Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

justice4all writes to share that some of the recent complaints to the European Commission about Google have apparently been coming from Microsoft. "A lawyer for Microsoft confirmed that the software giant told the US Department of Justice and the European Commission how Google’s business practices may be harming publishers, advertisers and competition in search and online advertising. [...] 'Google’s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google. These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up. Microsoft’s well-received Bing search engine is addressing this challenge by offering innovations in areas that are less dependent on volume. But Bing needs to gain volume too, in order to increase the relevance of search results for less common search terms.'"

Comments

Makes sense really

[sopssa]

From the article:

in meeting with government agencies to discuss its recently approved search deal with Yahoo, Microsoft officials explained how Google has tilted the mechanics of the search advertising business in its favor. “As you might expect, the competition officials asked us a lot of questions about competition with Google—since that is the focus of the partnership,”

The title and summary seems to give the assumption that MS went and complained to DoJ and EC, but it really seems to be different case. They were discussing about the deal with Yahoo and why it doesn't hurt the market or Google. It really makes sense too - Google gets many magnitudes more search query data than their rivals. Long-tail keyword phrases are invaluable data and give a huge advantage for Google to taylor their search results.

Re:Makes sense really

[eldavojohn]

They were discussing about the deal with Yahoo and why it doesn't hurt the market or Google. It really makes sense too - Google gets many magnitudes more search query data than their rivals. Long-tail keyword phrases are invaluable data and give a huge advantage for Google to taylor their search results.

Huh, that's odd. From the original blog post:

Over the past few months Microsoft, too, has met with the DOJ and the European Commission. The subject of our meetings has been the competition law review, now completed, of the search partnership between Yahoo! and Microsoft. As you might expect, the competition officials asked us a lot of questions about competition with Google--since that is the focus of the partnership. We told them what we know about how Google is doing business.

What does Google's method of doing business have to do with their Yahoo! merger? In addition to that:

In this instance, there has been no shortage of affected voices. A quick Internet search will surface the growing concerns that have been raised by upstart innovators such as Ciao (owned by Microsoft) ...

Sounds to me like Microsoft has been complaining to the DoJ and EC.

Furthermore the post doesn't really focus on one thing and also brings up the Google Books deal for some odd reason. I mean, if they're complaining about it, that's fine. Just say what you think is wrong and be done with it. From that point on the DoJ or EC will take action if they need to. But I bet that won't be what will happen. I bet they'll bring this up over and over again and fun startups that died "because of Google" (like Ciao) to take legal action against the behemoth. Seems to be Microsoft's modus operandi.

It really makes sense too - Google gets many magnitudes more search query data than their rivals.

It makes sense alright. It makes sense that Microsoft is upset that Google is doing so well and so they've got to try to be the biggest thorn in Google's side as possible. The fact that Google is smart enough to use its own resources to be a better search engine is violating anti-trust laws? Please! Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it's anti-trust that I cannot enter the automobile market? Should we demand that information technology companies hand over their infrastructure to their competitors in the name of the Sherman Act? Absurd.

Re:Makes sense really

[sopssa]

The common rant on slashdot is how Microsoft is using their Windows marketshare to keep competitors off and to gain marketshare in unrelated areas like IE (which they were punished for by EU). Google is doing exactly the same here, but in addition to that they're also pushing competitors of the market by the sheer amount of data they can datamine. Search engines aren't just about algorithms anymore, they're about the datamined data too. This will eventually lead to 100% monopoly. You say if that's a good or bad thing.

Re:Makes sense really

[sopssa]

Over the past few months Microsoft, too, has met with the DOJ and the European Commission. The subject of our meetings has been the competition law review, now completed, of the search partnership between Yahoo! and Microsoft. As you might expect, the competition officials asked us a lot of questions about competition with Google--since that is the focus of the partnership. We told them what we know about how Google is doing business.

What does Google's method of doing business have to do with their Yahoo! merger?

That's something you have to ask from DoJ. They probably wanted to make sure it doesn't create unfair competition against Google. Microsoft replied by saying Google has a huge advantage already as they have so large marketshare to datamine from. Note that they didn't complain as this story seems to suggest - they merely replied to DoJ's concerns about it.

Re:Makes sense really

[A nonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, did you really mean to imply that Google is changing standards in trashy ways to lock in their clients? Is google filtering search results to lock out their competitors?

I had no idea Google had started copying Microsoft. I think it much more likely that Microsoft only knows one way to get business, and that's all they can see. When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.

Re:Makes sense really

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The common rant on slashdot is how Microsoft is using their Windows marketshare to keep competitors off and to gain marketshare in unrelated areas like IE (which they were punished for by EU).

That's not a "rant" it's a summary of recent legal action.

Google is doing exactly the same here...

Really, the exact same? What other market is Google using it's search advertising market to gain an advantage in and by what mechanism?

...but in addition to that they're also pushing competitors of the market by the sheer amount of data they can datamine.

That's an advantage in the search advertising market gained by marketshare in the search advertising market. That is to say, it's the same as Microsoft selling a lot of copies of Windows to people who ned to run software that only works on Windows because MS sells a lot of copies of Windows. It speaks to The entrenchment of a monopoly (lock-in) and is interesting because most people feel Google has very little lock-in, but it does not speak to anything Google could be doing which is illegal.

This will eventually lead to 100% monopoly. You say if that's a good or bad thing.

Good or bad is a matter of judgement, but even if Google's market share in search advertising gains them more searches to look at and feed to their algorithm... that's not illegal. It is not illegal to use market advantages in a dominated market to gain yet more share in the same market, only in separate, pre-existing markets. The reason for this is that the laws go out of their way to only punish companies that undermine markets and don't naturally gain by fair competition. Since it is hard to establish the difference in the same market, there are a lot fewer laws regulating it.

Re:Makes sense really

[clang_jangle]

Oh, please...
Google doesn't have anything like a monopoly, and more importantly they haven't become number one in search by using coercive, anti-trust-law-violating tactics -- which is exactly what MS did in the desktop market. The parallels you're reaching for simply do not exist. This is about MS whining that they're not competent enough to compete in search.

Re:Makes sense really

[Chyeld]

Microsoft illegally used a monopoly to kill competition and prevent others from entering markets they had decided to be in. Microsoft has been the paragon of robber baron style dirty dealing ever since they got the deal to sell DOS to IBM.

Google has done nothing of the sort. They neither attempt to kill their competition nor do they actively work to keep others from entering any of the markets they operate in. Google has been actively and consciously working to avoid their deals coming off as 'dirty dealing' since they first started operations.

There are miles and miles of difference between Google's behavior and Microsoft's. There is a difference between being the company that could afford to and did invest in an infrastructure and being the company that simply screwed everyone till they were the only one left with any money.

Re:Makes sense really

[AK Marc]

Learn what a natural monopoly is, and then comment.

In some areas, the larger the business the more efficient it will become, and as one gains share, the value in the others products decrease and the barriers to entry increase. That's how it was with the telephone. Back in the day, there were competing phone companies. Not like today, but with non-interoperable networks, so that if you wanted Verizon customers to call you, you had to buy a phone from Verizon, and for AT&T customers, you needed and AT&T phone. So businesses had more than one phone, each hard-wired to a separate service. That was expensive, and if one was far enough ahead of the other, they'd drop the Verizon phone and only take AT&T, and when enough people did that, Verizon would be worthless because you could buy a phone from them, but couldn't call anyone. And, once AT&T had 100% of the market, a startup would have to spend so much money to get in the market that it would be impossible to ever make a profit.

A "natural monopoly" is a monopoly where a successful company will, with no uncompetitive practices, become a monopoly. It appears that search engines make natural monopolies as well, as the more searches that are done, the more valuable the search engine becomes, and a search engine starting out, with no searches, can't be as valuable as the established one, no matter how much they spend or what they do.

However, OSs aren't that way. You can have different (or even the same) word processors on different platforms. You have embedded OSs and such. There is always a market for other ways, rather than just one desktop OS. And you can run SQL on any variety of OSs such that changing OSs isn't a hardship on the customer, so the barriers of entry are low. Microsoft, realizing they don't have a natural monopoly, have exploited their monopoly to push other products to expand their market share in other areas, as well as keep their existing monopoly. That's different that "accidentally" becoming the first monopoly in an area where natural monopolies occur when no one ever predicted that it would be an area of natural monopolies.

Re:Makes sense really

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeating a lie doesn't make it the truth. BTW how's that astroturf career working out for ya?

Re:Makes sense really

[bloodhawk]

What does Google's method of doing business have to do with their Yahoo! merger? In any merger/deal of the size between 2 large companies such as Microsoft and Yahoo the companies are asked to show why their deal isn't anti competitive and doesn't adversely affect the competitive landscape, as such showing that google has a dominant market position that will be unaffected by the deal (except to provide more market competition) they are directly answering the question as to whether or not the deal should go forward.

Re:Makes sense really

[bheerssen]

Shorter Microsoft: Waaaahhhh!!!!

Re:Makes sense really

[thetoadwarrior]

So by being good Google gets more results and therefore can make a better product quicker and easier?

Hell, by that logic Yahoo should be even better. They were in that position and have been around much longer. They should have perfected search to the point that no one can beat them. They haven't because they didn't do search good enough and the same applies to Microsoft. Microsoft's claim is just a case of sour apples that there is one area they can't manage to use their monopoly to dominate.

Re:Makes sense really

[HiThere]

Monopolies are always bad, though sometimes unavoidable (at reasonable cost). That said, I'd rather trust Google in the catbird seat than MS. MS has been shown to be an extremely abusive monopolist. (Not the worst, by any means, but still extremely abusive.) Google hasn't shown that. It may no longer live up to the slogan "Do no evil", but doing evil isn't it's reason for existing. With MS I'm not always sure that's true.

