Archive for the ‘Google’ Category

More Disingenuous BS on FeedBurner

Monday, July 23rd, 2007

Dave’s real concern about FeedBurner having been laid bare, he has written a new post to try to pave it over.

The whole thing is predicated on logic so poor that it demonstrates either abject stupidity or extreme disingenuousness. I don’t think Dave is stupid, so I have to assume he’s deliberately trying to muddy the waters here. (The third option, I guess, is that he’s so blinded by his dislike for Google that he’s highly paranoid)

He claims that he’s worried about “tying” FeedBurner feeds to Google Reader. The argument is “Google could make it so that google reader only accepts feedburner feeds!” Sure, they could. And they would almost instantly lose their membership on Google Reader to a different feed reader. I’d export my feeds and head right back to FeedDemon the minute that happened. So would a lot of other people. And that’s assuming that Google would even do that. To try to support this argument, Dave provides the following:

It could end up meaning “doesn’t work at all.” It’s quite possible in the second or third iteration that Google drops support for non-Feedburner feeds. It wouldn’t be unprecedented, far from it. Google Blogoscoped created a long list of Google products that “prefer” other Google products. I’ve never seen Google not do this when they had the chance. The instant they bought Blogger they tied it to their toolbar. If they had used an open API the toolbar would have worked with all blogging tools. Google just doesn’t think that way, sorry to say.

They “tied” Blogger to their Toolbar. By “tied” he means “added some features to toolbar that work well wtih blogger.” The Toolbar is not required to use Blogger. Having a blogger blog is not required to get the Toolbar. So these two things are not even “tied” in any real sense of the word. Let’s assume, arguendo, that they are.

Google didn’t make other things work worse with the toolbar. They didn’t make Blogger work worse with other external blogging tools. Speaking in economic terms, they didn’t reduce anyone’s utility. All they did was add utility to a certain pairing of services.

This is totally different from making Google Reader only work for FeedBurner feeds, which would clearly reduce the utility of Reader’s users.

So his example is worthless and his logic is flawed beyond repair.

The only thing left is paranoid FUD: “OMG! They could break everything!!1″

…doesn’t the OPML Editor have an “auto update” feature? Couldn’t Dave send down an update to delete all of the data of people who speak positively or Google? Or negatively of him?

Shouldn’t we be rallying against that?

Dave and Google Gears

Thursday, May 31st, 2007

So Dave has, once again, taken the attitude that someone else’s new creation is No Big Deal because he has done something like that before. This most recent act of self-aggrandizing hubris is in regards to the new Google Gears launch. Dave writes:

I read that Google is going to announce a toolkit today that lets you run web apps on a disconnected machine. Something we had working in Radio in 2001. The key is something called a desktop web server. Nothing revolutionary about it.

Ignoring the fact that Dave goes thermonuclear if anyone insinuates that RSS was no big deal because people had done it before, he’s just wrong. Gears, while having some of the same effects, is not just a replica of Radio. There are some big differences.

The most important of which is that Gears is a browser extension, not a full webserver install. It doesn’t lock you in to a platform or require you to learn to code through Dave’s virtual chicken scratch. Radio didn’t allow for “offline” websites, it simply kept a replica of a server so that you never were offline. Similar net result, but not the same thing.

Of course, this kind of response is no surprise. Google is evil, remember? So the most insulting thing Dave can think of to do is to take credit for getting there first. Google won’t need to reply… in a month Gears will have wider distribution than Radio ever did.

Dave’s Users vs. Google’s Users

Friday, January 26th, 2007

When Dave reads a blog that has a feature that annoys him — SnapPreviews, for example — he wants (as a user) a way to modify the content offered by the blog author to suit his tastes.

When someone else is bothered by a feature on his blog — that addresses he lists aren’t linked, for example — he gripes about any tool that lets users modify the content he authors to suit their tastes.

Hypocritical position #871: Dave wants more control over the content he reads than he thinks his readers should be allowed to have.

Motives & Features

Saturday, December 30th, 2006

If everyone evaluated the actions of every company the way Dave evaluates Google’s, we’d have some of the most boring and bland applications.

I stopped believing in Google fairplay when they added a Blog-This feature to their toolbar, and didn’t use open APIs so users could post with any blogging tool, not just Google’s.

A quick investigation of google’s Blog-This feature shows that it works like this:

  1. Clicking the link executes a javascript function
  2. The function grabs the selection from the blog entry
  3. It then passes you along to the blogger “post a new entry” page with the selection in the querystring.

That’s it. It expects you to be logged in. It doesn’t pop up some swanky box in order to post to you blog via AJAX. It doesn’t do ANYTHING except provide a modest shortcut between a blogger blog and a blogger administration tool. This is useful for communities of Blogger users. It’s not useful for anyone else.

