What a mess of an article
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn May 16, 2012 12:00 AM EDT |
Quoting:Oracle used a clever strategy to get at Google because Google represents everything that Oracle is not. Oracle is all mainframes and big complex software packages. Google, while a large corporate entity of its own, is in the cloud...First, the cloud represents the old client-server mainframe-terminal model in shiny new sales terminology. Second, Oracle sales are mainly on x86 class servers and mid-level UNIX boxes, not on mainframes. So... the whole premise the article starts with is flawed in the extreme. Quoting:And with that, you have the two things that scare a company like Oracle the most, concepts that could bring down a company that sells large complex software packages. Instead of complexity, Google offers simplicity.Oracle also offers a FOSS Red Hat clone that can be freely downloaded. I wouldn't call Google's software offerings simple by any means. Here the author could have stuck with proprietary vs. FOSS and made a very valid point. Of course, Google has proprietary offerings as well but their business model is not based on selling proprietary software. I'm not at all convinced that mining their customers' data and selling it to whomever wants it is more ethical than sellin proprietary software so painting Oracle as evil and Google as saintly still woundn't fly with me. Regarding trusting the court system, in a nation governed by the rule of law, what is a better alternative? |
| djohnston May 16, 2012 1:49 AM EDT |
The author is merely prognisticating before a judgement has actually been rendered. |
| jdixon May 16, 2012 9:55 AM EDT |
> ...in a nation governed by the rule of law... Ah, there's the rub. |
| JaseP May 16, 2012 10:09 AM EDT |
The rub is that Google is not hamstringing software development and innovation, and Oracle is doing so. Oracle is actively engaging in a suppression strategy, while Google is is defensive with copyright and patent rights. There's a marked difference for what it means to the consumer. In a B2B setting, both models are equally palletable. In a business to consumer setting, Google's model is much more palletable. For the consumer, you have the right to not use Google's services. You can use Bing, Yahoo, whatever, for search. You can use Hotmail, AOL, etc. for web mail. You can use Amazon or Apple for your mobile apps. You have choice. But, if Oracle makes Android illegal with their BS patents, they have eliminated, or at least limited, choice. If Oracle threatens software development, by making APIs copyrightable, they have limited innovation. They also will have opened the door for others to do the same, thereby harming (the US) economy. Oracle is a much greater threat,... by far. Also, based on the temperaments of their respective CEOs, Oracle is a much more "evil" corporation. Hands down. |
| Fettoosh May 16, 2012 10:37 AM EDT |
Quoting:that mining their customers' data ... Unless Google is stealing their customers' data. ... that mining data about their customers ... sounds more accurate. |
| JaseP May 16, 2012 10:48 AM EDT |
The way I look at it, unless Google hijacked your information from somewhere else, where it was secure (not freely available, because you released it), it's actually Google's information ABOUT you,... Not YOUR information. You don't want them to have it? Don't participate with their services. The only time I am aware of where they actually proactively gathered information, without consent, was the WiFi War driving fiasco. To my knowledge, they didn't use any of the personal information they acquired, but only the geographic location of WiFi routers to aid in map location. |
| dinotrac May 16, 2012 6:29 PM EDT |
@JaseP -- Not necessarily. There is the little matter of Google Docs and GMail and Google Voice and -- oh, yeah -- YouTube. |
| caitlyn May 16, 2012 6:35 PM EDT |
I agree with dino. Neither of these companies are to be trusted. Both are threats, just in different ways. |
| JaseP May 17, 2012 9:06 AM EDT |
@Dino: But, Dino, those are Google services,... YouTube's owned by Google. If you are using their services, beyond anonymous browsing, you are registering your information with them. You are giving them a "file" on you, so to speak. Don't want to have your information in their servers??? Simple, don't use their stuff. Use something else, build your own,... whatever. Those are the reasons I didn't buy (or rent) a commercial PVR, but went with LinuxMCE instead. If you are upset about changes in licensing terms, that's more understandable. But, still,... You can always opt out. Don't want them spidering your mail to build an ad profile for you? Encrypt it, or use another service. Don't get me wrong, I think their wardriving thing was borderline sleazy. But I actually like that Google Maps locate function works without a GPS lock. Accurate?!?! Only down to about half a city block (average). But, it's a nice thing. And, yes, I realize they are using that info to get a more precise profile on me. Once again, I'll say that I'd rather get ads that I'd be more interested in than ones that I don't. Maybe I'll never see another Microsoft ad?!?! Here's hoping, anyway. |
| dinotrac May 17, 2012 2:08 PM EDT |
Sure, but the data is something apart from the file. And yes, I didn't say there was anything illegal about it...although, I wonder about the extent to which we're looking at contracts of adhesion. |
| JaseP May 17, 2012 5:13 PM EDT |
Is it a contract of adhesion when you buy a burger at a fast food place?!?! Sure it is... But it's a commodity service, just like search, web mail, calendaring, mapping, e-commerce... Just because it's an adhesion contract doesn't mean it's automatically bad/discouraged/illegal/whatever. Purchase of clothing, retail goods, etc. is almost always a contract of adhesion. But those transactions aren't illegal. |
| dinotrac May 17, 2012 7:23 PM EDT |
@JaseP -- I believe that the legally significant question is whether there is anything that would surprise the ordinary person. The idea is that we don't read -- and can't be expected to read -- every piece of paper put in front of our eyes. |
| caitlyn May 18, 2012 2:09 AM EDT |
Let me just put it this way: I am slowly migrating off of all Google services because I don't want them mining my data. I mainly use DuckDuckGo as my search engine. StartPage/IxQuick are also good. I plan on starting a migration off of gmail shortly as well. Google Maps is good, but I can use OpenStreetMap or Mapquest and achieve the same result without having my data collected. |
| BernardSwiss May 18, 2012 2:18 AM EDT |
Recent story on Ars Technica: Private: some search engines make money by not tracking users (DuckDuckGo and Ixquick take a tiny bite out of Google) http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/private-the-search-e... |
| caitlyn May 18, 2012 2:21 AM EDT |
Blekko is another valid choice. It does collect data but promises to purge it within four days and not share it with anyone. I like the DuckDuckGo and IxQuick/Startpage security model better but the point I'm making is that there are reasonable alternatives to Google out there. I'm finding everything I'm searching for, too. |
| JaseP May 18, 2012 9:56 AM EDT |
So, Caitlyn, you have choices... Good. I like Google,... And you (apparently) hate them. And I respect your right and decision to disagree with their policies and practices. I, personally, find their policies and practices acceptable, and their services very convenient. I know (for the most part) what they are doing with my data, and don't mind. I guess I'm officially and permanently, "on the grid," so to speak. I genuinely believe them, when they say their mantra is, "Don't be evil." I do not see them as malicious. I very much see them as opportunistic. But, in a way, I almost admire them for that. |
| caitlyn May 18, 2012 2:35 PM EDT |
I don't hate them. I just don't want them collecting and selling data about me. I consider the lack of an opt out to the data collection evil. You are free to make whatever choice you want. I don't understand your hostility. |
| tracyanne May 18, 2012 5:55 PM EDT |
Yes I'm using IXQuick all the time now. |
| gus3 May 18, 2012 6:19 PM EDT |
I tell them I'm an 87-year-old Bulgarian widow. |
| tracyanne May 18, 2012 6:22 PM EDT |
You mean you aren't? |
| BernardSwiss May 18, 2012 6:40 PM EDT |
Of course not! (Hungarian, actually) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!