Is Chrome OS to be Trusted?

The problem with Google OS is the problem with Google, except a much bigger deal. Once Google OS becomes your netbook, and once your netbook is all you need, and once you begin trusting Google Apps for all of your major applications, like shopping, reading, searching, writing, talking on the phone, Facebooking, and watching TV, then we have a major problem, America. That means all of our personal 'stuff'we keep suddenly is always online, owned by one or two or three companies, which will probably end up to be Google, Facebook, and maybe, if we're lucky, our bank. These two (or three) companies are probably going to own 90% of our personal information, and use it to make money through advertisements. We will get absolutely zero per cent of that revenue, or at a minimum, probably 1%. Who gets all the rest of the money? The companies. Also, who has access to the information? Only them, and the people we allow to share our personal information with. And that means if they were evil, they could read our personal stuff, hold it hostage, or worse, eventually charge for it. And oh, not just the personal stuff, but they could also charge us for using the computer in the first place, or using the computer services. I see a day when Google is going to give away the computers for free, and then charge for their use. Then who would be the open one, Google or Microsoft? It would have flipped at that point and Microsoft would be seen as the "open" one.

And who is the evil one?

If one were to ask is Google OS to be trusted, my answer would be no.

Is Chrome OS to be Trusted?

Google Adds Speed to Internet and Power to Itself

First search, then Google Ads, then Google Docs, then Google Chome, then Go, then Google Chrome OS, now SPDY. What do these all have in common?

It's the same game Google has played and won before. Killer product attracts users, compel them to make a switch. It's Apple's model too. But it's only Microsoft's motto, however they can't execute because they're just not nimble anymore.

If Google's SPDY is able to compel the "Internet" to move from HTTP after 13 years of limitations, Google truly will own the internet. Corporations should not be allowed to create these web standards or protocols alone, since the one who invents will have the competitive advantage over all others.

This will of course set off alarms at Microsoft, which would not be happy with Google owning the protocol through which all Web sites are transmitted. --switched.com

http://www.switched.com/2009/11/14/google-looks-to-boost-web-speeds-with-spdy/

I have never seen a tech company have such clear vision, ability to influence the future, and so quickly monopolize the web. What happens inside those walls is far from transparent. Public companies should be required to be transparent not just on financials but on corporate responsibility.

Google Dips Its Claws Deeper Into Programming

On the surface, Go sounds fine, however notice that there is little discussion of openness or development process.

Also, with Google owning the Web OS plus the language that built it, who knows what's inside it that will benefit its creator, creating further profit centers.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2355748,00.asp

We are actually thrilled, for a change, to see MSFT pushing Bing innovations.

Google is Like the Taliban

Here is a metaphor you haven't read online yet (maybe).

Google is like the Taliban in many ways. Cut off one of its data centers and it will create two more.

They are taking the term 'redundancy' to a new level. I can see S's aspirational side already.

"You cannot destroy us as we are infinitely redundant."

An insider look at the # of data centers they have, and the number of servers.

They are like a collective brain.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/10/google_caffeine_going_live/

Google Dashboard - More Questions than Answers

The new Google Dashboard seems to be one of those new 'transparency' functionalities that raises more concerning questions than provides helpful solutions to our real privacy concerns. I checked it out and it was pretty useless, and PC World agrees. What we really want is a simple privacy setting - public and private radio checkboxes. Visible versus invisible. Transparent versus hidden. I almost think Facebook gets it more than Google when it comes to public versus private information, though both companies should be watched more closely.

Google's blogpost was weird and insincere.

Thanks PC World for the good article.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/181636/google_dashboard_gives_you_a_degree_of_control.html

Google Wanted to Buy The New York Times

http://googlewatch.eweek.com/content/evil_google/would_google_be_evil_for_buying_the_new_york_times.html