Slashdot Mirror
Google As The Next Microsoft?
theodp writes "In this week's missive, Robert X. Cringely argues that Google is starting to look a bit like Microsoft. The search giant is learning too well from the master, says Cringely, noting that Google's launch of Goog-411 after taking a long look at investing in or acquiring Free411.com under an NDA is straight out of an old Microsoft playbook. Cringely goes on to note that Google has a problem with algorithmic optimization gone mad (seconded by Newsweek), which is wreaking havoc on some AdWords customers who may find themselves out of business before they can get Google to do the right thing. Cringely concedes that Google's inability to follow through because of IT failings may not have been learned from Microsoft — it may just be an inevitable part of having an IT monopoly."
Google has anything but a monopoly.
They have a much stronger hold on the advertising market, where the product is not search but AdWords. Customers are businesses, not people looking for information.
If > 50% of your business comes from AdWords, switching away from it might be the end of your company...
The founders of Google, when asked to comment about the rapid growth, actually stated, that they were unhappy with the control slipping out of their hands.
Also based on experiences of my friends being recruited to google, I must admit, it's a nightmarish process and HR staff is nowhere near the excellence of the engineers working there.
But I'd still say that comparison of Google and Microsoft is pointless beyond their sheer size.
M$ has been growing with finance in mind, asking for money where no one used to ask for it before (think software licenses, you pay for XBOX, the games and an account and in the corporate world the fees are even higher).
Google on the other hand tends to provide free service for things that used to be costly (email, data mining) and only asking money for the premium services.
So any comparison between the two is pointless.
Hotmail - try moving your email. You can easily forward your Gmail, and now they are opening up POP and IMAP support, which in turn is freeing you from the ads and web-based service, while still providing you the mail for free.
iGoogle - you suggest migrating an OS is easier that a portal? There are tons of portal pages, and they all support rss feeds. Now you're just trolling. Migrating an OS is no easy task. Changing your home page takes all of 30 seconds.
AdSense - There are alternatives to put ads on your page. Google doesn't even dominate the web advertising market.
Calender - Doesn't Google Calendar use the iCal standard, and can't it easily be imported into other programs?
You are either trolling, or have no clue what you're talking about.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I would have to disagree with at least points 1 and 2, and with the free411 case probably 3 as well.
1) I personally know 3 businesses that are out of business because of adwords shenanigans which Google to this day denies. These businesses saw their adwords budgets increase by orders of magnitude, and click throughs and sales plummet by orders of magnitude.
They went from using $1-2 thousand per week, to suddenly $2000 would get spent in 10 minutes between the hours of 1 and 2am. Google stone walled, denied, and finally did nothing for these small companies. I'm sure they aren't the only ones.
2) They are "forcing" adwords customers to have their ads listed on "link sites". that is a bad product, and if you are on adwords you are FORCED to have your ads listed there as there is no way to opt out
3) by pulling the ultimate MS move with free411 they are most certainly participating in anticompetitive behavior.
Google is *NOT* a search company, they are an advertising company. In particular a targeted advertising company. Everything they do - search, maps, email, etc - is just a means to collect data on you in order to build a profile. That profile is then used to enable clients to provide you with a targeted ad when you visit the client's website.
In targeted online advertising, and perhaps online advertising in general, Google is the 800 pound Gorilla. They are not quite Microsoft yet, but they are not that far off in online advertising. They are still consolidating, they are on a curve like Microsoft's, just at a far earlier stage.
There are multiple definitions of a monopoly, so I was trying to cover both bases. There are natural monopolies, which aren't "monopolies" in regards to anti-trust laws. I think most people see the word monopoly in the evil, illegal sense. Microsoft is a monopoly in the illegal, anti-trust sense because they violate anti-trust laws and act in an anti-competitive manner. However, the base definition of the word outside legal circles doesn't care about legality.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
But he did point out a few significant similarities. Fundamentally, both companies are/were trying to create a platform that other developers would use to create good stuff for users. That's been covered before and most of us are familiar with that strategy. The key is that these platforms only work when developers that use it TRUST that they won't get screwed by the platform operator at some later time. Lessig feels that this loss of trust was a far worse consequence to MS than any DOJ settlement/penalty was for the anti-trust fight of the late '90s.
Heck, it's safe to say that trust is the very reason we keep watching Google like hawks. It's the reason MS gets bashed and it's the reason FOSS is embraced. There's flat out NO WAY the rug can be pulled out from under you if you develop over an open source platform.
In light of that, Lessig pointed out a rather scary http://www.google.com/apis/maps/terms.htmlfact:
Now, can you imagine your reaction if MS revoked your license because you bashed them in an email sent from a Windows box?