I don't think Google's problem is with choice, it's a problem with what to do add and what not do add.  Perhaps they worded it wrong, but I think what they mean is "we have a priority list and we can't simply add every single feature everyone wants."  In fact, even Mozilla has this same design mantra.  They provide the basic minimum features that they think will be used the most, and let developers add the rest through plugins.  How is that any different from Chrome?  

In fact, I think the only thing holding Chrome back is the maturity of their extension system.  Despite how easy it is to write extensions, it is still far behind in terms of what can be done with the browser (one of the reasons, I suspect, as to why Firebug works better in Firefox than in Chrome).  Given time, the extension system will be just as powerful as Firefox's, and every feature you could want would be available as a separate add-on, despite what Google thinks the user wants.  And again, I stress that Mozilla has this same mindsight, except that they DO have a fully-featured extension system so people are able to implement anything Mozilla deems isn't worth their time.

Bara

And if they said that, it wouldn't be such a problem... people have been making excuses for other's words for a long long time. I take people at their word. They didn't say what you said, they said, verbatim: "we have a strong design philosophy against options (even "hidden" options like about:config)"

That being said, it being open source is a redeeming feature for it. There are already some alternatives such as SRWare Iron.

My point was really not that chrome is a bad browser. Being the fastest and most secure it serves an excellent niche, and you can use other browsers to do what it cannot. My point was about google OS, the chrome based OS currently in design. That, and while the most secure against malware, google has no concept of the idea of privacy. (that is another thing they say). A mantra of "don't do evil" is nice, and just as I believe their word about not believing in choice, I believe their word about not wanting to do evil... google is the nicest advertising firm I know of... but you don't need evil intentions to hurt someone, treating their privacy like dirt, and denying them choice on purpose... those are harmful things, apparently done with the best of intentions.

Another thought as well.  There is no point in "looking forward" if you are looking at the past as your future.  And if you are doomed to repeat the past because of your ignorance or refusal to understand it, then looking forward is looking backwards.

As always, the choice is yours.  repeat the mistakes of the past.  Or make sure you do not.

Microsoft was not about browsers but about Windows and DOS.  And your point is?  The example was showing how a monopoly in one area (or near monopoly) can be used to create one in a second area.  Google is a portal, not just a search engine.  And they are leveraging that both with Chrome and Email.

I do not hate Google - I hate monopolies because of what they do to innovation and competition.  I do not have to blue sky examples as history is replete with them.  Google is a monopoly in one area trying to leverage that monopoly into other areas - the topic being Browsers now.  How long do you think Opera would last if the Google search engine were made NOT to work with it? (Just read about DR DOS for your answer).

Again, the lesson cannot be repeated often enough.

Show me a single example of where Google has treated people's privacy in a bad way (on purpose, the whole "stealing wifi" thing was by accident, and they admitted to it before anyone even knew about it).  Eric Schmidt talks about privacy in the following sense: If you put your stuff publicly online, then it will ALWAYS be online.  All Google is doing is indexing it (and they only do so for 6 months, so take it down, and within 6 months it'll be off Google's servers).  Is that really a privacy issue?  If you purposely put something publicly online, isn't it fair game that anybody who wants to find it can (using Google or otherwise)?  Thinking otherwise isn't very realistic.

Google's only major successful product IS google search.  Maybe Google Maps too.  But Gmail, despite being awesome, is not as big as Hotmail or Yahoo.  So Google's search monopoly has not really helped them in other areas.  Or, for the few products they've released that ARE popular, that's because the products themselves really well done, and have little to do with Google Search.  

And again, you can say all you want about "what if Google did this" or "but Google COULD do that", but Google hasn't done any of those things nor have they shown any tendency of going in those directions.  They are the most "good" company that I know of.  

If you honestly believe that they destroy innovation and competition, then why is it that in every single area that Google is in, that are many major competitors (and most of the time, Google isn't even on top) and each of them has innovated in some way?  Google Search we have Bing.  Android we have iOS, webOS, and Windows Phone 7.  Gmail we have Hotmail.  Google Maps we have Bing Maps and MapQuest.  The list goes on.  Their monopoly on search has not helped them gain any ground elsewhere except in the cases where their other products have been exceptionally well done.  Now list me some examples of where Google has leveraged their search monopoly to force users into using their products (as you said, Google could turn off Google search support for Opera... but they haven't, and they never will, as that would go against their "Don't be evil" mantra).

Bara

You have not checked on colleges have you?

