and personal email, and collaboration tools, and project mailing lists, and photo service, and maps service, and video hosting..
If you consider google as the search engine maybe not, but if you consider google the company the it's downright scary how hard it would be to get out of their grasp, IMO.
People use Google's services because they're excellent, not because they are locked in. Google makes it very easy to leave and take your data with you. Google contributes as much of their internal software to the Free Software community as they can. They do need to make money, but they're trying to do it the old fashioned way: make products people they like. And that's refreshing in a world where Microsoft makes their own email protocol and Apple sells computers that you can't hack.
This is not "downright scary". It's downright refreshing.
(Yes, advertising is an annoying business model, but I don't think it will last much longer for Google. People hate advertising and the feeling of being "told what to think". The good news is that Google's products will still work even if you have to pay a few bucks a month for them. Right now, that's not in Google's interests, because advertising money is the easiest money to make. But in a few years, I think we'll see less advertising and more customer focus, as advertisers realize that nobody wants their overpriced shit anymore.)
My point was that while changing search engine is easy:
* migrating all your data is way harder
* opting out of some google online services (e.g. maps) does not free me from third parties relying on them (e.g. android, iphone)
* I can't change the habits of the rest of the world, so I'm stuck with them if I want to join ai-class.org, read something on blogger or peruse a project mailing list on groups.
* the fact that the services are good _is_ a lockin, as it makes it harder to get off of them
Just this. Changing search engine is easy, opting out of google's products is, at least for me, much much harder.
I love google the company and their products, it just seems nearly impossible to get out of their reach without resorting to RMS-style "I email myself web pages I want to read" estremisms.
I don't think you need to email yourself web pages, but I do think you need to use Tor or some other anonymous HTTP proxy. If you are paranoid about the "paper trail" that browsing the web leavers, then you need to take measures to make that paper trail less useful. Complaining about "lock in" to services that other people uses, though, is just confusing the issue; the Internet has never let you choose what service providers other people use, and you will have to live with that.
Interesting, since I would say pretty much the same thing about Apple (certainly with the Mac platform).
http://www.dataliberation.org/
These are the products you can easily export: AdWords, Alerts, Analytics, App Engine, Apps for Business, Blogger, Bookmarks, Calendar, Chrome Bookmarks, Docs, Finance, Gmail, Google Storage for Developers, Health, iGoogle, Latitude, Maps, Notebook, Orkut, Project Hosting, Reader, Sites, Voice, Web History, YouTube
And via "Google Takeout" you can export all of these products in one go: Buzz, Contacts, Google+ Stream, Picasa Web Albums, Profiles
I think there's plenty of competitors for all of those products if you wanted to move.
Google is exactly that. I think you're reading too much into whats being said. Are you suggesting we shouldn't keep a watchful eye on Google? They have a tremendous amount of power.
It's like handing over money to a drug dealer in the back alley and going "I just don't know about you, you seem dangerous" and then coming back week after week. Stop using Google and they lose all power over you and the "danger" evaporates.
I like your analogy. It perfectly exemplifies what I'm trying to say. Can I not use their services and be careful while doing it? Driving my car is dangerous but I do it every day. I'm not trying to say that they're bad. If you're distilling the word "dangerous" down to it's connotation then I can understand your disagreement. Please understand that I'm not doing that.
After reading this last reply, I think I am. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that everyone is thinking about it in the same way you and I are. There are a lot of people (often even on HN) that decry new Google products or features as some sort of "attack". Have no doubt, they want and live on data and ad-intel, but that's just part of the game, at least to me (an informed consumer).
They are hiring type designers left and right and pouring money into creating a wide variety fonts - both original and knock-offs. Fonts that then they are offering for free. The only connection between the webfont and Google's core business is the fact that a Google-hosted version of former needs to be embedded in one's website in order to be used. So, they are doing this - at least in part - in order to expand their tracking capabilities.
It's one thing when one joins G+ and decides to share most of his/her online life with Google. And it's another thing to embed a piece of JS/CSS and to start tracking other people on Google's behalf. Google is effectively exploiting the greed and ignorance of the web designers to go after people who do not want to have anything with them. This is plain unethical, but nonetheless Google is very aggressively pursuing this direction.
The same incidentally goes for Gmail. I was buying a piece of real estate not long ago, and the realtor was using Gmail. We are both in Canada. I told him that exchanging documents over an email was like sending faxes back and forth, but not forgetting to send a copy of each to some random US company (because it would make sending faxes free). Only then he realized that he was in violation of whatever privacy requirements his RE association had. The level of ignorance when it comes to online freebies is absolutely STAGGERING. Google knows that what they do online would've never flown in the real life, but they still merrily peddle their free services and constantly seek ways to go after those who don't want them. That's certainly not evil or bad. It is all "well integrated", so it must be benign.
/rant
>The only connection between the webfont and Google's core business is the fact that a Google-hosted version of former needs to be embedded in one's website in order to be used.
All of those fonts are freely downloadable. Nothing about them requires you to go through Google (and is in fact impossible due to how webfonts work).
Further, do you have ANY evidence that G+ is tracking non-loged in users?
Also, I'm pretty sure the privacy policy of... ANY webmail client (save for self or ISP hosted) is going to violate such a policy, and I still find it completely irrelevant in a discussion of Google being dangerous.
Now they're dangerous because you didn't read the TOS?
Next week: proof why Google enriches uranium and sells it to terrorists trying to build a dirty bomb. One reason: they would get money from doing so! Man that's evil!
In exactly one format. And in order for them to be properly served to different browsers, they need to come in at least 3 other formats. Doing offline conversion yields fonts that look noticeably different from those served by Google, so for all practical intents and purposes having these fonts available for download is useless.
> Now they're dangerous because you didn't read the TOS?
They are dangerous because the other guy didn't read the TOS. I read them and declined.
(Part of Android's look-and-feel is based on fonts, too, so it makes sense that if you're going to hire designers to make their phone OS look nice, some fonts are going to get designed along with that. Fonts, icons, backgrounds, and UI layout are all the same thing.)
Before this, Microsoft provided the standard web fonts. They made them very hard to install, and so Google stepped up to provide a standard set of fonts, free to use and modify. This isn't evil, it's just Google ensuring that people can use their products. Bad fonts means their sites look ugly, and ugly sites means users won't use them. That's the only motivation.
With regards to the "just doesn't behave like this" - Google is not a charity. It might be a wealthy company, but even it needs a justification for spending hundreds of thousands if (not millions) on creating a font library. Do you seriously think "let's have fonts" is the justification enough for that? There has to be a bigger reason and a larger picture. The "culture" is a funny thing. It can be benign and ethical all the way through the organization with an exception of a single room where the lawful interception provisions are enforced.
> That's the only motivation.
Right.
It's good for the openness of the Web when fonts are available freely, and Google only makes money when the Web can be open. So they give away fonts.
(They also bought VP7 and open-source many of their internal projects for this reason. They want to send a message: compete on an open playing field or become irrelevant.)