The way you present his supposed argument is a misrepresentation, it bears some crude resemblance to what he is saying, but it isn't an accurate representation of what he is saying.

There you go making strawmen arguments again... a correct car analogy would be:

This car doesn't come with the option for manual transmission, not for costs savings, but because the manufacturer doesn't believe in choice, and thinks that anyone who likes something they don't is stupid and shouldn't be getting the option to use it.

This has no implication on my freedom whatsoever, I will simply not buy it. However, as an impartial observer I believe it to be unsound business strategy that will lead to lost sales.

You take an argument and twist it to a similar sounding argument that is still a completely different one.

Personally I cannot fathom why people would ever want a manual transmission... but if I owned a car company I sure as hell would offer it on all my models as long as it is profitable to offer it. I will never deny such an option to my customers simply because I believe it to be undesirable and a fundamental belief in not offering choices.

I left reason out.  I wasn't particularly interested in explaining to you why you're wrong.  I wasn't even particularly interested in posting that bit of comedic relief.  You do have a sense of humor, right?  You're complaining about a product design.  Your posting, aside from being wrong, sounds like someone griefing a company they have other problems with.  You don't have to use it.  Hell, it will almost surely be free too, so you're griefing a freebee.

The about:config page costs money to develop.  Options that can be changed are a resource that has to be developed.  Everything you can modify is something that took more code to create than it would have without being modifiable.

Google is assuming, rightly, that 99.99% of the user base doesn't know shit about the hidden configuration settings in FF, and wouldn't be able to use most of them if they wanted to.  I'm a fairly advanced user, and hell if I know what even a third of them are for without looking them up first.  Not wasting time setting up all those options, then dealing with people complaining after they break their browser changing them, isn't just some philosophical dislike of choice.

Painting all the cars in black wasn't a decision devoid of practicality either.  Black lasted longer against sunlight, still does today.

No, you made a strawman argument... there is a huge difference between the two.

Of course not, its much easier to misrepresent my argument as a obviously wrong one than it is to actually counter my actual real arguments.

misdirection.

I don't have a problem with them, but what you are saying is that I am latching on to this issue to make an argument against google because I somehow hate them for unrelated reasons... this is patently false and an unfair mis-characterization of my person.

You keep on believing that.

Just because something is free doesn't mean you should bend over backwards justifying its faults. It might be worthwhile to use DESPITE the faults BECAUSE it is free and the alternative isn't... but you can't get away with saying "well its free, so we should lie to hide its drawbacks"... something that many people in the open source community fail to understand, this is why most people will rather PAY for software that actually works right than half assed open source programs. And please, not ALL or even a majority of open sourced programs are like that... just a sizable minority... I love open source and use it whenever it is good enough.

It is a free browser, it is also controlled by google itself. Derivative works can be made under different names, but the chrome development is controlled by google. While it does cost money:

1. The examples I have given are insignificant in cost. Literally nothing. Ask any programmer. Developing a sidebar is expensive, but they are developing one anyways... however they refuse to have it be used for bookmarks; allowing the disabling/enabling of specific keyboard shortcuts is likewise inexpensive; so was the archetypal example, the one google caved on but fought tooth and nail... allowing people to use a homepage like other browsers.

2. As an open source project people can modify it, but google controls what code gets reintegrated. If google is philosophically opposed to a feature, then they are not going to allow it even if someone else programmed it and submitted a patch for integration.

3. Those are extremely desirable things, with massive pushes behind them, that the vast majority of people need and want.

You are painting it as an economic decision when it clearly isn't, trying to defend google's decisions as if they are just not able to justify the cost of unwanted features... The thing is those are extremely wanted features that google philosophically opposes allowing people to use. They think they know better and oppose choice, they SAY SO in their OWN WORDS. They have fought tooth and nail to not allow people to use a homepage and eventually caved in version 6... SIX!

This is just beyond sloppy. SRWare Iron is probably only the beginning considering the way Google is managing it... forks in open source programs occur only because of philosophical differences between designers. There is absolutely no reason to split the development and you can freely port, backport, sideport, etc features.

Yet it makes everything INSIDE the car last less, because the temperature is insanely higher inside a closed black car on an afternoon than it is on a white car.

