|
Throwing a Googly.
'Google has been called a “predator” and “monopoly giant” by a Labour MP, complaining the internet heavyweight was ruining the chances for British companies to get ahead.'
'Graham Jones, MP for Hyndburn, secured a debate on UK search engines in the House of Commons this week and used the opportunity to document all his concerns surrounding the US company.' 'However, Ed Vaizey, the Government’s communications minister, said: “It is open to the consumer to choose the product that best suits them, but it is also open to individual companies to partner with whichever companies they choose.” “Consumers want a service that offers good performance and enables them to find what they want quickly and easily. Google has entered a market and gained market share by giving consumers what they want.” MP slams Google for anti-competitive practices | IT PRO I'm suprisingly with Ed Vaizey on this one. We live in a free market economy. If a company are providing a service that people want to use, you can't really do a lot about it. Unless of course you limit free enterprise, and we are to have old style eastern European state run bodies. Limiting peoples' choice to one option, with no competition. Google are the most successful company, providing people with what they want. This will continue until this is no longer the case. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Complaining that Google wields too much power, because it's services are well used, is a little like moaning that the Sun, Britain's most purchased newspaper, therefore has too much power over it's readers.
Unless governments are going to interfere with what goods/services are freely available to Joe public, there's not a great deal you can do about it. Choice. You mightn't like it, but that's life. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
I do hope all this wasn't inspired by a Google search.
First, an 'internet psycologist'. Second entry, a 'wood carver'. Thirdly Wikipedia. Which lists our Graham Jones next to the bottom, of a list of seven. :rolleyes::D |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Seems we are both in agreement her G (which doesn't occur very often:rolleyes:) I have always used a google tool bar as it has a great spell check:D
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Google is popular because it's good at what it does.
Graham specifically mentioned Google's Android Operating system for mobile phones and them bundling software into it at the competitive disadvantage to others such as Skype. Skype is actually available as an app on the phone which can be downloaded from Google's own app store. Android software is free for mobile phone manufacturers to use. The fact that it's free combined with how good the software is has led to its widespread adoption and success. The software itself can be adapted by the manufacturers and some have removed Google search from Android, replacing it with competitor's search engines such as Microsoft's Bing. This obviously disadvantages Google significantly since the majority of their revenue is from adverts, many of which appear on Google searches. Hardly anti-competitive is it! You can re-watch Graham's Westminster Hall debate at Player it's at 16:00. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
I use Skype on my Android phone, Skype to Skype calls are free on three which makes it even better :D
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
i don't give a toss about what Graham or any of you lot say
i find Google useful, end of |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
|
If it wasn't for google little sites like this probably couldn't keep their servers running.
Yes they make a profit, yes, they are a dominant force on the interweb, however they don't force and demand in a similar fashion to how one popular operating system does. |
Quote:
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
|
Quote:
At last I can understand what accywebs guru is talking about, just like grasshopper I have moved on in enlightenment, see I walked over the rice paper and left not a Mark! |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
|
Quote:
Just like always on your school reports, John can do better. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
There are other search engines.
Google are by far the most well used, and therefore successful. They are free for us to use because they make a profit from those willing to advertise, or have greater prominence on their sites. This is understood. We aren't fools. They are a business, not a charity. Unless governments plan to interfere, and limit the free use Google allows us, unlike in China, and parts of the Middle East, there's really not a great deal that can be done to limit how a successful company operates. Supply and demand. Free market economy. Until such time as something better comes along, people will happily carry on using it. I really can't understand this issue being of great concern to the people of Hyndburn/Haslingden. |
Quote:
It must be a fiddle. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Google suits me , always has done . It's the peoples' choice .
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
I had to rely on the kindness of strangers (read Accy Web members), to supply me with names of other search engines. Being unable to Google the search myself. :D |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
When I bought my new computer, the default search engine was BING....and I hated it with a passion......banished it as soon as I could find out just how to do it.
