A former community discussing the business of software, from the smallest shareware operation to Microsoft. A part of Joel on Software.
We're closed, folks!
Doug Nebeker ("Doug")
In the city I live in, Google has put up large billboard and poster adverts boasting of the speed of their web browser Chrome.
There are also many television adverts boasting how fast Google Chrome is.
A layman might be impressed at what wonderful, efficient software developers the Google creature employs.
The About box of Chrome acknowledges some other work but it isn't mentioned specifically.
Google Chrome uses multiple Open Source modules. See
In fact Kent Fredric comments in the above URL that Google don't propagate back bug-fixes and enhancements to the Open Source modules due to the bad way they have arranged things. I don't know how true this is and I leave it as an exercise to the read to verify this himself/herself.
Worse still back in 2000, the web browser Konqueror was released and this was acknowledge as a very fast web browser.
Ultimately the source of Konqueror is used by Google in Chrome.
So is it right for Google to boast about how fast Google Chrome is, but in the same space not make it abundantly clear their work is based on multiple Open Source modules, in particular the fast web browser Konqueror?
No doubt, these people have done lots of work and maintenance and keeping things up-to-date, but Konqueror came first and was written outside of Google and before Google came along.
My personal opinion is that it is wrong to boast and not make things clear at the same time. A layman might think Google is soley responsible for the speed of their web browser when I think the Konqueror team deserves a mention.
Ducknald and Doug, is anything I have said incorrect or an exaggeration? That is the only thing that matters.
I am merely relaying a thought that went through my head, when I saw Google's television campaign and series of huge billboard advertisements outside major shopping centres.
Google definitely want to tell us about the speed of Google Chrome.
I just wanted to talk about the sources of Chrome and its relation to Konqueror which was released with no help from Google back in 2000.
Did Konqueror use any libraries? NSCA Mosaic? A TCPIP stack? Everything is built on something else. If Chrome is fast, great! I know I personally haven't been publically thanking the creators of C++ and Windows for my success, though I couldn't have done it without them.
So yes, you are correct, but incomplete.
I'm not mad, not even bothered. It just seems like Google has gotten under your skin -- don't self destruct. Just move on and build a great business in spite of them. Good luck!
Doug, thanks for your advice.
But your response is an ad hominem attack i.e. you are saying I am obsessed rather than attacking the validity of my message.
Knock it off.
All the major difficult to write modules for a web browser were already available.
The speed of Google Chrome is in some part due to taking the fast HTML rendered from Konqueror.
This is a major piece of a web browser.
This is distinct from using low level libraries.
Seriously your defence is a poor one.
Actually my website is still getting a fair amount of traffic. Traffic halved, but it is still high. It was high before and it is high now.
I still get an income stream. I am OK.
This is not about Google lowering the ranking of my website and increased my Adwords costs.
It is just that the Konqueror team did the seminal work writing a fast HTML and CSS renderer. It was then turned into WebKit and used by Apple's Safari web browser.
Then Google came along and scooped up the prepared WebKit.
I seriously feel the Konqueror team's work is being ignored and that people will forgot they did the brilliant initial work.
This is just about credit and fairness. As I said before I had the thought that Google are making a lot of their Chrome browser in big posters and television commercials, but the poor Konqueror team who did the fast, efficient work long before Google came along are not getting their due credit.
I don't have an opinion on the Chrome issue (I could argue both sides); but I do agree with Doug, you're fixating on Google. It doesn't seem healthy. I'd take a step back and try not to think about them for a while.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
@DontTreadOnMe: the point is that this is a forum for people interested in business of software, not your rants about Google.
Start a blog and rant as much as you wish there.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
So noted Krzysztof.
Yes, you are correct. I failed to notice the title of this forum - "The Business of Software".
I didn't think my original post here was that strongly worded enough to be a rant.
Not wishing to make a tenuous link, but if you examine Google's business strategy it is of cost-shifting.
Google did not develop Android and Chrome themselves. They purchased Android from another company and somewhat developed Chrome from WebKit and what they could find already produced. Nonetheless both these products cost Google a lot of money.
Google gives them away free.
But nothing is free.
The money comes from Google Adwords. Advertisers are the ones that ultimately pay for Android, Chrome, YouTube etc.
This means if you sell software on the Internet and use Adwords (a fair amount of people), then the piece of your software goes up in proportion to how much software Google gives away free.