So if you're arguing that search engine is a "natural monopoly" (You might be right.), then I'd definitely prefer Google over MS. I'd also prefer a lot of restrictions on how they could use their monopoly, emphasizing that they couldn't favor some users over others. (I have no evidence that they are doing so at the time, but monopolies inherently lead to corrupt behavior.)

Re:Makes sense really

[thetoadwarrior]

You're not tied into Google in any way and can easily block them for good by pointing their domain to 127.0.0.1 in your hosts file. Can you tell me how to remove IE from my XP or Vista? Hell you can't even really truly remove it from Windows 7 and that's only in the EU. Or maybe why some MS apps, like MSN Messenger choose to ignore my browser choice and open something in IE. I've never had such a thing happen to me with Google.

The way they've implemented their analytics software makes it dead easy to block. Google even lets me use Bing as my search engine in Chrome. It's 3rd on the list, just after Yahoo and not hidden away further down like Google is on IE if you want to pick a new search provider. This only covers the tip of the iceberg and doesn't go into the efforts MS has made, up until recently, to lock in documents to Windows or trying to break Java to make their version different or all the other shit they've done.

Google is by no means perfect but they have a long way to go before catching up to Microsoft in the shitty tactics department.

Re:Makes sense really

[thetoadwarrior]

Everyone knows it's the lack of search data that caused Bing to initially suggest (and probably still does) Windows when typing in something related to Ubuntu or Linux. I mean seriously, how are they supposed to know what you want from terms like Linux or Ubuntu. What do those even mean?

Re:Makes sense really

[Amouth]

actualy good did .

when google maps came out they allowed 3rd party devs to use the API to pull images for their apps as long as the all was designed to keep the per user request rate and transfer rate under a certain amount. this allowed for a lot of really useful info to be added to existing GPS apps..

when they released android they narrowed the focus of that agreement so that for smart phones it only applies to it - meaning that my win mobile GPS app that could use it and had been using it for years and was released under that it could - now can't - and Google actively blocks it.

while yes you can say but it was free - well Google hasn't given me a way to pay for it EXCEPT to get an android device and another program that may or may not do what i need it to.

they may not be as openly blatant was MS with their ways.. but they are can be just as slimy with a bait and switch.

Re:Makes sense really

[NeutronCowboy]

Nonsense. The search engine market is the closest thing people are ever going to get to a perfect market: no barrier to switch, and the quality of the service is directly visible in the search results themselves. From a business perspective, the barrier to entry is high, but Google has absolutely no network effect it can exploit to keep people on its search engine. Especially now with the configurable search box in modern browsers.

Technically, you could build a better search engine in your bedroom, demonstrate it to a few VCs and start gaining market share as you build your datacenter. And there's nothing Google can do to kill you off outside of buying you out. It can't lower its prices, it can't offer cheaper tie-ins, it can do absolutely nothing. As a result, even if the entire world would run all of its search queries through Google, it would be a monopoly that is broken by the next company to do search better.

Finally, there are two things that could kill Google instantly, even if it has the entire search engine market on lock-down: a browser that doesn't accept a connection to Google (or breaks the Google site) and an ISP that refuses to transmit packets to and from Google. Now who plays in those markets, and is as close as possible to a monopoly? Yep, you guessed it - Microsoft and ATT/Comcast. See where the difference is? Google might have a monopoly, but even if that would be true (and it certainly isn't), it would be a monopoly based on users wanting to use Google. Compare that to Microsoft and ATT/Comcast, where users frequently don't have a choice at all.

Re:Makes sense really

[poetmatt]

how does google monopolize the search market by datamining? Is everyone else suddenly losing marketshare on datamining? Google doesn't prevent anyone else from datamining.

last I checked, such a monopoly has never happened, ever.

Re:Makes sense really

[The MAZZTer]

You can't remove the IE engine for compatibility reasons, since some third-party apps embed it.

You can remove the iexplore.exe browser though, so it can't be used as a main web browsers with out iexplore.exe or one of the aforementioned third-party apps, but you can't remove it completely because third party apps treat it like a core Windows component that will always be available.

Thankfully my favorite example, Steam, has switched to Webkit with the latest beta.

Re:Makes sense really

[cababunga]

Google gets many magnitudes more search query data...

One is many for you? http://marketshare.hitslink.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?qprid=4 http://www.statowl.com/search_engine_market_share.php

Re:Makes sense really

[Liquidrage]

I just did it. Searched for "linux" on Bing. No, the results are fine. www.linux.org is the first result and even has a list of subcats for it.

There's even a learn about linux section on the bottom with the cute liddle fuzzy wuzzy penguin.

I can't find anything you're talking about on either google or bing. The only rant I found from back when Bing first came out is the auto-completion at bing for "linux" brings up "linux vs windows". Which might seem odd unless you actually view the results to it which certainly aren't overly flattering to windows so it hardly seems like something shady.

It's /. the home of rational people acting like complete idiots over their MS-anti-idol.

Re:Makes sense really

[thetoadwarrior]

I did mention the suggestions though and there were numerous blogs that documented their biased suggestions. In fact I think it was mentioned here. TBH, I'm sure it's been fixed after all the talk of it but even at a launch of a brand new search engine it shouldn't be suggesting Windows related items for Linux.

Re:Makes sense really

[Amouth]

well considering that Google Maps for win Mobile does exactly the same thing - and so do the android apps we can make the assumption it wasn't a Patent thing.

and considering that they can identify the app (hence they block others but not google maps) it can't be block all because of a few, and of course google isn't smart enough to rate limit connections

and considering that they don't give any terms or options to licence it except to use the API model for Android - it can't be ..

wait? it is.. google decided to open up their API so devs would use it - they made it free so lots of small devs would use it - then they forced them to switch to "their" platform if they wanted to keep using it..

of course as a consumer using a GPS app on win Mobile i just wake up one day and my phone can't download maps and the app dev can only say "sorry" thank google for forcing the switch to android.

i'm not saying google is as evil as MS but they are not the clean company everyone likes to make them out to be.

it is either because it was only popular for a small group, someone threatened them with a patent, or it was being abused.

how about another hypothesis - because the options you provided are very narrow - they wanted to make sure that platforms that that don't benefit them can not use their resources EVEN if it means screwing over previous agreements. AKA google branded or Android works fine..

Re:Makes sense really

[thetoadwarrior]

But that compatibility exists because of Microsoft tying the browser to Windows. Sure they will break shit loads of things removing it and realistically it can't be done any time soon if at all. That's why they shouldn't have been allowed to do it and why people should be concerned when they start adding in anti-virus software amongst other things people make a living off of.

Before anyone mentions it, I am aware it is nice to have zipping software, anti-virus, a browser, etc out of the box. That's fine but if I opt for an alternative I should have the right to remove the software that I will never use.

Re:Makes sense really

[Dutch Gun]

Changes made to bold text:

Back in the day, there were competing operating systems. Not like today's portable web apps, but with non-interoperable programs, so that if you wanted do anything on Windows, you had to have programs written for Windows, and for Mac or Linux, you needed program written for Mac or Linux. So businesses had more than one operating system, each requiring different programs. That was expensive, and if one was far enough ahead of the other, they'd drop the Mac or Linux program and only take Windows, and when enough people did that, Mac or Linux would be worthless because you couldn't find the programs you needed on that platform. And, once Windows had 100% of the market, a startup would have to struggle to create a viable developer ecosystem in the market that it would be impossible to make it a practical alternative platform.

I've always thought of OSes as something that tended towards a natural monopoly. I'm not trying to defend MS here, but I think it makes sense that an OS has a natural momentum that's hard to break, because a huge infrastructure is built on top of each operating system. So, I'd say the current situation is the result of both Microsoft's shady practices as well as a natural tendency towards consolidation.

Re:Makes sense really

[b4dc0d3r]

MS fixed the problem, but not before being called out on it. If it were intentional, that would be expected but probably some serious antitrust concerns would be valid given the default search preferences on IE/windows, which dominates the market, and is branching out into other devices. It's getting better, proving that it can improve even if it doesn't have the huge number of searches to data-mine. Further, is anything stopping MS from looking at Google's search trend pages? Last, there was an article not too long ago about how Google tries to contextualize searches. Publically available, and easily implemented in a way which wouldn't infringe on their patents.

The alternative is even worse - that the biased results were unintentional. Sure it's been fixed, but if your initial launch has results skewed in favor of the owning company and it wasn't on purpose, that's a gigantic pile of fail rolled up in a little humiliation pastry and covered in skank sauce.

gp's point was that MS is complaining about having fewer searches to data-mine, but can't even get the existing search results "fair and balanced". In other words, they need to improve before whining. GGP of course was indicating that Google's method of competition is to produce fair results, while Microsoft's method would be to bias everything towards Windows. Of course we got here by GGGP suggesting that Google's high marketshare will always continue to guarantee high market share because they have more search data for research.

The whole point of all of this is that if Microsoft has good technology and good results, people will be exposed to it through vendor lock-in, one way or another, and eventually discover for themselves that it either sucks or doesn't suck. Microsoft's best strategy is to focus on getting good results with the data they do have, not whine about a better algorithm getting more hits. Of course it will have more market share, Google's ranking algorithm is extremely mature, apparently unbiased, and constantly improving.

Of course, the irony of the king of lock-in complaining about being locked out when they have Bing as default on Windows as well as increasing numbers of phones is delicious like a very expensive dessert. That the initial roll-out of Bing was so fundamentally flawed the GP post still remembers how skewed the results were and feels the need to comment on it should be a clear sign that Bing has an uphill battle, even if they got a live streaming copy of every Google search, legally and with Google's blessing.

Or in other words: Red herring.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/169750/bing_search_reveals_promicrosoft_results.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1496589/can-trust-bing

Verizon require Blackberry default search be Bing, and not changeable. You can visit google.com of course, but that requires extra typing.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/verizon-forcing-microsoft-bing-search-blackberry-users-100

Illuminating comments thread
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1252533&cid=28175167

Re:Makes sense really

[gbjbaanb]

I think it much more likely that Microsoft only knows one way to get business, and that's all they can see. When the only tool you have is a hammer, every person, small company, or standards body in your way is a nail.

there, fixed that.