I like google...it is easy to use and usually comes up with the goods |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
i prefer google to owt else ive tried, summat seems very odd to me if some are objecting to it.:confused:
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
People who have responded to this thread have, in the main, stated that Google is a good product. There is no doubt about that. However, I don't think that this is the issue. It is more of a question of trans global, or multi-national corporations (call 'em what you like; we all know what they are) cornering a market to the detriment of smaller, national companies, and those national economies. And it is these mega corporations, not national governments, who are limiting free enterprise. Other companies, Walmart is a prime example, also do this. Limiting free enterprise in certain sections of the economy quite reasonbaly falls within the role of national governments. And they can play this role without having to resort to the kind of state capitalism that was the downfall of the Soviet Union. In Canada, fairly recently (I could google it to find out exactly when, but I'm feeling lazy:D) an Australian mining company made a $40 billion bid for Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which out numbers the govt., supported by tories in Saskatchewan and Alberta called upon the government to block the sale. In effect, to put the value of a Canadian resource before free enterprise. Under pressure, the government did block the sale, putting purely national interests first. By the way, if anyone doesn't know what potash is, ask a farmer. Another point is that relating to the erosion of national economies by eliminating jobs. Many on here complain about how well-paid jobs are disappearing from the UK. Surprise, surprise. Of course they are. Industrial giants are moving their operations overseas to take advantage of low wages, horrendous working conditions, and no-questions-asked governments. You might like to wear Nike, but you don't want to hear about the conditions the workers have to put up with. It is the loss of these jobs that was the root cause of the collapse of the US economy, and quite possibly your own. The banks fueled the economy with NINJA loans which gave the impression of a strong consumer economy without the substance. I think Mr. Jones has it right ... but I believe that his focus on google is a little too narrow. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
(Won't quote you Eric, to save space, but...)
In a free market economy, the companies that people choose to use, will be the most successful, and therefore they will have influence, and power, if you want to call it that. I referred earlier to The Sun, Britain's biggest selling Daily, because people want to buy it. It's owners, and editor, does therefore wield some clout. Which is presumably why Blair brown-nosed them back in 1997, and the paper subsequently publicly proclaimed that their mammary loving readers should vote New Labour. Landslide. Result. If legislation is passed, limiting access to goods/services that are offered by companies, you end up with the kind of state run/enforced bodies that they had under the old soviet system. The outcome being that there is a poor choice, and the inferior and shoddy become the most widely available. Politicans have moaned about the 'unfair' power the press barons have had for well over a century. Google is successful. That will cease when people don't want to use it. Politicans trying to limit it's success, by imposing artifical sanctions against it, is wrong. Wrong, if we are to carry on having free choice about what we buy/use. I think politicans are just jealous. Wishing only that they had as much power as companies such as Google. China allows Google, but with the proviso that many political sites aren't listed. Just as in the Middle East Google is permitted, as long as certain civil/sexual right sites are not available to searchers in those locations. We know Google's a company, out to make profit. We understand that, and carry on using it, because it's the best at what it does. This will carry on until we choose to use something better. Not because some politican fears it's influence. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
By the way, we already know about globalisation.
We accept that progress can't be halted. No matter how many artifical dams are created, futilely attempting to stem the flow of change. No longer being an industrial manufacturing nation, we work in our service centres, and spend our wages on clothes costing a fiver. We might shed a tear or two, when watching a programme about some dark skinned kiddies sewing our clothes, but forget by the next time we need a new shirt. Might not make everyone happy, but this is the reality we've chosen. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
The people he's paid to represent seemingly couldn't give a 'Google - Process of flight' 'Google Anglo-Saxon profanity relating to intercourse'. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Just to add my two ha'pporthworth. I don't use google, I never have and never will. There are lots of search engines out there, and most of them don't collect and keep your search data. But, you have to want to keep your data private,you have to want to keep your searches private. You have to WANT to keep yourself private, or you can give everything about yourself to a corporation. There are very good search engines out there. You just have to look for yourself rather than just GOOGLE.
