View Full Version : Yahoo vs Google

August 22nd, 2005, 10:23 PM
people are always saying "just google it", but why not "just yahoo it"? i hear google does have a better search engine, but personally i enjoy yahoo more just because i can access more things from the main page (ie. news, travel, email, etc)

August 22nd, 2005, 11:40 PM
I use WebCrawler

August 23rd, 2005, 04:23 AM
I use Google and sometimes Dogpile.

August 23rd, 2005, 10:18 AM
I use Google and sometimes Dogpile.

google, yahoo, dogpile....and i just heard of another one call mamma(mother of all search engines).

people really know how to name their search engines:)

August 23rd, 2005, 01:38 PM
I used Google for the most part... Now I use Gmail aswell! ;)

August 23rd, 2005, 03:02 PM
people are always saying "just google it", but why not "just yahoo it"? i hear google does have a better search engine, but personally i enjoy yahoo more just because i can access more things from the main page (ie. news, travel, email, etc)

Are you trying to spin some viral campaign for Yahoo? Even if google weren't a superior search engine (it is) I would choose it over Yahoo's crappy force-fed fluff content and huge animated ads.

August 23rd, 2005, 04:02 PM
Are you trying to spin some viral campaign for Yahoo? Even if google weren't a superior search engine (it is) I would choose it over Yahoo's crappy force-fed fluff content and huge animated ads.

i really dont care about their "force-fed fluff" or "animated ads", i just like getting my daily news fix

August 23rd, 2005, 07:11 PM
Yeah, with Google I have to click the news button... I hate that extra step. :rolleyes:

August 24th, 2005, 10:21 AM
Yeah, with Google I have to click the news button... I hate that extra step. :rolleyes:

amen! extra steps really are annoying. i want to access pretty much everything from one main page, not click around to get around.

August 24th, 2005, 11:02 AM
Seriously, who do you work for, MRwho?

August 24th, 2005, 01:07 PM

August 24th, 2005, 05:11 PM
I completely agree with MRwho. At this point I just have a Google search thing on my toolbar so that's what I use, but before that Yahoo was my homepage exactly because of the news being right there. I still miss it, although now I've gravitated towards AIM's news ticker as a catch-all news source. My current homepage? the Skyscrapers & Architecture forum here :)

August 24th, 2005, 10:03 PM
Mrwho, i don't think you are fooling anyone here.

Funny how the industry now seems to be preoccupied with Google. Is Yahoo! getting so desperate that they have to call in.....who?

August 24, 2005
Relax, Bill Gates; It's Google's Turn as the Villain

By GARY RIVLIN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=GARY RIVLIN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=GARY RIVLIN&inline=nyt-per)
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 23 - For years, Silicon Valley hungered for a company mighty enough to best Microsoft (http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=MSFT). Now it has one such contender: the phenomenally successful Google (http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=GOOG).

But instead of embracing Google as one of their own, many in Silicon Valley are skittish about its size and power. They fret that the very strengths that made Google a search-engine phenomenon are distancing it from the entrepreneurial culture that produced it - and even transforming it into a threat.

A year after the company went public, those inside Google are learning the hard way what it means to be the top dog inside a culture accustomed to pulling for the underdog. And they are facing a hometown crowd that generally rebels against anything that smacks of corporate behavior.

Nowadays, when venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and technologists gather in Silicon Valley, they often find themselves grousing about Google, complaining about everything from a hoarding of top engineers to its treatment of partners and potential partners. The word arrogant is frequently used.

The news last week that Google plans to sell an additional 14 million shares of stock, adding $4 billion to its current cash reserves of $3 billion, will only provide more reasons to gripe.

"I've definitely been picking up on the resentment," said Max Levchin, a founder of PayPal, the online payment service now owned by eBay (http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=EBAY). "They're a big company now, doing things people didn't expect them to do."

Mr. Levchin, who last year founded a multimedia company in San Francisco called Slide, said Google "still has a long wick of good will to burn off," but he added, "I'm surprised at how fast the company's reputation is changing."

