What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
88 Comments
- Misinformant, on 06/29/2009, -1/+39When the very name of your company becomes a commonplace verb...
- mysticmatrix, on 06/29/2009, -1/+33In fact, Chrome does ask whether you would like to use Google as your search engine, or some other, If you choose some other, it lets you choose from yahoo, bing, and some obscure local search engine. Same is with IE, which ask you a load of settings, or you can just choose Express settings, and default with Bing.
Th only problem is, IE comes bundled with the OS, whereas Chrome doesn't. - guinpen, on 06/29/2009, -0/+20Linux isn't a company and it doesn't have a browser
- AndrewMoyer, on 06/29/2009, -1/+21Googol isn't that big... it's only 10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.
- benicillin1, on 06/29/2009, -0/+14and fowl is a bird
- FordSVT1, on 06/29/2009, -1/+12The MJ story actually crashed Twitter, your "real time web", and a number of other web services. And if you read the article, it states right in the opening paragraph that is was because it had mistaken the enormous amount of enquiries as an attack. That's something that can be worked out in the future and has nothing to do with how "fast" Google updates. Also, some sites (like Wikipedia which your article quotes as the "fastest") commonly reports erroneous information in the first few moments of a story, only to be subsequently corrected. It was Wikipedia that reported Jeff Goldblum dead for fifteen minutes. "Fast news" is often "wrong news" and is not inherently "better".
The other day I was having what amounted to a "real time" conversation in an online forum. I made a post, read his reply, and when I went to make my reply I wanted to research something about it first. I googled the topic and in the first 20 results was the text of my own post I'd made 6 minutes before. Google is fast as ***** at indexing. - Elranzer, on 06/29/2009, -0/+11mysticmatrix is correct. The first time you ever launch Chrome after a new install, it will ASK if you want Google to be your browser's search engine. If you don't recall, give it a reinstall and it might ask. Trust me, it's there.
- Ryan0617, on 06/29/2009, -5/+16Register to see story? Screw that.
Direct link if you get 'Register link'- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/compa ... - kefkaantakrist, on 06/29/2009, -0/+11This is a non-issue. Google has become successful because of the quality of their service. Hell, they didn't even advertise - it was all word of mouth.
On the other hand, they are right that their success is very fragile. Someone could come along with a newer better search engine tomorrow and people would switch. Look how many people moved from MySpace to Facebook and now, supposedly, to LinkedIn. - kefkaantakrist, on 06/29/2009, -0/+8As I recall, the issue was that IE was very hard to remove. Also, I think it was Netscape who made that complaint, not Apple.
- Elranzer, on 06/29/2009, -1/+9Walmart.com is the digital Walmart (but you're better off using Amazon).
- Elranzer, on 06/29/2009, -0/+7The Googles, they do nothing!
- archimago42, on 06/29/2009, -0/+7What a throw-away article. Google is a modern powerhouse company like many that have come before it, especially in the tech sector. They will deal with all the same pressures as every other large company. I really needed an entire article to tell me that.
- Rodalli, on 06/29/2009, -0/+7I have to agree. Google has contributed so much to the web and the tech world, it almost seems evil to try to slap their wrists because of the success they've had by doing so.
Did you know that Google gives Google Apps for free to non-profits? That's free hosting of your e-mail domain with 7GB of storage per user, free Calendar that you can share with other staff, Google Docs and full mobile support for all their apps. And you don't pay a ***** dime.
I work for a non-profit museum with 40 employees and Google has saved us so much money it's ridiculous. We dropped our crappy email host and now my users have full access to their email, calendar and other staff members from anywhere in the world. I don't see Microsoft or anyone else giving away any software or service that does something like that.
If the Justice Dept. finds Google guilty of breaking anti-trust laws, they won't be able to offer these kinds of services. Why should Google get punished for being awesome? Why should WE get punished for enjoying Google products and services? They don't discourage competition the way Microsoft, IBM and Apple have done, so what's the problem? Google DOES make it easy to switch to rival software by using open standards. If other tech companies would pick up the Google work ethic and start innovating, there would be plenty of competition. You can't blame Google for the fact that they get ***** done better than anyone else. - tuh2, on 06/29/2009, -0/+7People moved because Myspace is full of teenage retards and there is advertisement all over the website. Facebook is nice and clean.