Re:Makes sense really

[severoon]

Wow, having the number of users Bing has must really be a debilitating competitive disadvantage. And it's totally not fair, because Google never had to deal with that situation...they went straight from zero users to their current numbers...right?

So I can see Microsoft's point. When a company like Google starts to depend on keeping users by locking them in instead of by innovating and providing a better product, that's objectionable. Oops.

Re:Makes sense really

[FirstTimeCaller]

Everyone knows it's the lack of search data that caused Bing to initially suggest (and probably still does) Windows when typing in something related to Ubuntu or Linux. I mean seriously, how are they supposed to know what you want from terms like Linux or Ubuntu. What do those even mean?

Just for the record, Bing's first page of search results for Ubuntu and Linux are quite reasonable. Can't speak to what they returned in the past...

Re:Makes sense really

[b4dc0d3r]

If the IE engine is required, it can be installed via redistributables, just like the VB runtime used to be, or MSVC, or DirectX, .NET, Games for Windows Live, MDAC, Scripting Host, XML parser, or even Windows Installer.

Think about that - third party freeware can update the way your operating system installs applications, using Microsoft's own redistributable Windows Installer installer.

Now, most of these are obsolete since they are built in to XP SP3 and above, and updatable through Windows Update.

At this point, all it would take is a simple hook into LoadLibrary functions (or exe loader to look at the import table) to detect when an application requires IE, and give a warning - Warning, this software requires IE to run. Install it? If yes, then open the IE component installer first and then continue with the app installer. Heck, this can be built in to the Windows Installer.

So the only excuse for shipping Windows with IE is because so many operating system functions were moved into the "shell" library, where a lot of IE-specific code is. So there's normal Win32API stuff in there, there's the OS Shell code, and there's IE-specific functions. OK, that sounds like an insurmountable technical challenge.

Oh boy, now wait, what's this SXS thing? Side-by-side installation of libraries, allowing applications to determine which versions of .dll they need. If you need the bloated IE version, you can require it. If you can survive on the lightweight version, fine. Now Microsoft's only excuse is that they have 15 years of applications which can't take advantage of SXS because no one's going to re-compile them to take advantage of SXS. The OS has that figured out right now, selecting a default if none is specified, so I don't see a problem.

Oops there is one problem. Microsoft just doens't want to hint that there might be a way to use some other rendering engine. That's the only thing stopping IE from becoming a redistributable. Everything else is already solved, already has a working example from Microsoft. I bet the folks working on MinWin already have this sorted out, where the primary obstacle was separating components to reduce inter-dependencies and allow a solid fundamental kernel to support a separated GUI and shell. MinWin proves it can be done, it just needs a commitment from a convicted monopolist to get their architecture corrected, so that people can be free of their crappy browser which is part of their continued world domination plan. Not bloody likely.

Re:Makes sense really

[RightSaidFred99]

Asinine. You're changing the rules to suit your needs, and using those rules to indict Microsoft and let Google off the hook. So apparently in your universe the only evil is trying to lock out your competitors?

Rape Defendent: But your honor, did I brutally murder a 12 year old child senselessly like the case in the news recently?

Judge: I find your argument compelling. Case dismissed.

Re:Makes sense really

[ffreeloader]

Outstanding, well-thought-out post. Wish I had mod points. I would mod this up.

Re:Makes sense really

[AK Marc]

Changes made to bold text:

I disagree. For one, your bold makes some areas factually false, such as Linux costing money. And in other areas, it is functionally false, because most medium and larger companies have more than one OS. As such, your argument seems false on every measure I can conceive.

I've always thought of OSes as something that tended towards a natural monopoly.

Only because those that make OSs make programs that run on them. The OS is irrelevant if everyone developed for every OS. So, who picks what they don't develop for? Well, someone that makes an OS, along with, say, the most popular "productivity suite" on the planet. They just choose to not develop it for any other OSs, and they are abusing their monopoly to create lock-in. When MS Office is free to decide whether to develop for Linux, and the situation still exists, I might agree with you. However, if the head of Office at MS were to announce that he's developing for Linux, then the new head of Office at MS will announce, one week later, that his predecessor meant that he would be looking at developing for Linux, but that they decided against it because Linux isn't a stable OS and they can't develop for it.

The problem is that all the OS wars were because OSs were commodity, and the real war was what popular app built for that platform only would succeed.

Not to mention that, if the only OS on the planet were MS OS 7 or whatever, then what is the barrier to entry? Some John, Dick, or Linus could go to the garage, sit down, and create a slim OS that ran on the computers of the day. Open it up, get some free work from others, and boom, a viable competitor. Not that it would succeed, not that it would get the same development time from the major software makers, but that it would exist, and would be easy to get its foot in the door.

So, I'd say the current situation is the result of both Microsoft's shady practices as well as a natural tendency towards consolidation.

Both of which have all industries tending towards one single monopoly, but are unrelated to a natural monopoly. That all industries tend toward a monopoly is a separate issue. Consolidation, the ease of buying an innovation as opposed to inventing it (see Cisco), and reduction in competition are reasons why monopolies exist. They aren't natural monopolies, but they will tend towards monopolies because of the nature of the US economy (maybe the world economy, but there are specific regulatory issues that help this along, and I'm only familiar with them in the US). A natural monopoly is a separate, very specific, set of circumstances that apply. It isn't a description of industries that tend toward monopoly, but those that tend toward monopoly for specific reasons. Two cable companies operating in the same area will have to duplicate the entire network with fewer subscribers each. So each new company with the same service will mean reduced profits for all. At some point, it will become unprofitable to operate because there will be so much overhead in just being able to provide the service. But that's not true with software. One guy in his home can make a Flash game. He sells it to one person for $5. It doesn't matter how many other Flash developers exist. He can sell to any single person in the world for the same $5. His costs to make the game aren't dependent on how many others out there are doing it, and his costs are variable depending on internal considerations (how much time he spends on it and such) and don't depend on anyone else's actions.

Re:Makes sense really

[rtb61]

Take it easy there. Google is not all that great at searches, it is just as M$ points out they aren't all that good at them and the need the governments upon a global basis to force more people to use MSN Search (I am sticking with that rather than the flavour of the month one), to make it better, promise.

The only thing that google really stands out in with regard to searches is street view ie. you search for a business that supplies that product you want, than scope out it's premises and check access and parking if you want to pick up product or meet with the suppliers of that product or service (also really usefully for emailing directions to your home). Apparently M$ has been politically playing in that arena as well due to their lack of a similar product.

Look all M$ has to do is stop changing the name and go back to the original, start providing uncensored (for marketing) results, do their own street view, completely separate the search company from the rest of M$ and Ballmer's control (don't even let him in the door) ie. drop all the bull and focus on providing quality search and expect to take years to slowly but surely grind away at google's lead.

Re:Makes sense really

[yukk]

No, Google has a temporary hold on the market because they're superior to all competition, much like yahoo, or altavista once were. If Google fails to maintain that superiority then they will lose their market share. There is nothing in Google that forces people to use Google. Searching for a store doesn't force you to use Google maps/Google Earth to find it. Installing Google earth doesn't change your browser to Chrome. You're tilting at straw men to mix a couple of metaphors. Do try to use correct logic in your arguments.

Re:Makes sense really

[williamhb]

Really, the exact same? What other market is Google using it's search advertising market to gain an advantage in and by what mechanism?

In fact, Google most certainly have been doing bundling, similar to what Microsoft was initially called out for. Remember that Google has a monopoly in search, not just in search advertising. (And browsers and media players were considered a 'market' even though IE and Windows Media Player were not sold, so "making no money from it" is no defense.) The Google search page -- both the home page and every results page -- contains direct links to their own other products (Maps, News, Books, GMail all appear in a neat row). Yahoo! Mail cannot even be installed there. That's far worse than Microsoft's situation (where you could set another browser as the Windows default if you installed one.) Google most certainly are leveraging their monopoly in search to draw users to their other services.

Ironically, they are starting to draw attention to it. When everybody thought "it's just a web page" people might not have noticed; but as Google talks up the browser as being the desktop, people start to notice more and more that Google's monopoly "desktop" only links their own services.

Re:Makes sense really

[pugugly]

Neat theory.

Has nothing to do with the argument he made of course, anymore than my snarkily calling you "Bill" in my reply -

There are practices that every company is allowed to do normally to crush competition, buying out rivals, trying to lockout competitors, that are not allowed once they are actually in a position that sheer market volume in fact allows their success at doing so to be a foregone conclusion. The 800 pound gorilla is in fact *not* allowed to sit wherever he wants.

None of these practices are what Google is being accused of here. No attempt to lock out other competitors, no accusation of buying up rivals. They are being explicitly accused of . . . having better results.

Well, yeah. They got into this game with an advanced algorithm when everyone else was crap, were allowed to consolidate their hold on the market for ages with no real competition, and are benefiting thereby - unless someone else gets into the game with something snazzier that overcomes that lead, the bottom drops out of the search/advertising market, or the CEO's are caught in a sex scandal involving lower primates *and* Google simultaneously suppresses that info from their search results, they're going to hold that position.

That's not a valid monopoly complaint. *Other* than skewing search results deliberately (And, I sincerely hope, destroying their cred thereby), they're actually not well positioned to abuse monopoly power. They can't really prevent someone else from competing in the market. They can't really 'lock you in' to Google - heck, I'm more locked into *Gmail* than I am Google itself, and even that doesn't force me to use Google.

To that extent, as much power as they have (And I find it imposing myself), their market position is intrinsically weaker than Microsoft - they don't own the platform itself, I can leave anytime I want.

Having the advantage of being the biggest is not actually a legal problem. Using that advantage to, say, destroy java and netscape actually is.

