Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Complains About Google's Monopoly Abuse
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Frustrated at the FTC's blessing of the Google/Doubleclick merger, Microsoft is complaining to the EU. Its latest filings detail how the merger would give Google a stranglehold on the advertising industry. While these complaints aren't new, the diagram [PDF] Microsoft created gives you an interesting look at the sort of competition Microsoft fears from Google."
If anyone knows about what a monopoly is it's Microsoft.
Hello kettle? This is pot. You're black!
I like how their charts are made up of "Tubes."
How is teaming with an online marketing company giving Google quite the stronghold that MS actually has? I mean- it's not like this means Google owns the billboards and television commercials.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Anyone else notice the little confidential text in the corner of all the slides in the linked PDF?
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
If Google and the other boys wanna sue Microsoft for everything, its only fair that Microsoft be able to do the same. You can't have it both ways.
I am still waiting to see someone claim that "mother earth" has a monopoly on turtles. Btw, I like turtles.
Everyone please ignore this post, it's another stupid myminicity thing...
Thank God for evolution.
you should visit the guy in fohootville. he will give you a lesson in slashdot trolling
I mean, they are experts on this territory you know...
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
...competition is a monopoly.
I wonder if Microsoft is the way it is because its leaders' minds are warped, or vice versa.
If anyone knows a Monopoly it's microsoft, however I really don't see the connection on how it gives Google a STRANGLEHOLD on the industry
-Daver
I noticed that MS left off their "share", Or is it so minuscule as to not show?
It's disgusting that they even dare express any comment. What's next? Apple has a monopoly on hand-held touch-screen multimedia players?
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Those who can, do. Those who can't....litigate.
It's one of the oldest strategies out there. If your competitor is beating you with their offerings, then you find a nice friend (the govt) to help make it more difficult for them. Hopefully, the govt will not take up this cause as M$ is already a convicted monopolist, themselves.
From Ayn Rand's Reardon character to the latest round in the ongoing SCO saga, the courts have ALWAYS been used by lesser competitors to slow down/stop/hassel the competition.
Ok, Microsoft - if you're worried about all these destructive monopolies then I propose you arrange a swap with Google.
Google will give up on their advertising mergers if you release a fully documented API for Windows. One hundred percent, nothing hidden. You know, what you were ordered to do (and *still* haven't done) by the EU because of your monopoly desktop position. Detail everything. File formats, network protocols - the works. Make it something that the Wine guys could grab and implement.
No? Didn't think so.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
i don't like MS, but i can agree with MS, their story certainly contains grains of truth, but i think MS has other things it should worry about than the AD-market when talking about google. The fact is, google moves the "desktop" away from the windows-platform, and that should worry MS a lot more than the Advertising market, because that is the hart of the MS-empire.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
You know, I don't think it's a secret that Microsoft controls what many consider to be a monopoly (I personally don't think they are a monopoly, but then again I don't think Microsoft is the only (or even the fifth) software developer out there...but I digress.
Just because it's the pot calling the kettle black, or being crybabies, or anything else you folks here on teh dot like to toss around in regards to Microsoft...does that make them wrong?
I don't know about you all, but I am WAY more worried about Google than I am about Microsoft. So the company attempts to create a monopoly and have their OS everywhere...big deal. Eventually, the general public will wise up and move to either OSX or Linux, and Microsoft's stranglehold will dissipate.
Are you people seriously worried about Microsoft when Google is quickly becoming the private sector equivalent to the CIA? I mean, come on...they track, store, and record EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. Google is far and away the world's most popular search engine...that, combined with the mountains of data that they store, and combined with the number of various companies that they are buying up, with a dash of the number of web pages that have ad links FROM Google on them...do you see what I am saying?
Microsoft may be running a monopoly on the operating system market, but Google is very slowly (so slowly you won't even notice...) building a monopoly on the control of the Internet and our very lives.
Google is two steps away from becoming a government agency. Watch.
Living With a Nerd
it looks like he retired from spamming his city... I went there and read the board.. fohootville.myminicity.com
I'm not aware that Microsoft is significantly suffering. Yeah they may want to get into the Internet advertising business, and yeah they may be an after-ran, but unless Microsoft feels entitled to own the whole world (yes, they might) I don't know how they can make their case here. They've had several years to build their own advertising model, and any failures are strictly their own. I don't recall them being worried about other computer operating system vendors while they were busy squeezing them all out.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Regardless, Google isn't a monopoly and won't be one anytime soon so MS should shut up and quit whining like their own competitors whine.
Google announces "Freedom to Advertise" campaign. Here's an excerpt from their "Get the Ads" website:
"The TCA, or Total Cost of Advership, is much higher with a Microsoft ad. You see, the cost of the ad is only a small part of the picture. Someone has got to maintain that ad..."
"Intergrated"? Didn't they even bother to run this through a spelling checker? Talk about professional...
Most of the posts thus far seem to note that MS "should know about monopolies". But, does the fact that MS is the one filing the complaint here make it any less true?
Really, folks. Lets discuss the merits of the argument.
