Shared publicly  - 
Internet fame is amusing. Responses to my post ( ) yesterday (on G+ and elsewhere) included such gems (paraphrased, here) as:

* Several people claiming my post was filled with "marketing speak" while others said that it was a good thing I'm an engineer and not in marketing. (So which is it?)
* Multiple people inviting me to stop "believing the lie I'd been fed" about Chrome's mission -- when I was involved in the discussions five years ago about whether and why to build Chrome. (Perhaps I'm feeding myself lies.)
* Many people asserting that Google builds Chrome to collect more data on its users, when we've noted multiple times that this isn't the case; I especially liked one guy supporting his argument by linking to a page about "Chromium vs. Chrome" that explicitly noted that the only additional "tracking" in Chrome is an off-by-default option to send us anonymized data (like "number of times you clicked a toolbar button") and crash reports. (Maybe he thought if he just provided a link, everyone would assume it supported him and no one would actually read it.)

The overall thrust of those who thought me disingenuous (or just misled) seemed to be that my position is hopelessly naive and idealistic. I want to respond to that in general -- not specifically in regard to the question of Google/Mozilla financial arrangements, which I'm not privy to and frankly was never trying to comment on in the first place, but in general, about the worldview of Googlers, in the same way that my post yesterday was intended to be interpreted in general, about the worldview of the Chrome team, and not as a hard-nosed claim about a particular business deal.

What seems impossible for non-Googlers to fully comprehend is that Google as a company is, in a way, "hopelessly naive and idealistic". We Googlers are idealists who want to change the world and naively believe we can actually make it happen. To cynics this seems a facade, and to others full of arrogance or hubris, but the sort of idealism that can dare to make "don't be evil" a corporate motto is precisely why I accepted Google's job offer years ago. It wasn't the pay, the perks, or even the particular work I'd be doing; it's that I wanted to work for a company who, while inevitably making some mistakes, was really committed to doing The Right Thing. It was that, after interviewing on site, I concluded that most people at Google actually believed those ideals, actually tried to uphold that motto, actually wanted to change the world.

This kind of naive idealism runs straight up the management chain to the founders, who wrote the audacious mission statement "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". Seriously? All the information in the world, to everyone? Come on, now; that's hopelessly naive and idealistic!

Let me be clear: I'm not denying that Google makes money, or claiming that isn't a factor in decisions. But the "realists" (as multiple people proudly declared themselves to be yesterday) are so busy patting themselves on the back for "seeing through" Google's actions to expose what they think is the short-term, exploitative focus driving everything that they completely miss the possibility that people in for-profit corporations can actually care about humanity, the world, ethics, doing the right thing, or hell, even long-term strategic planning. You don't have to be an idealist to see why, for a company that benefits when people use the web, making the web better is a good long-term move; or why a company that wants its users' trust and loyalty would benefit from not secretly spying on everything they do.

Fellow Googler and HTML5 spec editor +Ian Hickson wrote in a comment yesterday: "I get the same kinds of blank looks or active denials when I try to explain that my goal as spec writer is to make the Web better irrespective of Google's short-term interests. It's sad that as a society we have reached a stage where it is so unlikely that a company would be willing to invest in humanity (or even to invest in its own long-term benefit) that people become actively hostile and accuse one of lying and deceit when one does so." (emphasis mine)

I'm sure I'm not convincing the skeptics out there -- they're so wedded to their point of view that, just like the guy linking the Chromium vs. Chrome article I mentioned above, they'll treat arguments that flatly contradict them as supportive. My post here will just be more evidence that Google management has completely pulled the wool over my eyes, more proof that those Google folks are expert manipulators and prevaricators. Our corporate charitable gift matching policy is clearly just another perk, not an expression of interest in humanity. Our support for clean energy is aimed solely at profit, it has nothing to do with concern for the environment. The people at Google who work on accessibility don't care about the disabled and the handicapped, they just want to tick up a few more users and make a few more bucks.

