Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Complains About Google's Monopoly Abuse

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the play-fair-or-i'll-tell-mom dept.

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."

42 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Well if anyone knows... by lisany · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If anyone knows about what a monopoly is it's Microsoft.

    1. Re:Well if anyone knows... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. Check those "Senator Stevens" pipe charts and substitute "file formats" for "ads".
      Sweet, sweet irony.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Knave75 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If anyone knows about what a monopoly is it's Microsoft.

      I know that we all despise our Monopolizing Micro$oft overlords and such, but that does not invalidate their argument. Imagine that the complaint was coming from a small company with a solid innovation that was getting pulverized by Google, would you at least hear out the small company?

      That said, I agree, it is funny to hear microsoft whining about monopolies. Just try to remember that their past does not, in itself, make them wrong.

    3. Re:Well if anyone knows... by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it was a small company, I would listen. But this is a MONSTER company, with a LONG reputation of doing anything illegal to keep their monopoly. Worse, I expect to see a bunch of small companies coming out of the woodworks who will cry about Google abuse. Then the money will be traced back to MS on the vast majority of them. Lost in all that FUD and fakery from MS probably will be a couple of companies that do feel like they can not take on Google. IOW, the multitude of lies and FUD from MS will serve to obscure what is really going on.

      I also expect to see a number of congressman start gripping about Google.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Well if anyone knows... by arivanov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did the kettle just call the pot black?

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    5. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. Check those "Senator Stevens" pipe charts and substitute "file formats" for "ads".
      Sweet, sweet irony. 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.
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    6. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it was a small company, I would listen. But this is a MONSTER company, with a LONG reputation of doing anything illegal to keep their monopoly. I don't think a company should be ignored depending on their reputation. I personally think Google is on thin ice here and would personally not like to see this deal go through. The only reason I'm starting to belive Google isn't doing evil things in the OEM bundling business is because that monopoly is already occupied. Google has seen their chance in the online ad business and they'll do anything in their power to build a monopoly there. But sure, you just go ahead and point fingers at Microsoft.
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    7. Re:Well if anyone knows... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree that in demolishing one monopoly we shouldn't simply allow another to rise in its place, but Microsoft on a commercial and ethical level has no right complaining. Google still has a helluva long way to go before it reaches Microsoft's level of unethical business practices.

      Besides, there is a fundamental difference between a web-driven advertising company and a company that has a stranglehold on the actual computers on which the web is normally accessed.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Well if anyone knows... by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft was cool at two points in their history. Just before BG wrote the letter you mention, and when they bought SubLogic to get what became the Microsoft Flight Simulator.

      The basically sucked the rest of the time.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    9. Re:Well if anyone knows... by joto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google still has a helluva long way to go before it reaches Microsoft's level of unethical business practices
      Sure, but when google acquired doubleclick, they certainly made sure they'd be able to walk that path. And while they've been careful not to trample over smaller companies the way Microsoft does, it's only because they're wiser, and moving slower, so they can achieve world dominance over Internet advertizing without too many people complaining loudly. Google is positioning themselves to be as important as any of the government-monopoly utilities, such as water, sewage, or electricity. What face they will show then is anyones guess, but they are certainly positioning themselves to become a monopoly.

      Besides, there is a fundamental difference between a web-driven advertising company and a company that has a stranglehold on the actual computers on which the web is normally accessed
      Uhm, no. Yesterday it was the computers themselves that was important. Today it's what's on the web that's important. Microsoft controls the operating system and browser. Google controls everything else. This is analogous to the situation between Intel and Microsoft a decade ago, only one level higher in the abstraction hierarchy. Google is todays equivalent of Microsoft 10 years ago.
    10. Re:Well if anyone knows... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that Google isn't isolating themselves simply to the dominant browser. It works well with Firefox, Safari and others. Google is not doing what Microsoft did with the x86 platform.

      Besides, the web is a wide open platform. If you can do better than Google, you have a much cheaper distribution path than Microsoft ever had. It's not the same kind of business at all.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:Well if anyone knows... by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't think a company should be ignored depending on their reputation.

