So in other words, Google are the bad guys for depreciating/axing a feature which they no longer use, and which was probably never intended to be used in the way which Scroogle are using it?
That's right, it's all about Scroogle. I appreciate that Scroogle are upset that their service (which relies on hacks) will no longer work, however, it's ridiculous that even developers are acting irrational these days.
Why Scroogle thinks that Google should pay developers to maintain an interface to support their service which strips the ads from results, is beyond me. I'd say this change shows scroogle's true colors...
This note simply describes the bare facts underlying Scroogle's outage and that they've emailed Google to ask some relevant and perfectly reasonable questions.
How is any of what they say "irrational"? Where do they imply that they're entitled to anything from Google?
As for Google being "bad guys", well, that really depends on how much you value privacy and whether you think Google is acting in ways that respect their users' privacy.
I'd say that the title is intended to strongly imply that Google are evil. Also, the vibe the article is trying to create is that if Google don't re-add the api, they are probably doing it to block competition (why else would they start with their Microsoft rant at the bottom?)
Also.. Privacy issues with Google? Just because they are capturing details you put into their system, doesn't mean they are sharing it, or changing their privacy policy overnight to make all your details public (as Facebook does). Or are you complaining they take photos in public areas?
"I'd say that the title is intended to strongly imply that Google are evil."
The title is "Scroogle has been blocked". How does this imply Google is evil?
"Also, the vibe the article is trying to create is that if Google don't re-add the api, they are probably doing it to block competition (why else would they start with their Microsoft rant at the bottom?)"
They put in the quote from a lead Microsoft developer that describes Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, and then say "Let's hope Google doesn't do the same thing." Is this an unreasonable hope? I really don't see the problem with what they say here.
"Also.. Privacy issues with Google? Just because they are capturing details you put into their system, doesn't mean they are sharing it, or changing their privacy policy overnight to make all your details public (as Facebook does). Or are you complaining they take photos in public areas?"
I consider any and all information about me, my interests, my friends (since you bring up Facebook), etc, to be private. If that information is collected without my explicit permission, I consider it a privacy violation. If that information is shared without my explicit permission, it's an even worse privacy violation.
If I wrote "Flash no longer available, thanks to a change by Apple", I'm pretty sure you'd probably change your mind.
And if I wrote "Linux no longer supports our program due to a change in kernel design. We are asking why it was done. Oh, and Microsoft did the same things 2 years ago and were sued for trying to block competitors. But until we find out, we can't confirm its because they are trying to stop competition."
Both of these statements are obviously heavily biased, and yet, that's what we see in the article, and in the hacker news headline.
If it weren't biased, why would Scroogle even mention the Microsoft thing? It is hardly relevant. It seems like they are trying to invoke anger by the community, so that Google is forced to reinstate the feature. And judging by the headline here, it seems to have worked.
But hey, I guess headlines which are anti-large company on a system which only gets upvotes would generate more attention than neutral ones, because all the Google haters jump on board and vote it up, without reading the article and actually seeing if the headline is remotely accurate.
I'm not amazed at all. I would guess that most violators of Google's terms of service don't even get noticed by Google until and unless their actions begin to significantly impact Google's bottom line or Google feels threatened in some other way.
The API changes that resulted in Scroogle no longer being able to get results from Google may not have had anything to do with Scroogle violating Google's terms of service.
But if it did, then it's likely Scroogle was performing a significant number of searches and Google noticed. This would lead me to believe that there is a serious demand among a significant number of Google's customers for more privacy, and Google itself was not meeting that demand.
I hope other privacy-respecting search engines step up to the plate and fill the void left by Scroogle's demise.
That's right, it's all about Scroogle. I appreciate that Scroogle are upset that their service (which relies on hacks) will no longer work, however, it's ridiculous that even developers are acting irrational these days.
Why Scroogle thinks that Google should pay developers to maintain an interface to support their service which strips the ads from results, is beyond me. I'd say this change shows scroogle's true colors...