This week marks the first year of living with +Google Glass—not one year, but the first. As in there is more to come.
I still remember seeing the +UPS truck downstairs, setting Glass up for the first time and more. The journey since then has been so exciting, surprising and constantly refreshing—we are in uncharted territory and everything is so new.
And, genuinely, for me, Glass continues to bring magic to life. It has positively changed how I interact with technology, whether it is getting directions, searching +Google, sending a message or just taking a photo without missing the moments that matter. This weekend in New York, as with many other situations, I really felt like I got to push technology out of the way most of the time and explore, while also relive the moments exactly as they happened afterwards.
Glass invigorates me with the same energy I felt when arriving in New York for the first time: ever-changing, nonstop innovation and undying optimism and belief in core ideals.
Of course there are a whole list of improvements Glass can undergo. Of course there are situations where Glass is not suitable and where I don't wear Glass, just like regular glasses or smartphones. But, I think most people forget that this is a highly beta project and still a Google moonshot, just like +Project Loon, +Google Fiber, and the +Google Self-Driving Car Project.
Personally, I don't think Glass will ever be a failure for Google however this goes—it will either continue to evolve or be a valuable insight into wearable technology for the future. So, while the haters continue to hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, we, the players, are gonna play, play, play, play, play, as +Taylor Swift eloquently puts it.
The media may write whatever they wish about Google like how +Google+ is going to die, or Glass or even Taylor Swift, but I'd rather spend my energy supporting risk-takers, the future, the ideals they stand for and a better life. All these risk-taking brands and people I support are far more than what the media portrays—just look at Taylor's actual album sales versus what experts projected. Plus, the broad reception I receive from the public about Glass just does not align with how the media usually characterizes it as.
Sharing the magic with various people and seeing their faces light up with joy as they learn about what is true continues to give me goosebumps.
+PCMagstates it best: "Good music that people enjoy has to be worth something."
That's the precise problem with Spotify—it is probably the only music product on the market today that offers an on-demand music library, free-of-charge.
Many have compared Spotify to other streaming services, such as +Pandora. The problem is, by definition, Pandora and Internet radio, designed specifically for discovery, and subscription services, like +Beats Music and +Google Play Music All Access, are based on completely different models. Internet radio provides limited ability to play the exact track on-demand and subscription services are obviously paid services.
Spotify has created users who feel entitled to virtually owning and playing specific music at no charge. For example, I have seen comments, from Spotify users, asserting that Taylor Swift should have her music on Spotify because not everyone has the financial ability to purchase it or how costly it would be to pay for music. I'm not sure when we evolved into a society where content, and other peoples' works, that took valuable skills and insane amounts of time to create, were taken for granted. Or, as +The Telegraphputs it, "we now have an extremely entitled culture, where any kind of art is seen as a communal property." Certainly, not everyone can afford books, movies and even Android devices or iPhones, all various types of content and products that hard-working people create and turn into reality.
In an interview with Yahoo!, Taylor summed up how she felt when she tried releasing new music (Shake It Off) directly on Spotify:
I felt like I was saying to my fans, "If you create music someday, if you create a painting someday, someone can just walk into a museum, take it off the wall, rip off a corner off it, and it's theirs now and they don't have to pay for it." I didn't like the perception that it was putting forth (Taylor Swift).
Taylor Swift performing in Arizona during her RED World Tour.
I have always believed that the Internet should be free and open and that we should create better marketplaces and channels for content to be accessed and distributed at reasonable prices. This should be decided by the equilibrium of supply and demand. This is our best bet against piracy, not distributing content for free or keeping it in exclusive, far-to-reach corners of the web.
A lot of people, especially those that I have had a pleasure of discussing this issue with, believe Taylor is being greedy or selfish. I disagree. She is continually adding to the next generation of the music industry and trying to solve some of the biggest problems it has ever faced. She is standing up for superstars and indie-bands alike, because her position allows her to. It's why various smaller artists have tweeted her, praising her stance against Spotify, calling it "a streaming service that doesn't pay."