      This would be similar to having China pointing their finger at GWB and saying that he is a totalitarian. His admin shows elements of that, but they certainly are not. Likewise, in the courts, if you have been shown to be a liar, you are rarely used as a witness (and certainly none that you want to have credibility). MS is the WRONG company to be speaking out about this. What does Yahoo have to say about this? And a really great example is that back in 97 (actually, even before then), we were griping on the net that AltaVista had a monopoly on search. Everybody was using it. Where are they today?

      Look, Google does not have a monopoly. While they certainly appear to be rocketing towards it, they are not likely to obtain it. Why? Because South Korea, china, and Russia are all backing their own search engines. Even EU is trying to build one. So, will Google obtain it? Not likely. But lets assume that they do. Is it illegal? Nope. Not one iota. What is illegal, is the abuse of that position. MS started from the git-go, abusing everything. In fact, so did IBM and ATT once they got their monopoly. But so far, Google shows NO signs of abuse. In fact, far from it. They seem to want to work with just about everybody, and expand the market rather than control it. About the ONLY company who is likely to oppose this IS MS. This combined with Linux appears to be slowly killing MS's monopoly. That is WHY MS is screaming to EU.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    12. Re:Well if anyone knows... by trianglman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that Google isn't isolating themselves simply to the dominant browser. It works well with Firefox, Safari and others. Google is not doing what Microsoft did with the x86 platform.

      What does this have to do with Google's take over of online advertising? Google isolating itself would hurt more than anything. MS isolating itself to x86 was a business move that helped it grow because the other competitors to x86 were weakening, not growing stronger as Firefox and Safari are doing now against IE in the web sphere.

      Besides, the web is a wide open platform. If you can do better than Google, you have a much cheaper distribution path than Microsoft ever had. It's not the same kind of business at all.

      You may have a cheaper distribution path, but you have the same difficulty breaking into the market. Do you think that website X would rather go with a large, well established advertiser such as Google or DoubleClick, or with Advertiser Joe Shmo to serve ads on their page? You are likely to get a very small niche along the lines of Linux at best, but you have very little chance of getting more than a couple percent of the internet's ad revenue, even if your product is light years ahead of Google's tools.

      --
      Clones are people two.
    13. Re:Well if anyone knows... by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There was also a very brief interval in 1985 between the time that Excel was released, and proved that it could develop and deploy an arguably innovative product, and the time when MS Windows was released and conclusively proved that it could not. But the poster is correct. For the most part every time ones tries to take it seriously as a firm that innovates to helps it user, for instance MS Office 95, MS shows that such occurrences are flukes, for example MS Office 97 onward. The true purpose is to extract residuals, just like any other parasite.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    14. Re:Well if anyone knows... by HermMunster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Frankly, I do not think you are being real. No insult intended, but let's be real here. Microsoft is no golden child intent on helping the industry do anything any longer (unless it gets a cut of the pie). Microsoft is a pit, dark and deep. Its intent is to keep others from gaining dominance, anywhere. Microsoft is simply a competitor in a field where they are rather unsuccessful. Microsoft has found a company they can't compete with and now they are trying to get other governing bodies to step in and take their side to help them against a better competitor.

      Google is not a monopoly and has never been one. You become a monopoly when you are ruled one by the court. Microsoft was ruled a monopoly. Apple nor Google are monopolies. Not only that, monopolies are not illegal. It simply means that they must comply with additional laws meant to govern their behavior. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they were convicted of criminal use of their monopoly. They had their day in court.

      We will see the EU essentially just chastise Microsoft for their obviously blatant attempt to get a government to intercede in a market they are not able to compete in successfully. There's really no justification for this and there's no reason anyone should be giving Microsoft any credit. What they are doing is for their own benefit, not the benefit of others. They are doing it to make money for them, not for others. Microsoft, given the chance to be in the same position as Google is with advertising, would be doing the same thing--pushing for even greater market share.

      What does Microsoft think we are? Do they think we are willing to listen to every complaint they have? It's like a criminal robbing a store and then complaining that they just can't make any money any other way. Microsoft has been robbing us blind for years and locking us their software with various technologies thus denying us choice. Only through the efforts of the Open Source community have we been able to even remotely consider something else. For the average Joe there's no choice still, because they don't know its there. Do advertisers have a choice? Can they hit the customer with their ads? Of course they can. They can chose to use Microsoft. They can choose to use Yahoo.

