[robertskmiles]

I think Aaron Swartz hit the nail on the head with his "What Does Google Mean by “Evil”?" blog post[1]:

> "They specifically name three: showing irrelevant ads, using pop-ups or other annoying gimmicks, and selling off actual search results. Hardly the stuff of comic books. But what do these three have in common? They’re all instances of refusing to make things worse for your users in order to make more money"

This is just about the first time I've seen Google unambiguously break their own definition of 'evil'.

[1] http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/googevil

Edit: On reflection... not the first time.

[niggler]

You mean Google broke aaronsw's guess at google's understanding of evil.

Evil is a relative term, and if Microsoft is seen as the Evil empire then cutting off amicable relations (manifested by open interfaces) can be construed as "not evil"

Read the update to the article, where he points out that the entire concept of ads could be construed as evil by some.

[r00fus]

There is a continuum of evil - on one end, you have ruthless bloodthirsty organizations who don't balk at breaking all the rules to make a dollar or point, on the other end you have "mostly self-consistent" organizations like FSF and EFF.

Microsoft isn't pure evil, they're were just seen as being closer to the bloodthirsty end than Apple or Google. It used to be that Google was seen as closer to the FSF side than, say, Microsoft.

Nowadays, it's pretty clear all of these big tech firms are not far apart and moving more towards the ruthless side of the spectrum.

[freshhawk]

aaronsw was quoting google sources, not guessing.

[niggler]

"They’re all instances of refusing to make things worse for your users in order to make more money." <-- factual statement

However, 'evil' is not defined in context: https://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/

Therefore, the leap "evil = make things worse for your users" is not from a google source. That's Aaron's attempt to construct a categorical rule from the examples.

"Google unambiguously break their own definition of 'evil'." <-- False, since google didn't explicitly define evil. They broke what Aaron believed google meant when they said "evil".

[Karunamon]

>This is just about the first time I've seen Google unambiguously break their own definition of 'evil'.

Shutting down a service is now considered "evil"? That's a stretch if there ever was one...

[onemorepassword]

Replacing an open standard with your own proprietary crap once you have achieved dominance (anybody here not using Google Calendar?) in the market?

That's 90's Microsoft-level "evil".

[surrealize]

Microsoft-level evil would be charging people for the privilege of using the API, like with ActiveSync. Google isn't quite there yet, but they're certainly moving in that direction.

[quotemstr]

> Google isn't quite there yet

Like hell they aren't: https://developers.google.com/google-apps/calendar/pricing

[surrealize]

Sure, they charge for hosting your calendar. I was thinking of the fact that you can write an app against Google's calendar API without having to pay, whereas you would have to pay to write an ActiveSync client.

[workbench]

Ohh well thats absolutely fine then if they're killing off all the competition with a subsidised product then switching all the standard access to their own API because they're doing it for ★FREE★.

[surrealize]

I'm not saying it's "absolutely fine", I'm saying it's not as bad as Microsoft.

[Karunamon]

What if the API is superior to the "standard access"?

[psbp]

So is Google forbidden from ever closing down a service without being accused of being evil?

[kirushik]

More specifically, Google is forbidden to replace IETF-approved and wide-acknowledged API with its own proprietary substitute without being accused of being evil.

Seems to be fair enough for me, just in case anyone cares.

[cooldeal]

Not really, but in this case, they have failed to give any justification for not following a standard that industry giants like Apple follow and which Microsoft is close to implementing on Windows Phone. Perhaps there is a technical reason, but Google not being open about it makes people assume the worst.

[incongruity]

It's also in contrast with some of their own previous behavior. When they saw opportunities to make things faster/better, they were comfortable breaking standards (or, well, making new tech that might stand as a standard one day and asking people to let go of older standards). One example: SPDY. Another: go. Additionally, there's a whole bunch of examples from chrome where they broke conventions for user experience and drew people's ire, but in all cases they defended these decisions with well thought out (if controversial) arguments.

Where's the argument against CalDAV? (I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just surprised to not have seen anything from them)

[recoiledsnake]

> "They specifically name three: showing irrelevant ads, using pop-ups or other annoying gimmicks, and selling off actual search results.

I think omitting a border around ads and intentionally reducing the contrast from the background to make it invisible to older people and people with bad monitors does count as an annoying gimmick and a user-hostile anti-pattern. The A/B testing would've shown a lot of ad clicks and increase in profit from people who mistake them for organic search results.

http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-intentional...

http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png

And also, didn't Google change its shopping results to be paid search results?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2012/05/31/how-evi...

I would think the beancounters are rapidly taking over.

[mcintyre1994]

The important part is where it specifically says Ads, and then a link to why these ads? though. Contrast should be high enough you can see why ads end, but other than where it's been cropped in the picture you posted, it's still very clear that at least the top result is an advert. You are right that contrast should clearly distinguish ads from not, but you shouldn't crop out the label clearly identifying it as an advert to prove your point.

In addition to that, I'd argue looking at your picture that it really doesn't matter if it's an ad or not - if it were an organic result and you didn't want to file a lawsuit, you wouldn't click it anyway.