Payment in exchange for creative and valuable content is simply so that those same content creators creating all the things we enjoy can continue to innovate and bring us even more quality content. It's the same reason why big-name artists, including Adele, +Coldplay, +Beyoncé and others, have followed the approach of releasing Spotify versions months after their music actually comes out. Unfortunately, smaller artists don't have the ability because they first need their music just out there however and wherever it can be—it's time they should start making money too.
In fact, according to PCMag,
Swift wanted to keep her latest album on delayed-release, or at least only available to Spotify's premium subscribers, which Spotify didn't want; hence the impasse.
I am not saying that streaming services aren't the answer. But, I do not think Spotify and its flawed model, in particular, are the answers we are looking for, both as consumers and content creators—we will get lower quality of content and content creators cannot make a living. The music industry is ripe for innovation, but Spotify does not have the solution.
At the end of the day, Taylor Swift ignited an important conversation about how much we value content and everyone should be happy about that.
A couple months ago, I shared a Google+ and Twitter photo of an absolutely gorgeous and perfect DC day. Being able to take strolls on the National Mall, right in the middle of history, is just one of the advantages of being at +The George Washington University. Several weeks later, I learned (through the Center for Student Engagement Twitter) that the photo was chosen as their winner for February, something that came as a surprise to me.
This week, GW had a Excellence in Student Life ceremony, where the overall #OnlyAtGW photo contest winner was announced as well. People had some really cool moments showing how awesome it is here, including a group selfie with Wolf Blitzer among many others.
I didn't expect much, but here's what happened, as shown through +Google Glass.
When I first shared that photo, I honestly expected nothing more than me sharing a moment that mattered in my life -- a moment of freedom, of relaxation. I am still in awe at what it has become, especially because it all came from two apps from a device the size of my hand. On my Samsung Galaxy S4, I used the camera and Google+'s powerful +Snapseed app and the final product was available in minutes. Of that moment, right at that moment.
From Glass to Snapseed and everything in between, I'm taken aback by how technology has empowered everyone to be able to capture the moments that matter.
Yesterday, my friend +Alex Leiphart shared this story: http://goo.gl/Id4mrJ ("AMC movie theater calls FBI to arrest a Google Glass user"). AMC called the FBI, who then snatched Glass off the innocent man's face and interrogated him, all because they believed, without evidence nor proof, that a man was recording an entire movie, simply because he had Google Glass. The FBI even challenged him: "they wanted to know what does +Google ask of me in exchange for Glass, how much is Google paying me, who is my boss and why am I recording the movie." And that's just part of it.
Let's stop the hysteria we constantly create around new technologies.
Let's start a genuine conversation now. Comment with your thoughts below.
I certainly think it is fine for people to think Glass is not that great or all that it says it is -- some of my friends hold, or held, different beliefs and are some of my most valued opinions. In fact, that's awesome that people think differently -- the world only advances because all our thoughts are not uniform. The resulting debate is important and helps society advance. It's equally as important though that those that want to argue against it use legitimate, unexaggerated talking points after having tested what they are arguing against instead of spreading assumptions.
It seems people think Glass is almighty, believing that it knows what its users are thinking and controllable with just their minds. And those people are the ones that only assume Glass only helps users do bad -- to sneakily record movies, to cheat and more -- while never trying it for themselves. Instead, what really happens is that users have to say "Ok Glass" aloud or touch to operate it. Even the light on the screen is visible when on. In many cases, it is more noticeable than a smartphone.
However, this year, +Google Glass is expected to launch widely as well as with compatible prescription lenses. When this happens, I have no doubt a more vigorous debate will start in society about Glass.
With prescription lenses, Glass will be a required item for those who need it, just like the man in the story. But what about in the bathroom? Or when driving (just like I do with the clip-on sunglasses with Glass right now)? Users would not be able to just tilt Glass up on their heads like they currently do, as then they wouldn't be able to see.
Would society trust Glass users enough? Would users be expected to carry a second pair of regular prescription lenses? Would a large enough portion of society educate themselves enough to know that it is very visible when Glass is on and recording?