Pug

Re:Makes sense really

[williamhb]

Google doesn't have anything like a monopoly,

Well, let's see. The UK definition of a monopoly is where one company controls at least 25% of a market. Does Google have more than 25% of the search market... um yes, they have 86% of the UK search market and do indeed have a monopoly!

Meanwhile, MS was never accused of becoming number one in the desktop market by "by using coercive, anti-trust-law-violating tactics" -- they were accused of abusing their monopoly once they had become number one in order to gain advantage in other markets.

(Sorry to rain a few facts on your ranty parade.)

Re:Makes sense really

[QuietObserver]

I second this assertion. The GP should definitely be modded up insightful or informative.

Re:Makes sense really

[mysidia]

In Microsoft's case, the only tool they have is a nuclear weapon.

Re:Makes sense really

[yukk]

Changes made to bold text: I disagree. For one, your bold makes some areas factually false, such as Linux costing money.

Well, of course Linux costs money. Assuming we're talking businesses here and not just some guy in his parents' basement, there is the cost of Admins - different admins for every O/S - even Linux and this being a business they may have systems which depend on the O/s working flawlessly and actually pay a company for their version of Linux so they can get paid support.

And in other areas, it is functionally false, because most medium and larger companies have more than one OS. As such, your argument seems false on every measure I can conceive.

Well, one false statement of yours hardly invalidates his argument.

I've always thought of OSes as something that tended towards a natural monopoly.

Only because those that make OSs make programs that run on them. The OS is irrelevant if everyone developed for every OS. So, who picks what they don't develop for? Well, someone that makes an OS, along with, say, the most popular "productivity suite" on the planet.

Except that just as in your original example of phone companies AND his O/S example, once one version has a great enough market share, it's not commercially worth it for any developer to write code for the smaller systems. Sure you can argue a single data point of Flash programmers, but that would hardly be possible if Adobe wasn't one of the companies which released their software on multiple platforms to enable this. Java too ? Not really, that was created by one of the "little" guys and then the big guys adopted it and tried to twist (extend) it as usual to incompatibility, but that's a different rant.

Re:Makes sense really

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

In fact, Google most certainly have been doing bundling, similar to what Microsoft was initially called out for.

Bundling what with what, specifically?

Remember that Google has a monopoly in search, not just in search advertising.

Google has 67% of the search market in the US, which does not actually qualify as a monopoly under US law and basic antitrust guidelines. Further, the distinction of search and search advertising is interesting because it requires that at the time Google gained enough market share to qualify as a monopoly that there was a separate market for search, which is to say companies were profiting by offering up search without accompanying advertising as a revenue model. (This may have been the case, I don't know, but it is a requirement.)

And browsers and media players were considered a 'market' even though IE and Windows Media Player were not sold, so "making no money from it" is no defense.

You seem to have a slight misunderstanding. It doesn't matter if MS was selling either product, just if anyone was making money from providing those items, either for sale, or rent, or with an advertising revenue model, or any other revenue model for that matter.

The Google search page -- both the home page and every results page -- contains direct links to their own other products...

Yes they do, but that is probably not enough to qualify as bundling, especially since they don't have a legal monopoly on search, just on search advertising. That means they have to bundle it with the product they offer to advertisers, not end users, i.e. when you buy an adword we also provide the ad within our other products for free. Were Google to gain a bit more market share, even then I doubt that would be considered bundling since, unlike with MS products, Google is merely advertising their products. It takes a user no more work to use Google's search to find a competing Web service of follow a link in their browser. This could be an issue for ChromeOS though.

That's far worse than Microsoft's situation (where you could set another browser as the Windows default if you installed one.)

Far worse for Google's competitors compared to MS's competitors? I doubt they'd agree with you.

Google most certainly are leveraging their monopoly in search to draw users to their other services.

If Google actually had a legal monopoly on search and skewed the results to their own services, I'd agree with you. As it is, I doubt the courts would.

...but as Google talks up the browser as being the desktop, people start to notice more and more that Google's monopoly "desktop" only links their own services.

Except you're the only one asserting Google has a monopoly "desktop". Everyone else is talking about the market where Google is over 70% in the US, that being search related online advertising.

Re:Makes sense really

[drsmithy]

However, OSs aren't that way.

By this logic:

A "natural monopoly" is a monopoly where a successful company will, with no uncompetitive practices, become a monopoly. It appears that search engines make natural monopolies as well, as the more searches that are done, the more valuable the search engine becomes, and a search engine starting out, with no searches, can't be as valuable as the established one, no matter how much they spend or what they do.

They do. Basically, just substitute "application" for "search".

Microsoft, realizing they don't have a natural monopoly, have exploited their monopoly to push other products to expand their market share in other areas, as well as keep their existing monopoly.

This is a non-sequitur. Microsoft did not have a monopoly on "Operating Systems", they had a monopoly on "Operating systems for x86 PCs".

Re:Makes sense really

[mysidia]

I do not think Microsoft views Linux as a legitimate competitor.

Besides, why risk losing credibility in manipulating search results, when there's a far simpler strategy? Give yourself free ads for common search terms

Example: content management, sql, mail server, antivirus, email account, instant messenger

Re:Makes sense really

[williamhb]

Google has 67% of the search market in the US, which does not actually qualify as a monopoly under US law and basic antitrust guidelines.

But does in other jurisdictions. The bar for being a monopoly in the UK is 25%, where Google have 86% of the market. Ooh, what's that big thing outside the US's borders... I think it's called a "world". You migh

Yes they do, but that is probably not enough to qualify as bundling, especially since they don't have a legal monopoly on search, just on search advertising. That means they have to bundle it with the product they offer to advertisers, not end users

See above.

If Google actually had a legal monopoly on search and skewed the results to their own services, I'd agree with you. As it is, I doubt the courts would.

See above.

Except you're the only one asserting Google has a monopoly "desktop". Everyone else is talking about the market where Google is over 70% in the US, that being search related online advertising.

No, that's just you. If you even read the title, let alone RTFA, you will see it says "Microsoft behind Google complaints to EC". Now what exactly would the European Commission care about US market shares for?

Re:Makes sense really

[AK Marc]

Well, one false statement of yours hardly invalidates his argument.

So, you are asserting that most medium to large companies have one and only one OS running on all computers? That's what it would take for my statement to be false.

Re:Makes sense really

[A nonymous Coward]

Lies. If you had read the article, the complaint was that other search-type providers were finding their results lower in the ranking than they should be.

Well, that and rape.

Screwing with competitors' ranking, as alleged by a competitor with a sterling reputation for abusing their monopoly, is hardly in the same league as Microsoft's known shenanigans over the years. But your UID is pretty low, maybe you simply aren't aware of Microsoft's 30+ year history of abusing their position. It goes back to Bill Gates stealing a BASIC interpreter from a dumpster to work on his own BASIC interpreter, then whining that others were stealing his work. Not much has changed since then.

Microsoft earned their reputation the old fashioned way, thru consistent hard work. If they were a person, they'd have been in prison long ago under the 3 zillion strikes law. Their complaint has validity only with naive fools.

Re:Makes sense really

[shiftless]

If they're not trying to sell anything to you... HOW is it a "bait and switch"? Sounds like you're just pissed because your free ride got shut down. Do you think it cost nothing to snap those pictures in the first place? Satellites and associated hardware/software/personnel are expensive. Google didn't do all that, somebody else did then sold it to Google. I'm sure that company would be more than willing to listen to your request if you're standing there with an open checkbook. Or if it's the US Government, just do a damn FOIA request or whatever and get it yourself!

Re:Makes sense really

[MidnightBrewer]

There's nothing to stop Microsoft from hiring an army of people to populate the more obscure search terms, rather than relying on an algorithm to do it for them. They are basically complaining that more people choose to use Google than them, and that that gives them the advantage. How is that Google's fault?

Re:Makes sense really

[iamacyborg]

Anti-trust laws are evil and anti-consumer. I know it's not what you leaned in elementary school...

Re:Makes sense really

[PixetaledPikachu]

Searching for "The best operating system" on : bing google yahoo ask

Re:Makes sense really

[Pigskin-Referee]

It makes sense alright. It makes sense that Microsoft is upset that Google is doing so well and so they've got to try to be the biggest thorn in Google's side as possible. The fact that Google is smart enough to use its own resources to be a better search engine is violating anti-trust laws? Please! Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it's anti-trust that I cannot enter the automobile market? Should we demand that information technology companies hand over their infrastructure to their competitors in the name of the Sherman Act? Absurd.

Really now. Well, led by Opera, web browser developers have beat a trail to the EC complaining about IE's dominance in the browsing department. According to your statement, Microsoft should be exempt from handing over its source code or creating API's for other OSs. You would probably disagree. Personally, I believe in a totally free market. Institutions like the EC are nothing more that a socialist attempt to level the playing field for inferior products. They, like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act are a dinosaur in a modern age.

Re:Makes sense really

[metacell]

*sigh*

This has been explained before, but I'll give it another try.

The complaints are not about the *size* of IE's market share. The complaints are about Microsoft using its dominance in the operating system market to gain dominance in the browser market, by bundling their browser with Windows. There are also related complaints about Microsoft breaking standards in such a way that third-party web pages stop working in the web browsers of smaller competitors.

See the difference? Being big is not illegal, but using your size to squash your competition *in other ways than making better products* may be illegal.

Re:Makes sense really

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Google has 67% of the search market in the US, which does not actually qualify as a monopoly under US law and basic antitrust guidelines.

But does in other jurisdictions. The bar for being a monopoly in the UK is 25%, where Google have 86% of the market. Ooh, what's that big thing outside the US's borders... I think it's called a "world". You migh[sic]

The UK is one small jurisdiction and I'm not familiar with their antitrust laws. I generally pay attention to the big three (US, EU, CN) since most other jurisdictions follow suit. Do you have a citation of UK law? I strongly suspect you're looking at general competition laws and not antitrust laws if it regards market share that low.

See above.