- coldeh, on 06/29/2009, -1/+8I wouldn't mind Google having a monopoly on the internet, as long as they didnt charge for their services, offered open source software and continued to innovate.
Oh wait... - maddonkey, on 06/29/2009, -0/+6just send me your
name
address
d.o.b.
phone #
ssn#
mothers maiden name
I will grant you access to this and send you millions in monies. - Elranzer, on 06/29/2009, -1/+6True. After 20+ years, we don't refer to reinstalling Windows as "Microsofting the computer" (although that sounds about accurate).
- pathouston22, on 06/29/2009, -2/+7As an employee of a small company, we love Google. We spend about $20k on advertising a month, and are posting record profits in a recession. I do web marketing, have gotten many of our search terms to the top 5 spots in Google rankings organically. If it wasn't for a dominant search engine, we would have to spend money on every search engine and market to all of them. Or heck, think back before search engines, and how companies had to market themselves. Outside sales, brochures, mailings, door to door. Much more expensive.
Google is the best thing since 1776 for small businesses. - Rodalli, on 06/29/2009, -2/+6Well, if he's ***** in Google's offices, then yes, you CAN watch. That would make you a pervert, but you'd still be able to watch. At least until security comes and drags him away. If he's ***** in the privacy of his own home, then no, you cannot watch. Every party (individual or organization) has the right to video and monitor their own property, and the right to maintain the privacy and security of that property.
Did you see how your argument didn't stand up to even the most trivial reasoning? - kingmanic, on 06/29/2009, -0/+4As a employee at a small non profit. Google provides literally 10k a year in services to us for free.
sync'd calendar and disposable email addresses (5k for the same from MS); analytics (2k+ for a comparable pay for use tool) and a huge source of traffic. They also provide support for docs repositories($100+/licence from MS). A Good Search functions for our sites could easily run 10k in consultancy and programming. In return Google gets their name plastered all over our sites via the search function. We think it's more than a fair trade.
It's a little worrying to have to rely on a for-profit company but so far Google has come through and done it with class. - Myztry, on 06/29/2009, -0/+4I doubt Google would like to rely on the laziness of people to switch from their default browser/search/whatever like Microsoft. I think what gets the people in general excited is what gets the Google staff excited. They like being better than Microsoft. They like breaking new ground. They like to think they are different.
I think in most occupations 'winning by default' completely saps motivation from people making them incapable of outstanding feats regardless of their underlaying talents. I think that's the issue with Microsoft. They are now led by someone akin to a glorified cars salesman more than willing to whore the company out.
Microsoft and Google could swap all their productivity staff (which happens to a degree already) and Google would still be the better company. Their isn't the same deserved spite against them. Google has a reputation to live up to, rather than to be ashamed of. There isn't the same legacy of dismal code before Bill realized it was a much better manager than programmer. Google has been able to gain respect without the genocidal market chasing approach that defines Microsoft.
The only thing Microsoft has is momentum, and those lucky strikes like IBM buying what Seattle Computers Products was selling while both being unaware. They're not going to happen again. It's all going to have to be done with merit which is Microsoft undeniable weak spot. - Lancer78, on 06/29/2009, -1/+5The gist I got from that article is that because Google is successful that means it must be regulated because it isn't "fair" to it's competitors. Just because a company is successful doesn't mean it's a monopoly. If it is trying to prevent others from being able to compete with them, then sure I can understand the government trying to take action against them. What I read in this article just sounds ridiculous.
- AndrewMoyer, on 06/29/2009, -2/+5(sounds even better read in the voice of Jeff Foxworthy)
- tuh2, on 06/29/2009, -1/+4Most offices have cameras all over the place it really shouldnt matter unless your doing something you shouldnt be doing.
- benicillin1, on 06/29/2009, -1/+4and you're the digital carrot top
- affix, on 06/29/2009, -1/+4If you have someone working for your company whose job title is "Senior Competition Counsel", you're not a small company.
- candelina, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3until, there aren't. which is what anti-competition laws try to prevent. it happened to the big telephone service providing industry. NA has an oligopoly market as such only a couple names dominate the market and the result is you have to pay for texting. it practically costs nothing to relay sms' but you have to pay for a plan to keep it unlimited. google isn't charging people to search and i admit that they do a lot of good unlike the other vultures but the concern is that they have the potential to.