Monopolies should be regulated before their damage is done. We arrived too late on the scene to stop the damage Microsoft had done to the marketplace. Perhaps we should start thinking ahead a little.
[sarcasm]Tell me it isn't so! Microsoft worked so hard to get their monopoly. We can't let other companies threaten everything they have accomplished.[/sarcasm]
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
...Microsoft recently acquired the copyright on monopolies and is demanding royalty payments.
Of course it can be done. Wine is about 90% functional and they got all that with simple observation and no access to the code whatsoever. Same goes for the Samba crew.
If you had the code in front of you, it would become simple.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Microsoft should be a little more careful in asking the FTC to enforce monopoly laws. I mean, come on now! If *anyone* should be broken apart it is Microsoft. Microsoft currently enjoys a U.S. "justice" department that is so pro-business that it refuses to enforce the laws that stand and has dropped action in progress.
If we should get a "Justice" department in the U.S. again, one which will investigate wrong doings by corporations and government, including the executive branch, Microsoft is toast.
Is Microsoft so stupid as to not know that poking a sleeping dragon is not in one's own best interest? Or are they so sure that Google is going to cut off their air supply they are willing to risk it?
The P.C. is a dinosaur, think of this post. I'm running Firefox on Linux. If *most* software becomes web based it makes no difference who's using what. Furthermore, someone like Google could take something like the OLPC device give it away with a subscription to Google's web applications.
Between OLPC, web ads, web 2.0 rich applications, the E.U. investigation prompted by Opera, Microsoft must see its Office and OS monopoly in deep trouble. Their "back-office" strategy is competitive but not monopolistic enough to support the corporation once the OS and office products no longer have ~90% of the users.
Microsoft Complains About Google's Monopoly Abuse
Of course, the monopoly being abused here is Microsoft.
So thanks to a meddling and overbearing EU, we get two absolute behemoths of their industry reduced to whining little babies running to "mommy" (government). Who needs to try to win and retain customers, when it's much easier just to appeal to our all-beneficient socialist overlords for their temporary favor.
Or flash, for that matter.
There is an "E" in Google.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
So instead of complaining why don't they sort out their own tarnished image and produce a good alternative?
Who says consumers don't want FOSS? So far as I can tell, they've not had any real choice in the matter until only in the last 5 years. I also don't see how this relates to MS and its claims of an advertising monopoly by Google. Really, it's just the monopolist striving to remain a monopolist while accusing everyone else of being a monopolist.
Got any references for that?
MS has been forced to provide documentation. That is good for everybody, OSS and closed source companies.
Same goes with things like ODF. Nobody says OpenOffice must be used. MS can implement ODF if they want to compete.
This is ridiculous. You can your sweet ass that if it was Microsoft abusing its monopoly power, which it constantly does, that it wouldn't complain.
Good lord, how did this get modded up to "Insightful"? It must be some kind of sugerplum hangover.
Bah!
I big, bad company like Google picking on a itsy-bitsy company like Microsoft. Will there never be justice in this world?
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Anyone else notice that Microsoft chose to represent internet advertising as a series of tubes? Apparently, this market isn't something you can just dump something on...
Microsoft certainly has a lot of expertise in foreclosing competition by restricting access to API's (as they claim Google would be in position to do). Funny they also didn't mention restricting access to data formats. Or does that cut too close to home for them.
If Microsoft is so fearful of the merger, they should field their own service to counteract it, and use their quality of product to create a strong alternative....
Oh wait who am I kidding.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Pot...Kettle.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
It's modded -1; if you had not mentioned it nobody would have seen it. Thank you very much for bringing myminicity to our attention again.
Ok, Simple. Here's what you asked for.
My problem with the merger is that since Doubleclick is one of the most obnoxious ad-pushers and a notoriously unscrupulous and insecure data miner, I'm afraid I'll have to look elsewhere for my search needs and delete all google cookies at once.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Not to be a detractor, as I hate MS as much as every other sane person does, but monopolies in any form in my opinion are BAD. Just because it's Microsoft that has a competing product and is whining doesn't mean that there might be a genuine problem with the Google/Doubleclick merger or whatever it is. I don't know anything about this whole affair, but it's not right to just offhandedly dismiss the claims because Microsoft is making them.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
I think it's funny that someone would complain about a monopoly in an "industry" (and I use that term so loosely that I want to gag) that has virtually no positive use, anyway. This is like complaining about a monopolist crack dealer. If the market for ads is harmed, so fucking what? No matter which advertising network loses, we win. The last thing I want is the gummint legitimizing this "industry" by regulating it.
Does the GOogle/DoubleClick merger keep any company from entering the market the same way, oh, MS did in the OS market in the 90's... wait, I mean, even now? The way I understand it, no, but I'm not an economics major, so go figure.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Yeah, God forbid this merger get cancelled, we'll miss out on all the great advertising and privacy violations that GoogleClick would innovate! I'll cry myself to sleep every night, if only we'd known the horrific repercussions of enforcing antitrust laws!
Won't anyone think of the billion dollar advertising Goliaths?
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Did anyone else notice that the diagram PDF that supposedly "Microsoft created" and which the newspiece links to was in fact created on a Mac (OSX 10.4.11, using Quartz), and is hosted by nytimes.com?