So it's only to the rest of you that I can suggest that, if you're wondering why Google is doing some thing, you try imagining it from the perspective of a few tens of thousands of hopelessly naive idealists; try imagining that, when we make some audacious claim, we're crazy enough to believe it; even try imagining that, when we screw up, Hanlon's Razor might apply and it might be due to honestly making a mistake rather than some sort of malicious attempt to get away with something.

Yeah, the Kool-Aid is strong here, but maybe that's because as a company we hire people who already believe.
James Pakele's profile photoAl Billings (Tesshin)'s profile photoRyan Logan's profile photoEdwin Castillo's profile photo
I like your kool-aid, I'd pick it up in bulk at Costco if I could...
This is why Google is awesome. Fuck the cynics!
If you were an idealist, you'd be at Mozilla with the rest of us idealists. :-)
That child-like naivete and idealism is precisely why I adore Google so much and would love to work there. Doesn't seem to have worked out too badly for the company thus far.
+Al Billings Google was the one hiring folks to work on Firefox at the time... maybe Mozilla was too but I didn't hear about it :).

Speaking as someone who at least got to spend a few months contributing to Firefox, I think the Chrome and Firefox teams are both full of idealists. I think the ideals in some cases are slightly different. If one were to emphasize part of the phrase "make the web better for users", I would say that Mozilla seems to me to spend too much emphasis on "make the web better" and not enough on "for users". But I'm really not the person who knows enough to dictate how Mozillians ought to view the world.

I think it's enough to say, I truly don't believe that one would have to leave any ideals behind in order to move from the Firefox team to the Chrome team. I want the Firefox folks to view us like I described yesterday: primarily as partners in making the web better. I get a little uncomfortable when Mozilla pushes hard on the "we're the only company that cares solely about the web" angle because I think we Chrome folks do good work for the web too.

...Maybe I'm just naive and idealistic :)
I'm sure we were hiring people as I was hired in 2007. I know people hired in previous years and I've watched people get hired since then...
We might both be full of idealists but only one set of people isn't working for the profit of public shareholders as the end goal. It does make a difference that the Mozilla Foundation is a nonprofit whose goal is the good of the web, not quarterly profits. I'm sure people at Google care for the web. I'm not sure Google, itself, cares more for the web than, say, making sure it is pulling in billions of dollars and going to be a dominant player in five, ten, or twenty years.

For myself, I left a big corporation (the IE team of Microsoft) because I got tired of the cognitive dissonance of good people working on what they thought were game changing products while, at the end of the day, everything being subservient to revenue and share holders. I gather you don't feel that dissonance at Google so good for you!
Is +Aza Raskin using Google+ yet? I bet he'd have some interesting thoughts on it.
Didn't Google recently donate 40 million for the fight against slavery?
Thanks for the post by the way.
"I'm not sure Google, itself, cares more for the web than, say, making sure it is pulling in billions of dollars" Everything Google does is web based, the web is the way they insure pulling in billions of dollars...
It may make a difference to be in a nonprofit, but I would say on Google's side it makes a difference that (as I noted in a comment yesterday) all the shareholder voting power is in the hands of the founders, meaning that the corporate goals and vision don't seem to get bent by the whims of shortsighted external folks.

In any case, no, I generally don't feel much cognitive dissonance on that front. There are occasional decisions I disagree with, and when that happens I have been able to speak my mind directly to the leadership and be heard and respected. That's probably as good as one can ask.
Google's goal is to make a profit, isn't it? (Regardless of what individuals on the Chrome team might have as goals.) Specifically, to make a profit off of the web.

That isn't Mozilla's goal.

THAT is the fundamental difference.
+Al Billings To have the goal of making a profit off the web but yet not caring about the web is kind of bassackwards don't you think? Google's primary goal is to move users from a local client based platform to a web platform right? Now how do you do that while at the same time not caring for the web? In contrast Google deeply cares about the web and believes the future lies there and is doing many things to ensure that the advancement of the web, no matter where it comes from, takes place.

