it if they wouldn’t essentially copy Google’s math, remember that?) as competition in Search is by my own math more likely than not to usher in better technology from which we’ll both benefit.

I offer you my sympathies over the whole Windows Phone thing. I see that you are finally coming to terms with the failure. But if I may speak for Google and Apple, and all the consumers who didn’t buy a Windows Phone, nothing personal, you fairy.

Murani:

Windows Phone FTW! Okay now that i’ve gotten that out of my system i’ll move on to other issues. Google is the king of targeted ads, no question. They are also the king of using what they call an open source OS to leverage OEMs to get with the program or else. They are a walking contradiction and that will continue to thrive because people in general don’t give two cents about what they are giving up in order to get the stuff they want for free. Great strategy they have because its not Google’s fault people agree to things without ever reading what is in front of them.

Everyone is better off with Google in the game because they won’t stop slinging things on the wall and see if an idea or feature sticks.  They, along with Apple, woke up Microsoft from their slumber and the tech game is better than its ever been.

I still don’t give two twits about them.

Simmons:

It remains to be seen if Microsoft has been woken up or just sort of prodded into sleepwalking. Sleepwalking, but in a "reimagined" sort of way, like sleepwalking while pooping. And then you come along and deliberately step in the poop because as far as you’re concerned that poop is optimized and defragmented according to Gizmodo.

4 COMMENTS

  1. Admittedly I have and have needed alot of patience dealing with Microsoft. My attitude completely changed when Ballmer said earlier this year that they are focusing on their core products more. Its a strategic change no doubt brought on by examining the phenomenon known as Apple and Google.

    There are alot of real reasons why Microsoft is showing they are starting to get it. The steady commitment to updating their services far faster than they have in the past being the primary example.

    Google ads are awesome because they do their job very well. I’m interested in deploying some ads for my customers in much the same fashion. Seriously, they’re effective. This doesn’t mean they don’t do things just for the giggles. Sure exposure and awareness is what they are after, its their business after all.

    When you’re starting out and taking on champs in an area where it isn’t what your company focuses on then free or cheap is the only way to go. Thats what Google does and any thinking to the contrary is full of fail. Do they introduce features and lead the way in several areas? Sure do. The two realities aren’t mutually exclusive though.

  2. Murani you’re throwing a wrench into this MobilityLeaks by making rational and calm concessions like that. I need you to insult me and/or Google. Don’t you know anything, turd burglar.

  3. Google is NOT an Ad agency. ads are their means, NOT their end. If you look at Goggle’s mission statement is something like, “coming up with new ways to use technology to make people’s lives easier.” In other words, anytime they see a place where technology is lacking, they might try and get in.

    The Giz article basically derides Google for making life easier for us.

    As for Monopolies, having one isn’t inherently illegal, you have have to operate under different rules. Microsoft got busted for abusing their monopoly. Not just having it.

Comments are closed.