How is this different from the radio stations asking the government to look into the contracts that the members of the RIAA have with their recording artists? As I recall, we were all pretty happy about that.
Technoli
The pot just called the kettle black.....
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
um ... and why is Microsoft worried about selling advertising? Aren't they are software company that buys advertising? Shouldn't they, like, be more concerned about making an operating system that works? Or, like, an office suite that doesn't crash my PC?
Why am I asking you?
If Microsoft were to follow this up with legal docmuments, would they not be risking having to provide lots of really sensitive information to Google during Discovery.
That, IMHO is why so far they appear/alledgely have been using proxy companies (something like SCO) in attempts to retain their market share.
If they can still strike deals with H/W Suppliers & Retailers that effectively lock out the competition then this could be their Pandoras Box of absolutely huge proportions.
If on the other hand, they can persuade the DOJ or EU to investigate Google on their behalf, then they would seem safe.
However there could be a sting in the tail. What if, Google then say, Ok, investigate us but do exactly the same to Microsoft.
Personally, I ONLY ever use google as a search engine. I don't pay them money for their services. Adblock+ keeps unwanted adverts at bay so I'm generally pretty happy with their service. But there are still other Search engines out there, including microsoft so I do have an alternative that won't cost me a penny.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
...in a heads we win, tails you lose kind of way.
Bottom line: Google and Microsoft are fighting over the last scraps of our long-lost privacy.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Neither of you know Jack Shit about trolling.
Here in Springfield we keep our trolling offline. It adds a bit of excitement you just can't get on the internet where your life isn't in danger.
And although I'd have modded the stupid thing as troll, that's only because there's no "spam" mod.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Pot, kettle: black. Blah blah blah.
*Same Old S#$%, Different Names
and except for those of us who surf AC's and trolls, no one would have seen YOUR post either!
the significance of a signature is insignificant
Becasue if someone has a monopoly on advertising, the people buying advertising can be abused, as it were.
Also, MS want into the ad business badly.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Drop a legal nuke on someone and you should expect to get nuked back.
Interesting in the PDF, the first shows Google differently than Yahoo. Google is put together as if it is some outrageous monopoly, but yahoo is put at both ends.
My little Linux and tech blog
Who says consumers don't want FOSS? So far as I can tell, they've not had any real choice in the matter until only in the last 5 years.
I dunno about that... I was running Slackware back in 1992. That was 15 years ago.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
That is what Microsoft really fears: Micrsoft cannot leverage its desktop OS monopoly to beat Google.
Recently I was reading the public notices in my local newspaper. In NZ development is moderated through a resource consent court, and I was amused to see the Westfield group (which is in the business of building malls) putting in a submission against further development of the Albany Megacentre (another samey shopping complex, but not done under the aegis of a definable international conglomerate).
The essence of the submission? Naughty old Albany Megacentre was far too retail oriented. Just not appropriate for a shopping centre at all.
It's a very similar thing here. Microsoft learnt from being hit by the US DOJ (and EU equivalent) naughty stick. The lesson? That it's much better to be holding the business end and swinging.
Stop and think: who are Google's customers?
Most of us use Google's services for free... it is advertising that actually pays the salaries at the Googleplex.
The moment a company--any company--begins selling advertising, their users/visitors/viewers cease to be the main focus of their business. The more a company needs to please the ad buyers, the less freedom a company has to please users.
As even Microsoft once argued, it is not illegal to have a monopoly. In fact, they are quite common. Patents and Copyrights are gov't sanctioned monopolies, while cable, POTS, and electric service are natural monopolies. (Do you really want two or more electric service connections in a city?)
What is illegal with a monopoly is abusing it. Say, using your monopoly in one business (PC Operating Systems just for kicks) to gain an unfair advantage in another market (PC office suits, Web browsers, Media players, IM programs, server/client directories...) What Microsoft would consider "Leveraging" Windows XP marketshare will almost certainly be illegal abuse of a monopoly position.
So of course Microsoft knows how that works, they're the pros at it. Google just hasn't done it yet. Microsoft is jealous Google thought of it first.
Yes, but the premise I was making made the example relevant. Of course I know Rand's character was fictional but the character was there to demonstrate the relationship between business and the state.
Don't you remember WHY Reardon was in the courts in the first place? Because his competitors complained that his product was better than theirs.
While fictional, it is very appropriate.
Well, well well. For so many years the jackboots in Redmond were all for monopolies. They didn't see anything wrong with one company controlling everything. Well, now that the goose is getting as well as the gander, MS is all in arms. Well, Microsofties, now you SEE why these laws are for the benefit of us all. Now, Microsofties, you see what it's like to be up against a behemoth that is killing you. Well, though MS is correct mostly, they can pound sand. Suffer and like it, MS, like all of your competitors did for years.
I'd be mad if my business finally had competition, too
welcome our new slashdot-approved overlords. NOt.
Irony... Too.... Thick.... Cant..... BREATHE..... ROFL
Microsoft: Mommy Mommy...
EU: What is wrong?
Microsoft: Google is trying to take over the world, and he doesn't let me play with his toys!