You make this comment twice, but fail to site the relevant portions of my comment about why even if they did have sufficient market share in search, they would probably not be in violation of the law. Is it that you think that was not relevant to the discussion, or just that you didn't have any reasonable objection?

Except you're the only one asserting Google has a monopoly "desktop". Everyone else is talking about the market where Google is over 70% in the US, that being search related online advertising.

No, that's just you. If you even read the title, let alone RTFA, you will see it says "Microsoft behind Google complaints to EC". Now what exactly would the European Commission care about US market shares for?

Umm, because they're interested in mergers and partnerships that are not allowed if they consolidate markets too much, such as the search advertising market. How does the EU looking into Yahoo, Google, and MS (all three of whom are major participants in both markets) imply that the EU is looking into a specific one of those markets?

Re:Makes sense really

[Hucko]

And you contributed/rebutted the argument how? I suppose gp was supposed to google/bing/whoop it?

Re:Makes sense really

[Amouth]

did i mention that i would pay for it IF they gave the option? no they aren't charing for it they are just restricting it to programs written for their platform.

the free part i don't give a shit about and is what is blurring your vision..

Re:Makes sense really

[pugugly]

I've got to disagree. If they can prove that Google is tweaking it's algorithm with intent to screw its competitors, then they actually have a valid anti-competitive practice complaint.

That said - properly ranking sites is an incredibly subjective judgment, indeed Google's great innovation is that they came up with an algorithm that far more closely matches an objective judgment with the average of our collective subjective judgment than anyone else has managed.

I think it would be a bad idea for Google to move away from this in order to annoy their competition - I suspect they're inclined enough to have proven mathematically what I suspect intuitively, that the opportunity cost exceeds any possible gain, but to be fair it would be awfully hard to *prove* they did so.

(And that *is* my big fear about Google. I don't actually expect them to make this bad judgment call to try and manipulate public opinion via their rankings - but if they do the short term harm in lost productivity and bad information before it's caught could be tremendous.)

I expect better, because I think they've thought this through, consciously, and weighed the possibilities. But then my ex-roommate called me "the most ethical sociopath I've ever met" because that's what I base my ethics in. I can nonetheless makes mistakes, therefore Google can too.

Pug

Re:Makes sense really

[jonaskoelker]

Should I complain that auto manufacturers have access to huge factories and production lines and I have none so it's anti-trust that I cannot enter the automobile market?

The large amount of capital required to enter the automobile market is a barrier to entry and hence a barrier to competition---something the free market works best without.

I'm not advocating a particular policy, though. But I think it's worth considering how large capital requirements skews the market towards having few competitors with all the good (hah!) side effects that has.

Re:Makes sense really

[Pigskin-Referee]

See the difference? Being big is not illegal, but using your size to squash your competition *in other ways than making better products* may be illegal.

"Standards" are whatever is in vogue at the moment. There are no laws requiring and RFC be used, or any other standard per se. The open source community attempts to use this queasy "standard" in an attempt to stifle Microsoft so that other competing software developers can catch up. As an example, Open Office, try as they might, are more than 10 years behind the present version of MS Office. At best, OO is maybe equal to Office 97.

Re:Makes sense really

[williamhb]

The UK is one small jurisdiction and I'm not familiar with their antitrust laws. I generally pay attention to the big three (US, EU, CN) since most other jurisdictions follow suit. Do you have a citation of UK law? I strongly suspect you're looking at general competition laws and not antitrust laws if it regards market share that low.

Riiight; I can imagine that argument in court... "Your honour, I know we employ thousands of people here, and have millions of customers, but we figured it's just one small jurisdiction and we could ignore it. Oh, and we forgot it's a major part of the EU while we were at it." You're welcome to look up the UK law yourself (I gave the link in another post and can't be bothered to look it up again). "Antitrust" is an exclusively US distinction. The EU laws also do not place a high bar on being treated as a monopoly -- in BA v Virgin 2000, BA was considered "dominant" (the EU equivalent of a US monopoly) at 39.7% market share. Again, well below Google's.

You make this comment twice, but fail to site the relevant portions of my comment about why even if they did have sufficient market share in search, they would probably not be in violation of the law

Your comments that I cut were predicated on the (false) notion that Google don't have a monopoly in search. I cut paragraphs with phrases like "especially since they don't have a legal monopoly on search", "if Google actually had a legal monopoly on search", etc. It'd help if you even knew what you'd written, let alone what you're talking about.

Umm, because they're interested in mergers and partnerships that are not allowed if they consolidate markets too much, such as the search advertising market.

No, the question was why the EC should care about US market shares; the answer is they do not -- they care about market share within each of the member countries of the EU. (So, they most certainly do care about UK market share.)

The Salvo

[eldavojohn]

I didn't see it linked in the article so for educational purposes I'll give you the link to the link to Dave Heiner's piece entitled Competition Authorities and Search. Which appears to be a legitimate Microsoft blog site.

I'm not a lawyer but the piece sounds surprisingly unlawyerlike in that he is all over the road and turns it into a "he said/she said" sort of fight:

Google’s public response to this growing regulatory concern has been to point elsewhere—at Microsoft. Google is telling reporters that antitrust concerns about search are not real because some of the complaints come from one of its last remaining search competitors.

Time to get the popcorn ...

Re:The Salvo

[sopssa]

antitrust concerns about search are not real because some of the complaints come from one of its last remaining search competitors.

Time to get the popcorn ...

"antitrust concerns are not real" and "last remaining competitors" in the same sentence, whoa.

What competition there really is besides Google? Bing, Baidu and yandex.ru. All the other ones are basically using services from either Google or Bing. Giving Google the monopoly now would be the worst thing to do.

Re:The Salvo

[QuantumRiff]

So Google with their Over 70% market share is anti-competitive, said a representative at a company with >90% market share in desktops.

Not to mention, one has taken steps to suppress competitors, the other has not.

Re:The Salvo

[ubermiester]

Giving Google the monopoly now would be the worst thing to do.

Who's giving google anything? The government? No. Microsoft? No. (except via incompetence).

The market decided long ago that google's search results are better than their competitors - in part because they provided results that were NOT tainted by keyword purchases like Yahoo, Altavista, MSN, AOL etc. Yes google benefits from the feedback received by the use of their product, but what's wrong with that? Should a company with a large market share stop using consumer feedback to improve it's product? Should Coca-Cola or Sony ignore customer feedback because it has a larger sample size than it's competitors? Should netflix stop tracking it's customers movie preferences because it has more data than blockbuster?

To say yes is to ignore the very thing that an open marketplace is based on: customer feedback improving products.

Re:The Salvo

[thetoadwarrior]

I still use Yahoo and even Alta Vista on occasion just for a change. The "problem" is that Google is better. Google doesn't lock you into anything unlike Microsoft. Anyone is free to change. They don't because there is no good reason to.

Re:The Salvo

[thetoadwarrior]

Almost forgot, Alta Vista is owned by Yahoo!

Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

[__aavqan3009]

maybe if bing didn`t suck...if microsoft was trustworthy....

Re:Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

[91degrees]

In what way does Bing suck?

As for trustworthy - Bing has a much better privacy policy than Google.

Re:Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

[pitdingo]

In what way does Bing suck?

its results are horrible, that is how.

Re:Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

[mcgrew]

maybe if bing didn`t suck...if microsoft was trustworthy....

Few know this, but "bing" was a typo. Notice how close the i and o are on your keyboard? It was supposed to be "Bong -- for those who are too stoned to care how good the search results are."

Re:Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

[91degrees]

I see... Since it's a search engine, that much could be deduced from context. Could you perhaps provide an example of a search query that Google does substantially better than Bing?

Re:Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

[Rary]

Google results for "tequila" (semi-randomly chosen search):

Tequila - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tequila Brands, Ratings and Reviews at Tequila.net
Jose Cuervo
Tequila Bar & Nightclub
- All about Tequila - itequila.org
The Tequila Mockingbird Orchestra - The Tequila Mockingbird Orchestra
Tila Tequila
A Shot At Love With Tila Tequila (Ep. 101) "Surprise! I Like Boys ...
In Search of the Blue Agave: Tequila and the Heart of Mexico
YouTube - Pee Wee Herman - Tequila

Bing results for "tequila":

Tequila - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tequila Brands, Ratings and Reviews at Tequila.net
TEQUILA\
All about Tequila - itequila.org
Jose Cuervo
Tequila Travel Guide:Tequila, Jalisco, hotels, restaurants, activities ...
Tequila (The Webtender)
In Search of the Blue Agave: Tequila Culture
In Search of the Blue Agave: Tequila and the Heart of Mexico
Tequila

Many of the results are the same. Where there are differences, I'd probably have to go with the Bing results. I mean, seriously, Bing gave me brands of tequila, tequila bars, and recipes that use tequila, while Google gave me a band, a TV show, and a YouTube video of Pee Wee Herman.

Note: I did both searches on the Canadian versions of Google and Bing, so YMMV.

Re:Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

[AK Marc]

In what way does Bing suck?

Ask Microsoft. They are the ones complaining that they are inferior to Google.

As for trustworthy - Bing has a much better privacy policy than Google.

Trustworthy appeared to be a value judgment of the company, not the policy itself. A bad policy from a company that will honor it, vs a good policy from a company with a history of not honoring them... And I speak as someone that has pirated Windows OS because WGA declared the OS to be fake and crippled it, despite the fact I had the invoice for the OS purchase in my hand and 10 calls to MS later, they still told me that because their records don't go back that far, I need to buy another copy of an OS. And no, it wasn't an OEM or license rental, but a full purchase of an unrestricted license for one copy, and I have printouts from eOpen proving it.

Thanks, but for a company that breaks my stuff because their paperwork isn't in order (even if mine is), I'll take their "policies" as worth what I've seen from their treatment of me, worthless. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... Can't be fooled again.

Re:Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

[schon]

Could you perhaps provide an example of a search query that Google does substantially better than Bing?

Bing's problems are well known.

