Googleopy

Somethings are neither good nor bad, they just are. Another day I listened about Google dealing to buy the Twitter. That is one of the things are neither bad, nor good, they just are. “Don't be evil” is a great motto. “To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful” is a remarkable, even titanic, piratically utopian mission. Google invests on their employees creativity. It tries to create a ludic and academic alike environment.

Don't delude yourself thinking Google is managed by idealistic students. It wont be a Fortune Forbes enterprise if it would. And because it is managed by professional capitalists Google is taking some attitudes some considers monopolist. If they are monopolist, the case is monopoly is neither good nor bad, it just is. At least speaking lexicographically, as defined by the Dictionary.com:

mo·nop·o·ly

/məˈnɒpəli/ –noun, plural -lies. 1 exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly. 2 an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government. 3 the exclusive possession or control of something. 4 something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service. 5 a company or group that has such control. 6 the market condition that exists when there is only one seller. 7 ( initial capital letter ) a board game in which a player attempts to gain a monopoly of real estate by advancing around the board and purchasing property, acquiring capital by collecting rent from other players whose pieces land on that property.

I don't know who likes competition, it is told neither the devil likes. There is the ones who like competition, but by the simple joy to win and to overcome – it is human nature. Google, Microsoft, Apple, or any computing and technology company isn't different.

It has illusions about a company so competently capitalist is ingenuous, or generous, but don't suppose that. And why don't support Microsoft or Apple, for instance? One thing include little of theirs commercial policy. What makes me still like Google and did about the deceased Sun Microsystems is the philosophy permeates, but doesn't stop, on their commercial field: They adopt strategies that benefit the overall computing. When an enterprise gives the opportunity to another companies to use its technology or infrastructure that benefices the market. Twitter and Google do that with their APIs and services. When one open the source code of their products to share their quality like Sun did and Google does (check out Google code) all computing world benefits with that.

Because this kind of thing I pick Google side, even when it perpetuates actions simply commercial like Twitter negotiation, fact don't accomplished yet. It could until to get some monopoly. It could even stop to build free software, but it isn't like it could to impose any code leaving its free software state...

I like Open Source Software (and Free Software) by the non-impressive fact its to be good. If we take on count exceptions corroborate the rules, They are the scarse low-quality exceptions that prove open source software, or free software, is good.

That's the reason, and only that, why I like Google, why I like Open Source Software. Because the promote an improvement in overall computing, independent of monopolist ideals that drive Microsoft, capitalist that drive Apple, or idealistic that drive GNU. The most important is to benefit the computing.

On market terms and costumers actions one thing is sure: he isn't interested in nothing above. Imagine, for example, Google would purchase only twitter.com domain. Do you think people will be faithful to the service?

Don't blame Microsoft's monopoly by the viruses jeopardize Windows, the problem is fully different. Same way don't blame any Google's monopoly could have for private information leaks, after all it was you putted that informations on their database, and already knew, or should, that Google could use them when offers a new service.

A central point is on what we give importance. If the fateful Google's monopoly is frustrating enough to you don't want to use their products, go ahead and search. It isn't like they could kept alternatives to show up. Keep on mind the important is the service quality and computing evolution. Where that quality or evolution is tertiary.

It worths to remind the users aren't obligated to use a Google service (usually), neither a small company must to sell their product to another for any billionaire offer. On web technology field is very hard to close the market. Is a choice question. To use Google, Cuil or Bing is your option. To use, or don't use, Twitter (or Buzz) follow the same principle. To sell a good quality idea or product to a bigger company is an option too. Most important is good services show up, grow up, improve, ant computing and IT evolve.