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."

Comments

A monopoly?

[cmorriss]

Google has anything but a monopoly. The search business can easily go to an engine that performs better. Google has most of the market share because they are quite simply the best at performing searches.

Microsoft on the other hand plays in a completely different arena. Switching from one OS to another is nearly impossible for many users and at least difficult for most.

No, Google has a long way to go before they become anything like Microsoft, no matter what their tactics may appear like.

They aren't even close

[realdodgeman]

Here are the things Google are missing to become like Microsoft:
1. Screwing customers
2. Forcing bad products on their customers
3. Participating in anticompetitive behaviour
4. Having a monopoly
5. Bribing their way through standardisation processes
6. Giving away pay-software to create vendor lock-in
7. Produce horrible DRM that only affects those who actually pay
8. Have a chair-throwing jackass as CEO

Re:Monopoly?

[that this is not und]

It doesn't matter how they got to their position in the search market. They can still be a monopoly in their current market position. There is no underlying requirement that one has to attain a monopoly in a bad way for it to be a monopoly. Further, it is irrelevant whether people use Google by choice or not. You're automatically coupling 'monopoly' with 'bad thing that only a bad company could do.'

Whether Google is a monopoly or not is up for discussion. But you're being blind to what it means and how a company gets to that position.

Re:Let me fix this for you.

[ToasterMonkey]

because monopolies don't naturally exist for a long period of time Why do we have anti-monopoly laws again? Oh right, the market doesn't fix everything.

just like Microsoft has/had most of the market share because they are quite simply the best at offering OS users the compatibility and efficiency and reduced learning curve that they desire Reality distortion field detected...

one that is quickly going the way of the do-do Wishful thinking.

only because the people who spend time pretending that Microsoft has a temporary monopoly have forgotten about IBM, Compaq, Ford, and all the previous monopoly fears that were destroyed by competition. In reality, the future of the OS has Microsoft greatly scared of what likely will be a return to a client-server environment, the same environment that Microsoft temporarily destroyed because people wanted power on the desktop, and now they want power in an interactive environment. Who the hell forgot? WTF is your definition of temporary, and why should consumers suffer THAT long? You're confusing the definition of a monopoly with 'people abusing monopolies.'
Fuck, that's like saying slavery was a temporary social imbalance, but "the market works" so we should have waited until slavery was 'naturally' socially unacceptable, or nobody needed cotton & tobacco anymore.
Lets just overlook the whole damned problem because in time it will iron itself out? Fuck you.

Abusive monopolies deserve to be cut to pieces, PERIOD.

There are no monopolies in the long run, regardless of how slow government is to react OK, listen. Monopolies aren't the problem. It's when a monopoly BECOMES a problem, that WE have a problem.

Give it time, and the entire sphere of influence will return to its roots in shared resources. All we need is the bandwidth. Jesus, some companies might not WANT that to ever happen, ya think? You don't suppose they might use the power they have TODAY to restrict where the market goes in the FUTURE? We'll be waiting until they either give up, or technological progress changes the market place. Just pray to God a monopoly doesn't get big enough to be able to stifle innovation too, or we'll never get there. Oh, ohhh shit, that's what happened. Just bend over while Microsoft figures out what the future of your OS will be and hope a competitor decides to go for market share instead of high margins.

Shorter Cringley:

[SEE]

1) Google continually tries to improve its algorithms to deliver an improved experience, rather than sitting on its laurels.
2) Sometimes the change in algorithms has negative consequences for some websites.
3) Some websites are living so close to the edge that one month of Google putting their ads in less optimal places costs them so much money it drives them out of business in a single month.
4) It's not the fault of the marginal businesses who don't have the sense to set daily and monthly expenditure limits they could afford, or who have made themselves so dependent on Google that one month of suboptimal ad placement sinks them. It's Google's fault for trying to improve its algorithms.
5) Therefore, Google is Microsoftian in its evil.