Could you provide a reason you've been living under a rock for the past 6 months, but suddenly decided to pop out to troll for MS?

Re:Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

[newdsfornerds]

maybe if gerbils didn't like humping Ballmer's leg.

Re:Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

[mcgrew]

I was on your side untill tis line:

Could you provide a reason you've been living under a rock for the past 6 months, but suddenly decided to pop out to troll for MS?

I looked at his user page, he's been commenting on stories all day. His achievements page says he's a better slashdotter than me; he's gotten more 5s, and I get a five almost every day. And I've been around longer (he has six digits). Hell, I stayed away from slashdot for several months myself last year (folks here were starting to wonder if I died)

Maybe he works for MS, maybe he just likes their software, maybe he just likes Bing's pretty colors. I agree that it's hard to justify the quality of Bong vs the quality of google, but he doesn't seem to be a troll.

Re:Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

[gwjgwj]

You've got the point. The feature I want is to search exactly for the string I type. Putting it in quotes does not always work.

Re:Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

[91degrees]

So, I tried the search problems suggested in those articles. The result order was different but didn't notice Google giving substantially better results than Bing. Bing told me about Eisnteins wife, Franklins inventions, and the top selling album of all time. "Alternatives To Windows" only gave 3 relevant links (Assuming I want to replace the OS) but if I am after information on transparent panels, a search for "Windows" on Bing gives me more relevant results. "OpenOffice" gave me a long list of links to download and find more about openoffice. Vista doesn't give the FSF page bout why Vista is evil until page 2, but does this make Google "right" and Bing "wrong"? "why is microsoft word so expensive?" gives the page that raised the question and several pages discussing exactly this from Bing.

Honestly, people seem to be ragging on Bing because it's Microsoft and it's cool to hate Microsoft.

I'll happily switch to Bing based on the search results. As far as I can tell it's currently improving. Google has actually gone downhill with its results in recent years in my experience. If the trend continues, Bing will be much better than Google shortly.

Re:Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

[WeatherGod]

I argue that the Google results are better than the Bing results because Google provided a better variety of possible matches to the word "Tequiia", while Bing seemed to be focused on results that are only drink-related.

Re:Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

[RocketRabbit]

Bing sucks because it serves large images on its home page.

Fuck that shit.

Re:Microsoft Behind Google Complaints To EC

[91degrees]

Yes, although this does seem to be an exception for Google. Usually Bing is a lot more varied than Google.

Wha?

[unitron]

...'Google's algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.

So the problem is that Google is more successful because more people use it, or people who need to search for hard to find things use it more?

Re:Wha?

[sopssa]

It means Google can leverage the data they get from their market share to gain even more market share and finally destroying the competition totally and gaining 100% monopoly over search market.

A lot more people use Google so Google gets a lot more targeted search queries to datamine and see what people click and think are relevant results (you know, Google does a quick background javascript request whenever you click any of their search results to get that data). This leads to to the aforementioned situation.

Re:Wha?

[ircmaxell]

Well, that's the same as saying that Lady GaGa is more successful than your local garage band (because she gets played on (inter)national radio and more people are exposed since she is popular)... Is that in itself a problem? Nope. It only becomes a problem if Google is using unfair business practices to maintain that level of success...

Re:Wha?

[taoye]

Exactly. If there's an anti-trust issue with Google then it certainly should be dealt with. It sounds to me what Microsoft would like is to just be handed a huge chunk of Google's market, because they think it's unfair that new services should have to start at the bottom. Except in any business that Microsoft is leading-it's totally fair that new entrants can't get any market share.

Re:Wha?

[msclrhd]

It's like Microsoft Windows being bundled on new PCs, except that Microsoft have paid the OEM companies to do this.

If Microsoft get some of the data from Google or other similar condition from this, then a percentage of computers should ship without Microsoft Windows and instead with GNU/Linux (Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, ...), *BSD, OpenSolaris or another Operating System.

Re:Wha?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That's a terrible analogy because the reason GaGa is played on all over the radio is precisely because of the corrupt oligopoly in the market of radio stations.

Re:Wha?

[ircmaxell]

It's still a good analogy. The reason she got there in the first place would be because of the Oligopoly... Once she's there, it's a recursive phenomenon. Most radio stations play songs because they are popular. Songs become popular (at least on the (inter)national level) because radio stations play them... You can't --for all practical purposes-- have one without the other... That's why the analogy works. Not because there is or isn't a level of influence on the radio stations, but because ultimately people make the final determination (People will stop listening to a radio station that routinely plays bad music, so there is a counter-force against the corruption)...

Re:Wha?

[HiThere]

Sorry to disagree here, but it's a problem in any area if one business is MUCH more successful than all it's competitors. What the correct solution is isn't clear, and may differ from case to case, but whenever that happens a problem exists that threatens to become much worse.

To reiterate one of my continual themes, monopolies are always bad. Always. Inevitably. Sometimes the alternatives are worse (e.g., unbearably expensive), but that doesn't make the monopoly good.

Note that it's not power that causes corruption, it's the lack of accountability for what you do. This causes even minor bureaucrats at a monopoly to become grit in the gears of society. And this causes large businesses to feel that they can get away with help desk lines that keep you on hold for hours, and then drop you because "business hours are over". If there weren't a monopoly (or duopoly, or cartel oligopoly), then this kind of behavior would be answered by customers fleeing to competition. But if there isn't any competition...whether by eliminating the competition or by agreement...then the customers are left without viable options.

(And, yes, it's actually more complex than that. It also depends on the customer being able to find out who's shafting them, e.g., but that's a reasonable synopsis.)

Re:Wha?

[ircmaxell]

Well, I disagree as well. Monopolies in and of themselves are not bad. They open the door for corruption, but they aren't in themselves corrupt. The very same thing can be said about the internet. The internet can be abused as bad as a monopoly can be abused (actually, I'd argue far worse), so does that mean we need to break up the internet now as well? People always cite the Walmart effect when talking about Monopolies. How they are able to cut deals with producers to be able to sell at lower prices than smaller companies. That is abuse. Price fixing is illegal and immoral. But just because a company is more successful than its competitors doesn't mean that it did anything wrong. I'm not saying that the Government shouldn't look into potential (and actual) monopolies to see if there is abuse. I'm saying that they shouldn't split up monopolies for the sole reason that they are the biggest player... There will always be barriers to entry for any particular market. Abuse happens when those barriers are artificially raised by monopolies (by price fixing, back room negotiations, etc). Heck, even based on US law, Monopolies aren't illegal. Only monopolies that are acquired or maintained through prohibited conduct are...

Just my $0.02

Re:Wha?

[RightSaidFred99]

Not sure if you can read, but the problem was actually Google placing certain search/comparison providers who advertise lower in the ranking. The regulators then asked MS "how can Google harm competition". Microsoft answered. Then some neckbeard thought this meant Microsoft was out crying to the regulators instigating an investigation.

In short, the article summary and 90% of the comments for it are completely false.

Re:Wha?

[GaryPatterson]

It means Google can leverage the data they get from their market share to gain even more market share and finally destroying the competition totally and gaining 100% monopoly over search market.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I'll wait for the smoking gun you'll need to post to back up this allegation of intent. You must clearly have one, or it would look as though you're astroturfing for Microsoft. Ha! the very idea!

I'm patient.

Re:Wha?

[GaryPatterson]

I'm still waiting.

I think I'll conclude you were trolling or astroturfing. The jury is still out, but since you clearly have nothing to back up the claims you made, I think it's a fair cop.

What algo?

[molo]

Google’s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.

I don't think that is how pagerank or keyword search works.

But Bing needs to gain volume too, in order to increase the relevance of search results for less common search terms.

Sounds like Microsoft is doing it wrong. That is a chicken-and-egg problem no matter whether Google exists or not.

-molo

Re:What algo?

[magsol]

That is a chicken-and-egg problem no matter whether Google exists or not.

Hence why I'm not really sure why Microsoft is getting their lawyers to whine about how unfair it is. It's the nature of the business they're trying to wiggle into.

Re:What algo?

[sopssa]

Microsoft didn't get their lawyers to whine about it, they just mentioned it in their discussion with DoJ and EC about the Bing-Yahoo deal.

Re:What algo?

[magsol]

Ah right...should've read TFA first before posting (in true Slashdot spirit). Thanks!

Re:What algo?

[sopssa]

Google’s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.

I don't think that is how pagerank or keyword search works.

Search engines nor Google has relied solely on pagerank or keywords for many many years. They have hundreds of different algorithms that count, one of them seeing what links people click on the results most (this is really good data on the less common search terms as Google learns a lot on those)

Re:What algo?

[graft]

PageRank was initially Google's primary strength, but since then they've relied on other methods for ranking results. Most significantly, you can rank results based on how users respond to things (i.e., by seeing how much time users spend on a link before coming back to a page of search results, you can judge how good a particular result was, and upweight/downweight accordingly). This is a methodology that definitely improves with number of users.

Re:What algo?

[AK Marc]

Microsoft didn't get their lawyers to whine about it, they just mentioned it in their discussion with DoJ and EC about the Bing-Yahoo deal.

"Google has more market share, so this isn't anti-competitive" is not whining about it. "But mommy, Google gets better results because they have more searches and ad clicks" is whining about it. The impression isn't them stating they are, combined, still a small player compared to Google, but that Google has advantages that harm them. That's whining.

And if you think anyone in MS talks to the DoJ without having their comments at least reviewed by lawyers, you are not competent to offer such opinions. I'd say that the people talking to the DoJ are most likely lawyers. So, because it sounds more like whining, rather than talking about their own offerings, and that it is being delivered to the DoJ by lawyers, that the original statement is correct, and your correction would then be in error. Lawyers did whine about it to the DoJ. Regardless of the reason they were talking to the DoJ, the whining and the lawyers did exist.

Re:What algo?

[RightSaidFred99]

You're not following.

The regulators got a complaint from some Google customers about their advertisements being ranked low.

