By Rob Beschizza at 1:14 pm Tue, Aug 10, 2010
How come everyone is ignoring Verizon’s part in this? It’s like, “Well OF COURSE Verizon is evil. They’re a phone company. It’s what they do.”
For all we know, Google’s role in the talks was to get Verizon to be significantly less evil.
Why is everyone forgetting that Google was alone fighting the telecos with the FCC being useless and other internet companies just shying away for the debate.
Don’t be evil. Unless, you know, it’s convenient or whatever.
“Google could have…” “Google didn’t…” “Google should have…” – How many sentences in this editorial start out with those words or similar ones?? This is so biased and one-sided that I cannot read it in one sitting. Not to mention half of the facts in this article appear to be no longer true, even though this was written just two days ago.
Granted, the word in 2009 was that T-Mobile forced Google to remove tethering capabilities, yet my un-rooted TMOBILE android phone still is able to function as a modem for my laptop today, just days after this article was written (Which I use almost DAILY). The “unremovable bloatware” has seen no home on my tmobile phone or my roommates Droid. In fact,the only T-Mobile related app on my phone (that is SINGULAR) is the tmobile market app, which was an extra download, and by NO means on my phone when I got it. This is yet another example of how technology has spoiled all of us. We have become too used to the idea that we should be able to do everything instantly. The ideas and remedies discussed that are ‘so easy’ for Google to do are not financially feasible nor prudent. “Well, if I ran the place, this is what I would do!” – hindsight’s 20/20, eh?
There is no such thing as delayed gratification anymore, it would seem. But hey, maybe my business degree has turned me to the dark side, and I’m completely wrong.
**If you’re going to write an op-ed, label it as such, and please check your facts. This is merely one’s opinion, not a true article.**
Hey, remember when phones were used…to make phone calls?
(Disclosure: ex-Googler here)
I really wish they’d explained the motivation more. It seems the argument was simply “Google could make more money by ensuring it’s the dominant search engine on the dominant platform”. And that could very well be true, and could make perfect sense. But doesn’t strike me as enough of a motivating reason (yes, I am aware that it’s a publicly-traded company) for them to give up on the grander plans they’d already started on..
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin