It really isn’t much of a big deal when you take into account that getting into an iPhone is still much more expensive than a phone running Android.  Many people are choosing Android because they either can’t afford or don’t want to spend the money required to own an Apple product.  It hardly determines a superior product.

Who cares why it’s happening, right?  We should just be cheering that open source is finally trampling a proprietary product on it’s own turf!

Wait just a sec, you robe wearing, GNU-touting supernerd.  During it’s incredible rocket to popularity and stardom, Android is showing the world one of the main reasons open source sucks. Although I’ve made fun of it countless times, it seems that people are still surprised by the fact that if you have 400 versions of one thing with no interoperability planned into them, you spend much of your time frustrated by the fact that applications written for version 394 isn’t compatible with version 103.  In short, many applications written for Motorola’s Android doesn’t work with LG’s version of Android.  For that reason, consumers are growing wary that the Jones’ version of Android will be better than their own.  Unlike Apple’s OS, inequality abounds.

I have bigger things to worry about than this, however.  I’m working on creating a distrowatch site for the Android operating system so each phone owner can track the top five hundred versions of Google’s operating system in real time.  Given the linux user’s inability to see this as a huge shortcoming, it should be incredibly popular.

For those of us that despise social networking, Google has finally added the ability to actually opt out of the bullshit that is “Buzz“.

Or, it’s just another button that doesn’t do what they say.

Now, I’ve talked about the thin veil of Google’s “Don’t be Evil” facade.  Usually just to poke fun at those that might actually believe it.  So far though, this story just doesn’t rate any space here.  We all know that the giant that is Google doesn’t feel you should have any right to privacy.  Big deal, right?

Well, here’s where it gets funny.  As stated in the article,  Eric Schmidt, the very same man that said you don’t deserve privacy blackballed cNet news for using his own search engine to find publicly available information concerning him.

Cough.

Cough cough.

Coughhippocriticalpieceofshitsaywhat?

Cough.

When you think of the amount of information that Google has now(books, housing cloud data, email, search data, web apps, mobile apps, name servers, etc ad nauseum), you realize that when Google says you don’t deserve privacy, they’re in a better position than the government to make sure that by God, you’re not going to have any privacy.

I’ve said before that Google is not an entity that you can afford to pin human traits like “non-evil” on. Google is a machine designed to make money for their shareholders.  They will do whatever possible, including selling your data to someone to make that happen.

Mr. Schmidt should have known that better than anyone.

Microsoft bought out Danger, the maker of the Sidekick phone.  One of the phone’s main selling features was that your data was stored on remote servers.  I know, how fucking handy is that, right?

Well, Danger wants everyone to know that they shouldn’t turn off their phone.  You see, if they turn off their phone, they’ll lose all of their data.  Why?  Well, it seems that there was a teensy weensy catastrophic failure with the data servers and all of the data is gone.

Microsoft could learn something about data storage from Google.  Those guys know how to write a letter of apology.

That is all.

The nerds are currently deciding via /.’s commenting system if it was intentional or not.  They’ll let you know what they decide.

As time passes, I grow as weary of Google’s tactics as I am of Microsoft.  I use both daily, so I can hardly say that I feel strongly enough to be rid of them, but I sometimes hate to think of my role in this as an enabler.

Just not quite enough to go without my OS and Google Maps.

It stands to reason that a group of people that did so great in the browser wars would now up the ante by offering to store your data that could potentially ruin your life were it to be, lost,  placed in the wrong hands or compromised.

I don’t have a problem with the fact that Netscape developers are getting into the cloud storage business.  I think for that to happen, I would have to find cloud storage a viable technology.  I find the whole premise of remote storage to be utterly laughable,  so at most, the Netscape angle is just a higher level of laughable.

Cloud storage.  It sounds cool, doesn’t it?  We’ve been embracing the whole web 2.0 thing for a while now, so these types of things just get absorbed into the savvyness of it.  Facebook, Twitter and MySpace for every asshole that wants to tell you about his current emotional crisis by text message?  Sign me up!  AJAX for the most simple of web elements, increasing the page source ten fold for no good reason?  Rock on! Why, we’ve even got Web 2.0 style buttons for your web page, so everyone can more closely integrate their adoption of the fad with each other. Cloud apps, storage and even OS’s are hot too, man.  If you’re against it, you might as well be yelling “Get off my interlawn!” or telling whippersnappers how you did it in web 1.0(or web .9.2, if you’re hard core).

Google began the big push for cloud apps.  They needed a way to keep you under their advertising umbrella for a longer period of time.  They already tell you where you are via Google Maps when you’re lost, where your fat ass is currently sitting when you should actually be exercising via Google Earth and what number you should have actually called via GOOG-411.  What they didn’t develop, they bought.  Google is the behemoth that everyone thought Microsoft was when the people demanded that the government castrate the Redmond giant.  In short, Google wants more.  Of everything.  They can’t get enough.

So they push cloud apps and storage.  Because, you know…. they offer remote stuff.  “Have your company use our remote apps and be able to share and develop from anywhere in the world?  We’ll hold on to everything for you.  Why, you don’t even have to buy applications for your computer.  We’ll provide those as well.”

Who in the fuck thought this was a good idea?  I would ask how they convinced the people that it was a good idea but if you know me, then you know how little I think of you all(If you disagree, you can leave a comment on my Facebook page directing me to your twitter post concerning the topic).  It’s well known that Google will do absolutely anything for statistics and demographics.  They already parse their users’ mail to be able to serve them better targeted advertisements.  Of course we should store all of our sensitive information with them. What could possibly go wrong?

Google is no longer the company that does no evil.  Google is the company that does what it has to do to make money.  It’s too large of an entity to have a sense of ethics.  With the current storage methods, you have the ability to attempt to safeguard your data.  with remote storage, you get an empty promise from a nameless entity too large to have a chain of accountability.

The drinking of the Kool-Aid doesn’t stop there, however.  Storing your data remotely warrants being labeled an idiot.  Storing your applications along with your data?  Well, that’s just idiot taken to a much higher level.  I once had a conversation with a man developing a web based OS. Nobody but I saw the humour in a remotely hosted operating system.

Steve Jobs proved long ago that people would buy anything if you made it sexy enough, price be damned.  It didn’t need to be better, it just needed to make you feel better about yourself. As time progresses, people attempt to become more of an early adopter of anything that is considered sexy. People can be found notifying others about posting to their MySpace pages from their iPhone.  Nevermind the fact that MySpace is a joke and the iPhone is an overpriced steaming pile of shit.  They’re cool and if you’re cool, you’ll follow suit.

Why, back in my day, we had to store our data on floppies.  And we liked it.

We loved it.

Take their latest stand for all that is good.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman has attempted to pressure Google into removing videos posted on YouTube by terrorist organizations, since it promotes hate & propaganda. Oh and some have people getting beheaded. Google declined, stating that the videos didn’t violate any guidelines set by YouTube. From YouTube’s blog posting:

YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds.

You know what? Bully for them! If I have the right to spout hate-speech, then those with differing views should be afforded the same opportunity.

My issue isn’t with their refusal to censor content for the good of the common man. I’m just wondering why they’re a little inconsistent with their refusal to censor their users. They often delete or censor anti-islam content on YouTube, sometimes going so far as to ban user accounts.

And it’s not just a YouTube thing. Anyone remember when they censored all of Google search for China? That’s a whole lot of censoring going on.

Their new motto should be “Don’t be <censored>”.