I most certainly run a software business. I have lots of customers and a steady income stream from selling on the Internet.
I very much notice I've put prices up 5% in the last month because of Google introduced costs.
Maybe 10 - 15% of my software income goes to Google.
If Google gives away more free stuff, they are in the position to force up the cost of software on the Internet until people can migrate to cheaper ways of getting their message across.
I think you have dismissed the ultimate reason behind my posts too reason.
Why do you think that Fog Creek have gone to the expense of writing custom software for this forum? Why do you think they continue to pay the server costs?
Well it is to generate web traffic to their software website, so that they don't have to pay Google Adwords and perhaps they too find that costs too much money.
Still banging that same old drum?
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Harry, Andy - the reason for my second post here, is that the first one was really about increasing Google Adwords costs.
This is a dedicated one to the another topic. Yes, I mentioned Chrome and Konqueror as well, but it was buried in a longer post.
It is probably really none of my concern what other people do. But if Google release a lot of free software (I'm sure Android isn't cheap) then it is paid for ultimately by advertisers. I'm an advertiser and I'm seeing huge cost increases.
Google would make more money by decreasing cost per click as it would mean more people could advertise with them.
I am disappointed that you seem Google fan-boys. I am not ranting about Google. I am not saying they are evil.
I am just saying Konqueror was well acknowledged when it was first released as having a fast HTML renderer. Konqueror source code was bundled into WebKit and used in Apple's Safari. Then Google came along and took the already prepared WebKit and used it in Chrome.
Harry, Andy - stop ad hominem attacks. You attack me by saying I am obsessed, but you fail to address my message.
Is anything I say incorrect?
Is anything I say an exaggeration?
The message is important, not who writes it.
I have as much right to post two topics here as you do.
And what I say does relate to the business of software.
Google gives Chrome and Android away for free.
A free operating system makes in harder for Microsoft, RIMM and Apple to compete as how can you compete with free?
Android is not free. Chrome is not free. It is paid for by increased advertising costs for everyone selling on the Internet.
This is relevant to this forum.
I have a right to post here without personal attacks. I have only posted two topics here.
> I have only posted two topics here.
You have also used other people's topics to post this anti-google stuff, even though it was barely relevant.
> I have a right to post here without personal attacks.
I wouldn't describe the comments in this thread as ad hominem attacks. On the other hand you have insulted people in other threads. You can't demand your perceived rights when you deny them to others.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Just a few things to consider:
Were you posting about these issues before Google demoted your rank?
You don't really have to answer. I am only suggesting that you might be down playing the effect of raised prices and loss of traffic on your business. You say you pay 10% of your income to Google. Is google just a cost center? Does it also bring revenue? Greater than 10%? Less than 10%?
You say your business is OK. Will it still be OK if Google pushed you to page 50 instead of page 5? Can your business survive at all if Google de-indexed you altogether?
I do think you are fixating on Google and for good reason. I think you are realizing that your business is very much ( maybe too much?) dependent on Google and perhaps you have not prepared for alternatives.
Search engines are not regulated industries(yet). Someday they will be I think. When millions of people come to depend on anything, right or wrong politicians follow. Maybe some day before they can index a site there has be a hearing. A Commissioner of Search perhaps? But till that day, you and i have to find ways to do business when and if Google fires / demotes us.
"So is it right for Google to boast about how fast Google Chrome is, but in the same space not make it abundantly clear their work is based on multiple Open Source modules, in particular the fast web browser Konqueror?"
Every one does that. All companies search for cheap and free resources to package in their product. Oracle has made it clear that they will sell open source if it is better than what they make. I don't see credits to FSF on red hat site. To this day, they use FSF tools to compile linux. They didn't go to business to promote someone else. And if that was a condition of using the software , they would probably not use it. I don't know much about Konqueror story, but I am imagining a bunch of people who were very good at building software but couldn't sell watermelons on the side of the road if the state trooper stood with them and flagged the cars over.
>Is anything I say incorrect?
>Is anything I say an exaggeration?
You are correct. I agree prices have gone up, and Google is using their increased profits to buy companies, and build products which they give away for free. I think we all agree to these facts as far as we know them.
_I_ (as an AdWords advertiser) am helping fund Chrome, Android, Google Glass, Google Earth, their self-driving cars, their catered lunches, day care, etc, etc, etc, etc.