Waaaaaaaaahhh!!!!
EU: Shut up and go to your room, you got plenty of toys to play with, XP, Vista, Zune...
Microsoft: But Maa!! I want total world domainance!!!
EU: Im tired of this shit, go to your room, you are grounded!
Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
From Story"Perhaps Microsoft didn't go there because it didn't have the evidence to support a case for the deal harming consumers"
I don't think Microsoft really considers consumers that way. If they did, do you really think Microsoft would be stuffing Vista down consumer's throats?
Ed
...does Microsofts integrated Windows desktop advertising fit in ?
Wouldn't it be even more anti competitive ?
There is a huge difference between what google is doing and what MS is doing, so saying they are the same because they both corner the market on something is not even a valid comparison. Microsoft sells an operating system, and has through the years done it's best to trap the entire world in to using their software, and only their software. Google provides a way for people to advertise. They don't force anyone to use them, and they don't try to control it. They just happen to be the best choice if you want your ads to be seen. It's like saying someone should sue the network TV stations because they corner the market on superbowl commercials. There are other options, people just want to use the medium that gets the best results.
Yah, uh-huh, right.
Fact is, I don't have to advertise ON Google, and I don't have to get my content FROM Google. I may not be as successful, but heck, I was just trying to use ebay to sell cool widgets in my home town ANYWAY.
So where's the monopoly?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
XM/Sirius merger == google/DC
shop for Howard Stern's penis at Target.com now!
save on Howard Stern's penis at shopping.com!
get prices for bababooie at Nextag.com!
I hate to say it but I think i'm going to side with M$ on this...
What stranglehold? Doubleclick gets filtered for years now. There's not a single PC magazine without at least one article to explain how to get rid of Doubleclick ads and other privacy related problems.
The comments so far seem to focus on whether or not Microsoft has enough moral high-ground to complain about Google's practices, but that misses one very important point: one monopoly does *NOT* equal another. Even if Google expands it's share of the advertising market to 85% or more, making their base numerically equivalent to Microsoft's, we're still talking about two very different things, for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the barriers to entry in the advertising market are remarkably lower than that in operation Systems. Competition isn't nearly as locked out; anyone with a server, technical knowledge, and a method for paying out can offer ads to sites. Also, advertising targets, unlike operating system users, don't need to be previously experienced with an ad before they can view it; it's provider neutral to the target. It's simply impossible to have the kind of entrenchment that Windows does with simple advertising.
Secondly, opportunities to leverage an advertising monopoly in a such a way to limit customer (or consumer) choice are far more limited. Microsoft's problem isn't their success; it's their use of that success to force IE and WMP on people. In the advertising market, it's going to be much harder to abuse a monopoly. The worst they could realistically try to do is cross-promote a monetary system like paypal... and convincing ad buyers to hook their whole systems to their ads is going to be a much harder sell than getting people to use bundled IE ever was.
People shouldn't be all up in arms about this, not until Google actually manages to do something very shady, something that might not even be possible.
The best mixed martial arts training in Boston - www.redlinefightsports.com
60% of you will underestimate this.
20% of you will misunderstand this.
10% of you might believe it.
10% of you will totally get this.
The next step in 'Internet advertising' doesn't exist yet, and doesn't directly center around the web browser and web pages. There is a real integration of three technologies that is coming around the corner, and Google is far ahead of the game than any other player. In fact, most of the other players don't even know the game exists.
What is this magic combo?
Cellular Data [real time, anyplace, data transport to a computing device] +
Internet [not web pages, but providers of location based services (Google)] +
GPS [one of the new key data fields that everything will hinge upon]
"But we already have those things today!" "This is nothing new!" "My phone currently does all three!"
Yes. Those are three discrete services that your phone may have. But are they INTEGRATED?
New world example:
You're hungry. You want a place to eat. You go to your [smart device]. It could be a cell phone. It could be a Nokia N800 like device. Yes, it could be built into your car like your existing GPS mapping device. It already knows where you are (and shows your position on the default screen). You query (not through a web browser, but an integrated interface) for a nearby fast food restaurant. With me so far? You didn't go to a web page Yahoo! Local or Google Maps. Your map application was built into the device.
Quite a number of nearby locations pop up on your map. But there are a few bolded map selections. Arby's has free desert with any meal purchase. Bill & Ruth's sub shop has a discount of $1 towards any sandwich. And some small pizza place you never heard of has a 2-for-1 special. And then there are quite a number of other choices.
How did those bolded deals get there? Some large company built up the infrastructure required to run a service where any advertiser (major corporation or little mom-and-pop shops) could put in advertisements at a local level. They've got the transaction engine necessary to take and bill for advertisements. (That would be an existing online advertising company.) They've got the scale to do this on a nationwide (or even worldwide) basis. They've got a yellow pages database. They've got a way to deliver this to consumers.
Who has something like this today? The only things close that I've found are Yahoo! Local, and our friend Google.
Google doesn't have all the pieces yet. But they're assembling them. Adsense is going to start allowing location based advertising. (I wish I kept my reference for that.) They're working on an integrated delivery platform to get that to you (Gphone). They practically have all the pieces in place, and they're working towards the goal of making this happen.
