DrunkenBlog

Much ado about Google

In my continuing quest to cut a swath through my inbox this evening instead of doing what I said I'd do to others, I'm noticing people keep asking why they can't post a blogspot or google url in the comments, and I really need something I can just link to instead of having to reply, as due to time they're getting shorter and shorter, and it'll eventually be mistaken for being terse. It basically comes down to two things...

• I like google, but they have a serious, serious spam problem with blogspot that they need to put their PHD's to work on straight quick as its starting to give blogspot a bad name. It's just that bad, to the point where if I left blogspot URLs go through, despamming would be a nightmare. I tried it for awhile, and then realized it wasn't my problem. Yes they cleaned house a little bit recently, but whatever they're doing, it isn't nearly enough.*

• Someone is out there spamming with the google.com URL itself. I have no idea why, and haven't put any thought into it, but I'm not going to sit there adding it to the blacklist to despam and then removing it. Safari can't even handle loading the MT-Blacklist with any decent speed, so I can either watch it churn for a few minutes or copy and paste the link to Camino/FireFox, and it's just not worth it.

I said TrackBack was going to go awhile ago, but then it eased up quite a bit which caused dealing with it to go way down on the priority list and may have given it a false sense of security.

In my heart of hearts I'm probably putting off because as as I mentioned, I really love the idea of TrackBack. However, something has caused it to pick up in a big way over the last few days and it's on such borrowed time. If I could yank it out right now by mentally wishing it so and not having to spend any time on making sure the ones there weren't affected, I'd do so.

*Google is getting a bit of a bad rap on the Mac lately, primarily because Mac users feel a sense of entitlement when something big comes out and its not being demo'd at MacWorld first, even if it ends up shipping on other platforms first.

We saw this with Gmail also, which didn't support Safari well initially, and I think Google also got a bit of a bad rap. At the time, Safari couldn't use JavaScript to beat its way out of a paper bag, and Gmail worked well in Firefox and such. It was Safari's problem (most things are) -- and hence Apple's -- not Gmail's or Google's. It was an early beta service, where they were trying to figure out what might be wrong with their system, not dealing with a bunch of people having problems with a browser that just couldn't handle what they were expecting of it, so it made a lot of sense to throw up a flag saying "Don't even try."

I can barely use anything cool on Yahoo, even though its generally Java, simply because they went with the path of least resistance and most functionality and started mixing it all with ActiveX.

Considering how freaking low the Mac installed base is (Don't talk to me about OS9 installed boxes and such, as they can't handle the modern web that well anyways), while it's a tough pill to swallow, there are real freaking consequences to being "The BMW of computer makers." One has to accept that a company doesn't care about the Mac, let alone hate it, simply because they're having problems figuring out how it makes a lot of business sense for them to bend over backwards to support it.

If anything, at this point Mac users are in luck at FireFox making inroads on Linux, and Linux starting to surpass it share, because it can't do ActiveX either without a bunch of hoops no one is going to mess with. I wanted to scream at seeing Mac users berate a company for building software that works if your browser does what its supposed to do on the box.

Anywho, I can't get annoyed at Google not having a Mac client when I keep in mind that:

• They've all but said there'll be a Mac client eventually.

• I have it on good authority that they're very serious about this, considering several people I know personally were approached to work on it, and Google's been approaching people for awhile. They're not interested in just throwing over a half-assed port. Amusingly enough, some of the other IM companies have gotten wind of this, so expect another service's client to soon be all but rewritten.

• They bought a company that had Windows-only tech, and retooled it to do what they needed within a timetable that makes sense for them. If a company is given the choice between shipping for 95% of the world's computers, or putting it on hold until they can create a team to create a Mac version, in a market segment that is getting more saturated and important by the day, I just don't have it in me to get annoyed at them for choosing the former.

• They went out of their way to show alternative ways of accessing their service via applications like AdiumX or Fire.app or iChat. I know first hand they've made overtures to several people in the OSS-client community, and I'm told much involved helping them work towards GTalk-client features working with alternative clients. Like say, voice.

In all honesty, it would be hard for me to fault Google for stopping at the last and telling you to use iChat if you want to access GTalk. The Windows market is so competitive that if you're going to play there, any resources diverted towards another platform are resources you're not using to compete on the platform ~95% of the world uses, which is a tough sell unless you:

• Have decided you really can't compete in Windows, and are hoping to God you can cut it on an alternative platform where there is less competition. *cough* Corel *cough*

• Actually like the Mac, and want to see it supported, but have to be reasonable about it while dealing with users who refuse to be rational about the situation.

I'm not saying you should view Google as the end-all-be-all, and that everything they touch is gold and pure of heart. Google is a public company, and as such has to play within predefined rulesets, like maximizing shareholder value, or the entire management can get sued.

If you're big enough and raking in enough for the shareholders, they'll overlook some luxuries and pet projects, but if you screw up they're there to take out their pound of flesh, as its their money that's being played with and they invested it because they want growth and returns.

Because all public companies have to play within certain rules, you can't ever turn your back on them, because they never have your interests at heart, it's just that those in the "best" companies have a habit of finding a way to play so that the company's interests and the consumer's interests to line up more often than not. Management is worthless unless it sucks.

What I'm saying is that there are a lot of things to fault Google for dropping the ball on. Personally, I think about the only thing recommending GTalk over something else is the name, and if you're a blogspot user who doesn't want to hang your head in shame as you go about the web, you should be hounding them to do whatever it takes to make their system not such a favorite of spammers.

Hell, judging by its bugginess and just general whatever-ness, I'm wondering if they've forgotten their Orkut even exists... I just fail to see how its fair to rake them over the coals when it appears they're doing the best they can within the rules they're obligated to play with.

 Posted by drunkenbatman
    September 23, 2005, at 05:19 AM