It was not that long ago that Google reigned here as the upstart computer company that could do no wrong. Now some working in the technology field are starting to draw comparisons between Google and Microsoft, the company in Redmond, Wash., that Silicon Valley loves most to hate.

Bill Gates certainly sees similarities between Google and his own company. This spring, in an interview with Fortune, Mr. Gates, Microsoft's chairman, said that Google was "more like us than anyone else we have ever competed with."

Google's success has already spurred Microsoft to develop its own Internet search engine (a project code-named Underdog), but Google has legions of engineers banging away on a range of projects of its own that, if successful, could dislodge Microsoft from the pre-eminent spot it has enjoyed since the early 1980's.

Of course, Silicon Valley has had past pretenders to the throne. Netscape, which went public 10 years ago this month, and its Web browser, Navigator, were supposed to fell Microsoft - but it is Netscape that is no longer in business. And while Google is riding high, those closely following the company caution that it is hardly invincible; an inflated stock price, a desire to compete in too many sectors simultaneously or simple hubris might cause it to stumble, they say. Even Microsoft, after all, has had legal troubles.

Still, similarities between Google and Microsoft are evident to local entrepreneurs including Steven I. Lurie, who worked at Microsoft between 1993 and 1999 but now lives in San Francisco, and Joe Kraus, a founder of the 1990's search firm Excite.

"There's that same 'think big' attitude about markets and opportunities," said Mr. Lurie, who has visited the Google campus in Mountain View many times to see friends who work there. "Maybe you can call it arrogance, but there's that same sense that they can do anything and get into any area and dominate."

To place Google in context, Mr. Kraus offered a brief history lesson. In the 1990's, he said, I.B.M. (http://www.nytimes.com/redirect/marketwatch/redirect.ctx?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=IBM) was widely perceived in Silicon Valley as a "gentle giant" that was easy to partner with while Microsoft was perceived as an "extraordinarily fearsome, competitive company wanting to be in as many businesses as possible and with the engineering talent capable of implementing effectively anything."

Now, in the view of Mr. Kraus, "Microsoft is becoming I.B.M. and Google is becoming Microsoft." Mr. Kraus is the chief executive and a founder of JotSpot, a Silicon Valley start-up hoping to sell blogging and other self-publishing tools to corporations.

Just as Microsoft has been seen over the years as an aggressive, deep-pocketed competitor for talent, Internet start-ups in Silicon Valley complain that virtually every time they try to recruit a well-regarded computer programmer, that person is already contemplating an offer from Google.

"Google is doing more damage to innovation in the Valley right now than Microsoft ever did," said Reid Hoffman, the founder of two Internet ventures, including LinkedIn, a business networking Web site popular among Silicon Valley's digerati. "It's largely that they're hiring up so many talented people, and the fact they're working on so many different things. It's harder for start-ups to do interesting stuff right now."

Google, Mr. Hoffman said, has caused "across the board a 25 to 50 percent salary inflation for engineers in Silicon Valley" - or at least those in a position to weigh competing offers. A sought-after computer programmer can now expect to make more than $150,000 a year.

David C. Drummond, vice president for corporate development at Google, acknowledged that the company was "very competitive" in its pursuit of talent, but added: "We're very sensitive to how everybody is perceiving us. We think the Silicon Valley ecosystem is critical for Google's success."

Google is also making it more difficult for some start-ups to raise funds. In the second half of the 1990's, entrepreneurs frequently complained that the specter of Microsoft hung over their every conversation with venture capitalists. Today, they say the same about Google.

"When I meet with venture capitalists, or if I'm engaged in a conversation about going into partnership with someone, inevitably the question is, 'Why couldn't Google do what you're doing?' " said Craig Donato, the founder and chief executive of Oodle, a site for searching online classified listings more quickly.

"The answer is, 'They could, and they're probably thinking about it, but they can't do everything and do it well,' " Mr. Donato said. "Or at least I'm hoping they can't."

Google has already added free e-mail, mapping, news aggregation and digital-photo management to its offerings, bringing it into competition in each case with two or more rivals. On Wednesday, it will announce plans for an instant-messaging system. And its plans for a new stock issue are fueling speculation that it is preparing to enter any number of other markets, from services for mobile phone users to an online payment service that would compete with PayPal.