      You're going to tell me that they are complaining to the EU because Google gives them a better choice to reach a larger crowd than Microsoft can provide to them?

      That's just silly and it is in a way another abuse of its dominance in computing to influence by obfuscation. They obfuscate the issue, making it seem more complex than it is, and then push some of the uneducated -- because the computing industry workings are complex due to software being complex, software patents and copyrights.

      Without obfuscation it clearly becomes an issue where Microsoft is being a child here who is saying that "we're loosing, so please change the rules to favor us".

      When we can prove that Google is doing something illegal then we can petition the courts and the EU (and/or others) to correct the wrong. But right now they are not doing anything that has been proven to be wrong, so it is simply one company complaining that they can't compete. Period.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    15. Re:Well if anyone knows... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I simply do not agree. Microsoft's business model relied upon its stranglehold of the x86 PC marketplace and its ability to beat OEMs into supplying only its operating system on their machines. During that key period between the late 1980s and early 1990s when all the other competitor platforms were dropping off, they were able to beat the market into submission by unethical and illegal practices.

      Thus far I know of no one saying that Google is doing anything illegal. Yes, when they go in purchase something like Doubleclick we should be wary, but there is no meaningful analogy between the growth of the two companies. Microsoft was willing to bully and extort its way into dominance, and because the wheels of the market watchdogs are so slow, by the time they first went after Microsoft for those nasty OEM deals, it was too late.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Well if anyone knows... by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhhh...you may want to take a look around.
      Google is a multi-billion dollar company and guess where every cent of their money comes from?
      Yep. Adwords.

      They arent growing, they have already grown.
      They give free email, free search, free maps, donate millions to open source projects and more all from those little text ads.

      I dont think DoubleClick is a big deal for Google. They would like it but if they dont get it then the world isnt over.
      DoubleClick deals with a completely different segment of the market to Adwords and they want to get in to that side as well.

    17. Re:Well if anyone knows... by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhh Google is already *the* ad industry. Nearly every single cent they make comes from ads.

      Plus millions of those ad dollars are going to open source projects and other good causes.

      So far Google hasnt shown any reason to make us doubt their good intentions.

    18. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Microsoft has found a company they can't compete with and now they are trying to get other governing bodies to step in and take their side to help them against a better competitor.
      You could take that statement and substitute all of the companies that sued Microsoft too.

      Oracle has found a company they can't compete with and now they are trying to get other governing bodies to step in and take their side to help them against a better competitor.

      Netscape has found a company they can't compete with and now they are trying to get other governing bodies to step in and take their side to help them against a better competitor.

      Opera has found a company they can't compete with and now they are trying to get other governing bodies to step in and take their side to help them against a better competitor.

      The EU has found a company they can't compete with and now they are trying to get other governing bodies to step in and take their side to help them against a better competitor.

    19. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh dear God, "Excel was good in '85"? Excel was good in '97, it was a chunk in '85 (and 2007, but in a different way). Comparing 123 to Excel in '85 was like comparing Porshe to a Chevette fixed with a Pinto fuel system.

    20. Re:Well if anyone knows... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As I said, I don't think that we should allow a growing behemoth like Google to just wantonly buy companies and technologies without considering the risks to a free marketplace. That is the mistake that was made with Microsoft. Everyone was so happy to see it killing IBM's powerful market position in the mid and late 1980s that they didn't stop to think that they might have to start shooting Microsoft down in its turn. And we shouldn't make the same mistake with Google, that just because it's doing what, up until recently, governments haven't been able to do and start taking some of the wind out of Redmond's sails, that we should just simply wave a happy thank you to Google until the day that we discover that it isn't all that nice a company.

      But, by the same token, the platform that Google's technologies work on is significantly different than the one that Microsoft gained dominance on. The x86-based PC was a bottleneck that Microsoft could use to great effect. Only a limited number of player produce it, only a limited number of players distribute it, and, because the DoJ was several years too late, those restrictive OEM agreements basically gave Microsoft vast control of what went on to the overwhelming majority of personal computers sold throughout the world.