So what? What is the point of your post? The main point seems to be that we should band together and all lower our bids so that the auction prices come down. Most folks don't think that will work. The other alternative -- stop using AdWords altogether. Except most of us get enough value out of it that we're willing to spend the money -- we'd be fools to keep paying if there wasn't an ROI.
So again, what do you want to happen based on your posts? We already agree with the "facts" (as much as we can confirm them).
Just for LOL....
I hope this does not turn out like the advertisement you see on television.
[A bunch of people on a bus and the guy convinces everybody and and makes them say aloud in front of camera that 'Bing is better than google' ]
[Microsoft issues a press release 'Folks at JOS forum do agree ...blah blah .. and the moderators of the Forum agree with it... ]
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Jonathan, in a previous thread I said to one commenter to "man-up".
The comment was meant to sound over-the-top and not to be taken seriously. I was a little disappointed that he said it is not worth trying. You should always try otherwise you will always fail.
I never suggested an all out boycott of Google Adwords. I suggested that people use manual bidding and use lower bids on perhaps two days of the week to see what happens.
I said at the moment I have no competitors in my niche. So why are my Costs Per Click so high? I see greediness and greediness that is counterproductive. It is right I should speak out.
I try to sell low-cost, good quality software. I try to provide fast technical support. If a customer wants a small change, I will make it and do it fast. Generally I won't charge for this. Perhaps I should. Big companies can be slow at getting approval for small payments for a change I can do in a few hours.
The old metric is 1 sale for every 100 downloads. In good times, I guess I do better that that. In better times, I get 1 sale for every 50 unique visitors to my site.
A couple of years ago, my peak was 30 sales per day for one particular product.
I do believe from what I have seen, the greedy attitude of Google is making it difficult to sell low priced, mass market software on the Internet. Given their monopoly position I think this is very wrong. I hope that Google will read this post and maybe think about lowering cost per click.
My software is useful to many people. People love my software. I don't like charging too much. I don't think Google should by force, by inaction or carelessness or lack of knowledge of trialware/shareware software, up my prices.
I stand for low-priced, mass-market, high quality software. Google in my niche actively goes against this.
I don't expect people to do anything as a result of this newish topic.
I only wanted to get across a thought that went across my head when I saw all Google's adverts.
Google do boast about how smart they are. Do you remember all their adverts about how difficult their interview questions are?
Well if you set yourself up as smart, then boast about your efficient web browser, then I feel like I should speak up and spread some knowledge of the history of how Google Chrome came about.
I don't expect people to do anything.
Robert C. Barth
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
12 team members is rather a small part of Google.
I do stand somewhat corrected, but has anyone had the same thoughts as me.
Google set themselves up as being very smart. They boast on advertisements about their difficult interview process. They hire hundreds to thousands of recent graduates.
And what do they produce?
Android was purchased from another company.
So was the StreetView core.
A lot of Chrome is from Open Source modules.
Does anything think what is the point of hiring hundreds of recent graduates if you are doing to buy in most of your new software.
Google did a good job with the initial versions of web search. But for all the hoopla, everything new they do is bought in.
Don't you think this is a waste of talent of all the hundreds of recent graduates Google has hired? Where is the fruit that they produced.
Why does Google have to buy most of its new software in?
Why wasn't Android developed in-house?
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
> Does anything think what is the point of hiring hundreds of recent graduates if you are doing to buy in most of your new software.
Buying code instead of re-inventing the wheel frees those smart guys for doing new things.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Perhaps I'm getting old and cranky and resent spending money given some of the feedback!
12 is 6x the size of the team that built GMail.
Robert C. Barth
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
>Google is making it difficult to sell low priced, mass market
>software on the Internet. Given their monopoly position I think
>this is very wrong.
I don't disagree with your sentiment. Not much we can do though (other than promote Bing, DuckDuckGo, etc).
> I hope that Google will read this post and maybe think about
>lowering cost per click.
That would be wonderful. But that's not how capitalism works. And if they did, their shareholders would sue them for shirking their fiduciary(?) responsibilities.
Doug, thanks for your reply.
I do think I was a little over the top here and have gone off on tangents. Perhaps I have a bee in my bonnet about certain things.
I have cut down on my Adwords spending. My daily budget is practically the same, but I will not pay the absurd Costs per Click Google is charging.