The Model T wasn't enclosed.

With so many valid things to complain about these days, you're blowing brain cells pissing on someone's freeware.  Take up politics instead.

Discussing new subjects is good for you, doesn't "blow" "brain cells".

And I tackle politics constantly.

Better reread my posts.  I made the statement that monopolies are bad.  I also made the statements that google is attempting to become a monopoly in several markets (and that is the nature of any corporation).  However, after that, all the rest is YOUR strawman, not mine.  Google may be the nicest monopoly in existence ever.  But I said I do not trust any monopoly based upon past practices of Monopolies. 

You and Gunslinger have a comprehension problem.  You take what I have said and impute your own values and then assign them to me.  But that is not what I said.  Go shoot your own strawman, but do not claim it is mine.

I will match your "economic" knowledge against mine any day.  Anecdotes are no substitute for basic fundamental knowledge.

Gigged?  They resolved it fairly fast.  forums.wincustomize.com is back to normal right now, and we're still not sure if it's Google's ads or our other ad partner that was the problem.  The thing is, I am absolutely fine with what they did.  It is a defense mechanism for their users, and it works really well.  Google blocking our site due to potentially malicious software is not evidence of a monopoly out of control.

Gmail has become as popular as it is today because Gmail is superior to the other email services.  It has very little to do with Google's search monopoly.  Yes, they have made great gains in 5 years, but they've also made the greatest changes to the way email works (large amounts of free storage, the label system, Labs, auto-threaded conversations, custom themes, etc.).  Their constant innovation has got them to 3rd place in 5 years, whereas Yahoo and Hotmail stagnated.  Do you really believe Gmail got to where it is because Google search somehow helped them get there?  Maybe in name only.

None of them are worth a snot because their algorithm isn't nearly as good as Google's.  Tell me, if Google's algorithm is the best, and if they're trying to push a "less is more" mentality, what exactly should they be changing in Google search?  Yes, they added Google Instant, but like I said before, I'd be willing to bet they were simply waiting for the right technology or the right time.  If your product is as perfect as can be (per your views), why change it?  I never once went to Google and thought "man, this search needs more innovative technology!"

I'm sorry but the Stardock issue is not evidence that Google is taking advantage of their monopoly.  They are not out to get us, they are trying to make the web a safer place.  Their algorithm obviously has a few issues, but that doesn't mean they were being evil.

I'm arguing that Google IS a monopoly in only one area: search.  And in that area, they have shown no evidence that they are screwing over their users.  You keep saying they will do it, but they've been a monopoly for years, when have they ever used search to do something considered to be "evil" or something that would screw their users?  The only thing I can think of is filtering their results in China, which they've admitted was wrong and backed out of a country where they ad 40% penetration.  Can any other company say they've done that, just to do the "right thing?"

Tell me what they've become.

A company run amok?  Again, where is the evidence?  Where have they run amok?  The fact that they turned on Buzz for everyone by default?  Fine, that was a mistake, but that cannot be your only evidence for how an entire company is operating.  Google is doing great things and innovating left and right (just look at Android). 

See, now you're just arguing semantics.  I asked for evidence for where Google has gone wrong in the half-decade that they have been a search monopoly, and all I've heard is "monopolies do this" and "monopolies do that," yet shown no evidence for where Google has done this or gone in this direction.  Am I wrong?  Please, tell me how.

Bara

On that note, I actually like using Windows Live Mail/Hotmail again.  They finally got it close to the Gmail standard.  (The only thing that annoys me is the placement/size of the search bar, but I finally felt free to uninstall the WLM desktop app.)

</mostlyofftopic>

No, but the lack of responsiveness is evidence of contempt for customers.  Again, not to say that Google is a monopoly now, but that is what monopolies do. 

Run amok?  a week after the False warnings, you were still complaining about a lack of response.  They collect illegal data and only after being outed do they even say "oops, our mistake".  And of course the best one "we did not know".  Yes, they are only competent in one area.  You can believe that.  I guess I am not as trusting as you.  I did not trust Microsoft 12 years ago when they killed Netscape.  Wait!  I guess I am not in the minority now (for all the complaints I have seen about the bropwser stagnation).