What do you think?
A prototype of Google Glass with prescription lenses, courtesy of a Googler (via Phandroid.com).
Right now, the "rest" position for phones is in the pocket, still attached to the body. That's equivalent to placing Glass on top of the head. Or even just off. In both positions, the devices are virtually unusable.
When taking tests where teachers don't require students to put phones in the backpack, do we expect Glass to be in its rest position on the head or will it be treated differently by requiring it to be placed in its case and away from the body? When watching movies, is that expectation the same? What about when driving -- can we use it as a GPS?
That's the job of Explorers -- to live life with Glass, to take the risk of encountering ignorant people but also more generally, to educate a (for the most part) fascinated public on this new and exciting technology that has a potential to change everything we do. But the bigger responsibility at hand, the job that we all carry, Explorers or not, is the one to prevent hysteria and to speak truth to stupid.
Yet, for every stubborn person, there's a hundred more open-minded learners that dare to try Glass before passing judgement. And the smiles and awe that I have personally seen is reward that out-compensates any negativity expressed by those that are so afraid of change.
And for each negative story we hear about Glass, we hear so many more of how it is fundamentally changing the very nature of our world, from providing firefighters with the tools they need more safely and quicker and doctors with the required materials without tying up their hands to the way it helps us to just get back to living life, by bringing us ordinary people all closer together while helping capture the moments that truly matter in our lives.
Microsoft's CEO, Steve Ballmer, is at it again, complaining about +Google and blaming its dooms on Google's success (http://goo.gl/VMKeJ6 via +ReadWrite). In the past years, Microsoft has gotten so jealous that it has practically forgotten all that's good with itself. And so, a short story...
"A farmer in a village had a goat and a donkey. The farmer used to make the donkey work hard and fed him good food - carrots, radish, corn, etc. The goat was very unhappy since it had to find food on it's own and eat grass. It became very jealous of the donkey.
The goat thought of a plan. The goat thought that if the donkey stopped working, it would get the good food the donkey got from the farmer. So the goat pushed the donkey into a large hole. The donkey was badly hurt and it could not walk.
The farmer became very sad seeing the donkey's bad health condition. He wanted the donkey to recover soon from illness since he had to get work from the donkey. The farmer thought that feeding the donkey with goat's soup might make the donkey recover from illness soon. Hence, the farmer killed the goat and gave the donkey it's soup.
So instead of getting the donkey's food, the goat itself became food for the donkey."
Microsoft is a strong company. With lots of potential. But instead of focusing on how it can fulfill its potential, it has entered an endless cycle, twisting itself into a windsor knot, to try to take out Google. To try and use taxpayer's dollars against a company which individuals choose to use at his or her discretion. To try and get governments to "control" Google, even after the Federal Trade Commission found no wrongdoing.
Ballmer, stop with the fabricated claims Microsoft and +FairSearch.org continually create, especially when Microsoft does the same thing. Stop being a company so jealous of another that you forget all that's good with yourself. Stop getting so hell-bent at destroying Google because you think their success has led to your doom. Stop yourself from deteriorating, caused by your laser focus on Google. Stop being the goat.
Or else one day, Microsoft will vanish into the state of nothing. Don't Scroogle yourself.
Ballmer, you're leaving soon. Stand for something. Leave a legacy of morality at Microsoft. Of instilling values that were lost in the past decade. Of humility. Of innovation. Of truthfulness. Because Microsoft can achieve so much, if it focused on what mattered, itself.
Look at +T-Mobile. Look at +Yahoo! These companies were perceived to be doomed. Yet, in the past months, they have refocused on themselves and they're becoming the underdog that people are starting to take seriously again. T-Mobile, whose focus on innovative plans and programs, and not its CEO's harsh criticisms of other carriers, is now a beacon of hope for many people who are fed up with traditional mobile carriers. Yahoo!, whose focus on recreating a gorgeous experience, has attracted back both users and employees.
