1. -- photo sharing? instant messaging?! what the hell?

i think they might be talking about picasa and hello, which google owns and distributes.

Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Leo Zelevinsky

2. google professes to live by the motto: do no evil.

a lot of folks see the mammoth data mining that google does as evil.

my question is, could you point us to a couple articles where you have applied some heat to google? honestly, this seems kind of like a google apologist blog.

i love google, and use its email, search, maps, and photo management services/applications every day, but do we need to fawn so much? it's only a company... it's not deity...yet... :)

Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by doug

3. i think that yahoo! does way more data storing and should cause more privacy concerns than google, its just that google is newer than yahoo! and people can't stand to see something good happen without giving out about it. yahoo! has been around for so long, people dont notice it. its the new guy that everyone is intrested in.

Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Darran

4. google should be held to higher standards on privacy. they're an $80 billion company with a singular mission to "organize the world's information." if one company is to have this much power over the world's information, they better figure out how to do this with enough transparency and privacy protection to engender trust among the world's users.

i'm a big fan of google and their don't be evil ethic. they've shown that a modern corporation can do well by doing good. but as they grow and competitive pressures increase, i see google making some small compromises (like the google memory hole), and fear they may extend larger compromises (like censorship) to achieve their mission.

don't get me wrong, i love google. i use most of its products and i own its stock. but any company that has the motive and ability to control a large portion of the world's information should be held to a very high standard. i'm not so quick to criticize those who worry about google's attention to privacy and transparency.

google memory hole: http://www.dontbeevil.com/2005/07/google-memory-hole.html

google censorship:
http://www.dontbeevil.com/2005/06/craven-corporate-giants.html

Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Mahlon

5. doug -- you've got to be kidding me. you obviously don't follow along. i have skewered google again and again. my most scalding flames recently have been over google video and the home page personalization, both of which i have scorned repeatedly.

Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Brad Hill

6. brad -- thanks for taking the time to respond. when i suggested that you "apply some heat to google" i was referring more to the corporate management or running of the business, not the product line. i apologize that i didn't make that clear.

i enjoy reading your reviews of google products. what i do find interesting on a lot of google related blogs, this blog is by no means unique, is a tendency to defend google the company (not products) from criticism.

in browsing the past several weeks i found two other posts where you address criticism directed at google (the company). in both cases you played the role of apologist in my view.

google and the clintons
http://google.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000833046663/
"it is far from clear that google exercises editorial discrimination when interpreting its adwords policies and accepting or rejecting ads. any individual claim of politically motivated censorship is unlikely."

and

google sued over click fraud
http://google.weblogsinc.com/entry/1234000523048833/
"the company is suing on its own behalf as a google advertiser. it is hard not to wonder whether this lawsuit is merely a promotional flare for the company’s products, but i have no evidence of that."

now, in both cases you may be correct, although your speculation in the latter case ("i have no evidence of that") does hint to apologist leanings. but my point is that there seems to be this subconscious fear of criticizing google the company.

in short, product reviews are great, both good and bad. and it would be refreshing if more google blogs were just as open in their comments on google's corporate practices and policies.

hopefully that makes more sense. :)

Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by doug

7. i see what you mean, and i think that's a legitimate obsservation. i often find criticism of google in the msm to be on the clueless side, and i suppose i take a perverse pleasure in criticising the criticism. part of the reason might be that very few writers, including me, have enough inside access to really comment on google's business maneuvers. the products, however, are out in the open and fair game for everyone, so that's where i aim my uninhibited blame and praise. thanks for reading so carefully.

Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Brad Hill

8. "i see what you mean, and i think that's a legitimate obsservation. i often find criticism of google in the msm to be on the clueless side..."

good point.

"...and i suppose i take a perverse pleasure in criticising the criticism."

as a blogger myself, i understand. :)

kudos, and keep up the good work.

Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by doug