Just because a user does not have @gmail.com in their address, does not mean it is not gmail.  There are over 250k college students at one institution in this state alone that are part of gmail now.

And search is not their business.  it is the avenue to their revenue, and a good one.  Their business is selling.  Selling Ads.  I do believe Stardock is having a problem with that aspect of them right now (and we saw how responsive they were to it since they dominate that market as well).

Really?  Where did the money for Chrome come from?

Companies are not "good" or "bad". That is anthropomorphizing google.  A company has one responsibility.  To maximize the investment return of its owners.  Once you corner a market, you can milk it for every penny without fear of losing money or depriving your investors.  But that comes at the expense of the customers (in both cost and innovation).  Those are the realities (not the histrionics) of companies.

Do not put words into my mouth (or pen).  I said lack of competition (monopoly) does that.  And so far, Google has done well in every market they have entered.  And when they have achieved dominance, what happens?

How long did it take them for Google Instant AFTER Bing started taking market share?  how long did google search stagnate because there was no real other viable alternative? 

We have Bing NOW.  That is recent.  And I have not said that Google is a monopoly in every venture.  I said I do not like them being one or becoming one.  Look at MS Office suite.  They  have no real competition, and the price is sky high! (you can buy a complete functioning computer for less than the office suite).  That is called vertical integration.  Which is what Chrome/Chrome OS is all about.  No, it is not a monopoly, but like DR DOS (you did not address that did you?), all it takes is a tweak and viola!  Seems Google Search (gmail, maps, etc. you pick the "can't do without application") works so much better with Chrome than any thing else.  Then they just do not support it unless you use Chrome.

Closing the barn door after the cow has escaped is not a very sound strategy now is it?  If I thought Google was there now, you would not be reading this.  My application just would mysteriously not work with their monopoly - unless I paid a fee.

In your opinion.  I do not trust them (or any company for that matter) to do anything other than fulfill their primary duty. And if that means turning it off for Opera, they will.  IMHO.

And off my topic, but pertinent.  There are several countries that vehemently disagree with you on that one.  Germany, Holland, The Czech republic (the list does go on - bing it).  It is not that they are out to "out you", it is just they are so big and powerful, they just do not care.

I understand you point in the article but am not sure I understand the anger you seem to be portraying thru out the article. So what if Google has a philosophy on how they choose to create their software that you don't agree with. You simply use something else. That's why alternatives exist.

I personally do't like Chrome Browser, it's not comfortable to me. I like my Firefox and all the add-ons that I use with it. They come in very handy. Like SirBewyr said:

"Utility, as ever, remains in the eyes of the user and the market to determine"

I don't dwell on how certain companies choose to create their products, I simply look for one that is good and has what I want. I'm a big Western Digital person for example when it comes to hard drive yet as of late I find myself contemplating other hard drive makers due to their recent problems and arrogance over how they have created they latest line of portable drives and how they welded the use connection directly to the new 1 TB drives and how they put the WD software directly into the chips not allowing the buyers to change cases for a better choice of USB cable or case and not be able to delete this unnecessary software.

I'll either just wait till the 1 TB drives for laptops come out and use a case of my own or wait for another hard drive maker to make their own 1 TB laptop drive. Plain and simple.

As for the Chrome OS, Google is involved in my own life enough as it is I don't need to fully integrate it into it some more. No thanks but regardless of how good it may be and even if free, I'll stick with what I know and like and for now that is Windows 7. Sometimes free isn't always better.

I have to agree with that comment. It's not necessarily that they want to, it's that they can and don't care to stop it for the moment. Not until it hurts them in any way.

Unfortunately that is not quantifiable.  All I have to go on is numbers like the following:

http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2009/08/gmail-now-third-largest-email-service-in-us.html
http://www.email-marketing-reports.com/metrics/email-statistics.htm

Unfortunately those are a bit out of date, but if Gmail had become the second or first largest it would be all over the tech blogs, so it's still in 3rd place as far as I'm aware.

You're going in circles.  Your original argument was that Google is using their monopoly in search to push their other products. Yes, they have a monopoly in search, but not in ads.  Yes, ads did pay for Chrome.  But Google Search specifically did not help them make Chrome popular.  That is, no one saw Chrome and downloaded it because you can search using Google on it.  People use Chrome because it's better than the rest.  That is true of most of Google's services (Gmail has become the third largest email provider not because it has any ties to the search monopoly, but because it is quite simply better than the rest).  Whether or not Google has a monopoly, it has not stopped them from creating great products and innovating in many, many areas.  Tell me another company that pushes innovation as much as Google does (how many companies do you know of that have a "20%" policy?)