      The web simply isn't like it. There's no way to set up a roadblock in the distribution of a web site. Microsoft tried that with the serious incompatibilities it intentionally put into Internet Explorer, and in the end, guys like Google put up with the development and support pain and worked around various browser idiosyncrasies. Rather than trying to beat Microsoft head on, these guys have played the game by the rules Microsoft created once it had wiped out Netscape as a competitor.

      We're within five years by my guestimate of a serious competitor to the Windows-Office monopoly which is the core of Microsoft's business. Everything else; Zune, XBox etc. are meaningless in what keeps Microsoft ticking. They are scared, and watch for them to start trying to open channels to various governments to try to attack Google legalistically. We're going to see patent bombs being thrown within the next year or two against open source projects that look like they're going to eat into Microsoft. They already have a disaster with Vista, and their business model is dangerously close to compromise.

      It's gonna get ugly.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    21. Re:Well if anyone knows... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google doesn't control shit. You guys talk as though they're the US Government. They've got market dominance for a glorified version of the Yellow Pages. That gives them zero hold on anything.

      Now, they might be able to set themselves up as a barrier to advertisers reaching the public and prop up third parties in that fashion, but really, who is going to stick with a Yellow Pages that screws around with the listings?

      It's not like there aren't a bakers dozen would be search giants waiting in the wings if they ever drop the ball.

      The Google monopoly involves no leverage on anyone, which makes their position far more precarious than Microsoft ever was. If everyone went "What a bunch of dickheads, I don't want to deal with them anymore", that would be the end of Google, just like that.

      Completely different beasts.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    22. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Frankly, I do not think you are being real. No insult intended, but let's be real here. Microsoft is no golden child intent on helping the industry do anything any longer (unless it gets a cut of the pie). Microsoft is a pit, dark and deep. Its intent is to keep others from gaining dominance, anywhere. Was I saying otherwise? Really, did you see that anywhere?

      Let's talk about Google and stop hiding behind Microsoft's bad motives. The article is about what Google is doing and the bulk of your post is blatantly off-topic.

      As someone else here has said by now which I was essentially saying: Tu quoque.
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    23. Re:Well if anyone knows... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Everyone else uses /, so of course MS has to try and be different.

      Macintosh uses (or used, before it was Unix) a colon as a path separator. So there.

      But the part you're missing, none of these systems (NONE of them) were designed to inter-operate with each other. It just simply was not part of the spec they were building from. Considering that, the path separator *is* entirely arbitrary. (Sure, it can cause problems *now* that systems inter-operate, but the design of DOS couldn't have anticipated that back when it was built.)

      In both cases, you have to mount a partition in order to access it. Hiding the idea of mounting is another stupid move from MS -- the assumption that you always mount something that's plugged in. The problem comes up with removable drives, which need to be unmounted before ejecting. There are various workarounds now, but it was worse with floppy drives. Basically Windows would try to write a disk as soon as possible, disabling all multitasking, so that you could see when it was done.

      I like how the concept of "user friendliness" doesn't exist in your world. Telling people they have to "mount" and "dismount" drives is idiotic, because nobody other than Slashdot nerds will understand why, or for that matter care. If it was a setting, they'd just set everything to automatically mount anyway. If it wasn't a setting, they'd know you have to do the magic "mount" command before their CD works, and they'd do it by habit every time anyway. Having the OS automatically do it by default is the only logical way.

      Apple's solution of physically locking the disk in the drive until it was "unmounted" is a better solution, of course, but Microsoft had to work with the hardware that was available to them.

      Yet a case where someome may want to do just one of them, but MS assumes you want to do both at once.

      When? Why? What would be the point of creating a partition with no filesystem on it?

      You're complaining that Microsoft doesn't support an edge-case that perhaps one in ten thousand people would ever want to do? Seriously?

      --
      Comment of the year
  2. Re:Hello by nuzak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does it make their claims wrong?

    --
    Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  3. As an old prof once told me.... by tacokill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:As an old prof once told me.... by nomadic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      Ummm...Ayn Rand wrote fiction, you know. You can't judge the court system by non-real happenings in it.

