Google Chrome

[pmpmstrb]

Keep in mind that I am a teenager

 

[Shay]

LMAO, keep in mind it is its FIRST day out in public. The first firefox sucked compared to what it is now (even though i hate it now more than i did). All open-source products will grow and expand/improve as time goes on and more people put more time into it.



Keep in mind that I am a teenager and EVERYTHING is moving towards Google. Heck, for our computer classes, everyone is required to make a gmail account and use the google docs etc.

In the "real world" not everything is moving toward Google.

 

[RogerB]

In the "real world" not everything is moving toward Google.

yes, it's back to the basics when the plug gets pulled. Back to the technology of survival.

 

[ryanmercer]

Google Chrome FTL. I played with it last night, and I just don't like it... I've grown used to things FF does for me, I don't like how Chrome looks like a file folder taped to my monitor, it doesn't have some of the addons I frequently use, etc. I'll keep playing with it but I don't like it's look, it's lack of features, the whole part where with one click of a button all of your most visited sites can easily be displayed... etc.

im sorry that google has single handedly revolutionized near everything you use on the computer today. I think maybe you should thank them every once in a while since near all their products are free instead of criticizing them. Im sorry you dont think they are a great company but i think you seem to be more critical than thankful.

Amen

Someone was moaning about how google has gone bad etc... were complaining how they wouldn't use Chrome, and wish google would stop archiving their gmail etc..

HELLO!!!!! It's a FREE service, if you don't like it don't use it!

"but google is the best search engine" "gmail is the best email" etc... Are you paying for it? No. Do you have a contract guaranteeing your privacy with them? No.

Easy solution DON'T use FREE stuff if you don't like it hahahha

Google has had far less influence on my computer use than you think Trusite. To me, they are strictly a search engine.

I don't use gmail, google apps, google earth. I still prefer mapquest to google maps.

The privacy concerns I have with Google ARE well founded. They have a photograph of my house, with my car in the driveway, including the license plate. What if I had a child in the front yard when that photo was taken?

Taking claim to anything I publish while using their browser is copyright infringement. Regardless of their EULA if you want my opinion.

Your comments about Google might be right. They HAVE changed a lot of things in the computer world. Microsoft has as well, I'm not going to sing their praises either. I recognize a company that's riding a thin line that is "Legal" but "Immoral" while claiming their company motto is "Don't Be Evil."

When the Linux Chrome Beta comes out I'll give it a fair shake. I doubt I'll use for for more than a couple days. Firefox 3 is a VERY good browser, and doesn't give anyone but me license to use any of my content but me.

They were on public property when they took that photo... if Jim Bob took a photo of your house and slapped it on "HousesIThinkArePretty.com" you'd be powerless to get it down... all Google did was hire people to drive around with car mounts and take the street level photos... It is nothing someone can't see by driving down your road...

Just out of curiosity... why does it make you laugh that people are concerned about retaining their intellectual property rights?

If you wrote a paper, submitted it to your instructor as homework, and your instructor claimed rights to portions or all of that paper (without necessarily giving you credit for it) in order to sell his or her services to someone else, that would be a funny situation to you? Because that's effectively what that portion of the EULA says, and some of us don't find that particularly entertaining.

I wouldn't give a flying rat's behind... then again I don't buy into intellectual property... (and before you bash that note that I am published). I think hoarding knowledge is a pretty crappy thing, especially when some lady can write a few books and literally become a billionaire over night (Rowling) the guys at google feel the same... knowledge should be shared in all of it's forms without the need to give something of intrinsic value in exchange for it.

 

[Bubbajms]

Full-on Linux user here. I've always found it interesting that software that's "open" is available on Windows-based machines before it's available on open operating systems..

No Chrome for me, at least not yet.. maybe I'll grab a laptop at work and see if I can try it, but Firefox is my homeboy for now..

 

[epsylum]

I wouldn't give a flying rat's behind... then again I don't buy into intellectual property... (and before you bash that note that I am published). I think hoarding knowledge is a pretty crappy thing, especially when some lady can write a few books and literally become a billionaire over night (Rowling) the guys at google feel the same... knowledge should be shared in all of it's forms without the need to give something of intrinsic value in exchange for it.

