Very good article but at the bottom they are just integrating services as all companies do. Yahoo answers "prefers" Yahoo Accounts. It's stupid to think google would change the format; nobody would use them as a stand against it. Also allowing feedburner to use the main types of feeds broadens the consumer base

It would be such an enormous mistake if Google lets its services compartmentalized while social networks like Facebook and Plaxo offer unique Internet boards for every web tools (online payment, calendar, email box, etc.)
You're just betting that Google will grow more and more. Easy! If you'd believed they won't do so, you could have accused them of misunderstanding the Web and blamed them of only striving to gather users' information.
Don't be evil!

> Very good article but at the bottom they are just
> integrating services as all companies do.

Yeah, and – ethics aside – sometimes all this integration starts to collide with the law, like when Microsoft too tightly integrated the browser into the OS in the 1990s. Though in Microsoft's favor, I don't think (?) they ever said things like "[we are] not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one," like Google did, and that's where ethics come back into play (http://investor.google.com/ipo_letter.html)

Google *right now* is lobbying against Microsoft for including Microsoft search to deep into Vista. "Google believes that Vista fails to provide ample opportunity to third-party desktop search apps, like its own Google Desktop Search," The Register writes. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/07/google_files_friend_of_court_brief/)
In short, if Google manages to create 5 innovative products that push 5 not-so-innovative ones, then they're hindering innovation in these latter 5 markets... the risks of a monopoly. (Right now, some of Google's apps wouldn't even be able to compete in their own market, on their own innovation. Look at Picasa Web Albums, Google's photo organizer, which to this day doesn't even allow you to upload PNG or GIF files through the web interface, over one year after release!)
But again, we're not there yet, we are likely just at the beginning of this issue...

> You're just betting that Google will grow
> more and more.

Google bought 7 companies in the last two months alone, and they told us they'll release a web-based PowerPoint by this summer. Do you agree they're currently growing, and that it's likely their web OS is just doing its first steps? Now if this is indeed going to be a web OS, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as third-party developers can easily integrate their tools with it (say, I'm the developer of a web-based spreadsheets tool, then if the Google OS more fully emerged, I need to have a way for it to be integrated in Google OS, just as easily for the user as native Google tools). So it's not an either/ or situation – either a Google OS or NO Google OS – but a question of Google getting the Google OS right so it's open to support outside innovation.

But I definitely agree with your analysis that others do this cross-integration too... and Dave Winer seems to agree too when he says, "I would have been concerned no matter who bought Feedburner, had it been Microsoft or Yahoo, or Fox or even Cisco (...) These technologies work best when there's lots of competition and lots of choice".

Despite all of Google's acquisitions, they don't really intentionally favour their own products (although granted Gmail only supports other Gproducts).

Google AdSense, AdWords, Analytics, Blogger etc. users don't get any unfair special treatment in Google's main product, Search.

On the other hand: should google just stay away from any new services?

Becuase with every new service (if acquired or not) someone starts whining...

Now imagine google with just normal search. No gmail, not even maps search or any other specialized stuff (because the article also mentioned that maps is prefered)

Let's give it image search, that was there a long time....

Now, would that google survive? No.
Would that google give you free services that are always some of the best ones out there? No.

Would microsoft/yahoo whoever someday take over the lead: probably

which scenario do you prefer now: the google as it is today, or not?

> Now imagine google with just normal search.
> No gmail, not even maps search or any other
> specialized stuff (because the article also
> mentioned that maps is prefered)

Google didn't need to push Gmail via its other services – Gmail was able to be competitive on its own merits (well, with the giant Google server farm as back-end), and that's absolutely fine. The issue raised by Dave Winer, and there's the important difference, is about cross-integration problems hindering innovation, not about a company releasing new products. And Feedburner itself prooves a very different point: yes, there *would* have been Feedburner without Google doing it, in fact, there *was* (Google just acquired them).

The trouble is not for reader sofeware. It is small case.

The real trouble is one day. When Feedburner say, its My Brand have full function like the hosting company have. We can post our blog directly on My Brand.

Somewhat, this Kind of My Brand already existed. Blogger Custom Domains.

Dave should consider how many percent blog use FeedBurner. And how much money these blogs give the hosting company. And how many advertise profit that free blog service company got.

It is not bad news for me, at least, I can save hosting cost, and give faster hoting on Google.

I guessed this results for years.

Any way, Google did a good business, Feedburner is so cheap for Google.

I think wordpress should be Google's target too. Buy its stock now, if wordpress have stock to share.

Feeds that only work in Reader? Ads in your feeds? That must be a joke if you think that Google made all the FeedBurner services free and Blogger users aren't forced to include AdSense ads.

I would be more concerned about the analytics data for all these blogs. Google has a lot of powerful information from AdSense/Analytics/FeedBurner.

I have no doubt they'll make it work better with their own offerings, but this is advertising. They really have no desire to make it difficult for their feeds to work for other people. If they did, it would hurt their ability to serve ads – which is why the is nothing more than the spreading of FUD. It's about serving advertising, not control of a platform or service – unless of course that's serving "advertisments"

Ionut Alex. Chitu

Google's database is the copy of world website. If direct hosting websites on Google servers, Google's cost should be the same.

So, Google should offer the free hosting for us. Or two plans. 1 is paid hosting. Two is adsense hosting for free, earn the money both.

Jon Henshaw

Google creating advanced standard for feed not so bad. Let us wait. Many year ago, no internet. no feed. We alway need new products.

