July52008
On Google's Web, the User is #1, Google is #0
A partnership with Adobe will make Flash objects search-indexable, but only by Google and Yahoo.
By participating in this exclusive program, Google implicitly sanctions an anti-user reality. This runs counter to their motto “Don’t Be Evil,” as well as the spirit of their stance on Net Neutrality. The Net Neutrality issue is typically framed as an indictment of broadband providers, but let’s be real, here: search has become nearly as fundamental to the internet experience as packet exchange. Google’s Net Neutrality page describes it as “the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet.”
Sure, we’re all “free” to use other engines that can’t index SWF files. And if the federal highway system creates special lanes exclusively reserved for Ford cars, we’re all still “free” to buy Hondas. Granted, Adobe is a private company, not a government, and Google has its competitive edge to think about. But given their company motto and proclaimed stance on user rights, their participation here is hypocritical.
It’s possible that this is only temporary. Adobe probably wants to do whatever it can to make Flash organic to the web, and compete as effectively as possible with Microsoft’s new XML-happy and search-indexable SilverLight. I expect they’ll want to open up their new player to any and all search providers that could use it.
So maybe this is temporary. And maybe Google already knows it. If so, they should tell us! I want to think so, and I still generally like and support Google. But so far, Google seems perfectly happy to milk the exclusivity. A post to Google’s official blog essentially just says “our clever engineers have come up with a way to work with Adobe’s new Flash Player standard”:
Google has been developing a new algorithm for indexing textual content in Flash files of all kinds, from Flash menus, buttons and banners, to self-contained Flash websites. Recently, we’ve improved the performance of this Flash indexing algorithm by integrating Adobe’s Flash Player technology.
They link to Adobe’s press release, which announced:
Adobe is providing optimized Adobe Flash Player technology to Google and Yahoo! to enhance search engine indexing of the Flash file format (SWF) and uncover information that is currently undiscoverable by search engines.
(via Daring Fireball)
John Gruber pointed out: “It’s completely closed and opaque. Adobe is only providing the magic recipe to Google and Yahoo; all other search engines remain locked out.”
There’s another statement later in the press release that almost-but-not-quite suggests indexing will be rolled out to other search engines down the road:
We are initially working with Google and Yahoo! to significantly improve search of this rich content on the Web, and we intend to broaden the availability of this capability to benefit all content publishers, developers and end users.
The word “initially” is all we get. Parsing the rest of the statement carefully, there is, at best, only a non-committal implication that other search engines will be able to take advantage later. Google has the leverage here to tell Adobe that it will only participate if Flash files are ultimately indexable by any entity. If this is intended to be a long term or permanently exclusive arrangement, then Google should speak up, and refuse to participate.
Google’s stance on Net Neutrality is good for users. It’s also very good for Google. If broadband providers become content controllers, they could oust Google search from the user experience. So while Google’s position there is laudable, it is not brave or surprising.
That’s why this issue of Flash indexing is telling. If Google’s financial motives are truly balanced against its purported philosophy, then this situation tests the mettle of their integrity. If their engineers are so clever, then the company shouldn’t fear the ensuing competition following Adobe’s concession to allow other companies access.
Maybe it’s naive to think a multi-billion dollar company is capable of that kind of paradoxical behavior, and maybe Google really isn’t different at all.
If not, and the situation remains true for long (or permanently), then in addition to Google’s search result censorship in Germany and France, cooperation with China’s Great Firewall, and concessions to the demands of the Church of Scientology, we can add this latest development to an emerging practical doctrine at Google, that goes “What’s best for the user is what’s best for the web… but what’s best for Google trumps everything else.”
Reblogged from Remiel.
Pic: Killer Robot (via Blake C. Himsl Hunter)
Robots expert Dr Robert Richardson of Leeds University says the best way to survive a robot uprising is to confuse them.
How realistic are your chances of surviving a nightmare movie scenario? The Guardian
When I worked for the state government, I bought a co-worker HOW TO SURVIVE A ROBOT UPRISING as a secret santa present. It didn’t take very long for the office to figure out it was me :)
Reblogged from Something Changed.
July42008
"The starting point must be the recognition that by acting alone, Australia will not make any significant difference, even if emissions are cut to zero. This is because Australia is responsible only for about 1 per cent of carbon emissions and other countries are increasing carbon output at a much faster rate than Australia could ever hope to cut it."
—
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Australia is the world’s most important coal exporter. It’s earning us ridiculous amounts of money. The more we subsidise domestic coal-fuelled power generation, the higher demand for our high quality black coal will be, the cheaper the price (in dollar terms), the more it will be exported worldwide to produce more coal stations - making industrialists a tidy profit but choking us in the process. The more we develop our alternatives, the less the world will be able to use our coal as a lazy option.
The Australian, obvs.
"You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it “simulates” the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning—or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure."
— Believe Me, It’s Torture (via robot-heart)
Reblogged from Robot Heart.
Some poor soul told me they avoided watching these clips Jared and I made. They thought each one was an hour long. Let me assure you we are far too lazy to shoot anything much longer than a pop song. In fact Jared wears very tiny earphones during our shoots so he doesn’t actually have to listen to me, and when he finishes hearing a pop song, we have to switch to the next sketch.
Reblogged from Blank White Cards.
July32008
