... great now this post will make this article appear as "fake" when you want to really find articles which are relevant to Britney and Lindsay ...

I'm sorry, but lets take a step back here ...

This sounds like a glitch in the search algorithm than anything else. Publishing trends is interesting, and can allow us to learn more about what we (as a species) do with the internet. This information is clearly abused by a few (who then go out and write fake page which use the popular keywords to attract attention to their page), but this is an abuse of the Trends information that google provides, not something inherently evil.

Google (or any search engine) could just tweak their results to reduce the importance of sites which are written *after* a topic became trendy. At least to give the existing articles a head start. Or I can imagine a million other ways in which they could tweak the algorithm.

But I don't think what the article is implying (that google should stop publishing Trends) should be taken seriously.

Or even better,

Check the stats on their own database (i.e. the App Store).

I found this just now: http://www.iappphone.com/stats/

The top 5 "Submitters"

Brighthouse Labs - 1855
Iceberg Reader - 1369
Molinker Inc. - 1011
FidesReef - 825
iLike inc - 588

From 15 minutes of research, its pretty clear to see that Brighthouse Labs, Molinker and FidesReef were (/are) definitely polluting the App Store.

In some cases, its very clear why Apple have introduced the "In App Purchasing" - most of these should probably disappear when all the duplicated Apps get merged back to a common one.

But from Apples point of view, they're still trying to prove that their platform has the most Apps. They've already put the "technology" into place - so now all they need to do is rush in and save the day, by forcing the developers to merge their Apps.

But seriously, with power comes responsibility. They're finding out that its not always easy to walk that tightrope.

Sorry, it was too tempting !

I would turn the question around a different way:
- what does Microsoft get out of helping Mono ?

(remember, software engineers probably cost MS 200-300K per year, in terms of cost, not salary).

While it looks like they are partially serious about it, I have a nasty feeling (and again, only my opinion), that we're in the "embrace" period of Microsofts three point plan. Darn, I can't remember what the next two parts are ... i had it just a second ago, but i think the next parts are definitely not good.

Finally, on directions of Mono: I'm sure that Miguel's intentions are good but (i just had to dig up some Mark Twain here):

Half the results of a good intention are evil; half the results of an evil intention are good.

That works for both Mono and Microsoft. Only time will tell.

But I guess at the end of the day, the real benefit of Open Source is *choice*. ... and we still have it.

We can decided to use Mono, or we can choose not to.

Some people have already. And I truly believe that the work that Miguel and Novell are doing will entice more people to use it as a platform to program.

But we have to be a little bit cautious when dealing with the Beast (MS). Their track record isn't all that pretty ! ;-)