You can maximize the investment return of its owners in many ways, of which can be constituted as being "good" or "bad" from the point of view of the general public, the users, or the stockholders.  Yes, Google is out to make money.  However, they are doing it in the best way possible: Without screwing their users, without sacrificing quality, and with some morals.  Yes, it is a non-living entity, a corporation out to make money.  But it is also run by people, and those people's choices can absolutely be certified as good or bad.

And I will ask you once again: Show me where Google has done wrong and milked a market they own for every penny?  Show me where Google has lost innovation and increased cost to customers in a monopoly they are in control of.  You can say that Google will do these things all you want but they are NOT doing them.  They are the ONLY company to say that they will not do them.  They innovate faster than most companies on the planet, and practically every single one of their services is free.  Define the "expense to customers" that Google's monopoly has caused.

Google search, from the very onset, was all about simplicity and quickness.  Google became popular BECAUSE of this.  Why would Google change that and lose what many consider to be their search's greatest quality?  The stuff they added after Bing was not because Bing was catching up to them, but because Google saw that that is what people want.  They follow the market, not Bing.  And Google Instant probably didn't come earlier due to technology limitations, it takes time build up the infrastructure for something as blazingly fast as Instant.  I suspect Instant would have come regardless of Bing, since it saves Google a ton of money.

Before Bing there was MSN search, and Yahoo search, and plenty of other smaller ones.  There was plenty of competition and innovation.  Is it Google's problem that they all failed?  Google themselves did not go out and say "don't use MSN Search" or do anything to prevent it from gaining popularity.  People simply did not care for it.  As for MS Office suite, I completely agree, that's something Microsoft would do.  But we're talking about Google.  Show me an example of where Google has done something similar and I'll shut up.

Yes, Google CAN do that.  But at the moment they aren't.  I'm not sure I see your problem if every single company has the potential to do what you said.  Google isn't the only one that is capable of this, but they're the only ones that say "do no evil."

lol, again, more speculation than fact. Please stop speculating and provide some hard evidence where Google has done anything of the sort.

Fair enough, I don't want to say that I completely "trust" any company either.  However, Google is probably closest, if only because they have shown no evidence of... well... of any of the myriad examples you listed that you think Google will do.

The countries are afraid of the same thing you are: Every corporation that gets too powerful gets out of control and screws everyone over.  Thing is, Google is already more powerful than most corporations on the planet (how many other companies have said "fuck you" to an entire country, losing 40% of the market share in that country, just to do the right thing?) and yet, they have shown no evidence of screwing everyone over.  This is not Microsoft.  Those days are over.  Google is the first (of likely many) corporation that really tries to stand for the right thing.  Those other countries are simply afraid of what might happen if Google ever did go evil.  I say, why worry?  If they wanted to go evil, they already would have.  

Bara

You may see it as circular, but it is straight line.  They have to make money.  The goods are search.  And then they sold the highest hits, and sold ads to make the money.  Search got them there.  Ads.....Well who else does Firefox use to find out a site is a predator?  A monopoly is not defined by 100% of a market.  it is defined as effective control (in other words, they say jump and the market says how high).  Stardock just got gigged by one company, and you are claiming no monopoly?  To each his own.

As for the email, does your source list how it arrived at the figures?  I would like to know that.  I do not know if they are 1, 2 or 3.  But considering Yahoo and Hotmail have been around for over 12 years, and gmail barely 5, that says something about their market penetration, now does it not? (Rome and Microsoft were not built in a day - or 5 years).

And none of them worth a snot.  And you forgot to mention Copernicus.  Which was the best there was until Google came along.

Google defines searches.  They were the best!  Now at least they are getting better since they have real competition.

I thought we already discussed the Stardock issue.  A leech does not kill its host with one suck.  But it will if allowed to leech the host unfettered for a long time.  Google has not had time to leech a market dry yet.  But they almost got there (and are trying).  Again, you seem to want to see the end results before the interim steps.  I told you the end results, not that Google has always  done it.  Monopolies DO IT.  Are you going to argue that Monopolies do not do it?  or that Google is not a monopoly and never will be?  Which one?  And my question that started all of this has yet to be answered.

What constitutes a monopoly (percent of market to be called a monopoly).  All you are doing so far is saying how much you love Google (fine, you do not have to hate them, I do not).  I am saying I do not like what they have become and are becoming (in markets).

