http://www.networkingpipeline.com/bl...ogle_beco.html

A little-known part of the Google deal to buy part of AOL for $1 billion is a shocker: Google agreed to a link scheme that Microsoft called unethical, but that Google was only too happy to accede to, according to the New York Times. What's going on here? Isn't Microsoft supposed to be the bad guys, while Google is the "do-no-evil" company?

Well, the "do-no-evil" days are long past. The AOL deal made that clear.

The New York Times reported that Google will give AOL preferred placement for AOL's videos in Google's video search in Google's new Google Video search site. In addition, Google will include links to AOL videos on the Google Video home page --- and won't label any of those links advertising, or call the preferred listings advertising, even though they clearly are ads.

Microsoft refused to include the links or give preferred placement without labeling them ads, saying that to do so would be unethical.

Up until now, Google has very clearly separated advertising from non-ad content. That's been one of the reasons for its success --- people have thought the site's searches were not for sale. But no longer.

John Battelle, author of "The Search: How Google and its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture," told the Times that Google is "giving away is the perception in the market place that Google isn't for sale."

Internet search is a rough-and-tumble business, and niceties aren't always observed. But Google has crossed the line here, and the AOL deal makes clear it should finally give up its "do-no-evil" charade.

Posted by Preston Gralla

Interesting to say the least

mmmm...that was interesting.

Very good post again praveen. Love reading your threads now got to the point where i stalk LOL JK

thanks for the informative article.

i dont get it. Whats so evil about putting links on sites?

Originally Posted by execute

i dont get it. Whats so evil about putting links on sites?

Your motto is SERP's cannot be used for ads and ads are clearly distinguishable but after such a contract you are violating your own motto.

Business is business and you take care of your partners...the bottom line is Google has the bigger target of the 2 companies as of right now so it's easier to get attacked in and out of the press with every little thing, deal you make.

but on another note....
Have a great holiday all!

maybe so... but even if they go against their motto, they will still be rich. *points to former evil company like MS*

Interesting details .... I guess we just wait and see what will happen in the future

Nice post there.. Well its business we cant expect them to be what they are forever... Everything changes except change itself right? Hey google dont be too greedy

with grate power come grate risponsblaty

the greater the power the harder they fall :>... Google's time might come :X.
MY bid is that they will die from adsense. What say you?

Originally Posted by execute

the greater the power the harder they fall :>... Google's time might come :X.
MY bid is that they will die from adsense. What say you?

Why do you think addsense is the weakspot of google?

I think as soon as google started selling shares, they then became legally bound to earn as much profit as they could for their share holder. At that point the 'do no evil' policy had to go out the window. If they decided to do 'good' and make less profit they would be breaking the law.

I wouldn't say they were any worse or any better than microsoft.

Is it really any surprise?
Google only have this whiter than white reputation because they told people they are good guys and people believed them. Does a company really become a multibillion dollar corporation with good ethics? i don't think so.

What have google ever done to suggest they are ethical besides telling us they are? Nothing.

how can AdSense be the weak spot of Google - they wouldn't sell that at a loss would they?

By the way Google has dealed with NSA (national security agency) at USA and giving all logs to them. I don't think that nsa has taken any permission for this. Just maked a contract with google.
We have to think about this.

BWDOW where did you get that information? Everything I've read said Google was the only search engine that refused to turn over their logs. Yahoo, MSN, and AOL turned them over and Google has fought the subpeona from the start.

Google has gotten away from their original mission statement and they probably should come up with a new one, but they don't seem to be doing anything that doesn't make sense for their business.

i believe originally they (google) refused outright, but then a comprimise by both sides was ironed out and google handed over some log file info but only a small portion of what was wanted.