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
At the moment we have it. You choose an alternative. The majority decide Google's their tool of preference. Fully aware that nothing in this world is free. Happy searching Google, unafraid that what they're searching for will bite 'em on the ass. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
:rolleyes: |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
There are plenty of other Search Engines - you just have to look for them, but don't use Google to do your search - Simples
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
How many time do you here the saying on here "Google it", that says everything really
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
Search bar | How to | Firefox Help Hurrah freedom of choice, (I'll stick to google though, my freedom of choice). So will Graham now be taking a pop at firefox? For their restrictive behaviour. :) |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Don't actually think this one is Grahams finest hour really
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
wow grahams realy serving us well in his position isnt he?
of all the issues out there to take up he thinks nit picking about an internet search engine is the best way to represent the people of hyndburn im not anti labour but jesus christ how much is he getting paid to spew out garbage like this. common sense dictates that if a particular search engine gets more hits on your website then use that one and if you want to compete with rivals make your prices competative what i am more curious about is who exactly in our area asked him to look into this matter because by rights he should be busy doing what he can for his constituants not other companies whinging about how google isnt fair the only way i would ask this question if i was an mp would be if someone acting on the part of a competitor search engine paid me to which apparently is legal although not nescessarly moral , not that i am saying this is the case here lol |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
However, I do know that if you try and google it, you come up with very little. It would therefore seem to me that, as a Hyndburn employer, they would be perfectly within their rights to request the assistance of their MP in questioning the existing competition laws in relation to IT provision. If that is the case, Graham is doing exactly the job he is paid to do in protecting the economic well-being of his constituency. So carry on, Graham. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
Reach Global Profile Seem to have been fairly active in lobbying politicans to help them. 28/01/2011 - Reach Global to welcome Ed Vaizey 26/01/2011 - Downing Street calls Reach Global Press Releases - 2010 Reach Global and Searchers director Israr Sarwar Reach Global Press Releases - 2010 Interesting article here about Reach Global director, by someone not too happy with his way of doing business. 'You would have thought that a company headed by a man who has met the Prime Minister and who earlier this year was talking of a stock market flotation to raise £75 million (whether it came off I’ve no idea) would approach smaller property websites, asking them to join the program. That you might think would be the decent thing to do. The “noble” thing to do to borrow a word from Reach Global’s own description of its own foundation. But then again why pay out commissions when you can simply take copy with a few clicks of a mouse and resell it as your own work? Needless to say I won’t be applying to join their affiliate program any time soon.' Why I Won’t Be Joining The Netmovers Affiliate Program Entrepreneur :rolleyes: |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
In answer to Tealeaf about Reach Global, I just Googled it and got this page.
reach global - Google Search |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
The guide illustrates the sanguine apporach to New Labour amongst the Trans National corporate class. for further evidence we can point to the support given to Labour by the Sun. Its proporietor Rupert Murdoh only backs parties willing to do his bidding. More extensive, if less impressive, is the list of 63 business leaders who wrote to the Financial times to back Labour.
Israr Sarwar – Operations Director, Searchers.com Vote Big Business, Vote Labour You scratch our balls. We'll tickle your's. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Google.
So brilliant when wanting information. Obviously a big success, the money's been rolling in, but not a company with a whiter than white reputation, allegedly. Adrac Ltd Reach Global Group Adrac Reviews - The Ugly Truth 'When asking Isra Sarwar for our money back as the webiste was only 6 months overdue and with more faults than working features he refused. He claimed that we were trying to pull a fast one, although having paid 10 grand and not having a website that was complete (as awful as it was) is hardly a positive thing. Isra and Ali then proceeded to threaten our company and claimed they would use the website themselves to rival ours - I honestly wish they had because they had already failed before starting.' Adrac Ltd | Rip-off Report: 644105 First ruler of business, always try to keep your customers happy. If unable to do this, at least try, using all technology available, to stop the dissatisfied client from using the internet to broadcast what they truly think of you, your company, and your business practices. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Somewhat ironically, when Googling Reach Global, and it's director Israr Sarwar, up pops this thread.
Something needs to be done, to halt it's power. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
'Reach Global has underlined its support for the Labour Party again in the run-up to this year's general election. Israr Sarwar confirmed the group's official political stance after he was contacted by an international news company. He told Bloomberg: "All the way through our business life, Labour has been in power and we have gone from strength to strength." Reach Global Press Releases - 2010 |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
Big Brother sponsors! I know you were a big fan. 'A COMPANY that prides itself on its multi-ethnic workforce made a £1M offer to sponsor Celebrity Big Brother and is hoping to bring one of the show's stars to the town.' Manchester Evening News | Latest Manchester News, Sport, Football, Entertainment, Business and more | Accrington Observer - menmedia.co.uk ;) I always found media whores to be fairly good at fighting their own battles, especially when attempting ultimate global supremacy. I'm suprised they really needed our little M.P. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Reach Global are just another company, although they are local-ish, out to make a profit.
