Just by posting this you the very "conspiracy theorists who won't...". Just because Google has fulfilled a market better than any other Company there will always be people like you who envy their success. Instead of writing these stupid articles how about how you have some sort of insight on the dirty inlay of Google, just join the bandwagon and invest. You are not opening anyone's eyes. Oh and by the way if you knew anything about the search pact between Yahoo and Google you could comment, but you obviously have no idea about it's particulars.

"Bill Gates didn't set out to rule the desktop software world in 1975. He set out to solve the problem of making computers more useful for people."

You just lost any sense of credibility when you made this statement. Google has given users a sensible way to browse the internet for free and linked appropriate advertisers to them for a reasonable fee. If M$ had seen the opportunity, they would have been gouging users and advertisers alike with a multitude of business killing schemes and lousy services.

It's not that Micro$oft outrun its competitors, it's how they did it: with proprietary and undocumented protocols and file formats. For example anyone wanting to make a word processor could not be 100% compatible with M$ Office's .doc format. Google is open in protocols, standards and source code. You cannot beat that. Anyone that wants to compete with Google can do that and at the same time be compatible with their products. This is a gigantic difference.

Clint, please say that you don't really believe it when you say "No one, no sports team, no company on the planet competes fairly. No one."

When I played soccer in high school, there were players who held jerseys, tripped people when the refs weren't looking, and did dangerous kicks. But most players tried to compete fairly, and I certainly tried to be one of the fair players.

Here's what I'd agree with: it's probably impossible to live in this world without someone thinking that you're evil in some way. Just by breathing, we no doubt kill thousands of microbes each second. Without noticing, people step on ants, spiders and bugs and crush them. Some people think that eating meat is evil. Everyone has a slightly different conception of what evil is, which is why Google's core value is *not* "Do no evil." It's "Don't be evil," and it serves as a useful way for people at Google to have conversations about how to try to do the right things for our users.

How can you call out Microsoft as evil for holding a monopoly and Google as evil for competing with Microsoft at the same time? Competition is not evil, it drives innovation. Competition from Firefox has spurred development of IE, which had been pretty much untouched for several years. I don't see how releasing a new browser is evil.

While there may be some people at Google who don't care about ethics, I'm sure there are some who are really trying to make the world a better place. I commend them for adopting the "do no evil" policy.

Matt:

You hit the nail on the head with perception, but let's not mince words. Google's growth has made it a target for people who are looking to prove the don't be evil mantra no longer applies. Google started out trying not to be evil, but it's finding it increasingly difficult to beat that perception as it seeks to compete. The Chrome launch really nailed that coffin for some people.

I gladly use Google's services, but will I wake up one day to find that the company is slapped with anticompetitive suits from governments in the U.S. and abroad? Not at all. And, fair or unfair, once that happens it becomes difficult to argue that an entity isn't evil in the minds of most people reading the WSJ, Times or some other pub.

"Google's growth has made it a target for people who are looking to prove the don't be evil mantra no longer applies."

Oh, I'd totally agree with that, but that's not new. People discovered a long time ago that a controversial article or headline about Google attracts lots of page views.

But: that doesn't mean that Google should give up on "Don't be evil." If anything, we should increase our commitment to communication, transparency, and openness even more. The hope is that if Google tries to do the right thing (e.g. making Chrome open-source, clearly documenting how it works, making sure that the search options can easily be switched to other search services or turned off, making sure that we respect the user's previous default search provider settings), then hopefully the perception of Google trying to compete fairly will follow.

Matt:

As SEO has taught us, anything with "Google" in it attracts page views. Google's goal as you've stated here is noble, but perhaps Sysiphean. Can even Google push that big boulder of trust uphill? People are so quick to judge these days.

Just a note... having Matt Cutts tweet about your story and post a link attracts page views as well. ;-)

Sounds like a bunch of hen pecking old ladies. Google is doing what every other successful company does. Simple, I have yet to see anyone compete on their level.

It may be a Sysiphean task, but I think we still need to at least try to push that boulder. :) I agree that the danger Google faces as it gets larger is that it may regress into a "normal" company. I think Googlers should try to buck that trend toward averageness for as long as possible, using all the creative ideas that we can think of.

Plus "Don't be evil" sets a high bar so that regular people criticize Google any time we do something that isn't good for users. I think that's a good thing and helps to keep Google on track too.

This concept and framing of the term “evil” reminds me of the political left here in the U.S. and their constant assault on big business. I think both are off target.

@matt cutts

If Google really still followed the "Don't be evil" mantra then why with one tweet would you kill dofollow links in twitter bios?

If you really wanted to rid the serps of spam why not require pre-authorization to place adsense ads... just like every other network?

