If I ask my computer or phone for the definition or history of the word 'Foo', I don't want to be sent off to historyoffoo.com as the top link, I just want it to give me the answer, followed perhaps by links to other stuff.

Do you think if you ask what time is it, Google should respond first and foremost that you need to click and go to dateandtime.com to see the answer?

Google's mission is the organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful, not to organize only the world's websites into 10 blue links.

The ultimate goal of Google is to built the Starship Enterprise's Computer. Could you imagine Captain Picard's frustration if he said "How long to Starbase Alpha at Warp 9" and the Computer replied "I can't give you the direct answer, but please visit StarbaseMaps.com and it will be able to answer your question."

This becomes all the more clearer if you imagine voice or mobile user, where multi-step latency is huge and queries should be answered in the fewest steps possible. Why it is evil for Google to do this, but not Apple+Siri I can't fathom.

Now that you say standards.. that reminds me of Google's (non-existent) MathML support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

Not that it makes the sentiment of your comment any less valid. It just isn't exactly the same as the original Microsoft meaning of the phrase.

An easy way to tell the difference is comparing with other companies doing the same: for example, DuckDuckGo is lauded for adding these kinds of small features. The only difference is that they're too small to kill anybody's business. But if DuckDuckGo tried to extend a standard format with proprietary capabilities in order to kill it, would we laud them?

First, DDG includes (mostly) other companies' services like HN, WolframAlpha, etc. It doesn't compete with them, it's closer to prerendering in Chrome.

Second, I argued in other comment that Google Search is, for many users, a standard, and DDG must follow it or be left behind.

Plenty of them are builtin and/or part of DuckDuckGo hack. And even for others, it's pretty different from just prerendering. They are choosing a single site to display data from. Is it really different if Google makes a partnership without some site(s) and kills off everyone else? Why?

Second, I argued in other comment that Google Search is, for many users, a standard, and DDG must follow it or be left behind.

Except in this case, Google is the one behind, since DDG has many more special queries than them.

Your argument is strikingly close to those against net neutrality. I'll just left the conversation here, you'll defend Google no matter what.

I never said you did. I never talked about your personal opinions on DDG or Startpage. Hell, the comment where I introduced DDG wasn't even a reply to you.

I used the fact that DDG is praised - in general, not specifically by you - for doing exactly what Google is being criticized for, and that shows that it's not inherently a bad thing, like EEE always is.

Your argument is strikingly close to those against net neutrality.

My argument is "if X is so wrong, how come we praise everyone else for doing X?"

I'm sure plenty of groups have used the same argument. It doesn't make me into them anymore than singing Maybe I'm Amazed makes me Paul McCartney.

I'll just left the conversation here, you'll defend Google no matter what.

No, just if I think it's being unfairly criticized. You won't hear me defend their appalling privacy stance, their terrible customer service, their braindead real name requirement on Plus, etc. There's a reason why I left Gmail and Reader years ago, and that's because I think Google has way to much power for our own good.

But it's not because they add freaking etymology utilities to their search engine.

Also, lest never forget Google Reader: "Embrace, extend, extinguish: How Google crushed and abandoned the RSS industry" http://www.zdnet.com/embrace-extend-extinguish-how-google-cr...

Only by people who don't understand the meaning of "standard" in this context. Otherwise, it makes no sense to say "Google is embracing and extending Google Search".

Also, lest never forget Google Reader: "Embrace, extend, extinguish: How Google crushed and abandoned the RSS industry"

Another person who doesn't understand what EEE means, despite spelling it out. Yes, Google crowded out the RSS ecosystem, and eventually killed. Yes, I do agree that Google was a destructive influence for RSS. No, it wasn't an example of a company following the EEE strategy.

The whole point of the EEE strategy is that you extinguish the competition, not your own products. It's a plan to dominate a market by making your proprietary format the new de-facto standard (extending the original), which kills every other option.

If Google had followed the EEE strategy, it wouldn't have killed Reader. Instead, you'd still be using it, except now it would only support GoogleRSS feeds (made popular by leveraging feedburner), which would be a binary, undocumented format that nobody else would be able to parse.

With respect to RSS, Google launched a free product, poured millions into it. If you're not Google you can't compete with that. It was devastating. It destroyed everything. And with only their product standing, Google said, "you know what? I'll kill RSS dead, you have some months to transfer to my closed proprietary format/social network, Google+, the new standard". So it's in fact the EEE strategy.

Why would anyone expect Google not to eliminate its competitors?

I don't object to Google fighting its competitors, but it must play by the rules. Google is not a country, but part of society and this imposes certain obligations.