Now, DoubleClick is a major online advertising company. They could be competition to Google in this future world. But, if Google absorbs DoubleClick before the market even exists, then they can avoid the whole monopoly issue. So Google isn't just playing for the here and now, but they're playing for the future in advertising. Nobody else (such as local telephone companies which maintain their own yellow pages) will be in a position to compete (because they lack everything needed to gather the ads nationwide, and they lack everything needed to present the ads, except for some ownership of the mobile devices). Which... of course... Google managed to take away their walled garden when it comes to the mobile devices allowed on the next generation wireless networks.
And Google totally has this figured out. Hello? Google Maps? Want to know what the business looks like that you're heading for? Google street view. Google is totally lining all of its ducks in a row to corner this new market.
DoubleClick
Ever since I started using Firefox, I forgot that ads existed. Thanks MS for reminding me why I dumped IE and then Windows as a whole.
Obviously, Microsoft® wants a monopoly on monopoly. :-)
Once again Microsoft shows us why real designers will never use their tools. These are the best designed diagrams Microsoft can produce with their tools?
I strongly suggest you try it out, I'm sure you figure it out. For experienced users there's quick key combinations and everything!
?SYNTAX ERROR
But you're a Slashdotter, so you can cope with difficult to install things. I first tried Red Hat 11 years ago, and while I managed to install it, eventually, I couldn't get it to do anything useful, other than compile a short program with gcc. It wasn't until I installed SuSE about 7 years ago, that I could get it to do anything useful, and without a great deal of effort. That's around the time consumers first had a real choice.
When asked in court to define "monopoly", Microsloth said simply, "us."
Does this make me look fat?
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Has anyone here used ask.com? I quit using google for searches a few months ago, and haven't looked back. This is not the same thing as Microsoft using their OS dominance to break into other markets. Google was #1 for so long because they were undisputedly the best, and as better alternatives arise, it is simple to switch. Look at myspace v. facebook. Fortunes can change that quickly in the web.
Until they start fighting against net neutrality, this is hardly disconcerting.
http://www.coderoshi.com/
that still has *.doubleclick.net in my host file? It even points to 127.0.0.1 ! but that has been there since all the flashy/animated ads were oh so popular. Sure it sometimes takes pages a little longer to load, but no annoying ads anymore. This being the case, if everyone were to do this would doubleclick even be in the picture these days?
eh, seems the captcha answered my question: "probably"
Wow! This should have provided some comic relief. Who did the presentation? Dane Cook? OOH! Bobcat Goldthwait?
What a bunch of whiners.
Never really planned on clicking this minicity doohickie. But all this hoopla and curiosity finally got the better of me. I can't figure out how to build stuff like in SC3U from Loki. The damn map thing just keeps scrolling around and such. Must be a flash x64 problem. Don't waste your time clicking fellas. I've seen better flash games on hotwheels.com with my nephews.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
Pot..kettle..black, etc etc.
"...Sleep comes like a drug in God's country Sad eyes, crooked crosses in God's country..."
In what way, is MS being bashed? I am simply saying that they are not to be believed based on their past record. Do you think that we bash Hitler by speaking of his past record? Or Nixon, or even George Washington (he had his faults)? It is not bashing. I am simply saying that MS is not to be trusted based on their VERY long illegal history.
Now, why is it an issue to you IF google gets a monopoly? That is not illegal. In fact, it is natural inside of market places to reward those who do good work. Yahoo and most of all MS, do not deserve more help. They have a lousy product. The ONLY reason why MS is even a player is because they tied it to their OS, BTW, per the conditions laid out in the last anti-monopoly lawsuit, MS is doing it illegally, but we all overlook that part.
The only thing that is illegal is the abuse of a monopoly. That is, to use your monopoly status to maintain it. For example, when MS tied MSIE to their OS, they did it solely to shut out netscape (plenty of proof at the trial of just that). That was illegal. So, imagine if Google did not allow another search engine to use double click, or they created their own browser and made special content available ONLY through that browser. That would be illegal. But they do not do that. MS, like Shell oil and Hollywood, IBM, ATT, etc. all did just that. That is why they got broken up. Well all but MS and IBM; but IBM was purposely hampered to allow the market to catch up. MS has not been hampered in the least, but have simply been made to be mostly legal.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Quote: "I personally think Google is on thin ice here and would personally not like to see this deal go through."
I agree.
Anyone doubting how much Google has started to become a factor in our lives should run Firefox with the NoScript add-on. NoScript will show you that most web sites deliver all of your browsing history to Google-Analytics.com.
The U.S. government's idea that it can get any information from any U.S. company at any time by threatening to put the executives of the company in jail, and can keep that secret, means that, using Google's information, your entire history online can be tracked by the U.S. government.
Only Firefox with NoScript can prevent this. Since Google has been paying $50,000,000 each year to the Mozilla Foundation, the developers of Firefox, and since Google makes money through advertising, it seems likely that Firefox will eventually not allow add-ons like NoScript and Ad-Block.