A week ago I paused my account for a few days. When I turned it back on I was getting less clicks. I haven't looked closely yet, but it seems my Costs Per Click must have gone up again and made more of my keywords inactive as they are above my maximum cost per click. Yet completely no competition on Adwords!
The fact is that if Google put down the Cost Per Click, then I would up my daily budget as it would be so much more worthwhile.
I think Google could make more profit if they just behaved in a sensible way with regards prices.
Ad hominem doesn't mean what you think it means. If I were to say you were obsessed that wouldn't be an ad hominem. It would be dismissive, sure, but not an ad hominem.
If I were to say your argument is invalid because you're obsessed, then *that* is an ad hominem.
This is a common mistake. Don't feel bad about it.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Personally i expect google to advertise that they use Webkit about as much as they advertise what C++ compiler they use. It just isn't important to 99.99% of the people out there. And for the ones it is, the info is readily available.
I actually had a regret about this post, because it can easily be seen as sour grapes because Google downgraded my website from the top of the 1st page to the 2nd page and have bumped up my Cost Per Click in Adwords.
But Foobar's post really made me think that my post is valid.
It is important for history to be correctly recorded.
Google Chrome was released in 2008.
WebKit is based on Konqueror source code and the WebKit project was started by Apple long before Google came along. WebKit was started in the late 1990s and continued by Apple.
WebKit is a trademark of Apple.
To group Apple and Google as being similar as regards to WebKit is wrong.
The main work on WebKit is more to do with Apple and the Konqueror people.
There is a subtle rewriting of history here.
OK, there is very little point to this. Who cares who should get the credit for the work? Who cares WebKit was up and running 8 years before Google and Chrome came along.
No, none of this is anything to do with me. But maybe people should remember that people other than Google are responsible for what they use.
Just look at the dates.
Google released Chrome in 2008.
>Personally i expect google to advertise that they use Webkit >
> as much as they advertise what C++ compiler they use.
This isn't the same thing at all and you know it.
Using a prepared WebKit all nicely produced by KDE and Apple is a huge chunk of a web browser.
It is not of the same order as container libraries, low-level network libraries, standard compiler libraries etc.
All developers make use of C/C++ compilers.
This is a different thing entirely.
Added a MRU cache to i/o and such like ain't such a big thing. These are standard techniques.
Yes, we will close this thread now.
I've been reading a bit more about this area.
The Apple / Safari / WebKit team got their first. The WebKit team releases a fair bit under Open Source.
Apple got their first. Just like WebKit was developed by Apple and KDE long before Google came along.
Google just followed in Apple's coat-tails.
This is none of my business, but it does become of interest to us when Google just boasts time and time again how smart and clever they are, how tough their interview process is and take out many advertisements telling us how fast Google Chrome is.
Monday, March 18, 2013
I'm surprised that my post has generated some hostility.
Google has a monopoly on search and how they rank websites and how they charge for Adwords effects _ALL_ of us.
The cost of their clicks is well above twice what bing.com and download websites charge. In fact download websites are a bit nicer in that you only get charged for a full, completed download of your software. Whereas with Google, you get charged for visitors that don't download.
I hope that the negative posters aren't connected with Google in some way either by employment or getting their income from promoting Adwords or from search engine optimization services.
In my time I've written a vast amount of software in companies and for myself. I appreciate the creativity of writing software. I appreciate it can be an intellectual exercise. It is about problem solving.
All my post is about is saying Apple and the KDE Linux team produced WebKit with CSS support, HTML 5 support and multimedia support BEFORE Google came along.
All this is documented on Wikipedia and in the links referenced by the articles. You can verify everything I have said.
I really don't understand the negativity about my innocuous post.
It is just trying to outline a timeline of events.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Who cares? If it works, it works. If it doesn't work for you, don't use it. Simples.
I have noticed that Google search is becoming more irrelevant and bordering on pure advertising, but they have to sell something to justify the way overpriced launch.
Hey-ho. Here we go again. Tulips anyone?
Racky, everyone should have a voice here.
What you are doing is a very subtle form of online bullying.
You disagree with what I have said and so you are very subtly bashing me.
I posted again to add some information I found out about SquirrelFish extreme and also because another post was added.
I only wished to try to set the record straight.
I hardly think a bit of text is going to overload the servers.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.Other recent topics
Powered by FogBugz