Add to that list an Internet-based phone system and several products that would be directly aimed at Microsoft, including a Google browser and a software offering that would compete with Microsoft Office.

"If there's a perception that we're exploring lots of different areas, some of which might not be directly related to our core area of search, that's true," said Mr. Drummond, the Google vice president. "It's part of our DNA to be always innovating and exploring lots of different areas."

Yet so driven has Google been in its pursuit of new markets that at least a few in Silicon Valley are using an epithet to taunt Google that people here once reserved for Microsoft: "The Borg," a reference to an army of creatures in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" that took over civilization after civilization with machinelike precision.

Perhaps an anti-Google reaction was to be expected, given the glowing press the company has enjoyed for several years. Or maybe the carping and complaining is the inevitable reaction to a company so successful that it cannot help stomping on toes, even if accidentally.

"Hubris is an issue at every one of these Silicon Valley companies that are successful," said Peter Thiel, a founder of PayPal who has invested in roughly 15 Internet start-ups in recent years. "I don't know if it's any worse at Google than it's been at other highly successful technology companies."

Aggressiveness is another signal trait among successful companies like Google - something those in parts of the media world are starting to learn.

Google recently announced that it would not talk to any reporter from CNETNews.com (http://cnetnews.com/), a technology news Web site, until July 2006, after a reporter for the site wrote an article raising privacy questions about the information Google collects about individuals.

The company also provoked the ire of many within the blogging world - not to mention snarky comments in Silicon Valley from those thinking Google was behaving like an old-line company that doesn't get it - when earlier this year it fired a new employee who had joked online that the free meals, the on-site gym and all the other perks were a clever ploy to keep people at their desks longer.

"Google is at that inflection point where it's starting to act like an establishment company, and Silicon Valley is a rebel culture," said Gautam Godhwani, a founder and chief executive at Simply Hired, an online employment site.

Microsoft, of course, has its hold on the Windows world - and a market capitalization almost four times Google's. By contrast, switching to a new search engine is as easy as calling up another Web page - if a new company is able to do to Google what Google did to some of the earliest leaders of search, including AltaVista and Excite.

For the moment, at least, Google is aiming for that most coveted position in technology: a platform that, like Microsoft's operating system, is so popular that outside software developers write programs, and Web developers build new Google-related services, that render the Google home page indispensable to the personal computer ecosystem.

"In the day, you'd hear that Microsoft was the evil empire, especially in Silicon Valley," said Brian Lent, the president of Medio Systems, a start-up in Seattle working on mobile-phone-based search. "Google is the new evil empire, because they're in such a powerful position in terms of control. They have potential monopolistic control over access to information."

Mr. Lent, who worked closely with Google's founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, when all three were Ph.D. students at Stanford University, helped introduce Mr. Brin and Mr. Page to one of the company's earliest investors.

"I like and respect the Google guys," Mr. Lent said, "but let's just say that their ultimate aim seems to me to be, 'One Google under Google, for which it stands.' "

Copyright 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

August 24th, 2005, 11:33 PM
geez guys, i was just curious...i swear im not working for yahoo or any crazy shit like that.

...but i do appreciate you taking it so seriously :)

August 31st, 2005, 04:40 PM
I like google the best. I have their search bar in the corner of my browser.

September 1st, 2005, 01:36 PM
Google by far, it's faster to load (only got DSL). Not using any searchbar-thingie tho, takes too much space.

/my first WiredNewYork post! yay! :D

September 2nd, 2005, 08:42 AM

September 4th, 2005, 07:44 AM
Muchas gracias! After 5years at SSP (& SSC since it's start) it was time to expand a bit :D

September 4th, 2005, 10:46 PM
The web search's name for me is not important therefore I didn't vote.