When I learned that the founders of Google bought themselves a Boeing 747, I began to worry that they are not people like us any more, but have rich man's sickness. Someone with that sickness will do anything to make more money.
NoScript makes your browsing much more secure, in addition to giving you the option to stop spying. It's amazing how many web sites run Javascript scripts linking the web sites we visit to other servers at other companies.
Deciding what needs to be unblocked is extra work, however.
Microsoft's "visionary" leaders really screwed the pooch with this whole internet thing. If only there was a big internet advertising company they could buy and then repackage as yet another Microsoft invented innovation. Oh, someone beat them to it? Wow, that isn't fair. Given how powerful, immoral, and monopolistic Microsoft is, obviously, anyone who can get in their way must be a monopoly too! My god, what is the color of the sky up their asses?
I'd like to note that personally, although MS has a bad reputation here, I'm inclined to agree with them. And MS' bad reputation here shouldn't justify Google's actions. It's a bit frightening how big in the online ad market Google is becoming. It's also easy to draw conclusions of how cool Microsoft was early on, and how evil they are now. I'm already starting to see it happen with Google... They've already got the private information networking done, and now they're going after dominance and purchasing market via company mergers.
AH, but I bet MS didn't say Viacom picked MS over Google for it's online ad campaign. That doesn't sound like Google has a monopoly.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Oh, you're the guy! Slackware's creators always were wondering who was using it. Besides themselves. Now we know!
But kidding aside, decades of FOSS failing to gain a foothold in the consumer market, despite it's cost of $0.00, clearly demonstrates what consumers feel about it.
If you can't gain a significant share of customers when you are free and your competition is not (and in the case of something like MS Office, very significantly non-free), you need to take a long hard look in the mirror to see where the problem lies. Blaming Microsoft is clearly not winning them any larger of a market share... which is why their current strategy is trying to legislate consumers away from Microsoft. Which, of course, just ends up screwing over consumer choice (since they are overwhelmingly choosing Microsoft).
So it's hardly surprising that the FOSSies will embrace Google's NSA tracking database and advertising monopoly totally out of their pure hatred for Microsoft. Teh FOSSie's all consuming hatred of MS is more than willing to sell out anything, especially morality, rights to privacy, and the future of computing, simply to somehow try and weaken or harm Microsoft... a company which doesn't even care they exist. Lunix is, after all is said and done, only 2% of the operating system market: more than enough reason for FOSSies to not care about destroying the market for the other 98% of computer users.
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
like a Colossus; and we petty men
walk under his huge legs and peep about
to find ourselves dishonorable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars,
but in ourselves, that we are underlings.
- William Shakespeare
the 235 patents the Linux kernel infringes on to "f***ing kill Google" ? As far as I know, their data centers run Linux, so this should be a pretty easy job.
Or is this proof of the fact that Google runs Windows Cluster Edition in their data canters ?
I was never saying this. But should we wait until they are? Do the same mistake as with Microsoft? It's a much dirtier and harder job to disrupt a monopoly than trying to stop one from happening. As has been proven with the Microsoft OEM history, for example. It's not because Microsoft is doing a mighty intelligent work at upholding that monopoly. They don't even have to. The customers are doing it for them. Just like the ad market will once Google grows big enough there. Google will be able to give the advertisers the best deals thanks to their economy in the market and that's that.
However there's nothing, not even Google, who can stop a better competitor from taking on Google. Google got big because they indexed more of the web than many other search engines and gave better or more appropriate results when someone searched for something. A competitor can come along and outgoogle Google by indexing more and returning even better results. I switched from Alta Vista and Yahoo! to Google because it worked for me. Now I use 3 SEs other than Google. Though Ask.com bought it I still type Teoma into the address bar. I also use Mooter a lot. And for some specific searches I use About.com. Well, I still use Alta Vista too.
FalconShould there be a Law?
...until you abuse them and indulge in anti-competitive practices.
I don't see where Google has broken any laws. Apart from its sheer size, what exactly is google leveraging to force people to do things they might not do otherwise? I can't think of one Google product that I don't use out of either choice or complete lack of alternatives. I can think of plenty of Microsoft products that I don't really want but am unable to remove from my PC even though they're substandard.
I get the feeling that modern Microsoft sees any kind of competition as somehow "anti competitive".
No sig today...
pot, kettle, black!
...but that's not illegal, that's just capitalism.
Illegal would be when a monopolist does something like (eg.) bundling their advertising channel with their operating system in order to gain a foothold in a new market.
Examples would be little advert bar in MSN Messenger which can't be turned off, continually resetting a user's homepage to msn.com without asking permission, automatically opening the MSN homepage whenever people switch on their computer, etc., etc.
No sig today...
stop buying their shit if you hate them,
stop rubbing your penis while you play halo on your xbox,
if you keep buying their shit you are part of the problem
Windows doesn't run on Alpha anymore 'cause the development costs outweigh the projected income
Is the Alpha still being developed? I heard Compaq/HP sold it to Intel but that a company in South Korea made then for a while.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Google has sufficient market share in the Web browser market to constitute monopoly influence as (again) multiple courts have ruled.