Microsoft. You can do it. I want a day when I can't wait to get my hands on a Microsoft product. A day when I am excited about Microsoft's releases. But that will not happen when all you do is steer me in the direction of looking at Google.
Bill Gates, someone who I've been inspired by and respected for years, believes that the moonshots +Google are taking isn't helping to "uplift the poor," namely +Project Loon. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I believe his statements are ridiculous and just part of the ongoing PR stunt where Microsoft attacks everything Google. In fact, Google is doing so much to uplift the entire human population.
In an interview with +Bloomberg News (and as reported by +CNET, see link below), Gates says, "When you're dying of malaria, I suppose you'll look up and see that balloon, and I'm not sure how it'll help you... When a kid gets diarrhea, no, there's no website that relieves that. " REALLY? Or maybe the netizens and victims of the new digital age, with all of its connectivity, will search the Internet to see how to get help. Or how to find a cure. Or how to get to the closest clinic or doctor. Or allow doctors to remotely monitor or help the patient. The possibilities are endless. The part that irks me, especially, is the second part about diarrhea. Seriously. No website that helps relieve it? Maybe on Bing.
Maybe a website doesn't directly relieve diarrhea. But everyone, no matter where they're from, gets the world's knowledge at their fingertips. And even when no one in their family, neighborhood, city, town or village knows how to relieve diarrhea, they can independently find ways to cure the sickness, without waiting for anyone's help. So yes, a website can relieve diarrhea. And can relieve diarrhea of more people.
He continues, "Certainly I'm a huge believer in the digital revolution. And connecting up primary-health-care centers, connecting up schools, those are good things. But no, those are not, for the really low-income countries, unless you directly say we're going to do something about malaria."
Google is a company with limited resources (staff, time) and must focus on the mission they've set out to do. That's why aside from the company, +Sergey Brin and +Anne Wojcicki have directly donated to causes such as related to environmental issues, poverty prevention and Parkinson's disease research ($200 million), the bankroll for the first in-vitro burger ($300,000), which could lead to a sustainable and cheap supply of protein.
I find Gates' statements to be extremely biased and irresponsible. Or maybe he just doesn't understand the power of the open web. I don't think it's the latter. It's sad that Microsoft's attack has come so far and clouded Gates' judgement. Microsoft must paint a cloudy picture for anything Google nowadays.
Certainly, Project Loon may not be saving as many lives as the Gates Foundation, but that's comparing apples to oranges. When Microsoft starts even remotely trying, then let's talk.
But, any effort to promote connectivity and uplift the entire world should be commended, however small. For now, Google is doing so much more to uplift the entire human population and to make the world a better place to live than any other company, especially in the technology industry.
Mr. Gates, I have a question. Amazon. Apple. Facebook. Microsoft. How are they "uplifting the poor?"
Yesterday, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) came to a conclusion regarding the +Google antitrust investigation. To be clear, it was not a win for Google or a loss for Microsoft/+FairSearch.org. Instead, the findings of the FTC were a triumphant win for choice, innovation and justice. In summary, the FTC has closed its investigation on Google after approximately 20 months of thoroughly investigating Google's business and found that Google is not an anticompetitive, monopolistic power that brings harms to consumers.
Of course, not everyone is happy, namely Microsoft, perhaps the most outspoken of technology companies to accuse Google of anticompetitive practices. Dave Heiner, Microsoft's Vice President and Deputy General Counsel took to a long blog post to describe why Microsoft is not content with what the FTC has found. He forgets that Microsoft/Bing does some of the same things it accuses Google of doing, and mentions a few points that lack evidence or are incorrect.
Data Portability
Microsoft's Heiner has this to say about "data portability:"
For years Google has publicly championed the virtues of "data portability" - the idea that customers ought to be able to use their own data in products from various companies. But in practice, Google effectively prohibited its primary paying customers (advertisers) from using data about their own advertising campaigns on any ad platform other than Google's.
That, however, is simply untrue. Yes, Google does have a strong belief on data portability, as its Data Liberation Front has shown. Google states that "Users should be able to control the data they store in any of Google's products" and it is one of the only companies to have such a location for easily and quickly exporting data out of Google.
