<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Al-Capone on despatches</title><link>https://icle.es/tags/al-capone/</link><description>Recent content in Al-Capone on despatches</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:42:17 +0100</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://icle.es/tags/al-capone/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Accepting Google</title><link>https://icle.es/2009/02/10/accepting-google/</link><pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:41:44 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://icle.es/2009/02/10/accepting-google/</guid><description>&lt;p>&lt;a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001224.html" title="Google monoculture">Jeff Atwood (Coding Horror)&lt;/a>
correctly points out that when we refer to search engines, we are really only
referring to one - &lt;a href="http://www.google.co.uk" title="Google">google&lt;/a>. With its easy to
use, efficient and most importantly effective search functionality, there really
is no reason to use another search engine.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>Jeff raises a couple of valid points. With no viable competition, where is the
incentive for them to improve the functionality.  It&amp;rsquo;s pleasant to see that
google still invests time and money into improving features including the
ability to personalise your search results. However, the question of how long
they will keep doing this is worth asking&amp;hellip;&lt;/p>
&lt;p>The more interesting point that Jeff raises is:&lt;/p>
&lt;blockquote>
&lt;p>&amp;ldquo;I&amp;rsquo;m a little surprised all the people who were so
&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft">up in arms about the Microsoft &amp;ldquo;monopoly&amp;rdquo; ten years ago&lt;/a>
aren&amp;rsquo;t out in the streets today lighting torches and sharpening their
pitchforks to go after Google.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/p>&lt;/blockquote></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001224.html" title="Google monoculture">Jeff Atwood (Coding Horror)</a>
correctly points out that when we refer to search engines, we are really only
referring to one - <a href="http://www.google.co.uk" title="Google">google</a>. With its easy to
use, efficient and most importantly effective search functionality, there really
is no reason to use another search engine.</p>
<p>Jeff raises a couple of valid points. With no viable competition, where is the
incentive for them to improve the functionality.  It&rsquo;s pleasant to see that
google still invests time and money into improving features including the
ability to personalise your search results. However, the question of how long
they will keep doing this is worth asking&hellip;</p>
<p>The more interesting point that Jeff raises is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&ldquo;I&rsquo;m a little surprised all the people who were so
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft">up in arms about the Microsoft &ldquo;monopoly&rdquo; ten years ago</a>
aren&rsquo;t out in the streets today lighting torches and sharpening their
pitchforks to go after Google.&rdquo;</p></blockquote>
<p>My view on this is straightforward. Yes, google is a monopoly on the search
market. There is no viable competition. Yes, it possibly uses this position in
the market to push itself out more and more to the masses.</p>
<p>However, the reason Microsoft got into the bad books (at least for me) is that
while it provided (or provides) fantastic software - it doesn&rsquo;t treat its
customers fairly. Bundling Internet Explorer with windows is fine IF it also
bundled Netscape/Firefox which was/is a strong competitor and the only reason
people did not use them was lack of experience / knowledge of the option.</p>
<p>The reason google is successful is because it is the only viable choice. There
is no other option. If Internet Explorer had no competitor. Then, its fine to
include that exclude the others.</p>
<p>Then there is the unfairness in how Microsoft priced the products in relation to
the number of issues / bugs that were in the product. Not to mention the feeling
that, as customers, you were paying for the privilege of beta testing software.</p>
<p>As a software engineer, I am well aware of the issue around bugs. They are
present, and always will be. That&rsquo;s the nature of software. The issue is not
just the number of bugs that are present in software shipped but also the amount
of time it takes to resolve them.</p>
<p>It&rsquo;s not the monopolisation of the market that &ldquo;got them&rdquo;. It was their
attitude. The monopolisation of the market was the tool used to get them. Kinda
like Al Capone being arrested for Tax evasion instead of all the other crimes he
commited since that was the only way to get him.</p>]]></content:encoded></item></channel></rss>