Froogle?

May 7, 2007 11:32pm by

Google_product_search

Froogle is no more (when did that happen?).

It is now "Google Product Search"
http://www.google.com/products

This now completes our internet hat trick for the day.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

What's been said:

Discussions found on the web:
  1. Robert Cote commented on May 8

    Google is getting to be an interesting subject. They have gotten so large they no longer even pretend to be bound by any laws or regulations. Their blooger operates beyond any reach of libel or slander. They don’t pay Adsense revenues when they determine there is irregularity and there is no appeal. They do collect the revenue for the ads, they just don’t pay out. Their froogle was monetized to the point of being nearly useless. Their image search even with safe search active still yields x rated graphics for even mundane searches. The impression is of a membrane stretched so thin it serves no purpose.

  2. Eclectic commented on May 8

    BR,

    Thanks for the earlier unpub. I see you did it before I asked you to. Good man (or woman[K]).
    —
    I’ve had a cookie and a nice nap, so now, since you’ve brought up the subject of Google, let’s talk about intellectual property rights.
    —
    BTW – this is no recommendation for or against Google stock.
    —
    Is Google preserving intellectual property rights with YouTube, or are they abusing them? It’s very hard for me to understand how I can go and take a personal tour of many live concert performances that I would ordinarily have to pay for, and view them at my convenience an unlimited number of times without it costing me a penny.

    For example, I’ve toured all the Bob Marley major hits… many long classical pieces recorded professionally… and several live performances of such artists as Janis Joplin, Pink Floyd and others. The list of possibilities to do this with other artists is almost limitless.

    Who owns the intellectual property rights to those works?… How are they being compensated for their uses?… Are they being compensated?… Are they complaining?

    I can easily understand if some individual wants to video his dog chasing a frisbee, and then uploads it to YouTube with implied or specific permission for it to be used.

    However, it’s hard to understand how YouTube can permit individuals to upload third party copyrighted material without the owner’s permission or without them being compensated for the use.

    Is there something I’m missing?

  3. beebs commented on May 8

    In Firefox, there is an “add-on” called
    Customize Google.

    This clears out a lot of crap from google.

    I highly recommend it.

    beebs

  4. David Merkel commented on May 8

    Barry, it’s been at least a week since the shift started. I looked for Froogle, and did not find it, saw “Products” and clicked on it. I could then find citric acid, so one of my kids could make homemade soda.

  5. RG commented on May 8

    Barry —

    I recommend TechCrunch as a place to stay up on Internet companies. They posted this a few weeks ago, and tend to post updates faster than many major sites, including the WSJ, in their narrow area of expertise.

    http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/19/goodbye-froogle/

    is the link you want. No, I am not affiliated with TechCrunch in any way.

  6. ashley commented on May 8

    i noticed this the other day. i dont think i like it. Froogle sounds and was much cooler!

  7. bigboy commented on May 8

    Yeah, whatever… Froogle was kind of pathetic. There are much better options out there for product searches. Thefind.com for example. Even shopping.com is better.

Posted Under