????谷歌（Google）首席執行官拉里?佩奇對科技行業的負面情緒很不滿。同樣令他不滿的，是喜歡炒作每個細節，把科技企業間的競爭描述得像殊死搏斗一樣的新聞媒體。

????上周三，佩奇在谷歌的年度開發者大會上說道：“我在媒體上讀到的每篇關于谷歌的報道，都是‘我們對決某家公司’或者其他蠢話，我覺得太沒意思了。我們應該把精力放在創造全新的偉大產品上。負面情緒并不能讓我們進步。”

????這話才說了幾分鐘，佩奇就開始“開炮”了，剛才關于“負面態度”的話也被忘在腦后。他先是批評了微軟（Microsoft）的電子郵件服務對谷歌產品的兼容問題。佩奇對聽眾說，微軟是在“壓榨”谷歌的創新。然后他又批評了甲骨文（Oracle），因為甲骨文前不久狀告谷歌專利侵權而未果。他說：“錢對他們來說比任何合作都重要。”

????谷歌的高管們可能認為自己在競爭中處于一個超然的地位，但是在現實中，他們其實和科技行業的許多凡夫俗子一樣非常具有攻擊性，當眾抨擊競爭對手的事屢見不鮮。他們也會貶低競爭企業的產品和業務策略，以此抬高自家的服務和移動設備。雖然有些批評之辭是即興說出來的，但是也有很多是事先設計好的，甚至是事先經過了審查——以便不被別人抓住小辮子，說他們公司嘴上缺個把門兒的。

????微軟是谷歌最經常嘲諷的對象。在谷歌早期的日子里，谷歌高管經常出言諷刺微軟的壟斷行為以及谷歌認為已經過時了的微軟軟件服務。隨著雙方競爭的加劇，谷歌在很多場合對微軟進行公開嘲諷。比如谷歌董事長埃里克?施密特去年在接受新聞網站AllThingsD的編輯采訪時，就把微軟在網絡服務和硬件方面的努力貶得一錢不值。然后施密特列舉出了四家他認為最有影響力的科技公司，微軟顯然被排除在這個名單以外。

????上周三，佩奇對微軟的批評主要圍繞在缺乏合作的問題上。佩奇認為微軟的合作誠意不夠，給互聯網的發展拖了后腿。微軟把谷歌的郵件服務整合到了自家的Outlook電子郵件服務里，但卻不讓谷歌用戶獲得使用微軟服務的權限。這還不是上周三導致兩家公司發生齟齬的唯一導火線。據科技新聞網站The Verge報道，早些時候谷歌向微軟發出一份禁止令，要求微軟從Windows Phone系統上卸載YouTube應用，原因是WP版的YouTube應用里去掉了廣告。

????蘋果（Apple）是谷歌的另一個“沙袋”。不過谷歌高管對蘋果是時而灌迷魂湯，時而揮大棒。比如谷歌的工程高級副總裁維克?古多塔在2010年的谷歌開發者大會上不點名地攻擊了蘋果，但他傳遞出的消息卻是很明顯的——蘋果和iPhone正在成為對自由競爭的威脅，而谷歌和它的安卓（Android）系統則是挽救自由競爭的救世主。

????Larry Page, Google's chief executive, is fed up with the negativity in the technology industry and the news media that covers its every detail like a prizefight.

????"Every story I read about Google is 'us versus some other company' or some stupid thing, and I just don't find that very interesting," he said Wednesday at his company's annual developersconference. "We should be building great things that don't exist. Being negative isn't how we make progress."

????A few minutes later, Page went on the attack -- negativity be damned. He criticized Microsoft (MSFT) over compatibility issues between its email service and Google's (GOOG) products. Microsoft was "milking off" of Google's innovation," Page told the crowd. He then lashed out at Oracle (ORCL), which unsuccessfully sued Google for patent infringement. "Money is more important to them than any kind of collaboration," Page said.

????Google executives may consider themselves to be above the fray, but, in reality, they are as aggressive as many of their technology industry counterparts. Public sniping at rivals is common. They trash competing products and business strategies, often in obvious attempts to lift the fortunes of their own services and mobile devices. Although some of their criticisms are off the cuff, many are planned and vetted -- making it impossible to argue that they lack the corporate seal of approval.

????Microsoft is Google's most frequently target of derision. During Google's early days, top Google executives regularly made snide comments about Microsoft's antitrust conviction and software-based products that they considered obsolete. As the rivalry grew, their public feud continued on a number of fronts. For example, Eric Schmidt, Google's chairman, during an interview last year with the editors at AllThingsD, the technology news site, dismissed Microsoft's online efforts and push into hardware. In general, he said that Microsoft has been unable to create "state of the art" products. When naming the four most influential technology companies, Schmidt conspicuously left Microsoft off the list.

????Page's criticisms of Microsoft yesterday focused on a lack of cooperation by the software giant that he said is holding back the Internet's development. Microsoft integrated Google's email service into its Outlook email but didn't let Google give its users access to Microsoft's services. It wasn't the only flash point between the two companies yesterday. Earlier, Google sent Microsoft a cease and desist letter demanding that Microsoft remove the YouTube app from its Windows Phone operating system because the app lacked its usual advertising, according to The Verge, a technology news site.

????Apple (AAPL) is another of Google's punching bags. Google executives alternate between praising Apple and beating on it. For example, Vic Gundotra, Google's senior vice president of engineering, attacked Apple at Google's developer conference in 2010, without mentioning the company's name. The message was clear, however: Apple and the iPhone were a threat to free competition while Google and the Android mobile operating system were its saviors.