Why I Hate Google

i-hate-google

[ad#ad-1]Let me state from the outset that I use and like Google as a search engine. Every day I use it countless times and it always does what I require of it, whether it’s using the built-in calculator or converter or just finding a cheap hotel. But that’s where my love affair with Google begins and ends. With each passing day I get increasingly frustrated with Google’s attempts to enter yet another market, from smartphones to the self-driving car. Most of my derision stems from the fact that Google is a jack of all trades and master of none – well perhaps one: search. Rather than trying to just perfect one area, Google is dumping products in multiple areas to spread its name and increase its revenue, but let’s not forget that Google is, really and truly, little more than an advertising company, getting over 90% of its income from adverts. In fact, Google reminds me of the Trapper Keeper in South Park – technology trying to take over the world.

android-logo-white.jpg

Let’s start with Android. I remember first trying this operating system out a few years ago, and it was so confusing to navigate that I didn’t even spend long using the demo phone in a store. I have used every version since and my opinion hasn’t changed much. Google didn’t build Android, it simply purchased it, and despite its huge success it hasn’t made many advancements. With the recent revelation that over 99% of Android phones leak personal data http://www.tgdaily.com/security-features/56011-do-android-smartphones-leak-data it’s without doubt fair to say that the operating system simply isn’t fit for purpose. When it comes to Android there’s a lot of half-truths, to put it mildly. Google claim it’s open source, when only a relatively small section of it is actually open – that it’s more open than iOS is not reason enough to claim it is ‘open’. There’s also the mention of it being a Linux OS, when it has nothing more than a Linux kernel, but listen to all the hype and you’d think it’s a full Linux distro like Nokia’s Maemo 5.

Despite advancements in smartphones, Android still needs an overhaul. The multitasking is just barely beyond a joke, especially when it comes to web browsing, where you do another task, go back to the web only to find it’s lost your page. With no native task killer you can’t simply close an app from the multitasking pane, and Android still thinks it’s acceptable to leave things running live until it itself deems it suitable to close something – so you either have things running you don’t want, or you leave something important open to view later and Android will close it. On your behalf, of course. There’s also the well documented fragmentation issue that I won’t go into here because most people are already well aware of it. Android is largely popular because it’s flooded the market with devices, so for many people looking for a new contract it’s really the only option. We are now seeing bigger processors, with the Samsung Galaxy S II being dual-core, which many people think is great – except for the little problem that Android isn’t optimized for dual-core. Android is a poorly coded system and rather than fix the code at the source, the band-aid approach is utilized by just putting in larger processors, which improves the usability of the phones somewhat but also makes them more expensive and kills the battery that much faster. How badly coded is Android? This video  a comparison between Nokia’s N8, running a single processor at 680MHz, and the dual core Motorola Atrix 4G.

As can be seen, the N8 is faster and smoother in many areas, even, surprisingly, just at rotating photos. If a single 680MHz processor outperforms a dual core 1GHz processor then there’s no denying Android has some serious coding problems. Part of this problem stems from the fact that Android doesn’t actually run from the hardware, but rather from a virtual machine, so extra processing power is required just to overcome this and make it run somewhat smoother. However, as the video shows, an efficient, optimized OS that runs directly from the hardware is a much better option, and the smaller processor allows for longer battery life and a cheaper price on the devices. Perhaps my biggest concern though is that whenever something is installed from the Marketplace you must agree to allow it access to all your data and information. Why is this necessary? Whether or not there’s a conspiracy to use all my information to frame me as a serial killer, the fact is I’m just not happy giving my data to a company. I don’t want targeted ads, thank you very much. I don’t want any ads actually, I want to just open an app and do the task I need to do. It is not necessary to sign over all privacy just so I can read the news headlines. Perhaps this wouldn’t be such a big issue if it were another company, but let’s face it, Google has a dire track-record with private data.

Then there’s Chrome. Again, this isn’t something Google built from scratch but acquired from Chromium (seeing a pattern here?). I used Chrome for some time when Firefox was giving me headaches with its sluggishness and large memory footprint, but I was forced to revert back because Chrome was crashing on me frequently. It’s hard to say much bad about browsers, they just surf the web, but the real question is why did Google need to release Chrome anyway? Chromium already existed, still does in fact, so this looks like just another attempt by Google to get its grubby, privacy-leaking fingers on another technology release to get its brand recognized and trusted.

google-chrome-OS-logo

Lastly, we have Chrome OS. I have no idea how it can be called an OS when it’s actually nothing but the browser. Google call this evolution, I call it regression. With Chrome OS there is nothing on the computer, everything is stored online. Everything. It works by storing everything on the cloud – except it isn’t so much a cloud as ‘store things in various locations on the web’. Great huh? Except that we can already store things in various locations on the web, and also have local copies on the hard drive should we need them – and I don’t know about you guys, but I want my work only on my computer and not in cyber-space for someone to hack into. The recent PlayStation security breach is a pretty perfect example of why we shouldn’t entrust everything to the web, especially with a company like Google with less than optimum infrastructure (remember when a bunch of Gmail users had their inboxes accidentally wiped recently?).