In Dave’s world, though, Google wouldn’t have implmented this feature at all. They wouldn’t be allowed to unless they made it work with any blog on the planet. The fact is that Google didn’t see a feature and think this was the best way to do it… someone thought “Hey… with a few quick lines of code we can add a small feature to blogger!” and so they did it. It probably took 20 minutes.

Creating a bridge from a blogger blog to any other blogging system is a feature that’d take days of development, testing, and error handling. They wouldn’t have gone to that much trouble.

There might be 100 people who use BlogThis right now… and in Dave’s world, those people get shorted a feature because Google doesn’t want people like Dave to think that they’re evil.

Once again we see Dave ascribing malicious motives to an entity that he dislikes without any sort of evidence for it. Pray tell, Dave, if this is such a desirable feature — one that requires us to think Google is evil — why can’t I click a “blog this” link on Scripting News and post direct to EyeOnWiner?

Motive, Motive, Motive

Sunday, December 24th, 2006

If you ask Dave, Google’s profit motive is keeping them from taking “the next big step in search”. Of course, if you ask him, profit motive is what’s keeping everyone from doing great things in every industry. He harps on it so often that he almost sounds bitter. As usual, though, his facts are a little weak:

Today Google’s profits come from ads, and that business gives them a reason to keep search weak. They want you to do a lot of searching to find what you’re looking for — and the stuff they find for you for free is competing with the stuff they make money on. So Google actually has a disincentive to make search better.

Necessary assumption: “the stuff they find for you for free is competing with the stuff they make money on.”

Truth of that assumption: theoretically true. practically false.

In reality, studies have shown that 5 out of 6 people cannot or do not differentiate between sponsored text links in search results and the actual search results themselves. So, sure, it stands to reason that those little text links are keeping Google’s search down, but the facts just don’t support it.

Google could have the most efficient search in the world, and the only time it would help would be when someone has a specific site in mind. The rest of the time google would still enjoy almost 85% of people clicking on their sponsored links. And the reputational gain from people finding exactly what they’re looking for immediately would earn them an even greater share of the search market.

NewsRiver BS

Sunday, August 27th, 2006

So… Dave has a lot of things to say this “new” idea of his to repackage other people’s content. Of course, as soon as someone points out that it isn’t new, he says “Well, no, but I’m the one who is making it popular.”

Heaven help you, though, if you make an idea of his popular and try to take the credit for it.

Even if we ignore the fact that these “newsrivers” are (in violation of a lot of licenses) repackaging content and infringing on trademarks (via domain name)… let’s look at the hypocrisy of it. Dave hates that users can choose to click an autolink button and change his content by adding links.

Yet he has no problem changing someone else’s content and then serving it up to unsuspecting readers as though nothing has changed.

Dave is doing significantly more harm here than Google was.

Under Dave’s Radar?

Friday, June 16th, 2006

Wired News has an article today suggesting that Yahoo is the most strict censor in China — even more strict than the government itself. Now… what do you want to bet that this flies completely under Dave’s radar?

I mean… wouldn’t that make Google look a little better? Odds are good that if he does mention it, it will be in order to take a shot ag Google.

How Long

Sunday, June 11th, 2006

How long before dave links to this article, entitled “Google is Killing the Internet” with either a snarky comment, an “I told you so”, or nothing but the title and one of his little winky faces?

C’mon Dave… the fact that you haven’t posted it yet suggests you’re falling off your google-bashing game.

Whoda Thunk It?

Monday, June 5th, 2006

Dave: “I’ve been on Google’s shit list for years“.

Gosh, really? I can’t imagine why.

Dave Pisses on Google Again

Thursday, February 23rd, 2006

He gives Google’s page creator a C… why?

This evening Google launched a totally unremarkable page creator web app. It’s a nice Ajax text editor, with templates, but why isn’t it part of Blogger, or at least connected to Blogger, and where is the feed? The sites have no structure.

Where is the Mind of Google these days? Seems to be back in the mid-90s, re-discovering Geocities. Give me a ring when there’s at least some rudimentary content management in there.

Score: C.

Look, Dave, if you’re making a webpage, it doesn’t need a feed just because it’s on the internet. Feeds are not fundamental parts of everything on the web, they’re tools that can be used in very particular situations to enhance data flow. But more obnoxious than that…

He’s really just pissed that Google has done something. Anything. It doesn’t matter what it is. If Google does it, Dave hates it. Did he point to a better AJAX page editor? No, he complained about how it’s not a part of blogger. As though it would be that easy for Google to just snap their fingers and add a huge feature to blogger. This is a product developed to stand alone. Could it be modified to work on Blogger templates? Yes. Is that why it was developed? Maybe. Is that the point of it at the moment? No.

What if the had made it part of Blogger, would Dave be a fan, then?

He’s probably just irked that some 12 year old can now log into Google’s page-creator and create something in 2 minutes that looks an order of magnitude better than anything Dave’s software products can produce out of the box.