Google crosses to dark side - must pay to be in searches Google did what it once promised never to do - make merchants PAY to be included in Google Product Search(now called Google Shopping).
Once Deemed Evil, Google Now Embraces Paid Inclusion.
Indeed, paid inclusion was one of the original sins Google listed as part of its Dont Be Evil creed. But these days, Google seems comfortable with paid inclusion, raising potential concerns for publishers and searchers alike.
Google was the main holdout among the major search engines. Back in 2001, when paid inclusion programs were growing in popularity, it told me:
We have no plans for a paid inclusion program. As weve stated in the past, our search results represent our editorial integrity, and we have no plans to alter our automated process, which works very well in gathering information and delivering highly relevant results.
When Google went public in 2004, the Founders Letter that was part of its IPO filing specifically named paid inclusion as a practice that should be shunned, saying under the Dont Be Evil section:
Google users trust our systems to help them with important decisions: medical, financial and many others. Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating.
Having previously declared paid inclusion to be evil, can it really be that Google is doing it now? Yes, though Googles not been using that name, and it also really didnt become apparent until last month.
Postscript: Google Product Search To Become Google Shopping, Use Pay-To-Play Model on our sister-site Search Engine Land covers how Google is now shifting its shopping search engine to a pure paid inclusion model. Its the first time Googles changed a service that had free listings to being exclusively paid.
From the dept. of "DUH" -AT&T Hmm, let's see... my parents would have bought into DSL YEARS ago, had it been where they moved to. They still might, but not sure how much longer they'll be there. Chances are, if/when they do move, the next residents would be interested in internet access that isn't dial-up
There is fiber very nearby. There is DSL not too far away. Can't be that difficult/costly to do...
Hell, there are entire small towns where they won't bother with. Some have Wildblue dishes... you think those people might be better served by DSL? Smaller, seemingly more agile companies seem to think it's worth the risk (and thus, reward of the opportunity to serve people with something they want/need).
Just kind of astounding that they're just now starting to think about this in an era where cable speeds are already very fast, FiOS is going to be absurd, and Google is giving KC the red carpet treatment.
Bring it on. Anything is better than dial-up or wireless with small caps for "home use." Even 3-6Mbps is certainly usable. 12+ would be a good goal for what they strive for. Just start the projects - there's no good reason to be lazy about this and deprive people any longer. There is also certainly some decent work to be had for people who help make it happen... win-win-win...
| |linicxCaveat EmptorPremiumReviews:
Shocking AT&T I think it nervy of AT&T to call rural America "underperforming" when it's been greatly ignored by the telco giant for 50 years. Not only is it ignored, AT&T deliberately blocked competition in OK for 15 years that I can remember. The thuggery was nothing except hollow promises. Thus there are areas 10 miles from a State capitol that still has dial up, and a large swath of I-44 between St. Louis and the TX/OK border that has little or no AT&T cell service on 1-44 or !-40.
AT&T has long been noted for cherry picking the cities where its copper already exists. And AT&T Cingular pre-paid phone service does not roam. Don't expect pre-paid service between St. Louis and Rolla, MO or St. Louis and Springfield, IL . In fact don't expect much service between St. Louis and Chicago because it is primarily corn, beans, I-55, and CDMA towers.
The sad fact is all telco service in rural America, from coast to coast is very over priced and generally lousy. One small telco sells cable bundled with BB; 10/2 Mbps is an additional $100. Another telco sells bundled DSL, 10/256Mbps with unlimited phone for $90. These prices are no less than ridiculous when a Dallas suburb has FTTH or FIOS 20/20 for $25. This is common treatment by AT&T from the TX/OK border to the southernmost edge of Chicago.
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside