One sad headline from this year is how Google has become so opaque and observers so suspicious that its moves are now studied the way Microsoft once was.

CEO Eric Schmidt did neither himself nor his company any favors when he cut-off News.Com reporters, after one of them questioned the privacy implications of the service by Googling him.

The launch of Google Talk (in beta) and the official launch of Google Mail (out of beta) sent this into overdrive.

I contributed with a positive comment on Google Talk, helped by a Pakistani friend. Other observers noted how Google Mail is now open to cellphones.

But not all the commentary was positive, either to myself or to Google. In fact, ZDNet colleague (and longtime friend) Russell Shaw gave me a right padding:

Take it from the VoIP expert.

Your friend from Pakistan is wrong, and has outdated info. Writing you here so you can correct this info without me doing it publicly in your post's comment field.

1. Skype is now open-standards.

And from Skype's own in-house blog:

Plus I am writing "Hacking Skype" for Wiley, and I know even more can't talk about.

2. Google Talk does not support SIP. They won't support it for several months.

3. And it isn't really VoIP. It is an IM app with voice thru the IM gateway, which is different than VoIP.

I'm not into the technical details, but if Google Talk is going to support SIP within months I think Russell has himself a scoop, and I'm not as far wrong as anticipated.

The main point, however, remains the one I made earlier in regards to Dr. Schmidt. Google must make itself more transparent. Its opacity may be making reporters money, but it's not making the company any friends.

As a company grows, and its offerings become controversial, subject to both fair and unfair criticism, circling the wagons is a natural inclination. Being public is something that demands more transparency, not less.

But it's something Google must do a better job resisting. As I've resisted, by publishing Russell's note myself, giving him full credit for his words, and pointing to it on the original item, rather than issuing a correction.