[vermillion]

It seems more and more clear with every new announcement, that Google has adopted the "embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy and it's taking it farther than what we thought possible in the past.

These are worrisome news for every believer in choice and freedom. Google, a former supporter of free software, is now determined to exert its power to get rid of competitors and then lock us in. Our only option is to not give in to momentary convenience, but to cultivate the habit of comparing alternatives and choosing by ourselves instead.

[cromwellian]

Why should open, factual data, require Google to send users to third party websites, thereby increasing the latency and number of clicks for all users? The data for these almost surely comes from openly available word databases.

If I ask my computer or phone for the definition or history of the word 'Foo', I don't want to be sent off to historyoffoo.com as the top link, I just want it to give me the answer, followed perhaps by links to other stuff.

Do you think if you ask what time is it, Google should respond first and foremost that you need to click and go to dateandtime.com to see the answer?

Google's mission is the organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful, not to organize only the world's websites into 10 blue links.

The ultimate goal of Google is to built the Starship Enterprise's Computer. Could you imagine Captain Picard's frustration if he said "How long to Starbase Alpha at Warp 9" and the Computer replied "I can't give you the direct answer, but please visit StarbaseMaps.com and it will be able to answer your question."

This becomes all the more clearer if you imagine voice or mobile user, where multi-step latency is huge and queries should be answered in the fewest steps possible. Why it is evil for Google to do this, but not Apple+Siri I can't fathom.

[BrandonMarc]

Does Apple profit from ads embedded in Siri?

[cromwellian]

Siri advertises 'Bing' on some results, I'm sure they get paid for that.

[icebraining]

So, what standard is Google extending with proprietary capabilities?

[vermillion]

I never mentioned the word "propietary" in my comment. I said that Google's decision to display its own products prominently and bury the rest is downright evil.

Now that you say standards.. that reminds me of Google's (non-existent) MathML support.

[lindauer]

I think icebraining was referring to your use of "embrace, extend, extinguish", which specifically refers to standards-based technologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

Not that it makes the sentiment of your comment any less valid. It just isn't exactly the same as the original Microsoft meaning of the phrase.

[icebraining]

I disagree; I didn't mention proprietary capabilities out of pedantry, but because I think the two situations are fundamentally different. All Google is doing here is adding more features to its products, and while it sucks for people who made a business providing those features, it's completely different from the parasitic behavior that EEE represents.

An easy way to tell the difference is comparing with other companies doing the same: for example, DuckDuckGo is lauded for adding these kinds of small features. The only difference is that they're too small to kill anybody's business. But if DuckDuckGo tried to extend a standard format with proprietary capabilities in order to kill it, would we laud them?

[vermillion]

Your analogy with DDG doesn't hold.

First, DDG includes (mostly) other companies' services like HN, WolframAlpha, etc. It doesn't compete with them, it's closer to prerendering in Chrome.

Second, I argued in other comment that Google Search is, for many users, a standard, and DDG must follow it or be left behind.

[icebraining]

First, DDG includes (mostly) other companies' services like HN, WolframAlpha, etc. It doesn't compete with them, it's closer to prerendering in Chrome.

Plenty of them are builtin and/or part of DuckDuckGo hack. And even for others, it's pretty different from just prerendering. They are choosing a single site to display data from. Is it really different if Google makes a partnership without some site(s) and kills off everyone else? Why?

Second, I argued in other comment that Google Search is, for many users, a standard, and DDG must follow it or be left behind.

Except in this case, Google is the one behind, since DDG has many more special queries than them.

[vermillion]

You're totally right. But I would argue that its search engine is considered a standard by many. And now with a 90% market share it's reversing its policies.

Also, lest never forget Google Reader: "Embrace, extend, extinguish: How Google crushed and abandoned the RSS industry" http://www.zdnet.com/embrace-extend-extinguish-how-google-cr...

[icebraining]

I would argue that its search engine is considered a standard by many.

Only by people who don't understand the meaning of "standard" in this context. Otherwise, it makes no sense to say "Google is embracing and extending Google Search".

Also, lest never forget Google Reader: "Embrace, extend, extinguish: How Google crushed and abandoned the RSS industry"

Another person who doesn't understand what EEE means, despite spelling it out. Yes, Google crowded out the RSS ecosystem, and eventually killed. Yes, I do agree that Google was a destructive influence for RSS. No, it wasn't an example of a company following the EEE strategy.

The whole point of the EEE strategy is that you extinguish the competition, not your own products. It's a plan to dominate a market by making your proprietary format the new de-facto standard (extending the original), which kills every other option.

If Google had followed the EEE strategy, it wouldn't have killed Reader. Instead, you'd still be using it, except now it would only support GoogleRSS feeds (made popular by leveraging feedburner), which would be a binary, undocumented format that nobody else would be able to parse.

[vermillion]

90% market share implies a position similar to IE6 some years ago, a de facto standard.

With respect to RSS, Google launched a free product, poured millions into it. If you're not Google you can't compete with that. It was devastating. It destroyed everything. And with only their product standing, Google said, "you know what? I'll kill RSS dead, you have some months to transfer to my closed proprietary format/social network, Google+, the new standard". So it's in fact the EEE strategy.

[pfortuny]

Well if one of your products is in competition with the 'star' one (Plus), then the last E in EEE is perfectly logical. Notice that Page's push for plus happened after the development and offering of Reader. So, they EE'd RSS and then they had to E it.

[hajderr]

You mean www.duckduckgo.com ?

[vermillion]

I actually have DuckDuckGo as my default search engine, but as Google extends its reach, we have to find alternatives for other services too. Google's decision to display its own products prominently and bury the rest is downright evil in my book.

[gibwell]

There are many googlers who sincerely support free software, but Google the company is a business that has no particular interest in preserving other businesses or even business models.

Why would anyone expect Google not to eliminate its competitors?

[vermillion]

You're attacking a straw man.

I don't object to Google fighting its competitors, but it must play by the rules. Google is not a country, but part of society and this imposes certain obligations.

[icebraining]

And what rule is Google violating?

[vermillion]

A very quick search turns up this: "Google faces antitrust probes in India, Europe, 3 other jurisdictions" "Google Inc faces anti-trust probes in India, Europe" [...]

[icebraining]

And how many of those have been initiated because Google was adding these gadgets to Search?