Why not rotate ads on your homepage for Chrome and Firefox?

Why not allow people to opt out of "user activity scraping" aka personalized search.

Why not make sure that Vimeo or MySpace TV rank as high in the serps as YouTube in Universal search.

Wal-Mart is often pegged with the Evil Corp name tag... One of their business tactics is to move into an area and put other smaller businesses out of business. Does that explain Google Insight or traffic counts in Adwords?

I have absolutly no problem with Google being a for profit corporation, but you gotta drop the "Don't Be Evil" thing, it's begining to taste like Soylent Green.

I don't think of Google as evil. I consider Google to be very deviant, manipulative, and not very honest as a company. Hmmm, maybe being deviant, manipulative and dishonest does equal EVIL!

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the term "evil." By saying that Google is "evil" aren't you implying that everyone else who works for them is "evil," too?

Isn't the reason why people's perception of Google so strong due to how Google built their brand? Look at how vastly different Microsoft's brand is compared with Google. Google seems to have that grass roots kind of an appeal, almost as if it's the anti-corporate corporation. Microsoft doesn't seem to be that way to me at all; they seem like they've lost their brand focus a bit.

Regardless, it would be interesting to know "why" there are so many Google-or-die loyalists out there. Perhaps that's a lesson other businesses can learn from.

@Clint, It is ridiculous to say that no sport team or business competes fairly. Of course there are hundreds. Unfortunately the payoff is usually awarded to the cheaters, but your statement is unfairly cynical.

You also seem to say that Google is evil in the article but in the comments you focus on Google *appearing* evil. That's a big difference. Furthermore, being slapped with a lawsuit proves nothing about the company's intent. You can sue anyone for anything and it doesn't even mean they are guilty of that which they are accused.

@Dan Hughes - perhaps twitter bios aren't considered valuable links. They can be mass-created and spammed.

No company I have ever seen rotates competitors ads on their sites - that's not being un-evil, it's just good business sense. Besides, I don't see any ads on the Google home page at all. Did you mean another page?

You can opt out of personalized search - just don't log in to a Google account.

Vimeo and MySpace TV are nowhere near as popular as YouTube - why should they outrank the standard video sharing service in the SERPs?

Your post has the taste of Google-hater and the arguments are not well thought out.

@Dan Hughes

I don't think Wal-Mart's business tactics "is to move into an area and put other smaller businesses out of business", I think it's a side effect of consumers choosing low price over mom+pop.

If Google dropped the "Don't be evil" would you then embrace them? I think more of them for at least having a target, even if it's a hard one to always hit.

I would guess that if Google and Wal-Mart both closed their doors, life would be much less enjoyable for everyone reading this post.

Wondering if any other Company's corporate core value/slogan/vision statement has ever generated so many posts, headlines and comments as "Don't be Evil" has for Google?

It's important to remember that IE got its start by cloning the Apple UI on the Mac. They were not very original but had IBM's big bucks behind them.

Chrome, on the other hand, is unique and seems to be distancing itself from the IE look and feel, instead of copying and modifying.

In the history of big company browsers, I think that says something about Google's philosophy and pride of product, IMO.

Frank

Dan, here's my quick off-the-cuff reactions:

- I mentioned a possible Twitter loophole to Evan in case he didn't know about it. I didn't pressure Evan and later checked with him to make sure that he didn't feel pressured.
- I'm not an expert on the ads side of things; are you talking about the ability to put AdSense on new sites quickly, or do you want to require advertisers to opt in to AdSense?
- We have promoted Firefox on our homepage before (multiple times, in fact). Search for [firefox promoted google homepage] for example. And when we asked users if they wanted to upgrade for a faster Gmail experience, we suggested Firefox before Chrome on the page.
- You may consider it "user activity scraping" but we consider personalized search a quality win. You can always sign out of Google, but there's also an easy way to turn it off for a specific query. Just add "&pws=0" to the url to turn off personalized search.
- I've talked to the YouTube folks about exactly your issue and been convinced that given the marketshare that YouTube has, Google actually bends over backwards to try to show non-YouTube videos in our search results.

Anyway, that's my quick reply for your questions.

I'm an attorney, and even if I think someone's a crook, I need evidence before I can even accuse.

People might paint attorneys as crooks, but that's the ethical standard I work towards anyway.

In contrast, if you sift through each sentence in your article, and test for whether the sentence is supported by proof, you will find that the only piece of evidence is -- Google never gave prior warning that they were developing a browser.