On some level almost all ideas are intellectual property. Invent a widget, the design of said widget is intellectual property. Without being able to patent it and make a profit off of it the driving force for people to invent the next greatest thing is greatly diminished. One could very easily argue that technology has progressed at the great pace that it has because of the ability to make a buck off of it (patents and the like). Before that (think the dark ages), technology progressed at a snail's pace.

As for your Rowling example. The solution is your very own advice. Don't like her writing, don't buy it. Other people do and they are willing to give her and her publisher money for it. I sense a bit of wealth envy in your post.

As for why Chrome is free. It is for the same reason FF is free and Netscape was (are they still around?) free. Because IE is free. Do you think anyone would pay for a browser when IE comes with Windows (and whatever the Mac equivalent is)?

 

[SilentWarrior1]

I think hoarding knowledge is a pretty crappy thing, especially when some lady can write a few books and literally become a billionaire over night (Rowling) the guys at google feel the same... knowledge should be shared in all of it's forms without the need to give something of intrinsic value in exchange for it.

Honestly... I respect the opinion, but I HIGHLY disagree.

The reasoning is this. As a musician, artist, and free thinker... I take pride in the work that I do. It's my creativity and an extension of my soul. I do production work as well, and that takes HOURS of building, HOURS of mixing and mastering in HOPES that someone will purchase it.

That... is my time, my energy, my creativity, and my soul. It, effectively, is an extension of MYSELF. For someone to have license to effectively re-publish my work (and everything that went into it) as theirs is not only Unethical, it's Immoral.

Such licensing provides legal protection for someone to steal. I personally have a problem with that.

 

[Mini-14]

I dont have a clue what you guys are talkin about. I hit the power button and hope it works..

 

[Annie Oakley]

Right there with all of you who understand intellectual property rights. Maybe it is the age difference, and I don't mean that in any sort of nasty way but as a teen I didn't have to worry about making a living and now I do.

 

[trusite]

im sure i could make assumptions about your age group too.

 

[ryanmercer]

Honestly... I respect the opinion, but I HIGHLY disagree.

The reasoning is this. As a musician, artist, and free thinker... I take pride in the work that I do. It's my creativity and an extension of my soul. I do production work as well, and that takes HOURS of building, HOURS of mixing and mastering in HOPES that someone will purchase it.

That... is my time, my energy, my creativity, and my soul. It, effectively, is an extension of MYSELF. For someone to have license to effectively re-publish my work (and everything that went into it) as theirs is not only Unethical, it's Immoral.

Such licensing provides legal protection for someone to steal. I personally have a problem with that.

You aren't an artist if you want someone to buy it. You are a manufacturer.

 

[Annie Oakley]

Ryan, are you really saying that all any of the great artists or writers were only manufacturers? I do what I do because I love the creative process, I love seeing an image come to life from out of my head. Is it wrong for me to be willing to share that with others who find it speaks to them for a fee? It is fine to share things, I give away a lot of my photos to friends and families but if I didn't sell any of them I wouldn't be able to afford to do this. I certainly have purchased my share of art over the years and never once did I feel that someone took advantage of me by making me pay for it. If you don't want to sell it then you are a hobbyist not a professional.

 

[ryanmercer]

Ryan, are you really saying that all any of the great artists or writers were only manufacturers? I do what I do because I love the creative process, I love seeing an image come to life from out of my head. Is it wrong for me to be willing to share that with others who find it speaks to them for a fee? It is fine to share things, I give away a lot of my photos to friends and families but if I didn't sell any of them I wouldn't be able to afford to do this. I certainly have purchased my share of art over the years and never once did I feel that someone took advantage of me by making me pay for it. If you don't want to sell it then you are a hobbyist not a professional.

Sure it's ok to sell your stuff... but saying you do it just for the money means you aren't an artist... Look back at the great artists... most of them worked for commission yes... which provided for their living conditions while they were doing the piece... they weren't necessarily looking for financial gain. They enjoyed making art, they needed a way to support themselves... they took money for specific commissions. An artist is NEVER a professional. An artist creates art. A proffesional does what a customer wants so that they can get paid.

 

[Annie Oakley]

Got your point. If it is only about the money then it is different. Thanks for going a step further.

 

[Lars]

Now take what you just said Ryan, and apply it to the Chrome EULA which says. "ANYTHING" you submit while using this product, you give license to Google to use.....