The regulators then started an investigation and asked Microsoft for a laundry list of competitive issues they see from Google. What they described is a competitive issue, just like someone saying "Microsoft controls the API for Windows and can optimize it for their OS". Well, sure. It's an issue, and I doubt anyone will do anything about it but you still mention it just as a point of fact.

That said, going after Google for a "monopoly" is bullshit, just like it is going after MS.

Re:What algo?

[GaryPatterson]

That said, going after Google for a "monopoly" is bullshit, just like it is going after MS.

Agreed... ... except that Microsoft actually used their monopoly for illegal actions. That stood up in court pretty well, as I recall. Even the appeals failed to dismiss that one.

Being a monopoly is a natural product of some businesses. Nothing wrong with that. Using the monopoly for product tying or to destroy competition is illegal under anti-trust laws in the US (and similar laws in most other jurisdictions). If Google are using their monopoly power illegally, then they deserve to be punished.

"Well Recieved" my foot!

[Anonymous Coward]

I staunchly refuse to use Bing.

Here is why:

1) Shamelessly promoted to the point of paying people off to make it a default choice (EG, Verizon & Blackberry ordeal, many others.)

2) Created expressly to "Stop Google", rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose. If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at, then I would consider it useful.

3) Stinks heavily of yet another embrace and extend tactic, "now with 100% More FUD!"

In short, Microsoft's Bing is only on the radar because microsoft has dropped shitpiles of money into promotion. It really doesn't matter to me if it actually works or not; the reasons for it's creation had nothing to do with innovation, and everything to do with disruptive "I want my share too!"

As such, I refuse to use Bing, and I would think many other people would get tired of being bombarded with BING! every time they look for something on a M$ partnered site. I know I grew VERY tired of it when I was helping a friend of mine look for real estate lately; MS had partnered with the realestate brokerage to forbid closeup viewing of the property with highres sat images from Bing's mapping feature, without first greasing the pockets of the Realtor. I have experienced other forms of "Evil" from MS Bing, and am now firmly against ever supporting it.

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[bunratty]

Google also pays to be the default search engine. That's where Mozilla gets the bulk of their revenue.

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Wow what a flame. Let's look at your points:

1) Shamelessly promoted to the point of paying people off to make it a default choice (EG, Verizon & Blackberry ordeal, many others.)

Google pays Mozilla and Canonical for making Google their default search engine choice.

2) Created expressly to "Stop Google", rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose. If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at, then I would consider it useful.

Hmm. Why was it okay to tolerate the poor desktop experience of past Linux distributions to "stop Microsoft" and yet it's not okay to make a search engine to "stop Google"? Competition is always good for the consumer.

3) Stinks heavily of yet another embrace and extend tactic, "now with 100% More FUD!"

Now you're being irrational. There is no standard API for web searches to embrace and extend.

As such, I refuse to use Bing, and I would think many other people would get tired of being bombarded with BING! every time they look for something on a M$ partnered site.

I see Google on almost every website I visit. Google is also the default search engine on both my Safari and Firefox browsers.

MS had partnered with the realestate brokerage to forbid closeup viewing of the property with highres sat images from Bing's mapping feature, without first greasing the pockets of the Realtor. I have experienced other forms of "Evil" from MS Bing, and am now firmly against ever supporting it.

Offering value added services is not evil. There is nothing wrong with charging for highres sat images (hence the reason Google's free sat images isn't much better). The realtor probably paid for the service with the intention of offering it to its paid customers. Seems reasonable to me, and it doesn't prevent anyone else from offering highres sat images.

I have experienced other forms of "Evil" from MS Bing, and am now firmly against ever supporting it.

I'm sure the fact that Google signs your paycheck, may make using Bing hard to use too...

I'm not a big fan of Microsoft. I also don't believe our interests are being served by giving Google a free pass either.

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[phantomfive]

Exactly. Some people say Google is hypocritical with 'Don't be Evil,' and it's true some things they do could be construed as evil. And yet they are nothing compared to the true evil they will see if Microsoft becomes dominant.

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[DaScribbler]

Google also pays to be the default search engine. That's where Mozilla gets the bulk of their revenue.

Yes, however there is a difference. In the VZW-Microsoft deal, while they claim Bing is the Default search engine, it is actually the only search engine available in the BlackBerry browser's search tool. All other search engines were removed completely, as well there is no mechanic in place to add new search engines. Whereas with Mozilla you still have all options left intact, and you can add more as well.

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[Sir_Lewk]

4) They claim to want to "make my decisions for me".

I find that insulting, and would refuse to use it for that reason alone.

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[VGR]

4) Promoted with Fake User Interface ads.

I instinctively assume anything that needs to use underhanded advertising must not be able to stand on its merits.

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[HalAtWork]

2) Created expressly to "Stop Google", rather than to fill some otherwise useful purpose. If it had been created to fill some role that google failed to deliver at, then I would consider it useful.

A blade that cuts both ways... if it succeeds in 'stopping google' they will no longer have a reason to improve it.

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[sycorob]

I hate this argument, even though it is technically correct. Yes, Google pays Mozilla somewhere around $50 million a year to make Google the default search engine. It also specifically doesn't list Bing, but does include Yahoo. Of course, you can easily add Bing if you want to, although I'm sure a lot of users don't bother.

Microsoft, on the other hand, uses their existing business relationships to force users to only use Bing. Verizon went and updated Verizon Blackberries to only allow searches on Bing. Some Verizon guy advises that you go directly to google.com to search, otherwise enjoy your Bing searches. I can't find anything that details what sort of money changed hands, but I can't imagine Verizon made this change for the LOLz.

And that, to me, is a huge difference. On the one hand, you have Google, who openly supports an open-source web browser that has always pushed open standards and higher performance into the browser market. On the other hand you have Microsoft making back-room deals with another giant company to force all of its users onto Bing. To directly equate these two types of actions seems dishonest to me.

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[gwjgwj]

Google pays Mozilla and Canonical for making Google their default search engine choice.

I was suprised when I started the Lucid Lynx livecd - google was not the default search engine. It does not pay enough any more?

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[bunratty]

It isn't an argument. It's a simple statement of fact. I don't disagree with a word you say. It's just that if that's the main reason the OP doesn't like Bing, then it logically follows that the OP should also not like Google. If he had phrased his reasons to dislike Bing as well as you, they would sound more reasonable and consistent.

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[Maestro4k]

True, but Google's yet to pay you to search by giving you cashback like Bing does. I know it's talked about a lot on deals sites like FatWallet. I suspect a non-trivial percentage of Bing's search traffic is simply people using it to get cashback on something they buy, but they go use Google all the other times they search.

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[RightSaidFred99]

Your point is silly and nonsensical. My Samsung Moment phone has exactly 1 (one) search provider: Google. I can't change it. If I want another provider, I get off my lazy ass and visit it in the web browser.

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[fullgandoo]

Safari on Mac also has Google as the default. And there is no option in Safari to change it to anything else.

I wonder how much Google paid Apple here.

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[fullgandoo]

Or Google and Safari (on Mac).

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I have to pick you up on one point there. Linux wasn't created to "stop Microsoft". Sure, people may use it because they dont like Microsoft, but thats nothing to do with the creator of linux, and therefore irrelevant to your argument. Linus created it as a personal project and for reasons that didn't even involve Microsoft.

I whole heartedly agree. I don't make drivers for my employer nor do I advocate the use of linux at work in order to "stop Microsoft" either.

However, the mantra of the more vocal linux advocates including the ones on Slashdot in years past have been to "stop Microsoft". While the kernel creator may have created it to learn operating systems and have a more affordable Unix derivative to experiment with, that doesn't mean that some distribution creators (particularly those who champion the "GNU/Linux" naming) don't have an agenda to generally make all software free and specifically "stop Microsoft".

Re:"Well Recieved" my foot!

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Well it seems Canonical follows the money.

I've seen reports that Canonical has just recently signed a deal with Yahoo!. Which surprised me since they had signed a deal with Google earlier.

Maybe Google's Chrome OS was causing some tension between the two? Or Yahoo (w/Microsoft's money) made a better deal?

Ok, how about this

[C_Kode]

How about force all search engines release search statistical data to the public. That kind of information is extremely valuable, not just to search companies, but to marketing companies too.

Re:Ok, how about this

[Bill_the_Engineer]

How about force all search engines release search statistical data to the public.

Well this would not be fair to Google which spent money acquiring all that data.

Own Medicine?

[0ld_d0g]

Other OSs have a similar problem as Windows is such a huge market that many commercial app developers will restrict their products to only windows releases. And users choose (well.. in some cases atleast) the OS with the most apps, and on and on it goes.

Seems to be the same problem in search. Google has millions of data points of search terms co-related with the link that was clicked and all that data has trained their algorithm such that any competing algorithm would find it very hard to catch up.

Re:Own Medicine?

[argent]

The search engine barrier to entry isn't as great, because users can't get "locked in" to one search engine like they can to an OS or API.

Re:Own Medicine?

[TeXMaster]

Other OSs have a similar problem as Windows is such a huge market that many commercial app developers will restrict their products to only windows releases. And users choose (well.. in some cases atleast) the OS with the most apps, and on and on it goes.

Seems to be the same problem in search. Google has millions of data points of search terms co-related with the link that was clicked and all that data has trained their algorithm such that any competing algorithm would find it very hard to catch up.

There's a substantial difference on the way the monopoly was achieved (anti-competitive tactics vs better quality).

Re:Own Medicine?

[0ld_d0g]

Besides that being your opinion entirely, I don't see where I claim anything to the contrary for you to bring it up.

Re:Own Medicine?

[0ld_d0g]

Well, search algorithms are less about "algorithms" and more about human psychology. For many search terms the intent of the search is very ambiguous. Because Google has all those data-points that is a kind of virtual lock-in as nobody else can match them.