No reality. I see the natural progression of a company run amuk (Microsoft did not remain one forever afterall, but it sure hurt things until others could eat away at its stranglehold).  I know monopolies, and I see how they are created.  You will note that I have not said "Google did x, y and Z".  I have stated facts about Google and Monopolies.  You have made leaps of logic (some natural, some bizarre) and are trying to put words in my mouth.  Again, I do not have time to correct you.  If you want to be a cheer leader for Google - great!  If you want to debate monopolies and monopolistic tendencies - good! (I would love to, but I doubt this is the forum for such an adventure).  But please stop saying " you said, you did, you avowed" when the only one doing that is you.  And not accurately when you do it based upon what I have said.

I have stated facts, you have stated love.  But we are not stating such on the same subject, so there is no use in doing a "he said, she said" comedy.

That is most certainly true. Does this mean I am not allowed to criticize them? I am making predictions of future success / failure of products based on my criticism of their philosophy. There is nothing wrong with that, is there?

I actually mentioned several...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/google-coughs-up-85-million-to-settle-buzz-privacy-suit.ars

Want the most recent? Buzz: Google automatically signed up all its gmail users for buzz the first time they logged on after buzz went live. It then automatically "followed" (equivalent of facebook friends) every other gmail user in their contacts. And signed up their picasa account to show there too... It might shock you, but people did NOT want everyone on their gmail contacts with a gmail account to see who else is on their contacts. This resulted in a lot of grief, one of the most publicized examples was a man being caught cheating because his wife and mistress were both on his gmail, a woman's abusive ex husban gets auto-followed (gaining access to her current friends), etc. Google did respond quickly to it by making it opt in... but then their CEO went to say that he doesn't understand the outrage and that privacy is not that big of a deal if you have nothing to hide... (aka, everyone bothered by their total lack of respect towards privacy is evil and hiding something). There is a lawsuit, it got settled, to date google never admitted that there was anything wrong with their policies.

Speaking of buzz... it "links" with other google services to auto post your stuff... just don't upload a naughty photo...

Buzz isn't their only issue though, another recent one was when chrome updated with a new version that can now sync more things... it automatically synced all the new things as well.

Then there is the detail with which they analyze your mail... I got an email from a friend saying something "hi, we still up for DnD this saturday at 12pm? meet you at <location>" (I am not revealing the location, sorry) and it automatically offered to add to my calendar "DnD" on 12pm on <date of that saturday> @ <location>. its uncanny... I use it because of their excellent, best in class, spam filtering. (thanks largely to that deep analysis of emails). However, I remember that google doesn't believe in privacy. This doesn't make me HATE them or anything, for me it is just a statement of fact that is neither bad nor good... "google cares not for your privacy"... ANYTHING I do with google I consider public knowledge. If anything needs to be private, I don't do it on google.

If anything needs to be private, I don't do it on the internet.

Google has a monopoly because Google has the best search engine.

Google is evil because Google has a monopoly.

A monopoly is evil because it leads to stagnation.

Google stagnated it's innovation and Bing started taking away market share.

This is retard logic, it doesn't work.  It's not surprising since this idiocy is pervasive in the educational systems world wide, but it's still retarded.

Monopolies only stay monopolies if they behave themselves.  As soon as they get complacent or give their customers the shaft, the shit hits the fan.  You're listing perfect examples of why there is no problem with a non-coercive monopoly.

Standard Oil, the shining example of a coercive monopoly used in history and economics courses, provided a superior product at lower prices than both it's predecessors, and it's successors following the breakup of the company.

While worrying about getting the shaft from an "evil monopoly" you should think about those shitty American tires on your car that last half as long as a a Kumo does at twice the cost.  No monopoly required, just good old unions making sure union tires are on their union cars.  The thing you should really fear is government protection of a specific group or entity, not a monopoly obtained by being the best.

You are correct, this is also know as "strawman argument"

instead of arguing against any point others make, you misrepresent their opinions and then easily "disprove" said opinions, because those ARE wrong... they are just nobody's arguments.

You don't read your own thread?  Dr. Guy is indeed making those arguments.  He's espousing the evils of a monopoly while sketching out a very nice counterpoint argument by showing the rise of competitors as Google screws the pooch by getting complacent in their monopoly position.

I didn't even go after yours, just that specific line of reasoning he's latched onto.  I don't actually give a shit about the rest of it, but the continued butchery of basic economics tends to motivate me.

If you really want me to, I could rip on you too though.  OMG, this car doesn't come with the option for a manual transmission!  MY PRECIOUS FREEDOM!!!