If I use my Private Web Server, on my Local Area Network, to store and sort Pami's 10,000 Photographs, and I use Google's Chrome browser to manage that gallery which is not open for the public. If I used Chrome to upload the images, write descriptions of the images, set titles, group them, etc. Google claims they have the right to reproduce, publish, etc. those images..... How is that "Right" in any sense of the word?

 

[ryanmercer]

Now take what you just said Ryan, and apply it to the Chrome EULA which says. "ANYTHING" you submit while using this product, you give license to Google to use.....

If I use my Private Web Server, on my Local Area Network, to store and sort Pami's 10,000 Photographs, and I use Google's Chrome browser to manage that gallery which is not open for the public. If I used Chrome to upload the images, write descriptions of the images, set titles, group them, etc. Google claims they have the right to reproduce, publish, etc. those images..... How is that "Right" in any sense of the word?

If you use their product, it's your problem. If you don't like their product, or the terms of it. You don't use it. It is as simple as that. It's a free product, you don't have to sue it, no one is making you use it. You aren't paying for it.

If you have a family member that tells everyone your business... what do you do... you don't tell them things you don't want broadcast. If you don't want your stuff to be fair-game for Google to use... don't use their products. I don't send anything through my gmail that I don't want them to have access to, and I discontinued use of Chrome after a few hours becuase I don't like things it does... their EULA is part of the program... if you don't like the EULA don't use the program... but when a company develops something and offers it to you for free, don't complain to them you don't like the conditions that come with it. Just say 'no thanks' and don't use it.

 

[Episcopus]

I just want to say that intellectual property laws exist to combat the hoarding of information and knowledge. Without patent laws, everyone would keep their work secret so they could make enough money to recoup the RD put into the discovery, or to get some money to make the time spent making the discovery worthwhile. There would be no incentive to share, as then any Joe could use their discovery/invention/product for free and they would be out the RD money or the lost wages for the time spent on the project.

Same with copyright law. Writing books, taking quality photographs and designing things covered by copyright are all time intensive and take skill. Without protections against others using your works for free, there would be no way to make the time worthwhile.

In either case, the lack of incentive leads to a stagnation in the rate of progress in the arts or sciences. Why would anyone spend time on things that others will then take and use for free?

 

[pmpmstrb]

im sure i could make assumptions about your age group too.

Let's hear them.

 

[Lars]

If you use their product, it's your problem. If you don't like their product, or the terms of it. You don't use it. It is as simple as that. It's a free product, you don't have to sue it, no one is making you use it. You aren't paying for it.

If you have a family member that tells everyone your business... what do you do... you don't tell them things you don't want broadcast. If you don't want your stuff to be fair-game for Google to use... don't use their products. I don't send anything through my gmail that I don't want them to have access to, and I discontinued use of Chrome after a few hours becuase I don't like things it does... their EULA is part of the program... if you don't like the EULA don't use the program... but when a company develops something and offers it to you for free, don't complain to them you don't like the conditions that come with it. Just say 'no thanks' and don't use it.

I agree completely. This is WHY I'm not going to use Google Chrome.
However so few people actually read the License Agreement they agree to when hitting "accept" that something this important should be brought to their attention.

Like I said, Technically speaking, Google Chrome is a neat product and a step in the right direction. Administratively speaking it's completely Foo and Bar for business use.

 

[ryanmercer]

I agree completely. This is WHY I'm not going to use Google Chrome.
However so few people actually read the License Agreement they agree to when hitting "accept" that something this important should be brought to their attention.

Like I said, Technically speaking, Google Chrome is a neat product and a step in the right direction. Administratively speaking it's completely Foo and Bar for business use.

I think it's nice they are trying to get into web browsing, now that they've dominated the web... but I don't like the browser at all... especially the part where with one click of a button it shows your most frequented sites, and loads them.

Did you see the story a year or so ago... where some guy got a thousand dollars for reading a EULA? A software company snuck a line in their EULA that said the first person to send a letter to the address listed would receive a check for a grand (it may have actually been 10k I don't recall... pretty sure it was 1k)... they wanted to see how long it would take someone to read it and reply... I guess it took quite a while, but one guy actually read it all the way through. IIRC it was a very long EULA.