One of the topics in the Data Liberation Front is "AdWords," and shows users how to export any ad campaign. As Google notes, "Advertisers can already export their ad campaigns from Google AdWords." There is even a lovely video to help anyone who does not understand.
Similarly, that is all Microsoft's Bing allows you to do as well, as shown in this help page. There is not even a helpful video to guide the user, or any other option other than CSV. Google also announced yesterday that in response to the FTC, they will voluntarily enable advertisers to "mix and copy ad campaign data within third-party services that use [Google's] AdWords API." So where's the problem here, Microsoft?
Microsoft's Heiner spent two lengthy paragraphs outlining the problem and detailing how Microsoft would have remedied the problem. But wait, Microsoft restricts exports to the same exact thing as Google, and now less than.
Patents
There is also a blurb about "standard essential patents," or those patents that are so essential to standard technological innovations that they should be licensed fairly to everyone. Google, when purchasing Motorola, also continued the ongoing litigation disputes with Microsoft, Apple and others, "seeking to block Microsoft and others from shipping Windows-based PCs and Xboxes that implement the relevant standards," as Heiner notes in the blog.
As we all know, 2012 was the year of patents. The American patent system is severely in need of reform, and Google had to do anything and everything it could to defend itself and the vibrant Android ecosystem. Google has been one of the most outspoken companies regarding patent reform, but what could it do when laws were not changed and the issue not address? Take matters into its own hands and use the patents it did have to the best of its ability.
When Apple can sue Android and other manufacturers on the grounds that pinch-to-zoom uses two fingers or a phone has a rectangular, 4-inch design, Google should be able to do anything and everything it can to protect itself. Microsoft did something similar to Apple, and asked (and continues to ask) manufacturers for extremely high royalties, just because. Google is merely "bleeding out" until the issue is confronted. Yet, the whole story is never disclosed from Microsoft or Apple's perspective. Though those used by Apple and Microsoft may not be "standard essential patents," the relevant patents were basic, and some have even been recalled by the respective patent offices.
YouTube-Windows Phone App
Windows Phone has gotten off to a rough start in the mobile industry dominated by +Android and iOS devices, sheerly because of both platform's robust innovation (and the lack of on Windows Phone). Despite the Microsoft campaigns to criticize Google instead of focusing on the actual Microsoft product, it has continued to use it as an opportunity to out Google as anti-competitive, which is simply not true (and quite obvious).
Windows Phone has one of the lowest market shares in the industry, only in the single-digit area compared to Android and iOS's commanding double-digit lead. For the most up-to-date research, one only needs to enter a simple search query on your preferred search engine. Similarly, the Windows Store of apps only boasts 150,000 applications, compared to Android and iOS's 700,000 count.
As any regular person should know, there are many things that need to get done in life. Each person has to allocate valuable time and resources into the most meaningful activities. Technology companies must do the same thing. That explains why Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter all have no native applications for Windows Phone (except for the Facebook/Twitter apps that Microsoft built).
Yet, Microsoft is painting the absence of the YouTube app as a severe antitrust violation of Google, stating that "Google continues to prevent Microsoft from offering a high-quality YouTube app for Windows Phone." Though a large company, Google still has limited money, resources and time. It must allocate how to build apps and services in a manner that creates a great user experience, allows the most consumers to benefit, while also allowing Google to remain a profitable company (that's how the services continue to operate). Google is not, and should no way be under any obligation to build apps for every single operating system available on the market, or give up its own data so that others can build the app for them - that simply is impossible and unrealistic, as I explain in my Google+ post. Google's goal has always been "to be present on all major platforms and we [Google] want to offer the best possible experience." (Daniel Graf, director of Google Maps for Mobile).
Google also states that YouTube is available on Windows Phone, contrary to Microsoft's statement, via the HTML5-based mobile website, which includes HQ video and all the features that are present in any YouTube app. They also claim they've worked directly with Microsoft to build a great YouTube experience on Windows. In the end, Google does not benefit by excluding users from accessing YouTube anyways, see the linked post.
