
Let's Face Facts: Google Isn't So Open At Times Either  - peter123
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100610/1358039772.shtml
======
1010011010
The difference is that google search is a service, and the ipod and iphones
are products. Once a person buys an ipod/iphone, it is their property. It
would be nice if the owner of an item could do whatever he wants with it --
for example, install any particular piece of software on it, without needing
for Apple, who no longer owns the device, to approve that action.

Google search, on the other hand, is a service provided by Google, not a
product to be purchased. Google runs it at enormous expense. For you to be
able to use google results to make money by running your own ads, without
paying google for the use of their service, is not at all the same as the
situation with the ipod/iphone.

You _can_ use google results and run your own ads, of course, you just have to
partner with Google to do it and pay them for the use of their service.

I think the author is confusing "open" with "no cost".

------
birken
In other news, ebay doesn't let me put their auctions on my website, nor does
NYT let me put their stories on my website. This article is basically saying
Google should open up its search results so other people can profit off
Google's work. Google would rather profit themselves, as I'm sure all of their
shareholders would agree.

And this is doubly a poor example because by keeping their results "closed,"
Google didn't destroy the idea of open search results. Yahoo was happy to step
in with their BOSS service, and if you are looking for an open search API you
are free to use that, something which makes Yahoo + Google happy.

------
gaiusparx
Google is playing the open card for sure. Anyone who believe that a
corporation as big as Google can do no evil must be xxxx. People and politics
are what the evil made. It only make sense that they are open only where it
doesn't hurt.

------
sprout
No, Google isn't so open at times.

That said I don't think this is a good example. Is he really suggesting that
Google create and maintain a separate API in addition to the ones that they
already offer? SaaS is a fundamentally different ballgame. No one is asking
Apple to let people run whatever code they want to interface with MobileMe.
Just on the hardware they've purchased.

Also interfacing with the hardware they've purchased.

