|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> somebody wrote:
> > "Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote
> >
> >> As you maight know for $us. 44.6 Billions. I think Yahoo should stay in
> >> bussiness what do you think?
> >>
> >> I think they're doing fine and is not the money exclusively, is about a
> >> philanthropy/philosophy for service for the humanity,
> >
> > What are you smoking?
> >
> >
>
> What do you have for brains? can you think in something better to write?
well, you should agree that Yahoo! is not "about a philanthropy/philosophy for
service for the humanity". They are at it for the money just as much as M$.
what I can't agree is this much influence, money and power concentrated so
tightly in the hands of a single american company...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
47ae138b@news.povray.org...
> I know Google is the best thing on the Internet for what Google does,
> (Internet and Office tools) but Yahoo! is good enough to stay on The
> Net, IMO.
To make things clear: Google and Yahoo are *** advertising networks ***.
This what they do for a living: sell advertising space and other marketing
services. What they offer - search engines, image banks, email services,
office apps etc. is just a sideshow, or to use marketroid speach, assets to
be leveraged, that only exist to bring ads to your desktop.
Say what you want about Microsoft, it's still primarily a software company
that creates and sells IT products. Google and Yahoo only exist to make you
buy noodles, porn and garden tools. Of course, MS would like a piece of that
cake too, but think twice about saying that "Google is the best thing on the
internet".
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> that only exist to bring ads to your desktop.
"It is to be remembered that the reason we have programs on television
and music on radio is that nobody wants to listen to the advertisements."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> 47ae138b@news.povray.org...
>> I know Google is the best thing on the Internet for what Google does,
>> (Internet and Office tools) but Yahoo! is good enough to stay on The
>> Net, IMO.
>
> To make things clear: Google and Yahoo are *** advertising networks ***.
> This what they do for a living: sell advertising space and other marketing
> services. What they offer - search engines, image banks, email services,
> office apps etc. is just a sideshow, or to use marketroid speach, assets to
> be leveraged, that only exist to bring ads to your desktop.
Point taken. BUT some Google produts are free of ads and are useful so
your afirmation falls short here.
> Say what you want about Microsoft, it's still primarily a software company
> that creates and sells IT products.
Which are in many cases slower and sometimes so crappy. I've heard so
many times saying I'm not using this MS product because is too slow,
features are difficult to use, lacks of this and that, the GUI is a
mess, this product does better on this and that... This is why they're
are as pathetic as gigantic they are. Money doesn't mean necessarily
that you have the best product or you're the best at something, but MS
should since has all the resources it needs to accomplish that.
Many people buy MS just for the "compatibility" with Windows and because
they think MS is just great for some reason I can't understand. One
thing I can say about MS without fear of mistaken is that they excel in
mediocrity.
> Google and Yahoo only exist to make you
> buy noodles, porn and garden tools.
You fall short here too, they exist so that you don't spend countless
hours searching for some product on your own, they have made bullet
speed search engines and offer lots of resources to find the service you
need, no matter how odd it may seem.
> Of course, MS would like a piece of that
> cake too,
they want a peace of everything so they can be mediocre on it.
but think twice about saying that "Google is the best thing on the
> internet".
>
> G.
I frankly think it is, I don't have to think twice about it, and you
should read the whole sentence to realize what I meant, you missed :"...
best thing on the internet for what they do", not on everything possible
as you tried to show that I said that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> well, you should agree that Yahoo! is not "about a philanthropy/philosophy for
> service for the humanity". They are at it for the money just as much as M$.
http://forgood.yahoo.com/index.html
And Google has many tools you can use for free, I know everything free
needs economic support anyway, hence the ads and the comercial versions,
but is IMO is a low price to pay for so many useful things Google has to
offer. I use mostly Google's search engine and "ad sense" brings a few
lines of ads, oh please! Is ridiculously chep in exchange for the
usefulness of the ingo I get. OK, take 'Google Desktop', makes a good
job indexing your files and is free (you have a choice to not to install
Google Toolbar on the installation process).
For all this I say they strive for philanthropy/philosophy for
service for the humanity as much as possible.
> what I can't agree is this much influence, money and power concentrated so
> tightly in the hands of a single american company...
agree.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You fall short here too, they exist so that you don't spend countless
> hours searching for some product on your own, they have made bullet speed
> search engines and offer lots of resources to find the service you need,
> no matter how odd it may seem.
The search engines have exactly one purpose, which is to collect the search
words from you and me and turn them into keywords (adwords) that are in turn
sold to their clients (who bid on the words). The search engines and the
other Google and Yahoo products are actually datamining tools, even if they
don't carry ads themselves. This is why they are so efficient.
In 2006, 99% of Google's revenue (10.6 billion dollars) came from
advertising
(http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312507044494/d10k.htm).
It doesn't meant that Google and Yahoo don't provide good services, but we
shouldn't be blind to the reason why they provide these services. "Don't be
evil" is nothing much than a marketing slogan. And if they were to
disappear, the void would be filled instantly by other ad networks.
(by the way, I was always intrigued by the fact that a lot of Google
services are in perpetual beta. A regular IT company would suffer from this
(see what delaying Vista costed Microsoft), but Google, as an advertising
company, obviously uses the betas as testbeds for datamining ideas, and
drops them if they fail to generate ad revenue, direct or indirect).
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote
> > well, you should agree that Yahoo! is not "about a
philanthropy/philosophy for
> > service for the humanity". They are at it for the money just as much as
M$.
>
> http://forgood.yahoo.com/index.html
Every large company has some sort of a "do good/feel good" program, it's a
marketing necessity nowadays, not out of "philanthropy/philosophy for
service for the humanity" (!?). And don't forget Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
Knee jerk reaction is to root for the ""underdog"" and disparage the
"overdog", but MS is probably more "greener" than Yahoo, and if your motive
is truly philantrophy and not simply being anti-MS, it makes more sens to
root for Bill: More of each $1000 you put in Bill's pocket will go to good
causes than from $100 you put into pockets of 10 different people.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
speaking of internet ads, I've never clicked on them. Save when trying to
support sites such as povray.org or slashdot.org.
Google ads are incredibly non-intrusive and actually fun to watch. They are not
those whole-page Flash animation, but are very fun to watch when trying to match
my preferences based on email content... :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>>
>> To make things clear: Google and Yahoo are *** advertising networks
>> ***. This what they do for a living: sell advertising space and other
>> marketing services. What they offer - search engines, image banks,
>> email services, office apps etc. is just a sideshow, or to use
>> marketroid speach, assets to be leveraged, that only exist to bring
>> ads to your desktop.
>
> Point taken. BUT some Google produts are free of ads and are useful so
> your afirmation falls short here.
AFAIK, their search engine was ad-free for a long while. Ads were added
once they already had lots of users. So they will probably do the same
with the rest of their products.
>> Say what you want about Microsoft, it's still primarily a software
>> company that creates and sells IT products.
>
> Which are in many cases slower and sometimes so crappy.
Slower than what? You better not be comparing speed between Microsoft
software and Google web application! Nothing is slower than a web
application :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran escribió:
> (by the way, I was always intrigued by the fact that a lot of Google
> services are in perpetual beta. A regular IT company would suffer from this
> (see what delaying Vista costed Microsoft), but Google, as an advertising
> company, obviously uses the betas as testbeds for datamining ideas, and
> drops them if they fail to generate ad revenue, direct or indirect).
Perpetual beta is a "feature" of Web 2.0. (Whatever that means)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|