Just like any other company, including Google. If they can get Graham Jones to spend his time helping them achieve greater profits, jolly well done them. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
After a long struggle, Garinda, I think you finally got there. Forget about corporate ethics - neither google, nor microsoft nor this outfit in Church is whiter than white. They're all out to make a profit and in the process create jobs. I think it would be much better if those were local jobs rather than in India, China, Seattle, Silicon valley or the Shoreditch Roundabout. By the way, I couldn't remember the name of the Church outfit, so I googled 'Bridge St Church Search Engine' and that's why nowt came up. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
Million quid sponsorship offer for Celebrity Big Brother. Public support for the Labour party. I wonder if any of these impressive profits were donated to any poltical parties? Hey ho. Better get Googling. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
MP has a pop at Google monopoly A company, out to make profit, and not too keen to give a rival company, also out to make dosh, a helping hand? Thank goodness that myth's been busted. I'll go to the foot of our stairs. :rolleyes: |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
Merely by offering a little donation to a political party's coffers. :rolleyes: |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
This issue is not top of my list of priorities and I quite like Google as a product. Reach Global do have political connections to Labour nationally and I am not privy to any of that. What has become clear is the European Union are investigating Google and a whole host of British companies are upset.
Now I am a little cynical and when I met them was up front in asking that this is all about being 'beaten into last place'. Just sour grapes. However it became clear the evidence is overwhelming interms of dubious practices. I would also add that I consider any company having a large minority share of the market as unhealthy. Google's is 91%. That's just the competition side. Then there's the editorial side. I am not a liberal and I am quite happy to give up freedoms for a better society. Responsibilities before rights. Keep and extend the DNA database. If your innocent.... Fox News etc... However having 91% and growing. Using off shoring to avoid £450m in tax yet most of your profits come form the UK. Using dubious tactics to push unclear sponsored returns and and having been proved that you were blackballing your competitors illegally is grounds for concern. Whatever Reach Global are, they are a Hyndburn employer offering well paid jobs and there is scope to extend the 'enterprise area' around their site to other companies. Hyndburn has some unique IT advantages and we must capitalise so 'selling Hyndburn as a good place for IT' is very important. I always said in my view our issues are welfare to work, more and better employment, chronically poor housing stock, poor medical (and complex recreational) provision amongst many issues. This debate wasn't in the Commons. It was in a small room called Westminster Hall where small 30 min and 90 min adjournment debates take place giving a chance for small issues to be raised. Not the big stuff unless someone wants a second go at the government. It's being blown out of all proportion. It certainly hasn't consumed my time but has raised an issue that is before the EU investigators and this debate help flag it up to the British government. The employers and entrepreneurs message is stand up for UK firms, UK hitech and UK workers (and the UK tax payer). I hope this clears up that is not a non-issue but a small one compared to all the other issues I am battling with in Parliament. I am still using Google. Google's subsidiaries allow company to avoid £450m tax on UK advertising Revenues from customers in Britain were diverted to Google Ireland Limited |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
So, as of this very minute, Google have not been found guilty of breaking any laws, or breaching any countrys' legal business practices?
No. They haven't. If 91% of us had freely chosen to read a newspaper, would that paper's economic rival publications have similarly valid claims, that they wielded too much power and influence? 'If' companies break the law, they should face prosecution. If companies are just unhappy with the realities of a free market economy, and bemoan the fact that the most popular producer of goods/services, therefore have the largest power and influence, because of having the greatest share of the freely arrived at market, that is there right to so. How many of us who'd think it was our MP's job, to lobby on their behalf, bleating that the reality of commerce sometimes it isn't very fair, is open to question. You can't halt progress. People have choice. Lots of people like popping in their car to the supermarket, for a once weekly shop. Some would say that large superstores should be sited out of town centers, to give smaller, already established competitors, a fighting chance of survival. Whether they do, or not, will ultimately depend on where, and how, people decide to shop. Though we'd like to think our local politicans, responsible for such things as town planning and regeneration, would have the common sense that any clauses connected to planning applications, had some legal conditions attached if promises weren't carried out, such as the guaranteed number of new jobs that would be created in the area. I'm sure that's the sort of things people would hope for. Rather than worrying about the ruthless truths, in the cut and thrust of the world of business. Which for the vast majority of people involved is about making the largest possible profits. 250 Accrington Tesco jobs for the jobless (From This Is Lancashire) Fewer jobs on offer at Accrington's new Tesco store (From Lancashire Telegraph) I bet the i's were dotted, and the t's crossed, when it came to the conditions of the million pound (plus) bung being accepted, that might be attached to whether a planning application is passed or not. :rolleyes: |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
By the way, I do think it's great we have such a successful company in our area. Especially in such an important market. They should be supported. As all businesses in the area similarly should, large or small.