Google took searching the web into a quantum leap a decade ago.  And then they just raked in the money, and made sure their "favorites" became yours.  Bing is starting to chip away now at the stasis of the search market. And I am glad (I do not care if it was Microsoft, Yahoo, or even Oracle that did it).  I do not like Google's practices of late.  They are not a monopoly in their endeavors, but their name and money give them a lot of weight in whatever endeavor they enter.  Enhance or improve it? You got my vote!  Dominate it?  Not so much any more.

You will find precious little of my personal life on the web.  I do not trust it to be confidential, but at least most of the companies at least pay lip service to confidentiality.  Google only does when hit with a subpoena.

Well, at least you are finally reading what I write.  And I thank you for that.  As you note, I do say monopolies this and that, because I deal with facts.  And you are also correct that I did not say "google does this and that", since they do not have many monopolies.  However, I do not want to see them become one, and that is what I have been saying.  Not that they cannot.  Just that we suffer when they (or any other company) do. And when they have.

But I did comment on their primary monopoly.  And the lack of innovation in the area for the past several years, which seems to be changing now that Bing has about 25% of the market.  Not that we "bing" things now, but at least Google is starting to pay attention to its first business now that Bing is better in some respects (bing phone numbers or AGW - better results with bing than Google).

Obsessions with the term straw man(yeah, it's two words, the built in spell checker should be pointing this out) aside, you're still void of anything resembling factual accuracy in your historical assumptions.

History is replete with companies misbehaving.  Almost none of them were monopolies, and the ones that were, near universally government sanctioned, if not directly created.  You yourself have the straw man argument by claiming a company is problematic based on market share despite no evidence to support your claim.  When you posit that law abiding monopolies have a record of abusing their customers, you are perpetuating myth.  It simply doesn't exist.

I could spend the next several hours spouting encyclopedic knowledge on the subject of misbehaving companies exploiting their customers or putting them at risk in the last few decades.  Not one of them has been in a monopoly position.  It's a near endless list.

There's no evidence that they slow advancement either, quite the contrary.  Under Intel's monopoly position, computing power has advanced by leaps and bounds.  When they have been complacent, such as the initial P4 that underperformed it's predecessor, they've been penalized in market share.  Carnegie, a corrupt and coercive monopolist that used libel and slander to put his competitors out of business, rapidly modernized an aged steal industry and provided higher quality materials at lower cost.  Rockefeller did the same thing with oil, bringing the US from cart drawn wooden barrels to modern pipeline transport.  These are two examples of even coercive monopolies that were good for the population, if not for their competitors.  They're also the two companies idiots complaining about monopolies list first.  Microsoft is often the third.

Bad behavior isn't related to market share, it doesn't even correlate.  What it does correlate with are government sanctioned monopolies, an entirely different thing.

Point them out then.

Very true.  But note I did not say all bad companies were monopolies.  Again your logic is flawed.

Given that only a very small percentage of companies are monopolies, I guess you are right - the majority of companies are a majority of companies.  And so your point is what?

No, I asked a question which no one has answered yet.  So I have created no strawman about market share.

What myth would that be?  That the biggest monopoly of them all is immune to customer issues such as satisfaction?  Do not like your DMV?  Go to another "company".  I know, that is just a myth as well, right?

Another great "a majority of companies is a majority" argument.  You win that one.  I agree.  A majority of companies is a majority of companies.

One, I pointed out one instance of the slow advancement.  You can argue that IE6 was the end all of browsers if you want.  But most tech specialists would disagree with you.

I never said Intel was a monopoly, and do not believe it is.  Fortunately we have AMD and before that Motorola, NEC, IBM, HP and Sun.  Still have most of them too.

You contradict yourself.  If they were a monopoly, they would not care about market share as they would control enough of it that it is not a concern.  Please read Econ 101 (macro) on what is a monopoly.

You have done a lot of trying to debunk the strawman that all bad behavior is by monopolies.  I will ask you now where that was ever stated?  And I made no differentiation between government sanctioned ones and ones that are created out of attrition (which do not exist due to laws).  because of copyrights and patents, all monopolies are sanctioned by the government.

And in case you are wondering, try this link. Spell checkers are not the last or best authority on spelling.