Google says they reached out to Facebook…

This reminds me of the same tactics Microsoft uses: embrace and extend.

If Google cannot get what it wants, it will destroy it.

So much for ACTUAL competition on a level playing field.

It would not matter one bit in the long run if all of these little two-bit companies collapsed tomorrow. A few geeks would be out of work, but, hey, you know… live by the sword, diw by it.

This reminds me of the same tactics Microsoft uses: embrace and extend.

If Google cannot get what it wants, it will destroy it.

So much for ACTUAL competition on a level playing field.

It would not matter one bit in the long run if all of these little two-bit companies collapsed tomorrow. A few geeks would be out of work, but, hey, you know… live by the sword, diw by it.

Google says they reached out to Facebook…

This title bothers me. It smacks of naccissism. Google thinks they are the Internet. Please. If Google were to collapse tomorrow, the Internet would keep on going. Ads would continue being deliverd by other companies, searches would be delivered, email would happen, and the world, most likely, would be a better place. I just don’t understand the kool-aid drinking Google lovers. Or Facebook, or MySpace. Nothing really new. Just a new way to do it, or a combination of ways at one time.

Google says they reached out to Facebook…

This title bothers me. It smacks of naccissism. Google thinks they are the Internet. Please. If Google were to collapse tomorrow, the Internet would keep on going. Ads would continue being deliverd by other companies, searches would be delivered, email would happen, and the world, most likely, would be a better place. I just don’t understand the kool-aid drinking Google lovers. Or Facebook, or MySpace. Nothing really new. Just a new way to do it, or a combination of ways at one time.

Northern: a member of the press asked the question about whether they reached out to Facebook. They said yes. I think it’s a valid question for someone who is trying to build an open platform.

Northern: a member of the press asked the question about whether they reached out to Facebook. They said yes. I think it’s a valid question for someone who is trying to build an open platform.

Robert,

That still implies that Google is somehow some kind of Internet leader, and they are not. The Internet is not one company. It’s owned by no one, although not from lack of trying.

Look at what is happening…

Google tying up/buying up boatloads of Internet companies. Why? Because they know that the ads cannot go on forever. They are trying to build a better mousetrap and diversify. It’s plainly obvious.

Look at the telcos, especially the wireless ones… all being bought up by just a couple of players.

The Internet and the networks are starting to be controlled (more or less) by a few players.

This should be disturbing to anyone who values that libertarian goodness the Internet is supposed to provide.

Robert,

That still implies that Google is somehow some kind of Internet leader, and they are not. The Internet is not one company. It’s owned by no one, although not from lack of trying.

Look at what is happening…

Google tying up/buying up boatloads of Internet companies. Why? Because they know that the ads cannot go on forever. They are trying to build a better mousetrap and diversify. It’s plainly obvious.

Look at the telcos, especially the wireless ones… all being bought up by just a couple of players.

The Internet and the networks are starting to be controlled (more or less) by a few players.

This should be disturbing to anyone who values that libertarian goodness the Internet is supposed to provide.

[...] user-generated social media. I am a diehard facebook user, but I have to say, they made a mistake walking away from this deal: they are the only major player not on board and i think it is going to cost them in [...]

Northern: I don’t even understand the overall point you’re trying to make, let alone the arguments you’re using to support it. Let’s take what you’ve posted piece by piece.

“If Google cannot get what it wants, it will destroy it.”

What does Google want that it can’t get? What is it destroying? If you claim it’s destroying Facebook, I fail to see why. If OpenSocial doesn’t matter, then Facebook is unhurt, and if OpenSocial _does_ matter, then Facebook is perfectly welcome to join — so if they don’t, it’s Facebook, not Google, that would be hurting Facebook.

“So much for ACTUAL competition on a level playing field.”

Either you’re saying there is less competition, or that something is making the “playing field” unfair. But neither of these make sense to me. Can you clarify?

“If Google were to collapse tomorrow, the Internet would keep on going. Ads would continue being deliverd by other companies, searches would be delivered, email would happen, and the world, most likely, would be a better place. I just don’t understand the kool-aid drinking Google lovers.”

To some degree this kind of statement could be made of any entity in any market. From a rational perspective, though, given Google’s size and relevance worldwide in search and advertising (from any of the following perspectives: absolute number of users, percentage of users, revenue, market share), it seems like if Google ere to “collapse tomorrow” there would at least be a major disruption/change/shift in a lot of online stuff. Google’s ads drive much of the income for a whole swath of other companies, for example. Your comment seems incredibly naive.

“Google tying up/buying up boatloads of Internet companies.”

Is this somehow related to OpenSocial? Because if so, it seems inaccurate, since OpenSocial neither gives Google ownership or control of any companies, nor limits their options in terms of what APIs they can support. If not, then what’s the connection?

“Look at the telcos, especially the wireless ones… all being bought up by just a couple of players.”

OK, now I’m convinced you’re just ranting aimlessly. This is totally unconnected to anything.