I just really don't see a problem. Unless a competitor is acting unlawfully, and therefore rivals are at a disadvantage. I'm yet to see any evidence that this is the case. To most it just looks like a case of sour grapes. With rival companies likely to act in exactly the same way. If they were lucky enough to be the market leader. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Forgive me.
I'm probably just bitter that some big-shot millionaire is better than me, at getting our M.P. involved with their particular cause. I invited Graham, ever so nicely, if he was in London, if he was not doing anything more important, to attend a reception at the House of Commons in November, organised by Parkinson's UK. An event to lobby for continued medical research, and to ensure that disability rights and benefits aren't seen as an easy target when it comes to the cuts. He was invited to represent the eighty or so people of Hyndburn, and Haslingden, who are members of the charity Parkinson's UK, plus the many others in our area sufferring from Parkinson's disease, who aren't affliated to the charity. I've no idea if he was unable to attend, as I never received a reply. Perhaps I should hope they bring back Big Brother, then I can offer to sponsor it. I might have greater success then. :rolleyes::D |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Unless a competitor is acting unlawfully, and therefore rivals are at a disadvantage.
Which is why they are being investigated by several governments. Bear in mind that they still haven't deleted most, if any,of the data gathered illegally by their streetview vehicles. Addendum: Sorry Garinda but it didn't show as a quote from your post. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
Plenty of people have been 'investigated', who haven't done diddly squat, when it came to it. 'If' someone, or some company, have been found guilty of breaching the law to gain unfair advantage over rivals, they should be prosecuted, and bleating that this was unfair will be justified. At this point in time this is not the case. Seems more like green eyed jealousy. Mainly jealous of the massive profits earned, by those offering the most popular product. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
Anyone remember those lines from Dire Straits: "If it wasn't for the nips being so good at building ships, the yards would still be open on the Clyde." |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Eric
Quote:
You'll have Roger Waters and his bass guitar after you for suggesting Dire straites |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
It's about companies supplying services to a global market, and the fact that the most successful isn't keen to lose profits, by helping out their rivals. If you check your Uncle Toby's Book of History you'll see mention of many countries with booming consumer economies, in which there was a population with a relatively low income. A little like modern day India. Besides, in a world ranking, Britain rates fairly highly, when it comes to disposable income. Dire Straits? I think you must be in 'em, if you're taking their middle class, middle of the road, musing as gospel. White youth, black youth Better find another solution Why not phone up Robin Hood? And ask him for some wealth distribution - The Clash - (White Man) In Hammersmith Palais :D |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
Being as their economy is currently up Shish Kebab Creek. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Yet to find any evidence that Google have acted in anyway illegally.
