Google clones search ad machine on photo sharerPosted Monday 16th March 2009 23:26 GMT
Next the will be manipulating rankings. Only a little at first, then increasingly so until the search engine becomes useless. As a publicly traded company you have to have quarterly revenue increase. The only way to do that is to keep earning more money, and as an advertiser you can't do that without ever more ads. Eventually you get to a point where you have so many ads your service is useless, then the next IPO comes along and kills you, until the same fate befalls them.
Posted Tuesday 17th March 2009 00:15 GMT
But I can't see them. Adblock Plus FTW.
Posted Tuesday 17th March 2009 04:42 GMT
Google is not a search engine, nor a provider of nifty free software or free online storage. They are an advertising company. You are not their customer. Advertisers are their customer. You are the product that Google sells to their customers.
As long as you remember "I am performing an internet search/storing my documents/wordprocessing/whatever using the resources of an advertising company" you'll be OK.
Posted Tuesday 17th March 2009 04:42 GMT
Says the irony-challenged web site liberally festooned in advertisements....
Posted Tuesday 17th March 2009 10:59 GMT
They are a company making money - that's what companies do (unless they are a bank I guess). I don't get your issue with a company making money from it's products. You do news stories so well, maybe you should stick to stories that contain some news rather than trying to define my opinion for me...
Cheers,
Adrian
Posted Tuesday 17th March 2009 10:59 GMT
Why on earth is this portrayed as a negative move? Of course google are going to include advertising in their services - it's how they're funded.
Am I happy with an easy to use, free photo publishing tool, that's cross platform and lets me easily face tag, geo tag, and share my photos. You bet I am.
Do I mind google showing a few adverts to pay for that? Are you kidding? It's a damn site better than me paying for it out of my own pocket.
Posted Tuesday 17th March 2009 10:59 GMT
You have to love the verbal gymnastics in announcements like this which try to hocus-pocus more ads into something positive for the consumer.
Posted Tuesday 17th March 2009 10:59 GMT
Yeah, you tell em. You should cancel your subscription and ask for a refund forthwith.
Oh wait.
Posted Tuesday 17th March 2009 10:59 GMT
"At Google, we're great supporters of experimentation because it's only by trying new things that you discover better, more creative ways to operate,"
three/four words:
Sun
Drenched
Reach-around
Posted Tuesday 17th March 2009 10:59 GMT
I just tried it and I see the ads when I search from my UK-based PC.
Actually, I don't see a problem with the idea though. A significant proportion of the web is "advertising funded" which means that tools like Picasa Web Albums are free to use in exchange for having a few ads. I am perfectly happy with this deal as long as it does not get in the way of my use of the site. This is why I don't use Adblock - I want "free" services that are paid for in a way that causes me no significant hassle. When the ads start getting obnoxious I either stop using the site, or block them in some way. This is one of the reasons that I do use NoScript.
Posted Tuesday 17th March 2009 12:06 GMT
@people like pjnola:
While there's a balance between money-grubbing and altruism, ask yourself whether our beloved ElReg hacks are volunteers or if it's possible that the ads you clearly loathe so much are paying for your ability to read this comment.
sigh
Posted Tuesday 17th March 2009 12:09 GMT
Hey, I'm only here because I LOVE IT SO MUCH.
Thanks Edwin. I fear it's true. Ads are often indirectly useful to you in that sense, even if you're not interested in them in and of themselves - without them we wouldn't be here. That's just, as Bruce Hornby so wisely intoned, the way it is.
Posted Tuesday 17th March 2009 13:22 GMT
"Google calls this an experiment"
It's a beta!
Back to the article