September 12th, 2005, 04:24 PM
A book that googles Google
Review: 'The Search' offers depth, insight

By Michael Liedtke
Associated Press

Monday, September 12, 2005 Posted: 2016 GMT (0416 HKT)

'The Search'
By John Battelle
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Google Inc. is such an influential -- and potentially scary -- company that it deserves a book as comprehensive as the Internet search engine responsible for its whirlwind success.

Veteran technology journalist John Battelle comes close with "The Search," a 288-page exploration of the company whose dorm-room invention, initially spurned by dot-com entrepreneurs, is now synonymous with looking up information online.

Providing fresh insights and information about Google is difficult because so much already has been written about the Mountain View-based company since its 1998 inception. (Full disclosure: I've been a part of the media frenzy, having covered Google for the past five years.)

Battelle nevertheless manages to keep things compelling, adding his own trenchant analysis about what Google's rapid evolution and powerful technology might mean for the company and our society as a whole.

He views Google and other major search engines as invaluable windows into the world's interests and desires, a "database of intentions" destined to become the hub of 21st-century capitalism.

It doesn't drop any bombshells. But "The Search" excavates some intriguing new details about Google, culled from interviews with more than 350 people including Google's controlling triumvirate -- Chief Executive Eric Schmidt and co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

That helps Battelle shed some light on the motives driving Google's braintrust.

For instance, the frustrating experiences of inventor Nikola Tesla -- perennially overshadowed by his more renowned peer, Thomas Edison -- inspired Page to develop products with practical applications as he set out to change the world.

Readers also will find out more about the origins of Google's iconoclasm, as well as who came up with Google's "Don't Be Evil" motto (it wasn't Page or Brin).

And there are some anecdotes that seem difficult to fathom now. Like when Page and Brin initially once tried to sell their search engine technology -- then called BackRub -- but couldn't find anyone willing to pay their $1.6 million asking price. Not long after that, they raised their first $100,000 from Sun Microsystems Inc. co-founder Andy Bechtolsheim. Page and Brin, who are now worth a combined $20 billion, celebrated by treating themselves to breakfast at Burger King.

Security questions

While Battelle obviously admires Google, his book isn't a fawning tribute.

"The Search" tackles such prickly subjects as the serious privacy concerns raised by the reams of data collected by Google's 175,000 computers about the millions of people who use the company's services each day.

At one point, Battelle paints a disturbing picture, sketching out a scenario in which the federal government could demand that Google provide personal information about its users in the name of national security.

If that were to happen, Google would have to notify all the affected parties, right? Not under the U.S. Patriot Act, which specifically forbids companies from making disclosures about government requests for information.

Didn't know that? Don't feel bad. Neither did Brin when Battelle asked him earlier this year about the potential perils of Google becoming a secret tool for the U.S. government.

This book isn't devoted exclusively to Google. It delves into the history of search without bogging down in the technical details likely to bore a mass audience.

Battelle explains how AltaVista might have become what Google is today if its innovations hadn't been mismanaged by Digital Equipment Corp. and Compaq Computer.

And there is an entire chapter devoted to serial entrepreneur Bill Gross, who developed the search advertising model that Google eventually copied and now relies on for most of its profits (Google eventually paid a licensing fee to Overture Services Inc., the company that Gross created and is now owned by Yahoo Inc.)

There isn't much drama in "The Search," but Battelle can't really be blamed.

After all, Google is still too young to have stirred up the tensions and turmoil that have spiced up so many other business sagas.

As Battelle notes, "The only thing Google has failed to do, so far, is fail."

July 10th, 2007, 04:47 AM
Google considers privacy dashboard

By David Meyer (zdnews-asia@cnet.com), ZDNet UK
URL: http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/internet/0,39044908,62020742,00.htm

Google is considering introducing a "privacy dashboard" after the storm of controversy that has greeted its data-retention policies.

A controversial report by the group Privacy International recently slammed Google (http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/internet/0,39044246,00.htm) over its "aggressive use of invasive or potentially invasive technologies" and the amount of user data it gathers and retains, while the European Union is asking why the search giant needs to hang on to users' data for 18 to 24 months.