Now you can make all the claims that Google only cares about profit while Mozilla cares more about the web, but it seems in the end, it's kind of good that Google does turn a profit as it seems that profit pays for both Chrome and Mozilla... ;-)
James, Google cares about.profiting from the web. That isn't the same as an open web as discussed in the Mozilla Manifesto. If they have to choose between openness and profits, which will they choose? We both know the answer.
I trust Mozilla to do what's good for the web and its users. That is the point of its existence. I trust Google to do what's good for Google and its shareholders.
If it helps, I actually believe what you're saying. There's no reason you can't be inherently good and make money! If anything, that's what we all aspire to be! Google makes mistakes like any other company! They are made up of humans, of course they are going to make mistakes! Google's advertising gig to keep their operations going allows the the most flexibility of any technology company I can think of. Because of this, they can pursue what they believe to be worthy challenges and causes to their heart's content.

Why is it so hard to believe a company doesn't have to be evil?
I trust that Mozilla depends on funding just as much as Google depends in turning a profit... If Mozilla had to choose between openness and not receiving funding, they would make the same choices and compromises Google would make regarding turning a profit... Never mind that Chrome isn't a direct money maker...

Further, it seems as of late what's been good for Mozilla users is following the lead of Google Chrome which only solidifies what +Peter Kasting said in his original post regarding one of the primary purposes they decided to go ahead and create Chrome in first place, to have exactly that influence...
Google doesn't do an.advertising gig to keep its other (real?) projects going. Advertising IS their gig. Everything else is just something they do on the side. People seem to forget this. Google is an advertising company. Apple is a hardware company. Microsoft is an operating systems company.
James, Google created Chrome because they wanted 100% end to end control of the experience of their users on the web and no one was going to give it to them. Other benefits, like standards or speed of change, are secondary to that. This is unlikely to be why many members of the Chrome team are there (I know great people working on Chrome) but their reasons and those of the company may diverge a bit.
Thanks +Neal Gompa, just what I was about to write. +Al Billings, I don't think anyone can say anything to change your mind. Shareholders are evil, and thereby Google must be.
Or they created Chrome because they were tired of wanting things done but stuck waiting for others to do it... Basically saying, look, this is how it's done...
It basically amounts to Google being evil for holding multiple jobs to do what they really want to do... I don't think Google could have done nearly as much as they have if they had gone with their original plan of being a non-profit organization.
I never said anything about evil so please don't put words in my mouth. My point is that Google's priority at the end of the day is to making a shareholder profit and that trumps any open web aspirations some employees may have.
Mozilla needs to make money, not many can work for free, however idealistic they are. If not, Mozilla could give the search away... Idealists work in all kinds of companies, not just the Mozilla kind. My impression of Google is and has been that even if they are making a lot of money, Google is still a company with an idealistic attitude. Money is not bad in and by itself, but can be used for bad or for good.
I can't stop you from holding whatever opinions you like, but "Google created Chrome because they wanted 100% end to end control of the experience of their users on the web" is simply wrong. I was in the meetings with Sergey, I watched the first prototype take shape, and you're just fundamentally mistaken.

As for the rest, I really would prefer this not degenerate further. I think everyone arguing has made their positions clear. Let's call a halt before we reach the name-calling stage.
Plenty of people work on Firefox for free. I see patches all the time from them. It is an open source project, not just a company. Everyone working on Chrome is welcome to help too. It would even be cheaper for Google!
Sure, and the same goes for Chromium. It was important to us that, like Firefox, it would be possible to build a complete, working browser from open-source components. We don't have as many external contributors yet as Firefox does, but the number is growing.