 So with Chrome OS everything you own on a computer is stored in cyberspace and, Google being Google, you’ll have to agree to a disclaimer that states you give Google permission to access all your personal data. Think for a moment of how much personal data and information you actually store on your computer – private photos and videos, work documents, business plans, important contacts and reminders, schedules and so on. Do you really want Google – or anyone – having full access to that whenever they want?

A computer running Chrome OS is fully dependent on the internet, so God forbid you forget to download an important presentation to the small hard drive for offline editing or printing and find yourself in an area with no internet connection – and let’s get real, there are still a lot of places where you don’t have internet access. Then, like notebooks, there’s no CD or DVD drive, so no longer can you burn data discs or just stick a DVD into your laptop in the hotel because the room doesn’t have Wi-Fi so you can’t access anything. When out of internet range, what you have is an expensive paper weight – nothing more and nothing less.

Truthfully, I would welcome a day when Google ceases to exist. Nokia Maps 3D is so much better than Google Maps, Gmail is used by many people but a lot of people change email accounts anyway, Chrome users can go to Chromium (or any other browser out there), Android will lose out to more functional and more open and more privacy concerned operating systems like, if all goes to plan, MeeGo, and Chrome OS shouldn’t even get a look in.

Like most people, I use technology for the convenience it offers, in many different ways. But what I’m not prepared to do is sacrifice my privacy, especially when the alternatives are cheaper, better managed and respect my right to privacy. I cannot and will never trust a company whose CEO said that only people with something to hide worry about privacy.


Comments

8 responses to “Why I Hate Google”

  1. Great article! That’s why I hate Google! lol 😀 I don’t even use Google search anymore. I “Bing”! 🙂 

  2.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    I agree! Google is turning into Apple and something that MS used to be. I think it’s funny that MS is actually now the least “evil” of these three. Who would have thought. 

  3.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yeah its funny, How it turns that way, yeah the bigger you get as a company
    the worse you get. And I agree MS is now the least evil of those 3

  4. Facts without facts bother me. You trash the company yet forget to mention all their positives to support your anger. Did they pee in your Post Toasties or something?

    Because I say this doesn’t make me a fanboy, just this style of writing where you take the minutae to support the grandiose…..bothersome and poor.

  5.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    This is one of the most ridiculous articles I’ve ever read. In fact, parts of it make me think it’s actually a work of satire. 

    Firstly, I would like to say, no mobile OS is perfect, and neither is any company. If you don’t like Google, there are plenty of alternatives. One look at the N8 convinced me that Symbian was done-for. So to stay happy, I don’t use it. You should do the same. 

    First off though “Most of my derision stems from the fact that Google is a jack of all trades and master of none – well perhaps one: search. Rather than trying to just perfect one area, Google is dumping products in multiple areas to spread its name and increase its revenue, but let’s not forget that Google is, really and truly, little more than an advertising company, getting over 90% of its income from adverts.”

    Well, so it is master of one, isn’t it. Google is the master of search. Like it or not, it’s still the search engine most likely to give you results that are useful. This is one of the parts of the article that I think is actually satirical. It’s either satire, or you’re suffering from a problem understanding what words mean. 

    More satire can be found in the statements that “Google didn’t invent Android, it bought it” and “Android isn’t open source”. 

    Firstly, Nokia didn’t invent Symbian either and Symbian isn’t open source at all. Android may not have been developed by Google, but it’s a success purely because the company invested and developed the product. It is more open source than any other phone OS, and the number of developers suggest that it’s a model that works. The customisation possible on Android also proves it’s more open than other handset operating systems. 

    As for optimisations and lag on Android phones. It’s almost certainly true that the OS isn’t ready for dual-core processors yet. However, Android handsets are designed to live through various versions of the OS. The phones of today will be running Ice Cream Sandwich next year, and will almost certainly benefit from dual-core processors. 

    I’m also not sure that dual-core phones inherently use more power than single-core handsets. For the most part, when the second core isn’t in use, it’s off. It’s not a surprise though that an OS built for a specific processor requires less powerful processors that one that operates across multiple hardware platforms and chipsets. 

