Peter Shankman wrote an epic post on Business Insider called Why I Will Never, Ever Hire A “Social Media Expert“. The 1st sentence tells you that you’re in for a good rant:

I was going to call this article “All ‘Social Media Experts’ Need To Go Die In A Fire,” but I figured I should be nicer than that.

The author’s ultimate point is that social media is not a magic pill that will make your company successful. To achieve success, the formula is “solid marketing and stellar customer service, just like it’s been since the beginning of time”. He goes on to explain how companies should be using social media – by being transparent, relevant, brief and by knowing your customer.

I realized this some time ago too. This is why I’m not all out to get more followers and fans and have been much more personal and quieter on Twitter and my blog. I don’t want to be blogging and tweeting for traffic and followers because I want to be blogging and tweeting for me. Social media is a means to an end, not the end itself. Social media is also not a popularity contest.

Then again, it is a social environment and in every one you’ll have those who try to be Mr and Ms Popularity. I guess it means there’s no escaping these guys. Luckily, my Twitter client of choice has a mute button.

Related posts:

1. Social Media in Plain English
2. A killer blow to online media
3. Social calling cards

Earlier this month, Google announced that it will drop support for the popular H.264 video codec from it’s Chrome browser. Being the web geek that I am, I’ve researched and thought about and wrestled with this issue to the detriment of my productivity.

And after all that I have come to the following conclusion: Google is at it again. And by ‘it’ I mean being two-faced liars who have lost my trust.

For background on this issue, see these 2 excellent articles:

• Google’s WebM v H.264: who wins and loses in the video codec wars? – guardian.co.uk Technology Blog
• Google’s dropping H.264 from Chrome a step backward for openness – Ars Technica

I want to believe that Google’s decision was motivated by the desire to help advance adoption of HTML5 video, which would make publishing video on the web so much easier. I really wish that Google is sincere in it’s claim of wanting to build an open web by promoting WebM, their open source video codec.

However, as the Ars Technica article points out, WebM is not as open as Google may want you to believe. They still control the project and different parts of the WebM source code are licensed differently. WebM is royalty-free, but not free of control from a single entity.

On top of this, here are a few more reasons why my evil-o-meter is screaming warnings that Google are two-faced liars:

1. Google includes an embedded Flash player in Google Chrome and in the Android OS. Flash is far more proprietary than H.264 and it’s practically a part of the Chrome browser since it’s embedded and not a plugin. This seems to be counter to the spirit of their decision to drop H.264.

2. Google continues to support GIF, JPG, MP3 and AAC in the Chrome browser. These are also patent-encumbered technologies and some even require royalties. If these are allowed, why not H.264? Again, this is inconsistent with their decision to drop H.264.

3. Google loves to play the ‘open’ card and portray themselves as a champion of open systems. But looking beneath the surface, Google is only open when it is convenient for them. They’ve shown this in their search and AdWords algorithms, in their open Android mobile OS and how Google allied themselves with Verizon to advocate recommendations that would damage net neutrality.

So really, who’s interest does the decision to drop H.264 support from Google Chrome serve? Not web developers and publishers who are now more inconvenienced. Not the web standards proponents who have a harder job selling HTML5′s <video> support. Not web users who are forced to rely on resource intensive, buggy Flash to play their web videos. Google’s decision benefits themselves, and to a smaller extent Adobe.

Come on Google, your two-faced inconsistencies suck. Instead of dropping support for H.264, how about dropping your motto? Remember? The one that says “Don’t be evil”.

Related posts:

1. The Ambiguity of “Open” and VP8 vs. H.264
2. Google Singapore opening soon
3. [RANT] Why I stopped trusting Google

Lately I’ve been telling many of my friends to be very careful about Facebook because they don’t take our privacy seriously. This past week another company joins that list – Google. In addition to privacy, their business practices also make me highly suspicious of them.

Google’s recent actions have made me stop trusting them. I admit, these are very geek reasons that many of my friends won’t understand, but they’ve made me seriously reconsider my relationship to Google and how much I should support them.