The original goal was, as I noted yesterday, to push the web forward faster. For example, as a new browser we'd have the freedom to design in things like a multi-process, sandboxed renderer architecture, that, while possible to retrofit in existing browsers, would be more difficult and time-consuming (as I think the Electrolysis work has shown). We'd also have the time to try and build an entirely new JS engine in hopes of achieving orders-of-magnitude speedups. Critically, succeeding with features like those would prove the concept in a compelling enough way to make it clearly worth the effort to add to other browsers -- just as I imagine Mozilla is hoping their work on e.g. BrowserID will be compelling enough to draw the other vendors into supporting it as well.

The idea of a more powerful web experience was clearly going to be appealing to the folks who'd been building things like Maps and Gmail.

We pretty quickly converged on "three Ss" -- Speed, Simplicity, and Security -- as our primary goals and began evaluating all our ideas in the light of them. These are still the driving principles of Chrome today, and this consistency of vision has led to what I think is an unusually (for Google) focused and coherent product design.

There's a ~1 hour presentation on a lot of this stuff that I give to Nooglers, a modified version of which I've given in public before (at a Berkeley recruiting event). I wonder if our PR folks would be interested in putting up a video of the public talk. The Chrome comic book that we accidentally launched one day early back in 2008 also covers a lot of this ground pretty thoroughly.
Just wanted to say that I liked your original post and read no undertones of malice or PR-speak from it. But if you're the "Marketing Engineer" for the Chrome team, does it mean that you'll stop breaking the tree? ;P
I loved your original post! This is exactly the reason I am applying to work at Google (as an intern)!
+Peter Kasting The "marketing engineer" was more in relation to your first bullet-point. As for breaking the tree, it was just a bad joke. Besides... almost everyone seems to break it or get blamed by trungl-bot for it! (even me, but sshh)
+Rajarshi Chakraborty While I appreciate the support, I noted above that I really would prefer that particular debate not to continue, if only because I can't see very much positive outcome stemming from it. I very much respect Mozilla's ideals and commitment and I'd like to leave this particular issue on that note.
I love this whole post and I'll say that from my experience, Peter is completely spot on about Google. Also, I've been working with Mozilla since 2001 and I think both Google and Mozilla are full of crazy idealists.
To people who tell me I drink the Kool-Aid, I simply tell them "I make the Kool-Aid".
Wanting to "make the web better for users" would be a lot more convincing if there wasn't click tracking on every URL on every page of search results. Even if statistical sampling is impossible, why can't it be in the "onClick" event instead of the href url? It does slow things down by at least 200 ms per result click; sometimes much longer. I mean seriously, and right-click "Copy Link Address" on the top result. How is better for users?

G+ has "Copy Link Address" technology with click tracking (by the way, why?) So why not search?
I remember reading that comic in my computing class back in high school. I was so excited about Chrome thanks to that comic.

