The BBC Trust has reported that the BBC has spent more than it should on its web portal. Not by a little either, apparently they’ve overspent by 48% of the baseline budget. As TV license payer I’m happy for them to do so!

The BBC (because of the unique way it is funded) has for many decades provided fantastic programming. It’s one of the World’s most trusted brands and I for one use the BBC News website many times daily.

I’ve never quite understood some people’s negative opinion of the BBC expanding online - some seem to think they should be concentrating just on TV. This is a little short sighted as currently all media seems to be migrating to the web and I myself can’t see why this is much different that the BBC expanding from radio to TV. The BBC are as usual pushing into this area with excellent results - just look at iPlayer.

People also seem to forget that the BBC can actually make money from other sources than the license fee and the Internet opens up a lot of revenue streams for them.

So personally I want the BBC to keep spending my TV license fee as they are doing - I’m looking forward to all the innovation they create!

Google was formulated on the principle “Don’t be evil” and has tried to keep to this throughout their rise. However more recently people are beginning to question this and I really have to disagree.

I don’t think it comes down to being good or evil life just isn’t that black and white. Google is a massive company now and it just comes down to good business. So I disagree that Google is good and I disagree that Google is evil.

In much the same way Microsoft is seen as the evil empire by most people and Apple whiter than white when this is far from the case for both.

All companies have to make money, and as much money as they possibly can. The problem is when a company gets so large or has such a large share of a market then some actions could be seen as anti-competitive. However depending on the company’s reputation it seems these actions that step over the line are treated in different ways.

Take Google for example, with their squeaky clean image they have been appalled by the prospective takeover of Yahoo! by Microsoft. Was this because of the potential damage to the openness of the Internet or because it would put Microhoo! on a more equal footing with Google current strangle hold?

An entry posted on the Google blog by David Drummond titled “Yahoo! and the future of the Internet” certainly raises questions but the same could be asked of Google so what makes them “holier than thou”?

Google’s recent acquisition of DoubleClick has surely got to raise more questions but seems to be more low key maybe because of Google’s good guy reputation even though Google now controls 69% of the online advertising market!

Apple too seems to have this “do no wrong” reputation even though having, in my opinion, just as serious anti-competitive tactics with the iPod - iTunes system as Microsoft has done in the past. Still you’ve got to admire the best marketing in the World bar none as really this hasn’t got the column inches you’d expect!

I believe people should really take a step back and take a long hard look before passing judgement based on image (or in some cases bordering on religious zealotry). These are all huge companies that look after themselves first there is no good or evil it’s just business - get over it.