- celotil, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2The issue was NOT, I repeat, NOT with Microsoft bundling IE with Windows.
The issue was Microsoft using it's contracts with OEM's to restrict the OEM's ability to customise the setup of computers pre-installed with Windows, the contracts specifically,
- removing OEM's ability to remove IE and replace it with another browser,
- removing OEM's ability to provide computers which could dual-boot between Windows and another OS,
and,
- removing OEM's ability to even separately sell another OS on other computers.
Microsoft's attitude was simple - You sell our OS, our way, OR you pay full retail price for each and every copy of Windows.
The EU really missed the point, as do a ridiculous number of people in IT who should ***** know better. - Kazimieras, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2Great year and all, but really is the publishing of the book "Common Sense" really all that important? ;)
- weeFred, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2I'm happy there are cameras, I don't want some googler thinking he can get away with sneaking customer data out without being caught.
- Okinsley, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2who cares if there are camera? I just flip them off every so often in case somone is watching, but otherwise, YOU SHOULD ONLY FEEL GUILTY IF YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING BAD.
- Taiyoryu, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2Firefox + BugMeNot
- Railz, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2I think the point was to show off how they're not going out of their way to be big. They're not truly bullying anyone out. They just create something and it takes market share. Gmail is an amazing system. Google is the easiest, not necessarily the best, but simplest search engine. GoogleDocs (which I only learned about 5 months ago) is simply amazing. Google could slap their own product advertising on the main site but they never have. Google Chrome is eh - they won't even turn a profit from it, they're just making it for the sheer ***** of being able to say, "AND IT COMES WITH A BROWSER IF YOU CALL WITHIN THE NEXT 10 MINUTES!"
- nicktomyskins, on 06/29/2009, -1/+3innovation has to do with a change in methods as well as new ideas etc. I would say google has innovated the way we search by: its display of searches and a simple homepage, among other reasons. Saying they're not innovators is naive, google goes beyond just mail, earth, and street view.
- Railz, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2The government has to listen to its stockholders like any buisness, ie the people. Try having 150 million plus stockholders with no real goal in mind and tell me where you end up.
- robosexy, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1Google is small like my penis is small. hellz yeah.
- FredFredrickson, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1It's funny - as long as they keep doing that stuff, you (and a large portion of the internet, apparently) don't care how big or bad the rest of the company is. That's pathetic.
- nepidae, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1buried for nytimes registration crap
- AndrewMoyer, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1Hahaha... lets see how long that takes to catch on.
Somebody add it to wiki and uncyclopedia, I'll put it on urban dictionary... - Railz, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1Facebook and Linkedln are 2 different types of networking. Facebook is just for dicking around on and keeping social contacts up. Linkedln is partially for research, partially for job hunting; mostly job related networking.
- Railz, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1People can actually index those all those results for researching purposes. It isn't like Google goes out of their way to show that many results. Its just the nature of indexing - you can't change that because if you wanted them to 'lessen' the results to a number you're probably able to count to then they'd be interfering with results.
Secondly, searching isn't over hyped, it isn't hyped at all - people flocked to it all their own. Find a website that doesn't index their own links/post/sites and it'll probably be a website created in the 90s using front page. Regardless, no one claims to search the best, save for Bing but thats just advertising to the masses to move in on a new market. If you're unhappy with their indexing, go make your own engine like the Google kids did. - Misinformant, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1No.
- Railz, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1Having one real search engine isn't Common Sense. The common people would rather have the market shared around various search engines - which does hurt small business who want one medium rather then 5 smaller ones.
- TheKitchenSinkX, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1I couldn't stand to read the article due to the writing of it.
- tuh2, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1Unless you are in your own home you have no privacy I dont see why having cameras around you all the time would bother you.
- TheKitchenSinkX, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1That is the exact same link as the main linked article.
- Myztry, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1They're are no truly original applications considering millions of people have been writing software for the best part of 40 years. More to the point Google, Apple, etc establish mass markets while Microsoft waits for them to be created and then poaches. Maps, search, consoles, motion controllers, office suites, etc, etc, etc.
Unless you consider Seattle Computing Products QDOS to be the ground, I'd hardly say Microsoft wrote the OS from the ground. Commodore had the 32bit pre-emptive multitasking GUI a good decade before Microsoft followed up. -
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is