Here’s the short version. They’re a great company but they hide behind their unoficial motto of “Don’t be evil” when they are clearly happy to be a little evil. I hate it that they’re two-faced, because I can’t trust people that are two-faced.

So now, if you’ve got a little time to listen to me rant, here’s why I stopped trusting Google:

Privacy

1. Google CEO Eric Schmidt dismisses privacy

“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place,” said Eric Schmidt.

After recently reading Cory Doctorow’s Little Brother, I’ve got a new appreciation of the importance of privacy and it makes me very concerned that the company that handles my email, calendar, search and more seems so unconcerned about privacy.

I highly encourage reading EFF’s editorial on this: Google CEO Eric Schmidt Dismisses the Importance of Privacy. Here’s a great quote:

Google, governments, and technologists need to understand more broadly that ignoring privacy protections in the innovations we incorporate into our lives not only invites invasions of our personal space and comfort, but opens the door to future abuses of power.

2. So many privacy “blunders”.. maybe they’re intentional?

Google does not have a good track record when it comes to handling our private information:

• Molly Wood: Google Buzz privacy
• Why Google keeps your data forever, tracks you with ads
• BBC: Google rapped over privacy by 10 nations
  

In the last link, a watchdog group sent an open letter to Google. Here’s a quote from the letter:

Launching a product in ‘beta’ form is not a substitute for ensuring that new services comply with fair information principles before they are introduced

Business Practices

Google was probably my 2nd favourite company after Apple. However, I began to lose my adoration of them once they started competing directly with Apple in the phone space.

3. Google copies iPhone design

Google announced their Android project a long time ago. At that time Eric Schmidt was a member of the Apple board. After Apple introduced the iPhone, Google changed it’s direction for Android.

According to a former Apple employee, the day that the Apple-Google relationship started to crumble was the introduction of the T-Mobile G1. According to him, Steve Jobs and Apple Mobile Software VP Scott Forstall had only seen Android prototypes that looked like Blackberries. The new form factor was “way too similar to the iPhone for Jobs’ tastes”.

Sure, there’s no direct evidence of Google stealing Apple’s ideas, but I think it’s pretty obvious. Google has terrible design sense, and their phone OS suddenly gets lots of similar features to the iPhone. All the while, they’re taking potshots at Apple.

4. Google sells internet users out under pretense of ‘better internet’

Google and Verizon put together a proposal that they want the US Congress to ratify that would split the internet into the “public internet” and “better internets”. This would open the door to ISPs being able to charge you more money for premium content and services on the “better internets”.

On principle I hate the idea of a tiered internet. It should be open for everyone. But what really gets me is Google’s 180-degree turn of their stance on this tiered internet (net neutrality issue). Ars Technica put together a great paper trail of betrayal: Google’s net neutrality collapse.

Also read:

• How the Google/Verizon proposal could kill the internet in 5 years
• Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

Stop Being Two-Faced

Ultimately what I have come to realise is that Google is just a super two-faced company. Like MG Siegler says, “Google, Just Cut The BS And Give The Gordon Gekko Speech Already“. Seriously.

Google, you were one of the good guys (or at least so I thought). I don’t mind you wanting to make money. I want you to make money so you can continue providing us great products.

But please don’t pretend to be the goody-two-shoes with your “Don’t be evil” mantra and then turn around and stab us in the back later. Because when you do that, people who don’t know better fall into your trap, and along the way you spoil what’s important to geeks like me.

And that’s why I’m so disappointed, and I can’t trust Google any more.

Update: Another article from TechCrunch that captures what I’m feeling: Google Is Anakin, Verizon Is The Emperor, And The Dark Side Is Winning

Related posts:

1. Google busses
2. Google phone
3. Official Google Reader Blog: Brand new Google Reader for iPhone

Twitter is over capacity. Again. Then again, the picture they put up is real cute.

I hate this genre of music known as bubblegum dance, especially when my gym plays it the whole day long. Vengaboys, Aqua, Cartoons – how can you put up with them??