Google says it has kicked two unnamed contractors off its projects after OpenStreetMap alleged that someone working for the company had vandalised the free map service. A Google spokeswoman said: "The two people who made these changes were contractors acting on their own behalf while on the Google network. They are no longer …
Cause and effect
"They are no longer working on Google projects"
This doesn't necessarily mean that they were booted out because of this. They might have finished their contracts and moved on. It's a convenient lazy catch-all PR phrase that avoids blame and investigation.
every time google are caught
they say that it was just a rogue employee or a contractor or someone who is only loosely affiliated with the company. It's amazing how many people eat that shit up and still bow at Googles feet.
Nearly every decent service that comes out of them was either bought up and relabeled as a Google Beta servie or copied from a competitor and slightly improved.
Can you prove that the booted out contractors were not to blame? If not, then I suspect you may be the one talking shit.
"Nearly every decent service that comes out of them was either bought up and relabeled as a Google Beta servie or copied from a competitor and slightly improved."
Wow - exactly the same "unoriginality" criticisim that people have been making of Microsoft for years and years. And probably Apple, too.
These big corporations are all just as bad as each other.
Why would contractors do this?
What could possibly drive two contractors working at Google India to go and disrupt OpenStreetMaps for cities like London and New York?
The most obvious winner of such actions would be Google own Maps service.
It's not whether or not they were to blame that's in question – it's whether they were booted out, or simply had their project end a few weeks ago.
And i suspect you're talking shit..
...the point being that Google should have made a clearer statement (ie. We found the two people who had done this and booted them out because of it) instead of this ambiguous one. Besides which, the emphasis is on Google to prove they're not behaving badly, not on some random internet poster to prove they are.
Google shill much?
Amazing how many bad apples turn up at Google...
... considering their recruitment process is supposedly pretty thorough.
On the other hand, when was the last time you were asked in an interview "Will you do naughty things and trash competitors websites", and answered "Yes"....
"will you do naughty things?"
I suspect that rather depends on the post you are being interviewed for. If it were as, shall we say, "information gatherer" for the late NOTW for instance...
Amazing how many bad apples turn up at Google
And amazing how many bad Googles turn up at Apple as well!
i.e. Eric Schmitt allegedly "stealing" the iPhone idea (as Android) while he was still on Apple's board!
Meh icon because, well... meh...
Eric Schmidt worked for Sun before going to Google; He never worked for Apple.
Contractors are rarely 'recruited'; generally they are 'acquired'; like the flu or herpes.
And Android was in fact created by a company that Google bought, so initially Google (or Smith) had little to do with it *at all*
And anyway, this all happened before the iphone came out, so meh....
Google bought Android - the company - in 2005, first Android phone came out in 2009.
I'm sure you'll agree that's plenty of time for Schmidt to have a lot to do with it.
A Director's responsibilities
Schmidt served on Apple's board when he worked for Google. As such, he worked for Apple and it was his duty to serve Apple's interests, or recuse himself if there was a conflict of interest.
I don't know how much info Jobs shared with his board, but I suspect he was as tight-fisted with them as with the press, or even Apple employees beyond the few need-to-know on each project.
Google argues they bought Android before Apple made its announcement of the iPhone, and they may be right, but at that point it was a device more akin to a Danger HipTop, with a large keyboard, than the iPhone. If Schmidt got Google to switch to an iPhone-like direction on Android, he would indeed be in breach of his fiduciary duty to Apple, but it would be very hard to prove in court (but not impossible, see Oracle's success in proving deceptive intent wrt Android and Java).
I don't think Schmidt had necessarily that much control at Google. He was a stuffed suit foisted on Brin and Page by VCs with their inane belief in "adult supervision", and Brin and Page made sure he was cut out of the loop on many critical decisions, Android may have been. It is quite possible Schmidt mentioned something about the iPhone to Brin & Page, but that of course would be nearly impossible to prove.
Eric Schmidt never worked for Apple?
Perhaps this might change your opinion:
A graceful move
To compensate for the damage by offering a little assistance to the open map wizards would be only fair - and need not imply intentional wrongdoing.