How did you get the event info into gmail ? If i want to write a new mail i can just add an attachment, but cannot set a date for an event

Yep, that's David Whiner alright.

Daniel, in my Gmail there's a link in the top right when I compose a new mail which reads "Add event info"... do you have that?

No, i don't have that kind of link :(

Philipp you make good points

Daniel maybe that link is only available in the English interface? What happens when you switch to "English (US)" in the "settings" menu?

> Yeah, and – ethics aside – sometimes all this integration starts to
> collide with the law, like when Microsoft too tightly integrated the
> browser into the OS in the 1990s. Though in Microsoft's favor, I don't
> think (?) they ever said things like "[we are] not a conventional
> company. We do not intend to become one," like Google did, and
> that's where ethics come back into play

Microsoft didn't get into trouble because they integrated IE with Windows. They got into trouble for using backhand tactics (ex: threating not to sell Windows without IE installed) to force computer manufactures to install IE and not Netscape. Not favoring, /forcing/ consumers to use Internet Explorer (and even with proof of the abuse, Microsoft still managed to get away it).

Google's products integrated with each other, but their really isn't any Google product that forces a user to use more than one Google product. For example, I could use Gmail for my email, Sunbird for my calendar, Microsoft Office for Word Processing, and Yahoo for search engine. Sure, it wouldn't be quite as convenient as using all Google products, but it still works well.

I think that the much larger threat is the sheer amount of personal information that Google has. Potential Google abuse aside, that is a potential time bomb if someone were to gain access to it (Government, hackers, etc).

Until Google Feedburner starts forcing users to use Google Reader, stop panicking, the sky isn't falling.

Bah. It seems Dave Winer is just afraid that Atom 1.0 will get more "adoption" than his beloved RSS 2.0.

> Microsoft didn't get into trouble because they integrated
> IE with Windows. They got into trouble for using backhand
> tactics (ex: threating not to sell Windows without IE installed)
> to force computer manufactures to install IE and not Netscape.
> Not favoring, /forcing/ consumers to use Internet Explorer (and
> even with proof of the abuse, Microsoft still managed to get away it).
>
> Google's products integrated with each other, but their really
> isn't any Google product that forces a user to use more
> than one Google product.

I definitely agree Google isn't comparable with MS tactics at this point, and also in comparison with Yahoo they often come out better (in fact, we wouldn't even notice much of this stuff with Yahoo because Yahoo didn't make all these promises in the past). But inhowfar did Microsoft force users to use Internet Explorer? Weren't users able to just install Netscape on Windows if they wanted to? If so, isn't it true that MS just made it a little "less comfortable" to switch and a little easier to use the default (especially for the not so computer-savvy)? I'm not talking about hardware manufactures, but end users...

I'll repost what I left at Scoble's:

Let's see – Google buys FeedBurner, and then FeedBurner makes the MyBrand feature free for anyone to use. MyBrand is the feature that puts feeds under your own domain, which means if you want to buy into Dave's paranoia, you can move off and take your readers with you.

Yeah, pretty clever of Google. Let's make it easier for them to leave by making a formerly paid product free.

Look, anyone who started using something using someone else's domain has themselves to blame, to begin with. But after Dave initially banged on FeedBurner those years ago, they quickly responded to make it so that you can move your feed even if you didn't use MyBrand, through redirection. He never seems to credit them for this. In addition, they came out with MyBrand, which anyone who really cared could have used for I think over two years now, for a small fee. But as I said, it's entirely free now.

So paranoid? Go get MyBrand. Here's my guide to it:
http://searchengineland.com/070110-111256.php

The only change is, you know, it doesn't cost money anymore.

Yes, it works if it is set to English (US). But it's weird that it is only in the english version. It doesn't seem so difficult to translate...

(Updated the post with Danny's comment.)

[mode "autopromotion" on]
if you want to continue the list of "prefers", you can check the -always growing and now clickable- Zorgloob's map of Google services =)
http://logiciels.zorgloob.com/graphe.php
[/mode off]

I agree with Daniel, Danny's tip works only in US English. Bad donut. I understand problems pointed by Dave Winer, but we don't have, for the moment, to be afraid of Google.

<< So now someone at Google “owns” Feedburner and all their feeds. And they could, if they wanted to, change the feeds to another format, overnight, without asking anyone. Reader software might have trouble working with it. They would say “Oh but the new feeds work better with Google Reader, and that’s the one most people use.” (...) >>

I guess that's possible but I think it's highly unlikely that Google would change their FeedBurner feeds to another format, especially given that the Google Reader team have spent a lot of time trying to make Google Reader work with as many feeds as possible – including ones which contain XML errors:

http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2005/12/xml-errors-in-feeds.html

Does that make more people use Google Reader? Of course it does, because it means they can use Google Reader to read any feed, including error-filled ones that could possibly break in other feed readers.

Would changing FeedBurner/Blogger feeds to another format make more people use Google Reader? I very much doubt it.

Not that mention that FeedBurner has a compatibility mode called SmartFeed.

<< Reach the widest possible audience while publishing a single feed on your blog or site. Translates your feed on-the-fly into a format (RSS or Atom) compatible with your visitors' feed reader application. >>

http://blogs.feedburner.com/feedburner/archives/000520.html

YES! I highly doubt that Google would take away the SmartFeed option which was one of the early reasons to use Feedburner. Google tried promoting Atom early on with Blogger which may be why people feel this way.