Search Bias
Heiner also asserts that "Google routinely and systematically heavily promotes its own services in search results." However, the only instances Google does that is when its technology can find a quick answer. As Google states, a "truly great search is all about turning your needs into actions in the blink of an eye." Studies have shown that speed increases satisfaction when it comes to technology, and Google, like any other company, is focused on consumer satisfaction.
Even if that still does not convince you of its effectiveness, Microsoft's Bing and other search engines have implemented what Google has done; they promote their own services, as +Search Engine Land has pointed out in this article (as well as the FTC in their press conference, stating that "Google's search engine rivals engaged in many of the same product design choices that Google did, suggesting that this practice can benefit consumers"). Search Engine Land visualizes what this exactly means.
Search Engine Land continues,
That's [above] a side-by-side comparison I [Search Engine Land] did of how Google (on the left) and Bing (on the right) both 'favor' themselves in various ways... Pick your search, and you can find Bing or Yahoo 'favoring' themselves in all the same ways that Google is accused of.
So Microsoft's point is invalid - it's an industry standard, and is obviously proven to improve the quality of search results for consumers.
But then, Heiner continues his harassment by stating, "Is Google+ really more relevant than Facebook?" Presumably, this is an allusion to Google's inclusion of information from its own properties into its organic search engine, as part of its effort in Universal and social search, also dubbed Search, Plus Your World. That may be a valid point, but really is not valid at all. For one, no one can judge the relevance of a search engine, except for the creator. If the quality of the search engine is poor, users will automatically leave. Any other individual has a biased view on the "relevance" of a search engine. Secondly, the reason Facebook (and Twitter) information are not included in the search results actually links back to Facebook and Twitter themselves. Both (Facebook to a larger degree) are walled gardens and have not given Google explicit permission to be included in the search result, as +Eric Schmidt once explained in this video.
Google commented specifically on Twitter when the microblog criticized Google's "Search, Plus Your World" after their agreement giving Google access to Twitter's public tweets expired. Google stated that they were "a bit surprised by Twitter's comments, because they chose not to renew their agreement with us [Google] last summer... sine then we have observed their rel=nofollow instructions." That is code that prevents search engines from following links, as Mashable details in this article.
As Schmidt and Google have expressed, they'd like and be happy to include information from Facebook and other sites in their universal search engine. That is simply not possible at this time. Google's mission is to "organize the world's information," not to organize information on Google only.
Heiner is not done yet. He continues to try and (unsuccessfully) deal a blow to Google by bringing up shopping, asserting that "Google ranks shopping results (the most important category commercially) in part on the basis of how much advertisers pay Google for placement, after very publicly promising that it would never do so. This does not sound like product improvement."
Wait for it. Microsoft does the exact same thing. Once again, Search Engine Land has an article detailing Microsoft's pure anti-Google campaign, ignoring the fact that it has the same practices. The article goes so far as to say "Bing is hardly in a position to be lecturing Google about poor disclosure and charging for listings, when it has the same issues."
In fact, Microsoft is even more deceptive when it comes to this issue, as Search Engine Land notes.
The key difference is that Google's results have a 'Sponsored' disclaimer over it, one that even expands with more information if you hover over the label (though few likely do this). Bing has no such disclaimer, despite the fact that some of its listings come through merchants paying to appear."
All three accusations of Google biasing search results have seen Microsoft and Bing do the exact same thing, even going so far as to outright copy what Google does. Heiner and Co. should work on gathering the right facts to ensure they don't do the same thing it accuses others of doing it. How can Microsoft say it is immoral if they commit to the same things?
The True Intent of Microsoft and FairSearch
As Earl Warren once said, "The focus of our law is on protecting competition, not competitors." Microsoft, and the rest of FairSearch have tried to use regulators to stop Google's success. Google became an integral part of the Internet because consumers chose to use it, and continue to find it valuable, not because they were forced. Competition is a click away, and the Internet remains the ultimate level playing field.