The journalist and blogger John Battelle--co-founder of Wired magazine and author of a book on Google--has suggested in a blog post (http://battellemedia.com/archives/003575.php) that the solution to such fears might be a "Data Bill of Rights", which would make it easier for users of a service such as Google to see what personal data was being stored and for how long. Batelle has also put forward the idea of a control panel to make these details visible to users.

This week Danny Sullivan, editor of the news site Search Engine Land, spoke with Google's global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer about the Privacy International report and mentioned Battelle's idea for a control panel. Fleischer's response was positive (http://searchengineland.com/070612-041042.php): "We're thinking hard internally along the digital dashboard type of approach. Is there a way to give users a dashboard and visibility to all these elements and give them control?"

He continued: "It would be hugely complicated to build, but in terms of that vision, I completely share it, and we're having deep discussions about it." Battelle's blogged response to the news of Fleischer's words was: "Way cool (http://battellemedia.com/archives/003721.php)."

p>Privacy International has now called for a global summit (http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-554002) of the major Internet companies, with the goal of thrashing out an accord on privacy. Pending the acceptance of the organization's invitations, the meeting will take place in the week of July 23 in San Francisco. Neither Google nor Privacy International could be reached for comment at the time of writing.


July 10th, 2007, 04:52 AM
Does anybody have a good update to this story?

Is Yahoo developing its own rendition of a "privacy dashboard"?

Does superior data privacy affect your personal choice of search engine?

January 22nd, 2008, 11:25 PM
I use Google because it's very simple.
What do you use ?

Gregory Tenenbaum
January 23rd, 2008, 12:01 PM
When I want the potential of my personal browsing history, emails, and everything else about me sold to the Chinese Government to make Google shareholders rich, I USE GOOGLE!;)

When I have some sanity, and want that information given some respect, I USE



The Benniest
January 26th, 2008, 12:26 AM
I use Google almost always. Easy to use, sleek, and non-confusing.

I like it. :)

February 24th, 2012, 02:02 AM
I prefer Bing myself.

How to: Delete your Google Web History

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/GxyyNifn1Yq6j6Ap3uUD3w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9Zml0O2g9Mjc-/http://media.zenfs.com/152/2011/07/27/digitaltrends-141x27_163114.jpg (http://www.digitaltrends.com/)By Andrew Couts | Digital Trends – 7 hrs ago

One week from today, March 1, Google’s much-criticized unified privacy policy (http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-googles-privacy-changes-will-mean-for-you/) will go into effect. While there is a great deal of debate (http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/google-pushes-back-against-privacy-policy-uproar-misinformation/) over how much (or how little) the new privacy policy will affect users, it’s clear that people are concerned about the search giant’s increasingly thick folders of personal data it stores on each of us. What the policy most certainly does do, however, is makes it so the information Google has is more easily shared across its various services.
One area this is most clear is with search. Our search histories can reveal a lot about us: what we like or dislike, our religion, political leanings, sexual preferences, age, and even health information. As it stands today, all that data collected through searches performed while logged into your Google account has been kept separate from the troves of other data the company has in its coffers. That will all change come next Thursday. Unless, of course, you delete all of it. And here’s how you can do that in less than a minute:
• First, go to google.com/history (https://www.google.com/history/). There, you’ll be asked to sign into your Google account.
• Second, click the “Remove all Web History” button. And that’s it! You’re done. Not only is all your search data removed from Google’s grasps, but doing this automatically pauses Web History, meaning no more information will be collected until you click the blue “Resume” button at the top of the page.
(Note: If you have more than one Google account, you’ll have to do this whole process for each of them.)

If you want to be less drastic, you can also go through your entire Web History (an activity your author found both intriguing and truly frightening), and pick out the bits and pieces you’d rather Google not know about. You can then simply hit the “Pause” button, and no more search data will be collected.
Please note: This doesn’t not stop Google from collecting all types of information about you. To do that, you’re going to have to go through a lot more steps, many of which the Electronic Frontier Foundation has spelled out here.
One pleasant effect of deleting your Web History is that it does away with much of the bad parts of Google’s personalized Search Plus Your World. To thoroughly eradicate that monstrosity from your life, follow these steps outlined here (http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/how-to-de-personalize-your-google-experience/).
This article was originally posted on Digital Trends (http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/how-to-delete-your-google-web-history/)
More from Digital Trends (http://www.digitaltrends.com/)
Google pushes back against privacy policy uproar, misinformation (http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/google-pushes-back-against-privacy-policy-uproar-misinformation/)


August 9th, 2012, 08:07 PM
Another one for the list.

