< ![CDATA[Reader JG writes: … YouTube ads like this fly in the face of everything “relevance” based …(it) is a complete reversal of everything [Google] ever stood for. A non-relevance-based graphical video overlay? How is that not just a banner ad? And wasn’t the whole fire and fury behind Google’s rise, Google’s takeover of the net, founded on a rejection of the “banner”, the DoubleClickian “gaudy and irrelevant”, approach to web advertising?

]]> Read More

Reader Yong writes: Regardless of this debate, google should be so intelligent as to take the necessary steps to prevent the abuse of its power. Instead of waiting for a disaster to happen, which may actually harm people.

Reader Mat writes: If Google is solely a “technology and advertising” company, as you say, and their current business model undermines the very content production houses they rely upon for (bi-directional) traffic, then the company should have a very real interest in making sure those media companies stay afloat, for purely _business_ reasons

< ![CDATA[Reader Hercule DB writes: Each of us has a choice to make. How much privacy do we demand? What price freedom? We should rather live in a free world troubled even by threats from terrorists, than one in which individuals or organizations in whom I have little trust have open access and therefore control over our lives.]]> Read More

< ![CDATA[Reader Kamal writes: Besides some start-ups, Microsoft is the only company which is trying to innovate in this space. This is actually as important, if not more important, as improving the search quality even further.]]> Read More

< ![CDATA[Reader Marc writes: Web apps in general have barely made a dent in client-side usage and this announcement of a loosely joined set of apps by Google isn’t likely to change that anytime soon.
]]> Read More

< ![CDATA[Reader Dr. Pete writes: For all of the lip service we pay to Web 2.0, it’s amazing to stop and think how much the internet has really changed in the past decade. It’s already revolutionalized almost everything we do, and yet we’ve taken it for granted in record time.]]> Read More

< ![CDATA[Reader Kamail Jain Writes: Google has a very clean home page. It has links to their advertisement products, may be useful, for 1% of their visitors who advertise on Google. But no link to their privacy policy, which is relevant for 100% of their users.]]> Read More

Reader Kamail Jain Writes: Google has a very clean home page. It has links to their advertisement products, may be useful, for 1% of their visitors who advertise on Google. But no link to their privacy policy, which is relevant for 100% of their users.]]> Read More

< ![CDATA[Reader Dr. Pete Writes: I’m reading too many comments that are calling this “human intelligence” and “wisdom of crowds” and contrasting that with Google. Isn’t algorithmically encapsulating the wisdom of crowds exactly what Google did?]]> Read More