Ironically, at the time of writing this post, the only comments on the blog from Microsoft's Heiner were those negatively directed at Microsoft, not Google.
Ricardo, on the Microsoft blog had this to say.
I actually didn't know about this whole deal with Google and FTC, and as I read more about it, it became quite blatant that the whole thing was schemed by Microsoft... That's a shady move, wasting government money on a dead end investing just to stifle competition... Anyway, now that I'm aware of your practices, I won't take the bait anymore, and in my company, what has windows already, will stay as it is, and will take a look on what the competition has to offer. You lost a customer today, not by the merit of the competition, but by your practices...
Gaurav states something similar.
Microsoft never did anything useful and stole or bought technology from others. Now you are crying fowl when you agree not capable of innovation. In the long run no one ever won with scheming and cheating. Grow up MS and learn to improve your own products else consumers would just leave you in totality...
Donal McIntyre also comes to the defense of Google.
Google didn't have to modify its practices in search because there was nothing to modify. One thing is to use anti-trust law to protect the public from monopolistic practices and another to protect competitors offering worse products and services. Anti trust is not to protect losing rivals its to protect consumers. ONLY anti-trust may be used to favor competitors if that leads to better products at lower prices. For now Google is offering the best search products at the best prices (zero $).
ReadWriteWeb, on its own article, even called Microsoft's failure to convince antitrust regulators to take action against Google as "the biggest disappointment in Microsoft's history."
After a 19-month investigation and despite much prodding from Microsoft, the Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement with Google that basically amounts to a slap on the wrist.
This is a crushing blow to Microsoft, which has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists and phony grassroots groups over the past several years hoping to land Google in hot water.
Indeed, Microsoft's obsession with Google doesn't just border on crazy. It is crazy, and not just a little tiny bit crazy but full-blown, bunny-boiling, Ahab-versus-the-whale nutso.
...here in the States, the whole campaign is starting to look not just evil but also ridiculous and even pathetic, a failed crusade that smacks of revenge and failure and sad psychodrama.
Perhaps the ending to the article is the best.
Microsoft has spent the past 10 years missing out on every big new trend - search, social, mobile. Instead of looking inward and trying to fix its own problems, Microsoft has become ever more obsessed with Google.
The crusade extends to PR as well. Last year Microsoft hired Mark Penn, the pollster and PR guy who led Hillary Clinton's 2008 train wreck of a campaign. Penn's mission is to create smear campaigns about Google. One of his big brainstorms was the "Scroogled" campaign which tried to persuade people that Google's search results are tainted by advertising... it even created a site, scroogled.com, and urged people to complain about Google on Facebook.
Then came the "Droid Rage" ploy, where Microsoft used its Windows Phone account on Twitter to ask Android users to send in Android malware stories to win a prize. The campaign backfired when Android fans used the hashtag to mock Microsoft.
Going negative might work in politics, but when you're selling products it's probably wiser to tout the virtues of your own product. The risk Microsoft is taking is that by howling about Google, Microsoft starts to look like a company that can no longer compete, a desperate dinosaur that has toppled into a tar pit... Keep up the great work, Microsoft.
That article summarized everything so perfectly there really is nothing else to say.
Google's Statement Regarding the FTC's Findings
Larry and Sergey founded Google because they believed that building a great search experience would improve people's lives. And in the decade-plus that's followed, Google has worked hard to make it quicker and easier for users to find what they need. In the early days you would type in a query, we'd return 10 blue links and you'd have to click on them individually to find what you wanted. Today we can save you the hassle by providing direct answers to your questions, as well as links to other sites. So if you type in [weather in san francisco], or [tom hanks movies], we now give you the answer right from the results page - because truly great search is all about turning your needs into actions in the blink of an eye.
The announcement by the FTC is welcomed, and allows Google to re-focus all of its operations back on the user. Microsoft can continue to attempt portraying Google as an evil company, but consumers will be smarter than to just accept that view. Information is available everywhere now for consumers to research, thanks to the power of your preferred search engine.