“This should be disturbing to anyone who values that libertarian goodness the Internet is supposed to provide.”

I _am_ a libertarian. Having a company propose a de facto standard that lowers the transition costs of switching social networks, or of getting your app onto another network, is pro-liberty.

Reading your comments on other posts, it definitely seems like you’re completely illogical and have some kind of axe to grind, but I could be wrong. Feel free to explain how I’ve misinterpreted you. Or just… post more coherent thoughts to start with?

Northern: I don’t even understand the overall point you’re trying to make, let alone the arguments you’re using to support it. Let’s take what you’ve posted piece by piece.

“If Google cannot get what it wants, it will destroy it.”

What does Google want that it can’t get? What is it destroying? If you claim it’s destroying Facebook, I fail to see why. If OpenSocial doesn’t matter, then Facebook is unhurt, and if OpenSocial _does_ matter, then Facebook is perfectly welcome to join — so if they don’t, it’s Facebook, not Google, that would be hurting Facebook.

“So much for ACTUAL competition on a level playing field.”

Either you’re saying there is less competition, or that something is making the “playing field” unfair. But neither of these make sense to me. Can you clarify?

“If Google were to collapse tomorrow, the Internet would keep on going. Ads would continue being deliverd by other companies, searches would be delivered, email would happen, and the world, most likely, would be a better place. I just don’t understand the kool-aid drinking Google lovers.”

To some degree this kind of statement could be made of any entity in any market. From a rational perspective, though, given Google’s size and relevance worldwide in search and advertising (from any of the following perspectives: absolute number of users, percentage of users, revenue, market share), it seems like if Google ere to “collapse tomorrow” there would at least be a major disruption/change/shift in a lot of online stuff. Google’s ads drive much of the income for a whole swath of other companies, for example. Your comment seems incredibly naive.

“Google tying up/buying up boatloads of Internet companies.”

Is this somehow related to OpenSocial? Because if so, it seems inaccurate, since OpenSocial neither gives Google ownership or control of any companies, nor limits their options in terms of what APIs they can support. If not, then what’s the connection?

“Look at the telcos, especially the wireless ones… all being bought up by just a couple of players.”

OK, now I’m convinced you’re just ranting aimlessly. This is totally unconnected to anything.

“This should be disturbing to anyone who values that libertarian goodness the Internet is supposed to provide.”

I _am_ a libertarian. Having a company propose a de facto standard that lowers the transition costs of switching social networks, or of getting your app onto another network, is pro-liberty.

Reading your comments on other posts, it definitely seems like you’re completely illogical and have some kind of axe to grind, but I could be wrong. Feel free to explain how I’ve misinterpreted you. Or just… post more coherent thoughts to start with?

I’ll put it in simpler terms as to what Northern is saying. Google’s API likely sucks (as all Google APIs do) but they’re so powerful that they will smash any competing superiour API into dust.

*Competition* is what Google is “destroying”. Reminds me of Microsoft using its power to make the horrible MFC api dominant for Win32 C++ programming, when there were superiour frameworks available that were crushed. Google is no better, despite their self-proclaimed “We’re not evil” righteousness BS.

I’ll put it in simpler terms as to what Northern is saying. Google’s API likely sucks (as all Google APIs do) but they’re so powerful that they will smash any competing superiour API into dust.

*Competition* is what Google is “destroying”. Reminds me of Microsoft using its power to make the horrible MFC api dominant for Win32 C++ programming, when there were superiour frameworks available that were crushed. Google is no better, despite their self-proclaimed “We’re not evil” righteousness BS.

Northern you are not making any sense. Can you explain this phrase further:

“Look at the telcos, especially the wireless ones… all being bought up by just a couple of players.”

Your inferrence that Google is trying to “destroy” the competition makes no sense at all. Please read my take on this.

Northern you are not making any sense. Can you explain this phrase further:

“Look at the telcos, especially the wireless ones… all being bought up by just a couple of players.”

Your inferrence that Google is trying to “destroy” the competition makes no sense at all. Please read my take on this.

What competing APIs is Google going to grind into the dust? Can you point to any open, cross-site social networking APIs that are out there right now?

What competing APIs is Google going to grind into the dust? Can you point to any open, cross-site social networking APIs that are out there right now?

Google sucks.

Google sucks.

OF COURSE Facebook is not on board - THEY want to be the social media aggregator, and they don’t want it to be open…

OF COURSE Facebook is not on board - THEY want to be the social media aggregator, and they don’t want it to be open…

That is the price you pay when you collaborate with an evil mind.
As soon as facebook is in the hand of MS, people will stop to collaborate with them and stop using it.
Noone will ever again trust Microsoft as long as they don’t open up in a way they can’t reverse and which has no drawbacks!

That is the price you pay when you collaborate with an evil mind.
As soon as facebook is in the hand of MS, people will stop to collaborate with them and stop using it.
Noone will ever again trust Microsoft as long as they don’t open up in a way they can’t reverse and which has no drawbacks!