Google or Microsoft? MS has the browser but Google doesn't.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Clearly, Microsoft is just pissed off that it had some rotten luck and landed on Park Place and then snake eyes where both had hotels. Google must've fixed the dice. Everyone knows you always land on luxury tax.
Add VCLK to AdQuantive, and if they can't compete in online search, they might as well mail it in.
a competitive product?
.Net is a copy of Java (but doesn't have a native compiler and doesn't work outside of a WinCE phone). Live office is joke compared to Google. My tweens (and their friends) want their computers/cell phones/ipods just to work regardless of the computer. Microsoft doesn't get this.
1) Since when has google used a AARD code in a Operating system to instill FUD for a user to purchase an alternate OS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code
2) Since when has google informed a user to remove a competitors program upon installation/upgrade of a new one? http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/12/20/505887.aspx
3) Since when has google forced install GGA (Google Genuine Advantage) software to frisk and accuse a user of being a thief when their not? http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/archive/2007/08/27/update-on-validation-issues.aspx
4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but google has't put yahoo, msn, ask jeeves out of business by bundling their service with computer manufacturers. Computer makers can bundle all or none except when they bundle Windows (Windows Live).
Microsoft stopped being a software company back in 1991. They are now a an exclusive Windows only monopoly protection company. Just like the contract they signed with (CBS), they are old and busted (MTV).
Silverlight is a copy of flash (but won't work on my cell phone).
Microsoft assumed that they would steal away Ad dollars (UK Pounds, French EU etc) from google by being Microsoft. They don't understand yet that the Microsoft brand name is tainted and means squat for most of the world. Their not Coco-Cola for sure. They have brand recognition for being un-secure, BSOD, RROD (xbox360), and greedy.
In the USA a Microsoft ex-attorney is allowed to be head of the Microsoft DOJ oversight commission (Government). Hopefully the EU wont have a Microsoft employee overseeing their Microsoft anti-trust suit (Anyone can be bought by a company with ill-gotten $40 billion in the bank.
Microsoft is not evil. Just greedy. They forgot about making computer software thats simple and easy (Apple). Somehow they forgot that they were computer programmers, not Windows programmers.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
No prob, I've made more than my share of mistakes.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Because the people that control the data control everything.
But neither Google nor anyone else controls all, or even 10%, of the data on the web. The millions if not 100s of millions of website designers, masters, and owners control the data. China has come the closest to controlling data on the net. But the Chinese are finding ways to circumvent the Great Firewall of China.
I have ZoneAlarm
If only Zone Labs would release ZoneAlarm for Linux and the Mac, or I could find a firewall like it for either OS. When I used Windows I had ZoneAlarm, the pay version, however I switched to Linux and OS X.
FalconShould there be a Law?
On the other hand, for those of you with too much time and an axe to grind, here's some easy DNS-related information.
;; ANSWER SECTION: ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
... unfortunately, I am in U.S. and I don't plan on traveling overseas for some time, and let me just caution others to double-check facts (after all, these were very elementary searches prone to error) before you act on them.
dig contactlog.net brings up:
(snip)
contactlog.net. 14185 IN A 62.149.36.161
contactlog.net. 86185 IN NS ns46.bulkdns.co.uk.
contactlog.net. 86185 IN NS ns45.bulkdns.co.uk.
(snip)
(BTW, bulkdns.co.uk didn't seem like it was run by competent admins.)
And whois contactlog.net brings up:
(snip)
Domain Name: CONTACTLOG.NET
Registrar: EASYSPACE LTD.
(snip)
Registrars.Registrant:
Mr. Jake Clarke
175 St Helens Street
Suffolk, Ipswich IP4 2LJ
UK
(snip)
Well, let me just say
Anyone who believes that either Microsoft or Google are serious bad guys has little knowledge of what goes on in the real world, even in the tech sector. There are vast numbers of companies that are far more evil.
However, in this case, It doesn't matter whether Google gets Doubleclick or not.
There is a basic principle in economics, that states the natural order of things is a duopoly, with one company with 60% and the other with 40& of the market.
The reason for this is a basic American institution. ( An institution is the laws or social norms that govern the behavior of members of a culture)
The institution is this:
"Nobody can be trusted with all the power. In other words, it is in our best interest not to let anyone or any company accumulate too much power. As long as they are fighting each other, they are too busy to do anything bad to us. "
Google gets more than a 60% market share, customers will start pressuring for a alternative. They can't help it, institutions rule how they react en mass.
The only result of this is that Google shareholders are going to be might upset in a few years when this doesn't give Google dominance over the market.
On the other hand,, I bet right now Microsoft is reframing (a la Lakoff) thier advertising strategy to take advantage of this.
A prediction. You are going to see Microsoft due some real damage to Google over the next year. In the past few months, Google has gone from "Do no Evil" to suspicion of being very evil. While part of this seems to be Google's fault, a lot of it seems to be due to Microsoft competitive Intelligence operations setting up Google for fall after fall. This doubleclick issue is just one of many pieces of rope that are coming together to form a noose around Googles ambitions.