  4. not the whole story by polar+red · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?
  5. Re:Missing? by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obviously, the chart details Microsoft's original plan. When it didn't work out, they pasted "Google" over where "Microsoft" was. Politicians are pretty good at the "Claim the other party is doing what you did, or tried to do" trick, too.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  6. Re:The answer is simple - arrange a trade by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It cant do it. Because it is impossible to really document everything in WinXP. The code is the document. It is cobbled together and grew organically for some 20 years of spaghetti development. So they just cant do it, even if they wanted to.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  7. Bologna. by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:Hello by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't necessarily think that their claim is wrong, or anyone making the same claim. However, what I may disagree with, is how MS comes up with their numbers and results. MS is known to pay think tanks and such, as well as their own internal research to make sure the results skew in the direction they want it to, whether its noting that there is now competition in the OS market to law makers, and at the same time posting results for their shareholders that they have a stranglehold and a guaranteed revenue stream.

    The only results I will believe are from true third party's, and that goes for anyone, not just MS

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  9. Re:MS is just seeking parity by Eggplant62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:MS is just seeking parity by DaleGlass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You've damned us all because you wanted the government to force customers to choose FOSS

    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.
  11. Re:Any less true? by Repossessed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google is a monopo;y true (in that they have a majority of the online ads market). I fail to see what Google has done to damage competition though, aside from having name recognition/good products.

    --
    Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
  12. Re:Any less true? by pete.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is nothing illegal about being a monopoly. It is when the monopoly uses its market size to crush competition, like MS did with Netscape for instance, that it becomes illegal. By giving away a web browser for free they made it so Netscape couldn't compete in the open market and survive financially.

  13. The Other Fear by some+old+guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  14. Question. How is this different from... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  15. Re:Any less true? by Repossessed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (that is, 78% of all ads served to the Web pages of publishers who do not have proprietary ad-serving toolstoday, only MSN and Yahoo! have such tools
    The claim the MSN and Yahoo are the only 2 companies with their own advertising tech is laughable. To start with, *anybody* can create a system of barter over email and Paypal. And I visit websites whose owners actively make a living that way. As far as private Doubleclick style software goes, the Keencorp pages seem to be littered with ads served off of something called 'gavsad', which seems a good example of 'publishers with proprietary ad-serving tools' to me.

    The complaints also seem to ignore the rich plethora of small, hardly heard of ad networks/tools that various websites use. (Indieclick and Project Wonderful both come to mind). These ad companies seem to manage to exist without any real threat from monopolies.

    Internet advertising seems to be a bad place to hope to squeeze the life out of all the competition simply by being bigger. It's not like traditional businesses. Overhead costs are largely linear, there are no suppliers to fight with simply because the small guy is beneath their notice. And refusing to use one product will never prevent you from using a different one.

    Google also fails to engage in ani anti competitive tactics. Nobody is ever asked to sign contracts that prevent them from using a Google competitor as well (Something Microsoft continues in to this day). Nobody is refused search results or advertisement because they're competitors. (Given the dominance of Windows Live junk ads out there, Microsoft knows this damned well). And frankly, simply because Google *might* commit a crime at some point in the future, is no reason for them to be punished now.
    --
    Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
  16. Microsoft didn't go there... by Undead+Ed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  17. Re:Not wrong by kiswa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, Google have the potential to be pretty terrifying - it's not difficult to imagine them having their own platform (via Android and maybe their own linux-based OS), bandwidth (via 700MHz) and complete online experience (search/email/office apps) in 10 years time. And on top of all that, they gather data on just about every action you take within their system. That scares me. I don't want to live in a world where one company controls the entire stack from the applications to the OS to the hardware to the very bandwidth I need.

  18. Re:Do u read what you write? by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >In what way, is MS being bashed?

    In that you are willing to ignore anything that comes out of MS, regardless of what it is about or how logical it is or what its implications are to you/us. Why do you need another company/third party to validate an argument? You believe its right or, you believe its wrong or you don't know yet. You can depend on blindly trusting or not trusting a third-party to supply your opinion, but why wouldn't you just independently think about what is being presented and not involve that level of trust (either way) at all?

    >So, imagine if Google ... That would be illegal. But they do not do that.

    You set up an imaginary situation, (Google has a monopoly. Google is abusing its monopoly) and then look at reality to see what Google's actions are.
    Of course they are not abusing their monopoly because they don't have an monopoly to abuse.

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.