
Google CEO Is Tired of Rivals, Laws, Wants to Start His Own Country - wikiburner
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/15/larry_page_io_keynote_google_ceo_blasts_microsoft_oracle_laws_and_the_media.html
======
gkoberger
A few random thoughts:

* "he left out the part where Google recently sent Microsoft a cease-and-desist letter demanding that it remove the YouTube app from its Windows Phones" has nothing to do with interoperating, but rather Microsoft not showing ads (among other infractions).

* "Mozilla guy" is Dan Buchner (<https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dandonkulous>), who's working with Google on web components. [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2cpEUw1...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2cpEUw1o24cJ:https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/05/speed-up-app-development-with-x-tag-and-web-components/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

Larry gave an impressive non-answer to the relatively basic question ("Hey,
any chance web technologies will replace Java on Android?"), and went off on
quite the interesting tangent about just about everything.

I can only assume he's been wanting to say these things for a while, and
jumped on basically the first open ended question he got. I bet the Google PR
team was freaking out a bit.

~~~
CloudNine
>has nothing to do with interoperating, but rather Microsoft not showing ads
(among other infractions).

Says who? Microsoft offered to show ads but Google refuses to give them access
to the API since almost 3 years.

Perhaps you haven't read this story because Google fanboys on HN are flagging
it heavily to keep HN readers like you in the dark.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5715889>

~~~
ok_craig
You realize that if ads are required by the TOS, but you don't have the
ability to include ads, that it doesn't mean it's just okay to ignore the TOS
and distribute the app anyway?

Whether it's fair or not for Google to not provide a way to include ads is a
different argument entirely. It sounds like it's just not even technically
legal for MS to distribute their YouTube app in its current state.

~~~
recoiledsnake
>You realize that if ads are required by the TOS, but you don't have the
ability to include ads, that it doesn't mean it's just okay to ignore the TOS
and distribute the app anyway?

Microsoft developers didn't have to read and accept the TOS to access Youtube
videos. Perhaps they're trying the legal precedent of the equivalent of 'clean
room reverse engineering".

Is it legal for Mozilla to distribute Adblock on their site which is a program
that disables Youtube and Google ads and hurts content creators?

Would Mozilla be forced to remove it from <https://addons.mozilla.org> if
Google sends a C&D to them?

>It sounds like it's just not even technically legal for MS to distribute
their YouTube app in its current state.

So what? Google can sue them for billions and win and stop all Windows Phone
users from easy access to YouTube videos despite their stated mission of
"Organize the world's information and make it accessible to everyone".

Not sure why you're so worried about Microsoft's finances, they have 75
billion in the bank and some pretty good lawyers. No wonder they snuck in a
"download video" button too. The WP Youtube app is the best Youtube app on
mobile platforms because of that.

~~~
ok_craig
Nothing you said is actually a justification for MS's actions.

> Is it legal for Mozilla to distribute Adblock on their site which is a
> program that disables Youtube and Google ads and hurts content creators?

Yes. This is because AdBlock is a service that modifies the way your own
browser - your property - works. It is not in itself a service that pulls
YouTube content from YouTube.

For this same reason, it is available even in the Chrome Web Store itself.

I don't understand how you can say "so what" to pointing out that one of these
companies is acting illegally, and expect to be taken seriously.

Also I think you meant to say "Google" in your last sentence instead of
"Microsoft"? I can't tell and it doesn't seem to make sense otherwise.

------
srik
Jesus, that was some serious word-twisting. It was an impromptu response and
IMO they should be weighed with the spirit more than the words in mind.

Given the benefit of doubt, I can totally see where Larry was coming from. In
fact it seemed bold and even slightly refreshing to hear him convey his
thoughts without the usual restrictions. Industry wide conversations start
these ways and examination of a problem is crucial before we can attempt to
solve it.

~~~
eupharis
/agreed

This is one of the most breathtaking biased pieces I've seen in a very long
time. This guy really, really doesn't like Google. Or maybe just Larry Page.

Edit:

By the same writer:

In the same vein as this "story", a bizarre caption in a "story" covering Eric
Schmidt's Guardian op-ed suggesting civilian drones are a bad idea:

"Google CEO Eric Schmidt knows what's best for us."

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/04/15/ban_civil...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/04/15/ban_civilian_drones_google_ceo_eric_schmidt_cites_privacy_security_risks.html)

I glanced through the first 10 pages of his other stories on Slate. They
aren't all rabidly anti-Google. Though he does seem to hold the _founders_ of
Google in special disdain for some reason.

Now I'm more inclined to think this is simple link-baiting, not bias. He'll
say anything for the clicks. Which seems like a common trend on Slate these
days. I remember the days when Slate had some really excellent original
journalism.

------
linuxhansl
Why the negative slant in this article?

Personally I want more folks to spread ideas similar to Larry's. (Whether he
meant it or not is impossible to know of course)

~~~
AJ007
I don't have a very positive view of Google, but it was obvious that article
was written solely to be a headline grabber.