And no, I am not in favor of Microsoft. Few people have more reason to hate Microsoft than me. But it is that I just wish Google leadership hired someone who had some idea of how to execute a strategy in the face of competitive intelligence operations, it is embarrassing how easily Google is being trashed.
Monopolies should be regulated before their damage is done. We arrived too late on the scene to stop the damage Microsoft had done to the marketplace. Perhaps we should start thinking ahead a little.
Ok, the merits. Is Google a monopoly. No, there are a lot of search engines. There are also a number of other ad agencies. Microsoft is one itself. Viacom, which used to be a DoubleClick customer, recently signed an ad deal with MS for $500 million. Yahoo! sales ads, as do other search engines.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Because Microsoft also sells ads they are worried Google will eat their lunch.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You're hungry. You want a place to eat. You go to your [smart device]. It could be a cell phone. It could be a Nokia N800 like device. Yes, it could be built into your car like your existing GPS mapping device. It already knows where you are (and shows your position on the default screen). You query (not through a web browser, but an integrated interface) for a nearby fast food restaurant. With me so far? You didn't go to a web page Yahoo! Local or Google Maps. Your map application was built into the device.
This already exists. OnStar does it. They even have ads on tv telling everyone drivers can get turn by turn driving directions.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So, Microsoft feels it has a monopoly on monopolies?
I think I forgot something - I thought Microsoft was in the OS, Office, Servicer Software business... And Google was in the search engine/advertising business... What users should do is complain about Microsoft ignoring their core product (OS/Server/Office software) while whining that they want a better piece of the action of some other market (Advertising, Gaming, Digital Music) than the ones they really need to concentrate on.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
someone in Redmond needs a WAAAmbulance.
Maybe not a total block, but if anyone is in a position to uhm, 'shape' traffic, toward its customers and away from others, it's looking like Google.
I've always regarded the inclusion of paid advertisements in the search engine output to be, to put it politely, a conflict of interest. Right now these paying guys occupy a seperate place where they're easy to ignore, but as soon as (that's when, not if) they get mixed indistinguishably into the real output, it will be time to look for another search engine.
Or maybe it's time right now, while there are still some competitors left. There's teh door, vote with your feet.
As for M$, the pot does indeed know black very well when it sees it. Unfortunately (for M$) it has long ago expended any goodwill, or even pity, for which it once may possibly have ever been eligible. I won't be looking at ask.com for a replacement for Google search.
Look at the up side: if Google/Doubleclick gains a stranglehold on all Intraweb Advertising(tm)(r)(c), that'll leave only one ad server domain for us to block. Just think of the reduction of labor!
"Don't be Evil"? It sounds to me like the Kool-Aid is kicking in.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
At least the advertising and search bit. Bunch of tubes, all of it! (And apparently Yahoo! and Live Search got stuffed in the same tube? Whats up with that? You'd think MS could afford its own tube!) If you have no idea what I'm talking about, read the fine diagram :)
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
You are a so completely wrong it's not funny
Microsoft is completely free to implement ODF, and will have little technical problem doing this. Given their quality control department it probably won't be real ODF but that's what xml schema validators are for. So if Microsoft has a compelling product using ODF, they're completely free to offer it to EU government agencies that require products that use ODF. The Dutch decision for instance is about ODF and not about open source.
I don't know who these FOSSies are that you're talking about, but you're probably a MCSE-ie? Well keep on solitairing and leave decisions to intelligent people.
This is Microsoft. You're black.
Where is the danger? If we (the consumers) were paying Google money, then this would be a dangerous thing, but it isn't us - it is the advertisers. If Google gets a 100% monopoly over online advertising, then the worst thing that they can do is raise advertising rates through the roof - which would mean fewer ads for us to see, since online advertising would then be less cost-effective. I hope they get a monopoly and raise prices through the roof, personally.
I don't know if things have changed lots all of a sudden but for Konqueror to work with the normal Gmail interface, you had to force the loading of that interface or spoof the User Agent, and then the chat utility on the left would expand into more than a quarter of the inbox list display. It was not perfect.
Konqueror may have trouble with Gmail, I don't know as I don't use Gmail. But using Google for searches I didn't have any problems with Konqueror.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Google works just fine, it's Google Apps. Gmail works with a user-agent. Calender and Docs don't work at all, last I checked.
Other than for searching I don't use Google and this was the first tyme I heard there's a problem with Konqueror and Google. While I don't use online apps other than for email, I want my apps to run locally, it puzzles me Google doesn't work with Konqueror. It's not like Microsoft wanting people to use it's own browser and email program, and Google supports Linux.
And yes, a lot of websites do use user-agent browser detection. I consider it to be a bad practice. Detect capability, not specific browsers
I hadn't thought much about detecting capabilities instead of user agents, but you're right it's better that way.
FalconShould there be a Law?
But they're simply not. There is no such thing as a "convicted" monopoly. The two words go together like "gray turbulance" or "blind paperclip".
Microsoft was found by a court to be a monopoly, then MS was convicted of using it's monopoly position in an uncompetitive manner. So yes, it is a convicted monopoly. Being a monopoly isn't illegal itself it's how the monopoly is used as to whether something is illegal.
FalconShould there be a Law?