Gotta say, it's still a great browser. The novelty has worn off but it's still wonderful to use.
I find it's helpful to point out the straightforward ways in which doing good is good for business too. .
+Peter Kasting So why is Google Chrome the only major browser not to support the "Do Not Track" flag?
+Julian Yap because incognito mode is a much easier way to access the same thing, without giving up all your cookies and all the other state all the time. It's also something you have direct control over instead of something you are asking the ad-supported web server nicely to do.
+James Salsman Incognito mode is totally different. Incognito mode is client/browser side client changes. Incognito example: browse a porn site doesn't show up in your address bar history. "Firefox has a Do-not-track feature that lets you tell websites you don't want your browsing behavior tracked." Incognito mode does not add the Do-not-track header. Do-not-track example: browse a porn site and a Do-not-track header tells every website you visit (as well as their advertisers and other content providers) that you don't want your browsing behavior tracked.
+Julian Yap I don't understand what you wrote. Incognito mode absolutely prevents you from being tracked. The "do not track" flag asks the server to please not track you with no way for you to tell whether it complied with your request. It's much stronger and doesn't make you trust the people who you aren't trusting to begin with by wanting to set the flag. Also no server implements the "do not track" flag yet, so it's completely worthless at present.
+Julian Yap try this: open an incognito mode window, and log in to anything. Then close that window and open a new one. You will be logged out. All cookies, DOM, and Flash state are cleared across incognito window sessions. That answer means your IP address can still be recorded (and maybe associative information like your extensions/media type accept list, fonts, time zone, and screen resolution -- see for it all), but that doesn't mean much because there are whole countries where most of the internet users have the same NAT IP address. The EFF has endorsed incognito mode but not the DNT flag.
I am continually impressed by +Google. It is the only company I know that understands it is possible and preferable to have a business plan based on the betterment of the world, which is a long term project, not something that you whip off in an afternoon.
I think the reason that MG et al can't comprehend the company you describe is because they've just read the Steve Jobs biography by Isaacson.
While I think I understand what's going on here, both from your perspective and from the perspective of the cynical masses, I see the issue from a different perspective which I think raises a good question. I love Google and most of my friends consider me a complete Google nut. I use all of the products, was an early Android adopter, etc. I also am a Canadian professional classical music singer living in London, UK. I moved to London when I was 19 with no family, no money, and only some talent and this ridiculous idea in my head that I wanted to sing classical music and make a living doing it to help me make my decisions and drive me on. Turns out I was successful, in a manner of speaking. As I (of course) can't think of classical music as anything other than 'world bettering', I think I join Googlers in their naive idealism! I, and all of my colleagues, didn't decide to pursue a life in professional music making (the 'culture' industry) in order to make money. Indeed, the few people in the culture world who are endlessly money-grubbing and who 'sell out' are seen as completely clueless - they've missed the point. You want money? Go into banking, not classical music.

So, here's to making the world a better place and to being idealistic and naive!! I'm right there with you. Here's the tricky bit: I'm not paid well. I couldn't dream of ever making Googlers' salaries. Also, professional singing in London is completely and utterly unregulated and unstructured. We are all self-employed. In effect, I'm not 'paid' at all, if you accept that the way I've phrased that sentence sort of assumes that there's a big institution that pays me. All of my income comes in tiny bits, and my livelihood is sewn together, gig to gig. I make a different amount of money every month, week. If singers have pensions, it's because we pay into them ourselves - no employee contributions for us! No free food, no amazing facilities managers, none of the other stuff that everybody envies about the Google workplace.

I'm, of course, not complaining. I chose this life and I love it! I strongly believe I'm helping to make the world a much better place and I personally get to benefit from my endeavours as well. Apart from indulging my artistic nature every day of my life, I travel all the time. I make music in the most beautiful places in the western world. Many think I live a charmed life and I tend to agree with them. I don't make much money, however.

So, how does this relate? Well, it seems that there are two different kinds of 'making the world a better place' going on here; technological innovation and distribution (making people's lives easier and more enjoyable) vs cultural and artistic expression and communication (making people's lives more beautiful and meaningful). I think both are equal in importance, but one is considered extravagantly more valuable by the market of public opinion. A Googler is clever and works hard in making the world a better place and gets paid enormously well. I am clever, work hard, and am artistically talented and motivated to make the world a better place and I only just get by.

My conclusion is, therefore, that idealism alone doesn't pay the bills. The absolute bottom line at Google HAS to be that it is money which makes all this wonderful idealism you feel possible. Googlers are merely incredibly lucky that their specific brand of world-bettering happens to be a magic money spinner as well. <i>The alternative is certainly possible!</i> If only for the sake of guaranteeing my own continued use of all the wonderful Google products out there, I dearly hope that somebody in the organisation realises that 'making the world a better place' doesn't necessarily and automatically result in billions of dollars a year!