------
dvt
"To recap, Page criticized Microsoft for treating Google as a rival, blasted
Oracle for caring too much about money, and then whined about everyone being
so negative. Heck, if it weren’t for those other companies standing in the
way, Google would have probably already solved world hunger."

I mean, pretty much this (assuming the above was facetious). The Youtube thing
really made me lose a lot of hope in Google as a company. Even though, I feel
that we've made great strides in the past 10 years, I can't help but be
reminded that:

1) I have people on my Facebook that I can't add to my phone without some
ridiculous hacks (that essentially scrape FB, breaking the TOS) - thanks
Facebook

2) I can't use GMail in the vanilla mail app on my touchscreen W8 laptop -
thanks Google

3) I can't have a Metro Chrome app - thanks Google

4) My sister can't have almost anything (native) Google-related on her ARM-
based W8RT tablet - thanks Microsoft

5) I can't have a distro-agnostic framework that "just works" for
downloading/updating/installing/uninstalling Linux packages - thanks FOSS
infighting cliques

6) I don't have full control over my Android/Apple phone, over my
Android/Apple/Windows tablet, (and soon over my Google glass) unless I root
said devices

This is simply a consumer-space extension of the legal battles that these
companies are so fond of (see Samsung vs. Apple). The sad part is, it's
probably going to get worse before it gets better. Oh, well.. c'est la vie.

~~~
jmillikin
2 - Gmail supports SMTP and IMAP, so any mail client should work. The top hit
for [windows 8 gmail] is [http://www.redmondpie.com/how-to-configure-mail-in-
windows-8...](http://www.redmondpie.com/how-to-configure-mail-in-
windows-8-gmail-hotmail-outlook-yahoo/) , which indicates that the Windows 8
mail app has an icon specifically for configuring Gmail accounts.

3 - According to [http://blog.chromium.org/2012/06/try-chrome-in-metro-
mode.ht...](http://blog.chromium.org/2012/06/try-chrome-in-metro-mode.html) ,
Chrome has supported Metro since June 2012 when running on a non-RT version of
Windows. Computers running Windows 8 RT can't run any browser in Metro mode
(see [http://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2012/05/09/windows-on-arm-
users...](http://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2012/05/09/windows-on-arm-users-need-
browser-choice-too/) ), so it's not like Google has a choice there.

6 - To root a device means to gain full control over it. It's not obvious how
you could have full control over your phone without rooting it.

~~~
icambron
> It's not obvious how you could have full control over your phone without
> rooting it.

It could come with root access enabled, just like your computer does.

~~~
jmillikin
From a security and reliability perspective, having root enabled by default is
a terrible idea. The arms race between OS vendors and malware developers means
that defaulting root to disabled is both desirable and inevitable.

Only root can install malware into the kernel or BIOS. Only root can pull keys
and passwords out of /dev/mem. Only root can damage an installation beyond the
ability to factory reset.

I eagerly await the day when every major OS will require jumping over some
basic hurdle (e.g. rebooting into single-user mode and running /sbin/root-me-
harder) before enabling root access, because that will eliminate entire
categories of security risks from consumer-oriented computing.

~~~
nileshtrivedi
Which of these arguments does not apply to computers?

~~~
jmillikin
I don't understand your question. Just so it's clear, I consider smartphones
and tablets to be computers also, and I hope that one day all computers
(desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones, watches, goggles, Borg implants)
come with root-equivalent access disabled by default.

~~~
nileshtrivedi
Fair enough.

------
enraged_camel
Considering how big of a lie Google's "Don't do evil" motto has become, are we
supposed to believe that Page really wants to solve problems and make progress
by cooperating with other companies?

You have to have consumed quite a bit of the "Goolaid" to be able to take his
ramblings seriously.

~~~
riggins
_Considering how big of a lie Google's "Don't do evil" motto_

Genuinely curious here, what are the things that google has done that people
think are evil? Maybe as a follow-up, what corporations do you think make a
greater positive impact than google?

~~~
QuantumGood
Google's evil activity cost them half BILLION dollars when a gov't sting
uncovered it: <http://bit.ly/14osMvb>

~~~
burntsushi
I'm hesitant to call anything evil just for being caught in the cross-hairs of
the drug laws in the US.

~~~
enraged_camel
I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, but... did you read the god damn
article? _Google actively helped scammers sell fake pharmaceuticals._ How is
that not the definition of evil?

~~~
burntsushi
Yes, I read the article. Did you? The sting wasn't to catch Google helping
scammers, but to catch Google knowingly helping people sell illicit drugs.