Google Ordered to Pay a Record $22.5 Million for Violating Privacy

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/tfXuOGOB82RMR5spD1eOQw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9Zml0O2g9MjM-/http://l.yimg.com/os/590/2011/10/20/RR-logo_003910.png (http://abcnews.go.com/)By JOANNA STERN | ABC News – 7 hrs ago

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/5tzeOROX1HIS0UfXNTxqHw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MzYwO2NyPTE7Y3c9NjQwO2R4PTA7ZH k9MDtmaT11bGNyb3A7aD0xMDc7cT04NTt3PTE5MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/gma/us.abcnews.go.com/ht_safari_privacy_cc_120809_wmain.jpg (http://wirednewyork.com/photos/science-and-technology-slideshow/google-ordered-pay-record-22-5-million-violating-photo-162006125--abc-news-tech.html)Google Ordered to Pay a Record …

The Federal Trade Commission has ordered Google to pay $22.5 million for violating user privacy on its Apple's Safari browser. It's the biggest FTC fine ever issued for a commission violation.
The federal agency found that Google had been tracking "cookies" on Google sites for Apple Safari users. It was also sending targeted ads to those users, which violated another settlement between the FTC and the search-engine giant.
Google claimed that a tweak in Apple's browser caused an unintentional violation, but the FTC was not swayed by such an argument.
"A company like Google, which is a steward of information for hundreds of millions of people has to do better," David Vladeck, the FTC director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, told reporters on a conference call following the announcement.
The potential privacy violation was first detected by Jonathan Mayer, a Standford University graduate student, who realized that Google was still tracking his cookies, even though he had tried to block it.
"This seems to be the kind of thing the company shouldn't be doing," Mayer told ABC News in February.
As a result of this and other violations, a "Do Not Track," or DNT, setting had been added to various browsers, including Mozilla's Firefox, Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Apple's Safari. Still, with this particular violation, the FTC charged that during 2011 and 2012, Google had been tracking Safari users -- on Macs, iPhones and iPads -- who had opted out of such tracking, as a result of default settings in the browser.
Google has not admitted to violating the law. "The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. This consent order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant that the law has been violated," the FTC said in a news release.
A Google spokesperson held to that as well. "We set the highest standards of privacy and security for our users. The FTC is focused on a 2009 help center page published more than two years before our consent decree, and a year before Apple changed its cookie-handling policy," the spokesperson told ABC News. "We have now changed that page and taken steps to remove the ad cookies, which collected no personal information, from Apple's browsers."


August 10th, 2012, 09:23 AM
1. $22.5M for Google? That is like fining RJ Reynolds the same amount for false advertising on its "featured" product.
2. Where does this money go? Apple? Again, Feh.
3. Here's the strange thing. I do not mind passive tracking so long as there is no central database and that you can RESET it when you want. I do not want to see feminine hygiene ads when I am surfing. I would rather have things like Newegg on my banner ads than a random ad based on generic demographics. OTOH, being able to reset it after searching for Heidi Klum and getting a bunch of SI swimsuit and other less.... family oriented ads, would be useful as well.


August 10th, 2012, 01:20 PM
$22.5MM to Google is the proverbial pimple on an elephant's ass. This is an outrageous violation worthy of a fine in the hundreds of million dollar range.

August 10th, 2012, 02:57 PM
I use Safari and get those tracking ads all day long.

Send me some of the $22.5MM settlement.

August 10th, 2012, 03:15 PM
Meh. As sensitive an issue as it may be, look at the qualifiers at the google statement on the bottom.

They might still have been in the wrong, but it looks like some chronological loops were pulled to line this whole thing up in the first place.