So, the Mozilla issue: Protecting against anti-trust legislation? Beating Microsoft in a bidding war? Making the world a better place? I would hope all of these things are considered in equal measure.
Of the Googlers I've met, I believe you are changing the world and aren't naive about it. What's different about your posts is that you're articulate enough to explain it - most of the folks I've met are either quietly passionate about what they do or can't/won't explain the extent of it. I do think that's because being "hopelessly naive and idealistic" isn't something that's easily explained without, well, incurring some of the comments you have already. Cheers to both you,+Ian Hickson and all the Googlers for the work you do - and the rest of us who also feel that it's Christmas every day when we unwrap a new beta/dev of Chrome or other Google product.
+Emil Dotchevski I don't know. It seems like that kind of moral relativism is exactly the kind of thing which causes 200 character click tracking URLs.
Side issue -- it seems maybe someone broke a feature that used to work here in G+. When that thread had maybe ten comments (edit: must have been 17, because MG had just responded), I added a minor comment of my own and immediately deleted it. My intent was to begin receiving notifications as the thread progressed. I had intended to add a meaningful comment or two later, but wanted to follow along for a while first. Then I never received any notifications. I suppose it's my own fault for relying on tools and forgetting to follow up, but I did expect G+ to serve me there as it had done for months.
+Al Billings "For myself, I left a big corporation (the IE team of Microsoft) because I got tired of the cognitive dissonance of good people working on what they thought were game changing products while, at the end of the day, everything being subservient to revenue and share holders."

It sounds like your experience at Microsoft was rather rough, which I understand. fwiw, I worked at Microsoft for 10 years. I've worked at Google for 6 years. There is a huge mind blowing difference between the two internally. Not every public corporation is run like Microsoft --phew :). Just read Peter's original post again if you don't know what I mean.

I think Peter addressed your other points about shareholders, etc. well in other comments.
+Emil Dotchevski Firstly, if i may use Margeret Thatcher's words against her, there's no such thing as a corporation. By that I mean that it's a group of people, all of which in my quaint world have a duty to the rest of the people on the planet to be and do good. Without people calling themselves a corporation no corporation would exist.
Secondly, seeking higher profits is amoral, but usually associated with immoral behavior. Money has to have a point however, otherwise it is immoral. If I hoard money and in so doing take it out of the economy and deprive others of it I am behaving immorally. If I create a monopoly and raise my prices I am behaving immorally too.

All of this seems quite clear to me.
it might be naive, but i'd say you're off to a pretty good start. one example: Google Earth.
Peter, can you explain all the Chrome-only demos and the Chrome App Store? If you really were sincere about the open Web, wouldn't you all be making sure your demos and apps worked in Firefox where the feature support and the performance clearly match up? Couldn't you all follow Mozilla's model at MDN where we're trying to create resources for the whole Web and not just our own Web browser? Those kinds of actions would speak a lot louder than any words you post here.

It's a little odd to hear this repeated love for the Web when you all are both making a bunch of Chrome-only content and paying Adobe gobs of money to sneak Chrome onto Firefox users' systems. I don't believe for a minute that you were in charge of either of those decisions, but they're both at pretty extreme odds with the kinds of claims you've made in this and the previous post. You've got a lot of pretty words here. It's the actions that concern me.
You're right that I'm not involved in those decisions, but I have asked the extensions and webstore folks several times over the last couple years about how we can work towards a true "web app" store as opposed to a Chrome-app store, as well as if we can get to a point where there's some sort of cross-browser extension API. Those are things that not only I but a lot of other people on the team want to see happen. I gather that there are a lot of technical and practical considerations that make this sort of thing challenging. I don't feel like I can put words in others' mouths about what those challenges are or how they should be addressed. I'm sorry that I therefore don't really have an answer for you on that one. Maybe at some point one of those folks will be able and willing to speak to that issue in depth. (+Erik Kay?)

I do know that we're actively working with you guys on the MDN resources to ensure that the documentation there is as complete and cross-browser as possible, so I'm glad you raised that as a particular example of the kind of thing you want to see. I also see every day the ways that the folks working on the backend (as opposed to me on the UI) are trying to push for cross-browser standards, things that can be agreed on and implemented by all the vendors, and try as much as possible to avoid just striking off separately in some direction. I imagine we don't get this perfect all the time but from what I see the intent and most of the followthrough is in the right place.

I guess I would say overall that there are a huge number of things going on all the time on the team, and if there are a few that as an observer you don't agree with that doesn't surprise me. There are lots of Mozilla decisions I don't agree with and I don't think are good for Firefox or your users, but it's not fair for me to place my outsider's judgment on those issues above the vast weight of other ways in which you're clearly getting things right. I hope you're willing to extend us the same courtesy.
Liu Bo
I must say, support you!
Peter, the sneaky opt-out bundling with Flash was simply evil. No naive idealist would have anything but shame over that tactic. It's user hostile and all software vendors should condemn that kind of bundling as absolutely unacceptable. If someone told me that Mozilla was paying to get Firefox installed in some sneaky opt-out way, I'd be like "Whoa! Shit! That's not how any respectable software company should behave. I'm gonna see that ends like yesterday."

The roadblocks on Chrome demos that you all show to not-Chrome browsers (where the demos work just fine our could have been made to with a simple tweak or two) are as ugly as the "Best viewed in IE6" banners from nearly a decade ago and I'd expect you to say, as I would if Mozilla were doing that, "Well, fuck. That's embarrassing. I'm gonna see that's fixed and doesn't happen again."

These aren't "not getting it perfect" examples. These are user hostile and Web hostile actions.

As for the backend stuff? If making the web better faster was really that important, you all would have been sharing the V8 work and not holding it back for the big Chrome reveal. By waiting years to share that work, you all actually slowed down the pace of innovation compared to what it could have been if you'd have been working on that in public. Lately another example of this has come up with Dart.

Again, I realize these aren't your responsibility but you've stood up to speak about the virtues of the Chrome team where others haven't and that's why I'm raising these with you and not some other googler.
+Emil Dotchevski if i have 100 dollars, it means that someone has given me 100 dollars, or i have stolen or forged it. It is not even likely that i have produced products for at least 100 dollars. I have no idea where you get that idea from.

By giving my money further to other people i am, in the best case, providing them with the potential to do what they want.


I was being a bit argumentative in the first paragraph. I know where you got the idea from. It's an idea that sounds simple and appeals to our love of soundbites. it's also terribly simplistic.

one thing that strikes me as inherently over simplistic in your argumentation is that money is often exchanged after the product has been completed. when i buy something in the shop, i am not giving the shop owner/producer money to produce the product, but giving them money for having done so. I do not mean to imply by this that abusive employer/employee relationships don't exist, we all know they do, but this is only one part of the circulation of money.
Deleted several comments that continued an argument I've repeatedly asked not to continue here. If you guys want to debate that stuff, take it to your own G+ streams or elsewhere.

Asa, I respect your point of view, and I'm glad that you feel passionate about making sure people do the right thing. I wouldn't want you to simply let slide behavior that you feel is inappropriate, on Mozilla's part or ours, and I don't mind the criticism, even if I don't agree with it, because it behooves us to think carefully about what we do.

I'm sorry that you're so convinced these issues are clear-cut and one-sided, because I don't agree, and I don't agree with your characterization of some of them either (e.g. the "roadblocks" issue), but as I said before I'm not the right person (and this is not the right place) to publicly debate some of this stuff. If you want to drop by Google for lunch some time I'd be happy to chat. We don't see you Mozilla guys enough anymore now that you've moved!
Apologies, should have shown a little more restraint...
Is there a Google blog/forum for Chrome that is the appropriate place to discuss this?
I Have be a Googler from their start date. And I persoanlly stand behind them every step of the way. I am a desktop support Rep for the largest s hook in New Mexico and our entire IT team stands behind them, their goals, and ideas hoping we will continue to gain students and improve instruction for our students. Keep you the good work Peter K.
Even the most ardent environmentalist has had to use dead trees (paper). And even the biggest alternative fuel promoter has contributed to consumption of petroleum one way or another.

No matter how much you try, sometimes you have to do things you'd rather not do, because it's the best result toward the greater goal. And I think Google for the most part (even if not all the time) does a good job walking that line.
Add a comment...