yanw

See my comment regarding standards: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3456594

At the top it shows the number of public and private results, and the picture cluster always was there, they just added social relevancy to it.

But they are adhering to standards as well, more so than anyone else for that matter, point to an instance where they're not. Also it takes ages for stuff to get standardized, are you suggesting that no technology should be applicable until it's the standard? I see no issue in introducing new cool tech specially if it's opensource.

This meme about Google turning into "old bad Microsoft" is a result of false dichotomy.

Search+'s effect on the results page is peripheral, manifesting on the right pane and search suggestions, the main results are largely the same and there is a handy toggle to switch modes.

Their browser is opensource, NaCl is opensource, Dart is opensource, the Microsoft stuff never was opensource.

They started charging for the Maps API because some German mapping company complained to the EU that they can't compete with free.

It's hardly a "debacle" though, it's just a bunch of bloggers baiting web traffic by pretending to be lawyers.

IANAL so I'm just speculating that if you don't pay for a service you can't claim that you're owed anything, in this case those being freely indexed by Google feeling that they are entitled to a placement in search results.

Which you pay for. If money doesn't change hands no contract is made thus no contract will be broken.

There are always bought politicians parroting some special interest, that doesn't mean that they have a clue: http://searchengineland.com/dear-congress-its-not-ok-not-to-...

And what about innocent until proven guilty?

No it doesn't, it's not bundling if both products are free and it's not bundling when you don't actually own any of them. There are important nuances between the two cases that some people choose to overlook.

Are you a lawyer? as I understand it a court would have to declare a monopoly and in this case none has.

Purely from a commonsense point of view however there is no such thing as a monopoly on information retrieval.

I never knew he was an expert on antitrust law!

At least it’s expected from the likes of him, it’s less excepted and much more disappointing when actual reporters writing for supposedly credible newspapers start speculating about the law or relying exclusively on quotes from “experts” which are paid by one interested party or the other.

IANAL either but I asked one, and she thinks that any antitrust issues with Google results are little more than the product of negative PR and don't have legal merit.

As for Search+ itself I think that G+ is just a foothold, this feature will become more useful and interesting when data from one’s calendar, email, voice messages, saved maps, etc be included in the mix.

Twitter pulled the plug on Google's firehose access which led Google to shutter Realtime search: http://searchengineland.com/google-realtime-search-the-after...

It is a tempest in a teapot.

They don't really get to have a say in this. Google doesn't dictate to Twitter how they should conduct their business and Twitter would do well to follow their lead.

If I recall correctly Twitter refused to renew Google's firehose access and forced them to shutter Realtime search: http://searchengineland.com/google-realtime-search-the-after...

This feature differs from instant in that the pages will be pre-fetched (pre-rendered) in the background. Pages will still appear after you hit return, the difference is that they will appear quicker.

This sort of post is further evidence that whenever G+ adds some new feature or publishes new numbers a PR attack is imminent. Usually you can tell straight away by the hyperbolic headlines.

I'm not talking about ads I'm talking about ranking, and not even that, as ranking links doesn't really strike me as the way of the future, I'm referring to when Google shows a map for a location query and flight prices and schedules for a flight query as these are also search results and they are more useful (and prettier) so not only do I find nothing wrong with it but I find it to be the right way to go.

Also regarding that antitrust meme the Microsoft comparison keep getting mention, I'm not really familiar with that case but as I see it, Windows you buy and you are stuck with, Google on the other hand is free to use or not as you please.

But who's to say what is "relevant"? and if the user doesn't think this is relevant to her, she can search elsewhere.

I'm not even talking about links, there was this thing about the Google Flights result appearing for flight queries and some flight search sites (kayak and such) are up in arms about it, so here comes the question of how do they figure that they are entitled to any placement or traffic, and as for relevancy and usefulness surly showing flight details for flight searches is much more useful than nested links.

Are you a lawyer? would you explain how is it exactly that "tweaking search results" is illegal? because I've noticed that meme going around and I don't think it makes much sense, I'm not saying that they any "tweaking", but if they were to rank whatever they like however they like on their own free website how is that illegal?

When this sort of tech pundit makes himself the center of a non-story I do my best to ignore it, I recommend that everyone do the same. Tech blogging has deteriorated to parroting PR releases and slobbering over iStuff, I draw the line at appeasing the attention whores.

SOPA/PIPA could add costs for Google and thus interfere with their business and seeing that congressman Smith doesn't miss an opportunity to openly bash Google for opposing his plants: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/14195416946/lamar-...

I think it's safe to assume that he's not going to see a penny from them again, but Hollywood's contributions will more than make up for it anyway.

They've also contributed $43.7k to congresswoman Zoe Lofgren: http://transparencydata.com/contributions/#Y29udHJpYnV0b3JfZ...

And $20.4k to senator Ron Wyden: http://transparencydata.com/contributions/#Y29udHJpYnV0b3JfZ...

Both strongly opposing SOPA/PIPA.

So I wouldn't read too much into that arbitrary data point the OP chose to share with us.

"We don't talk about OWS in the valley " != "OWS isn't really something that comes up in daily discussion (in the valley)"

Spare yourselves SF Gate's pontifications and read the source: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/its-always-sunny-in-sil...

Quoted in 3rd paragraph:

In Silicon Valley, all the Sturm und Drang of 2011 seemed as relevant as the Cricket World Cup. High unemployment? Crippling debt? Not in Silicon Valley, where the fog burns off by noon and it’s an article of faith that talented, hard-working techies can change the world and reap unimaginable wealth in the process. “We live in a bubble, and I don’t mean a tech bubble or a valuation bubble. I mean a bubble as in our own little world,” says Google Chairman Eric Schmidt. “And what a world it is: Companies can’t hire people fast enough. Young people can work hard and make a fortune. Homes hold their value. Occupy Wall Street isn’t really something that comes up in daily discussion, because their issues are not our daily reality.”

How so? seeing as whatever Apture did can be replicated in < 24hr.

Keeping in mind that whenever Google displays an immediate answer interested peoples go up in arms about them "favoring their own products" which somehow led to antitrust investigation in EU/US (new developments on that even today), I fundamentally agree that search is about showing the answers instantly and Google must have plans in place for doing so and ignore the antitrust nonsense or else they will be left behind.

It is worth mentioning that Apture was an annoying product and I for one am glad that they "shuttered" it. As for the acquisition it was probably for talent or IP or both.

Each circle.

That is not entirely fair, automation is the only way to admin millions of users and when nonsensical factors like COPPA get introduced to the system this happens. And I don't think that they did anything wrong here considering the consequences of not complying with the law.

First iteration.

No it isn't. It's not wrong to notify users of changes, and the notice resides on the same area occupied by the previous navigation tool so as far as those coming from the older design are concerned no extra screen space was used.

The notice disappears after you navigate away then come back or even reload the page so it's obviously not a permanent thing.