Still sounds like sour grapes, and the excuse for a good moan. 10th November 2010 Dear Mr Cameron, Re: an open letter from the UK's only search engine It's exciting that large international companies like Google and Facebook have decided to invest in the Olympic Park. Their technologies have revolutionised how we store and search for information, shop, communicate... Also, we're encouraged that your government is taking the technology industry very seriously, regarding recent moves towards establishing Shoreditch as a heart for this industry and encouraging foreign investment. There are fantastic pioneering works being created in the UK, of which Searchers is one of many. The support of the government is essential to protect our domestic innovations and support our competitive advantage internationally. We would like to support your efforts in doing this, and take this opportunity to underline a few relevant facts and give our opinion, as home-grown pioneers in search technology, working at the frontiers of this industry. 1. The UK is not within the M25: Your government needs to look beyond the M25. Shoreditch is not the only potential Silicon Valley. The infrastructure of the North West, laid down by our industrial predecessors, is phenomenally prepared for the technology industry. London can't be, and shouldn't try to be, all things. 2. Foreign company revenues and tax bills: While Google, Bing and Yahoo bring jobs and investment, British businesses have advertised on search engines and adopted their services - and have therefore paid for and earned any investment within our shores. Let's focus on Searchers' own sector for an example: Google reportedly controls a 95% market share of internet search advertising in the UK, and the company has gone on record describing Britain as a key market for its operations. However, like many multinationals, it has clever accountants and a legitimate, if ethically questionable, way of not paying tax revenue generated from British advertisers. In its US home, it has only an approximate 60% share of the market. The UK needs help reclaiming some of this market for its businesses and the overall economy, as well as to assist its international reputation for excellence. 3. Our issue with Google telling you that it couldn't have been started up in the UK: Searchers started here seven years ago and has been built using private investment. We therefore find Google's attitude to the UK business environment perplexing, also considering its massive market share (see above) and the revenues (ditto) - they're doing quite nicely out of it. Investment by Google might well facilitate great inroads into a British technology 'centre', as it has revolutionised search for the past decade - but the search engine's recent predatory behaviour could be considered borderline abuse of a dominant position. As such, your assurance to Google that the government will consider changing copyright law to accommodate its business plan is alarming. Google should instead be thanking the UK for the ease in which it has managed to gain its monopoly over UK search, and questions should be asked in Whitehall around how it is that British search, which powers so much of our business infrastructure, is owned by a foreign country. Mr Cameron, we'd be more than pleased to give you a tour of our facility and speak with you in person about this. The Searchers team has many bright ideas and strong opinions, and we're eager to share them and help implement positive change. Regards, Kym Kinlin (technical director), Israr Sarwar (operations director) CC: Vince Cable MP; George Osborne MP; Graham Jones MP; Accrington... Dear Mr Cameron: open letter | Facebook |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
“Some will argue that Google is so innovative that we need not worry, but Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Groups, Google Docs, Google Analytics, Android, and other Google products are all based on technology Google has acquired rather than invented,” said Jones, repeating the word ‘Google’ so many time that it began to lose any meaning it may previously have had.'
'There we have it. The official line is that it's up to the consumer. The unofficial line, hiding just behind, is that money makes the world go round and Google has powerful lobbyists.' Read more: Ed Vaizey hears MP's concerns over Google monopoly - Google presents new 'Google-everything' | TechEye I must say, Google's been by far the most useful tool, when trying to find any actual evidence of illegality, concerning one company's journey to achieving market dominance. Seems to me, people just prefer it. :rolleyes: |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Think the bottom line is if people find a product they like they stick with it, I've been using the Internet for around 10 years and always found Google the best, would seem I'm not on my own:rolleyes:
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
I like to use Ask Jeeves now and then. He is such a smart, polite gentleman and gives me a Mrs. Bouquet rush. :D
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Could not agree more Rindi.
It seems easier to moan and bicker, Google is very user friendly, end of. if what they have is so much better than google, then they should promote it more and get the word out. I have never heard of the search engine this company have. But the negative reports about Reach Global, makes me wonder if they are skating a bit close to the thin ice. I have just tried both for a simple search 'Pink Floyd'. Google, came back with the official website, videos, wikipedia, news and Pink Floyd fandom, a fan site all in the top 5. Searchers came back with, the official site, Neptune albums, Metal magnets, acorn arts, penzance, the O2 advert for tribute band The Flesh. I think I will stick to Google |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Even better this product has never heard of BMW E36.