    As for it not being “Linux” and only having a “Linux Kernel” I think this is more of your clever satire, isn’t it. The Kernel is the most important part of linux, and it’s the core of the OS. But more crucially, I’ve never heard any hype that suggests anyone thinks it’s a full-blown linux distro. It’s a phone OS, that’s all and that’s what it’s sold as. 

    More clever satire in your Chrome/Chromium argument I see too. Google released Chrome so that ‘normal’ people had a way to access a fast and secure browser (Chrome has largely proven itself to be the most secure of all PC web browsers). Chromium is a project aimed at developers. Most normal people won’t want to compile their own browser, will they. Chrome OS is the same deal. It’s designed for simple laptops that operate in the cloud. 

    I’m not saying you can’t hate Google. You can. But when you try and use ‘facts’ to do it, and those facts are all nonsense, it makes you look like a Nokia fanboy who is smarting that the N8 was an unmitigated disaster because Nokia failed to learn from Apple and Google. 

    There’s more here to chew through, but I honestly don’t have the time nor the inclination to do it. Well done on dragging an essay out of me though. Perhaps you should be a school teacher, I’m sure you could incite students into writing some great rebuttals. 

  6. “Well, so it is master of one, isn’t it. Google is the master of search”

    Which i openly said.

    ” It is more open source than any other phone OS, and the number of developers suggest that it’s a model that works.”

    Actually Maemo is far more open, and many developers have openly stated how frustrating developing for Android is.

    ” It’s not a surprise though that an OS built for a specific processor
    requires less powerful processors that one that operates across multiple
    hardware platforms and chipsets. ”

    Symbian isn’t built for a specific processor. In fact Nokia changed the processor in the N8 before release because of the dedicated GPU doing the heavy tasks, lowering the amount of strain on the CPU.

    “As for it not being “Linux” and only having a “Linux Kernel” I think
    this is more of your clever satire, isn’t it. The Kernel is the most
    important part of linux, and it’s the core of the OS. But more
    crucially, I’ve never heard any hype that suggests anyone thinks it’s a
    full-blown linux distro. It’s a phone OS, that’s all and that’s what
    it’s sold as. ”

    True, but a lot of people don’t realise the difference. You’d be surprised how often people say “it’s Linux” – being Linux and using a Linux kernel are not the same thing. It’s based on Linux, there’s a difference. Maemo is a Linux distro and runs on a phone. And that point wasn’t to say Android is bad for that, but to clear up the misinformation from the Android fans who seem to think it’s more or less a fancy skin on a Linux distro.

    “More clever satire in your Chrome/Chromium argument I see too. Google
    released Chrome so that ‘normal’ people had a way to access a fast and
    secure browser (Chrome has largely proven itself to be the most secure
    of all PC web browsers). Chromium is a project aimed at developers. Most
    normal people won’t want to compile their own browser, will they.
    Chrome OS is the same deal. It’s designed for simple laptops that
    operate in the cloud. ”

    Then you’ve totally missed my whole point. My issue is not liking Google infiltrating every aspect of technology – and this isn’t specific to Google. But regardless of Chrome being secure, it’s still Google at the receiving end of the data.

    “I’m not saying you can’t hate Google. You can. But when you try and use
    ‘facts’ to do it, and those facts are all nonsense, it makes you look
    like a Nokia fanboy who is smarting that the N8 was an unmitigated
    disaster because Nokia failed to learn from Apple and Google. ”

    Well given the ‘facts’ were pointing out the ‘fact’ that Google is all over the place now and not one of its projects are all that great (excluding search, i admit), instead filled with lots of hype. Sure nothing is perfect, i never said otherwise, but Android is an absolute mess – a popular one, but a mess nonetheless. As for the N8, i only mentioned it as a comparison in performance  showcasing the difference in an efficiently coded OS on a low processor and a poorly coded OS on a high, dual core processor. And it seems you’re saying the lag is because of the dual core, despite the lag being on the single core ones too. It’s the UI/GPU issue, not the processor.

    Did i mention Symbian being open source? And if you think stating the fact that “Google didn’t invent Android, it bought is” is satire, i think you need to learn what satire is.

    If anything, it seems you’ve taken exception to the article for no other reason than you like Google. Which you’re entitled to. I haven’t said no one should use Google products, what i was getting at was the company has a poor history managing personal data and security issues and as such i won’t trust them with my browsing or mobile information. And my other gripe was it trying to become a ubiquitous company rather than working harder on a smaller selection of outputs. Quite simple really.

  7. The article is ‘why i hate google’, not ‘here’s an overview of google’. Feel free to point out the positives though. After all, facts without facts bother you…

  8. Good article with some holes in the argument. But its more of a rant then an opinion piece but still good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *