Talk:Google

Google OS?

Will google produce a desktop operating system .. google desktop / chrome is nothing more than an OS. An OS for download and trial. Microsoft is marketing OS's as a download now download, trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.158.225 (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool story bro. 92.236.245.145 (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not an OS actually, it's a UI. Luminifer (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Morton answered this question at Google Moderator, see: http://moderator.appspot.com/#15/e=c9&t=39 The closest Google will make close to a desktop OS would be Android —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.16.222 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article should be updated, now that Chrome OS has been announced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backstabb (talk • contribs) 05:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Google" Name

While many sources seem to indicate that the "Google" name is a play on the word "Googol" there has been a remarkable paucity of speculation about the influence of two other names which may (also) be sources: "Google" is, of course, the last name of the old comics character Barney Google, who was known - in a famous song from the 20s which lives on to some extent - as "Barney Google, with the goo-goo-googly eyes." The "OO in Google often appears to be a pair of eyes, and there is some suspicion among other people I know that this is one of the sources. The other is Nikolai Gogol, a famous Russian author - among other works, "Diary of a Madman" - and it cannot escape notice that Sergiy Brin is, of course, Russian-born. Further support for this can be noticed in the somewhat unusual "Gogol" logo that appeared in April for Google on Gogol's 200th birthday. See: http://www.google.com.ua/logos/gogol09.gif

Perhaps this is ground for further investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.249.57 (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Google says that it comes from "Googol" themself at their company information page: http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/ ""Googol" is the mathematical term for a 1 followed by 100 zeros. The term was coined by Milton Sirotta, nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner, and was popularized in the book, "Mathematics and the Imagination" by Kasner and James Newman. Google's play on the term reflects the company's mission to organize the immense amount of information available on the web." 87.212.16.222 (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Google Wave?

When will it be appropriate to add a section on the upcoming "google wave"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.181.49 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It can be hard to keep up with all the new services launched by Google, and a preview of Google Wave can be found here. The Google article is primarily about the company itself, and a separate article for Google Wave has been created already.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.181.49 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be a stub--Mjfan1 (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Google criticism

There is not even a a little paragraph about privacy issue. When we hear news about Google, it is often about this point. How is it possible not to talk about it in this article ? Ajor (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Google is primarily about the company structure. Criticism of Google looks at this issue in more depth, including privacy concerns.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now, this article looks like google is not criticised ( except a very short sentence in introduction). The problem is that a summary of criticism of google should be present in Google article (like Microsoft for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#Criticism)...Ajor (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Google is currently in the "See also" section. This is not pro-Google spin, because Wikipedia's coverage of Google is spread out over a range of articles, since it is such a wide subject. Agree though, that a summary could be in the article, as in YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Leave Criticism of Google out of the disambiguation title and leave it in the See also section or expand to a section for its own in the main context of the article. Placing Criticism of Google in the disambiguation is improper use. Disambiguation is for the purpose of pointing users in the intended direction of what they searched for. When someone searches for Google, they are probably searching for the company Google, the search engine Google or the number Googol, not Criticism of Google. — Moe ε 01:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of it on the disambugation pageMjfan1 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

making money

can an individual really make money from google? I have been getting email from you to make extra money through google, is that true? no you cant i=cuz y?? cuz i say so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.116.82 (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Innovation Time Off

Marissa Mayer's statement should be expanded that it's in terms of quantity and not revenue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.59.78 (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

goggle.com

could somebody add a section to this about goggle.com? I've noticed that this website was created by pranksters to fool other people that this was another search engine in 2003. About 10 people lost their computer to this website every day until t was shut down in 2007. Goggle is now famous in the way that it destroyed others computers in ads,spyware,and viruses. --Mjfan1 (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm i dont think it really needs to be mentioned here and in truth, i think someone may probably consider restoring the redirect at Goggle, where you have added a paragraph about "goggle" but provided no sources, its probably going to get deleted BritishWatcher (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The site is a non-notable spam site. It needs no article, nor any mention in this one, and should simply be ignored. I've restored the previous redirect. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a considirable addition--Mjfan1 (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not even close to notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I belive it is.millions of people lost their computer because of this prank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjfan1 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC) I agree.it is quite notable.--GestOfLove (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)