It doesn't hurt, however, to be watchful of Google since things could change fast, so I guess people like you perform a service to society, and perhaps it takes a rather cynical-type personality to have a life calling to watch big corporations as a hobby, where more balanced, fairer people wouldn't dream of doing such, so maybe there is a place in the world for people like you to find your niche. Therefore, go for it. Let us know if Google gets bad. Meanwhile, I'll keep using Gmail and Chrome, or immediately switch to the next new thing that's faster and free.

Matt:

Markets that are dominated by network effects and high switching costs tend to be "winner take all." That's neither good nor evil; it's just economics.

Matt, Spoken like a true commentator. Here is your answers from someone who works in the software industry. Fair is defined by the w3c committee. Google has been very busy innovating and supporting innovation within those standards. It supported Firefox as Firefox pushed the industry back to the standards and showed the world that a browsing experience could be richer and more user friendly while playing by the well defined rules. Chrome Google-fied what Firefox started ... it made the experience better as it traded some features for clean simplicity and made it lightning fast. (Then Google released all the innovation back into the market.)

Speaking of evil ... there is something much more sinister going down ... its new M$ft technologies called WPF and Silverlight. And they are the technology behind Microsoft's grab at a Google that's been out pacing them. Lets set the stage. Remember, M$fts has dumped billions in MSN and despite that Google has held them off at search and in the process built a formidable defense around it. And now, to throw salt in the wound, Google wants to compete with office by offering GoogleApps.

To M$ft thats outrageous (just think Ballmer throwing chairs). M$ft wants to drive a stake through all of it ... but Google holds the lion share of the brain trust so rather then competing fairly ... they are doing what they always do if they feel like they might lose ... they are going to change the rules of the game. Meet 'WPF' and 'Silverlight'. While Google worked tenaciously to push the limits of the browser to bring you gwt based services, M$ft builds a technology the works outside the browser ('plugin') and now they can go to town because they hold the keys, they make the rules, they have a two year head start.

Matt - your the commentator writing a scalding criticism of the guy you 'think' might have done some 'holding' or a 'late hit' but the reality is that he just playing hard and the fans are loving it. Meanwhile M$ft (think Patriots) just kicked the ref out of the game and Bill Belichick's is in the locker room buttoning up his pin stripe suit with a white cap on. Dude ... thats evil!

Is it greedy to create jobs or increase profits for shareholders or create a cloud of wealth that ripples throughout the economy?

Is it greedy to stimulate innovation and improvements?

I take issue with your comment that competition is inherently evil.

Those who take the huge risk of starting and growing a business deserve the rewards.

Enough with the tiresome wealth envy.

Silly, blind people. Don't you know that Google IS the government? Where do you think they get their endless resources? Go do a search on Google and "big brother". Don't be so gullible people.

@Phil Buckley:
Don't kid yourself that Wal-Mart's business strategy/tactic is not "to move into an area and put other smaller businesses out of business". This strategy has been exhaustively documented in the business press.

@Clint:
In your last paragraph, you refer to Google’s "devious actions". The dictionary provides two related, but nonetheless quite differently intended, synonyms: "cunning" and "deceptive". Which are you implying? I could agree with the first, but the second would be quite a stretch.

Competition IS inherently evil since the idea assumes that one will win what the other loses. This is `Doing harm to another for one's gain.' However, competetion is a natural law. It will occur.

Any entity can grow to a size where there are people in power that do not hold the same values that the original professes. The US govt is not by nature, evil, but there are those within the govt that are. Google may have a wonderful philosophy, but it is aquiring tools and power that can be seriously misused.

Thanks Clint for telling it straight. We all have been seeing the propoganda and half truths from the markets to politics lately. Give the people the respect they deserve by being honest and let them decide. I trust a credit card company with my SS# not to misuse it in return for using their services and am perfectly fine with Google collecting data when it is CLEARLY and specifically defined and not buried in legal mumbo jumbo...all the best.

Circling back around to this thread because Clint pointed to it recently.

"Don't you know that Google IS the government?"

da, I personally did a declaration in the case to prevent the Dept. of Justice from getting access to users' queries. So no, Google is not the government at all.

James Plamondon, I'm not sure that websearch has strong network effects or high switching costs, especially compared to many other industries. If another search engine launches and exceeds Google in quality, people can quickly and easily migrate to it regardless of how many people use Google.

And regarding switching costs, Google has deliberately tried to lower the cost of pulling your data out of Google. Eric Schmidt phrased it as "We would never trap user data." And indeed you can easily export your email, opt-in web history, calendar data, even your blog away from Google for free. I like to think that by reducing lock-in, Google forces itself to compete more on merit, which keeps us on our toes. I also like to think that not trying to lock up (say) people's email engenders loyalty, just because users appreciate that they can leave at any time.

evil is the privation of good