It seems Searchers has a long way to go |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
Sometimes a figment(of your imagination) is better than the real thing:D:D:D |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Off the Searchers website
Quote:
Quote:
Yahoo Lycos Alta Vista Hotbot Alltheweb Ask Bing and of course the hated Google All either realised my spelling mistake and corrected it or asked me if I meant Accrington. Seems our Local search engine is not up to much. Reminds me of the early days. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
Israr Sarwar, Operations Director at leading internet marketing agency Adrac, said; “If the trend continues, 2010 could see further growth in the online advertising sector which mirrors the spectacular growth in the popularity of social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.” Online Marketing Sees Phenomenal Growth Thanks to Advertiser Confidence and Social Media - Adrac, social media, social media sites Odd, that. :rolleyes: |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
when bing was launched people rushed to test it and rapidly returned to google as bing was useless and gave out incorrect returns matching nothing typed in by the user.Bing may have got their act together but first impressions last therefore people stick with what works
i know for sure which search engine i will use when looking for drivers for a 10 year old computer system when google was launched its popularity was nothing to do with any polotition it got its reputation as a good search engine from the internet users who used it and recomended it on forums all over the world.Up unitl the launch of google i was using ask jeeves which only ever seemed to want to sell you somthing on the first page of results. google has changed ownership since it launched and although they have some dodgy goin ons regarding google mail and gmail accounts it dosnt takeaway that they have an excellent search engine but as far as their mail service goes they can shove it as i prefer to be the first person who reads my emails not them. unless google are breaking the law with their search engine their search engine has no buisness been discussed in parliament wasting time that could be spent discussing how to straighten this country out.Running to an MP crying about how the world isnt fair wont get your company out of the doo doo , providing a good product will. i am surprised this matter was given the time of day |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
I suppose the question could be asked, how in 2007 a company could make headlines, offering to sponsor Celebrity Big Brother for £1 million pounds.
Manchester Evening News | Latest Manchester News, Sport, Football, Entertainment, Business and more | Accrington Observer - menmedia.co.uk Yet two years later are awarded £29,928.00 of tax payers' money, in the form of a No Limits Finance for Growth award. Reach Global Reaches New Heights Perhaps they're just very good at generating publicity for themselves, apart from convincing us their search engine is worth using. Looks like they've found another publicity tool, to help them. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
seems to me this company has had more than enough help and should start looking in house as to their lack of success :rolleyes:
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
This is not a great glorious campaign for online justice. I like google and will continue to use it as it is a good product.
My mailbag is full of anti Murdock letters opposing the BSKYB sale. If Murdock owned 91% of newspapers, 91% of TV market or 91% of the internet, or any other media mogul people would complain. We must recognise Google has been a great product but like everyone else it has to play by competition rules and if it acts in a detrimental way to the UK we should take a stand. Searchers is a problematic site. The stable of sites employs 125 people in Church. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
I honestly wouldn't give two hoots which baron had control of the press, as long as I was happy with what they offered. If they didn't, I wouldn't buy it. I'd chose an alternative. Which there always is, happily, in the free market economy of the western world. If other people were similarly unhappy with what was being offered, and sought a better service, their market share would go down. This will continue unless anyone's planning we all read a state run, Pravda style newspaper, and any competitors are outlawed. |
Quote:
The www is out there if these people are any good they won't sink, they will flourish, don't back moaning losers. The Murdock thing is nothing to do with them. Basically you would be better ignoring them and just asking Roy how he pays bills for a website, I think you would find it's a little like google, (not as big), but people use it because it works. Don't waste your precious time just because they have caught your ear and drone on about how it's not fair. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
As far as this local company's concerned this is really just about promotion and publicity.
Good for them. Even this thread has alerted people about their search engine. Some members even trying it out. Wasn't being rude, calling them media whores. They're very good at it. More penthouse, than pavement. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Build it (well), they will come.
:D |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
If only these massive corperations could keep a level head and use humour whilst ripping us off!
By the way in your google box put in anagram, and see what their did you mean comes up with. :D |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
Google easter eggs: 15 best hidden jokes - Telegraph |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
[quote=garinda;879477]Yet to find any evidence that Google have acted in anyway illegally.
Well, the EU does not appear too happy with them: EU antitrust probe fishes for Google secrets ? The Register One would assume that Google's home state of Califonia would back up probably their most famous company. But wait...what's this? Google May Face U.S. Antitrust Suit Over ITA Purchase - Bloomberg Still, innocent until proven guilty. I suspect it will be a few years yet before we see the outcome of either investigation. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Indeed, Garinda...but as you are no doubt aware European justice systems are based upon an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial philosophy (as in the UK & USA). I would assume therefore, that while Google are not charged we may eventually see enough evidence against them to result in a whacking great fine and an order to alter or relinquish some of their operating methodology.
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
It's a very real worry for the majority of it's constituents. |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
I spit on their courts. I am English. You can stick your European Courts of Justice up your (Google -slang term for buttocks.) ;) |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
:rolleyes: |
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
|
Re: Throwing a Googly.
Quote:
:rolleyes: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:28. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 2003-2013 AccringtonWeb.com