~~~
enraged_camel
I guess I don't see the distinction you are trying to make. Google
representatives helped Whitetaker sell illegal, often fake drugs, often times
giving him feedback on how he could circumvent the company's own policies and
various detection algorithms. In other words, Google acted in an evil manner.

~~~
burntsushi
> I guess I don't see the distinction you are trying to make.

I already told you: "I'm hesitant to call anything evil just for being caught
in the cross-hairs of the drug laws in the US." If you think that violating
the drugs laws (or helping someone to do so) in the US is evil, then we have a
fundamental disagreement.

From my reading of the article, the sting wasn't to find out if Google was
knowingly helping scams---just that they were knowingly helping someone sell
illegal drugs.

~~~
enraged_camel
The problem is not that the drugs were illegal. The problem was that they were
fake. That is evil. Furthermore, scamming people is evil as well, since it
involves taking advantage of them.

~~~
burntsushi
> The problem is not that the drugs were illegal.

Yes, it was. The entire article is about setting up a sting to catch Google
helping people sell illicit drugs.

> The problem was that they were fake.

I'm running out of ways to explain this to you: the sting showed no evidence
that Google knew that the drugs were fake---only that they knew that they were
trying to sell illegal drugs.

There are two competing ideas going on here:

1) Google knowingly facilitated the sale of illegal drugs.

2) Google knowingly facilitated scammers.

From what I could tell, the article demonstrated (1) but not (2). I don't
think (1) is evil. I _do_ think (2) is evil. So if you disagree with my
interpretation of the article, at least you can be satisfied that we agree on
something.

------
No1
The quotes from Larry are interesting, the juvenile commentary that surrounds
them is not.

------
doktrin
As much as I philosophically agree, and _want_ to agree with much of the
sentiment being evoked here ("solve problems", "cooperation", "progress",
etc.), I can't help but shake the feeling there's a shark out there currently
being jumped by a vibram-sporting surfer.

~~~
rayiner
It's so weird you say that, because the first thing that came to my mind
reading those quotes was Fonzie in swim trunks.

------
moultano
Folks who are tired of lazy cynicism and spiteful snark might prefer to read
this one: [http://gizmodo.com/larry-page-reminded-us-why-we-love-
google...](http://gizmodo.com/larry-page-reminded-us-why-we-love-google-
today-506915269)

------
erikpukinskis
I identify with this.

I want to produce food for myself and my community on my property, and build
structures that make efficient use of space for occupancy, and these things
are extremely illegal.

~~~
random42
Not a US citizen here.

Is growing food for community is illegal? is it due to the FDA requirements?

------
nvrmor
Here's the Q&A for those who didn't see it

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfK8h73bb-o>

------
sliderpilot
Larry Page seems to be in denial that Google is different from Microsoft or
Oracle. For the most part Google doesn't care about collaboration or
innovation. What they care about is increasing their mass, by offering an ever
increasing number of products & services, in order to attract more eyeballs to
view ads.

What value is Google creating by making another subscription music service
with a similar catalog size at the same price as existing companies?

What radical innovation has Google+ Hangouts incorporated that doesn't exist
with Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp & Skype?

Why does the Chromebook Pixel look so much like a boxy Macbook Pro?

Just like Microsoft, they aren't trendsetters, they follow and copy what
others are doing and use their brand recognition in order to gain market
share.

Larry says "you can't focus on zero-sum games", but that is exactly what
Google is doing. Maybe not for a specific industry ( Messaging, Music, etc ),
but they are interested in winning the zero-sum game of people's attention.

If Google can spread itself across as many industries as possible, not
necessary being the market leader of a specific industry, and take slices of
people's attention here and there, they'll win the attention game.

Google embraces collaboration/standardization because it means a lower barrier
of entry into another industry for them.

------
lmarinho
Maybe he can try starting a charter city.

------
DuskStar
Well, if Google decides to found a new country akin to Bioshock's Rapture, I
don't think they'll lack for volunteer citizens...

But even for Google, founding a country would be enormously difficult. So even
if Page genuinely wanted to, it won't happen this decade. Whether it should is
a different issue.

------
taylodl
These are big words considering Google is the biggest thief in the history of
the world. But who cares about intellectual property anyway?

------
seanlinmt
Beta testing a new country? East Timor comes to mind. It's a fairly young
independent country. Maybe the newest actually.

~~~
yen223
South Sudan is the newest :)

------
waltz
I want to live there ;_;

------
tdiggity
Google city - self driving cars only, please.

------
CloudNine
Copy pasta from someone else's HN comment on Google sending cease and desist
to MS for Youtube story:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5715889>

From Google's About page: "Google’s mission is to organize the world’s
information and make it universally accessible and useful."

Last time when Google was intentionally blocking Google maps and then
deprecated ActiveSync on Windows Phone someone suggested Google should updated
it to the following:(which seems quite true given how much of the world's
crowdsourced video content is on YouTube):

"Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it
universally accessible and useful, except on Windows Phone".

------
yekko
I hope Google moves to Texas!