Looking at it from a business angle, many online businesses are locked-in to google as they own several large ad-networks and you would find it impossible to survive if you switch to other advertising vendors if google increases their prices, etc. To say that there is no lock-in from google is oversimplifying it IMO.

Also, the barrier to entry *is* great. It would costs hundreds of millions of dollars to setup data centers to give any kind of competition to Google.

Re:Own Medicine?

[argent]

Also, the barrier to entry *is* great. It would costs hundreds of millions of dollars to setup data centers to give any kind of competition to Google.

Depends on where you start.

There's lots of special-purpose search engines and portals that compete very well with Goole/Bing/etcetera by focusing on a specific problem space... an application, a group, a genre...

And costing hundreds of millions to compete with Google isn't necessarily a sign of the kind of barrier to entry we're talking about. It would cost hundreds of millions to compete with Linux, but that doesn't mean that Linux has deliberate application lock-in the way Windows does. You can get your application out of Linux and onto BSD, OSX, or even Windows without a huge amount of effort, but unless you went to outrageous lengths to make your app portable in the first place you're not going to take it from Windows to anything else at all easily.

Re:Own Medicine?

[0ld_d0g]

There's lots of special-purpose search engines and portals that compete very well with Goole/Bing/etcetera by focusing on a specific problem space... an application, a group, a genre...

I don't not agree. My only point was the barrier to entry is the high cost if you want to compete with Google in their core business.

And costing hundreds of millions to compete with Google isn't necessarily a sign of the kind of barrier to entry we're talking about. It would cost hundreds of millions to compete with Linux, but that doesn't mean that Linux has deliberate application lock-in the way Windows does

Well the barrier to entry in my mind is separate from the lock-in part. I agree that for determined users (at the cost of possibly lower quality results) the lock-in from google as a search engine is minimal.

Also Linux as a platform could have vendor lock-in from apps too. Or are you just considering open-source apps on Linux?

Either way if a project goes out of active development, you would have to fund the project yourself by hiring a few devs. While thats doable for a small-ish project.

Imagine for the sake of argument a large project like Linux/Firefox/Openoffice goes out of development. Could an average person really afford the developer cost to keep the project active? Ofcource as it stands thats most likely never to come up anyway, as users could pool in to subsidize the cost to the entire group, but anyway, thats a separate discussion.

Re:Own Medicine?

[argent]

Well the barrier to entry in my mind is separate from the lock-in part.

My point was that Windows has two barriers to entry: economy of scale, and application lock in.

Google only has economy of scale. If you're searching using Google, there's no cost to you to try something else, so there's no "if you switch to Bing you can't run Office any more". You don't even have to *switch*, there's no cost to using both.

Also Linux as a platform could have vendor lock-in from apps too. Or are you just considering open-source apps on Linux?

I've run Linux binaries on FreeBSD. In fact there's at least one hosting service that's provided Linux virtual colo using a Linux userland under FreeBSD Linux emulation in a FreeBSD jail.

Pot == kettle == black?

[wintercolby]

I'm sure no one else sees irony here.

Re:Pot == kettle == black?

[wjousts]

Yes, Google complaining about Microsoft's monopoly while they build their own....oh wait...you meant the other way around, Microsoft complaining about Google's monopoly after trying to defend their own monopoly.

I think there's more than enough irony to go around here.

Re:Pot == kettle == black?

[pitdingo]

Who has Google been anti-competitive to? the Microsoft astroturfing on this is crazy. Microsoft _is_ a convicted monopolist. they got to their current desktop monopoly through anti-competitive behavior. Microsoft is just pissed Bing sucks and is a total failure unless they pump hundreds of millions into advertising and paid search deals.

Re:Pot == kettle == black?

[mcgrew]

GROAN... that was today's worst pun. Congratulations!

Now go sit in the corner, young man.

Re:Pot == kettle == black?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Don't let reasoning get in the way of a good Microsoft bashing.

I think we are witnessing the age when geeks finally comprehend that all corporations strive to create a monopoly.

Re:Pot == kettle == black?

[wjousts]

Microsoft created their monopoly by providing a superior product to everybody else and out competing their competition. They then illegally leveraged the monopoly they had built to try and push other products (IE) which were inferior to the competition and to keep others from challenging their position.

Google has created a near search monopoly by providing a superior product and is now using that position to push all kinds of other bullshit (e.g. Buzz) and to keep competitors out.

Same shit, different company. It's just business as usual.

Re:Pot == kettle == black?

[wjousts]

the Microsoft astroturfing on this is crazy.

Yeah, I'm sure Microsoft has nothing better to do that post replies to the foaming at the mouth, tin-foil hat, M$-haters brigade on Slashdot.

Re:Pot == kettle == black?

[gtbritishskull]

How have they tried to "keep competitors out"? They have definitely used their influence and vast amounts of money to advertise their new products, but I don't see any biases against twitter or facebook in their search results or anything.

I like how google tries its hand at any business it thinks it might have success at. I don't think "Buzz" will be successful, but it puts pressure on other companies to stay competitive. As long as its actions keep pushing other companies forward (or letting them fall behind if they can't keep up) instead of trying to push them out then I will support what they do.

Old news on Slashdot?

[wjsteele]

Wow... Slashdot's sloagan used to be "Yesterday's news, Today!" But now it seems that Slashdot is gunning for "Last week's news, Today!"

See here and here.

Bill

What?

[jonnale]

"Google’s algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google. These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up." So let me get this straight... When you make a product (in this case a search engine), you should not aim to make it the best product possible because it will be harder for other companies to catch up and steal your revenue/profit? Seriously? To me, it sounds like MS is saying, "No one uses our search engine because Google provides better search results and that is wrong."

Re:What?

[bunratty]

To me, it sounds like MS is saying "Boo Hoo! We're no longer the only 800 lb. gorilla in the room and can't dictate what everybody does anymore!" I say, "Enjoy what you've been dishing out all these years, Microsoft. Can you now understand why you're despised by so many?"

Re:What?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I think it's more like the DOJ and EU asking Microsoft why they should be allow to merge with Yahoo and Microsoft answering that the merger would not constitute a monopoly since Google has an overwhelming share of the market.

Re:What?

[wintercolby]

Some less common search terms which make me not use Bing:

Firefox, Chrome, Chromium, Linux, SuSE, RedHat, Debian, Solaris, AIX, BIND, DHCPD, LikeWise, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Ruby, Python, Perl, bash, posix, Integrated Development Environmnet, C programming, and anything else that Microsoft makes a (competing) product for.

I trust Microsoft's search engine to only to return results that are relevant to their products. I trust Google's product to find the right answers, regardless of whether or not they make a competing (and often free to use) product.

Given the monopoly by the people

[Ngarrang]

Giving Google the monopoly now would be the worst thing to do.

And would you like to know who has given Google their dominant position? You. Me. And Everyone else that thought that Yahoo, Microsoft, Excite, Alta Vista and the rest sucked. Google earned their way to the top by providing a better product. It wasn't given to them by government fiat.

Unlike some markets where immense cost is a barrier to entry, there is no such limitation for a new search engine to begin crawling the internet with their own algorithms and produce search results. Sure, you need servers and disk space, but ANY business endeavor will require some resources. Google's results were not so much superior amounts of hardware, but better algorithms. They simply did it better.

And now they are getting complaints that they are too successful? Bunch of communists.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[sopssa]

Giving Google the monopoly now would be the worst thing to do.

Google's results were not so much superior amounts of hardware, but better algorithms. They simply did it better.

Aside from the huge amount of servers, data centers and proprietary back-end Google has, algorithms are just one thing.

Google datamines everywhere on the Internet. They gather as much as detailed data as they can on their search engine. They datamine what links people click on the results (via background javascript http request). This gives huge advantage for Google with less common search queries, as they see what results people think are relevant to their search. Their competitors don't get even closely the same amount of data. Google is leveraging their marketshare to gain even more of it for their search, docs, youtube and other services, just like Microsoft used to leverage Windows marketshare to gain marketshare for IE.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[VoiceInTheDesert]

Exactly. Google earned their spot through superior product when Yahoo, Microsoft and others bloated their pages with ads and crap no one cares about.

Now they get to reap the benefits. If they are found for anti-trust, all that does it set the precedent of "sure, you can do well in business. But if you do too well and upset the powers that be, we'll smack you around, so don't get any ideas."

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Is that why every time I search for something obscure I always get a NexTag search for the same term at the top the results, followed by pages of absolute gibberish? IMHO, the only thing that made searching easier was Wikipedia, because most of the rest of the searches I do Google isn't much better than anyone else, and I don't find that the overall search experience to be much improved over the last decade. I wish Google would stop making office software, mail programs, phones, toothbrushes, and whatever else and pour their resources into something that actually saves me time.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[BuR4N]

Unlike some markets where immense cost is a barrier to entry, there is no such limitation for a new search engine to begin crawling the internet with their own algorithms and produce search results. Sure, you need servers and disk space, but ANY business endeavor will require some resources. Google's results were not so much superior amounts of hardware, but better algorithms. They simply did it better.

The entry fee 1998 for beating up the competition and securing a top spot was microscopic compared to today. Google had a good idea to begin with, but I doubt it would have been enough without the timing.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[ircmaxell]

Google is leveraging their marketshare to gain even more of it for their search, docs, youtube and other services, just like Microsoft used to leverage Windows marketshare to gain marketshare for IE.

No, it's quite different actually. You have a choice to use Google. There are competitors for every single one of their apps, and you are free to pick and chose which ones you want to use and which not to (you don't have to use any). So they are not "capitalizing" on their dominance in one area to push another unrelated one on you. They are capitalizing on their dominance in one area to advertise the other products. When MS pushed IE, you had little choice (since there was --for all practical purposes-- no valid competitor to the OS) about using IE. They forced it down your throats (Considering you can't uninstall it)... And that's what was considered by many to be wrong. Google simply links to their other services... The analogy to IE, would be if MS included a shortcut to "Install IE" on every version of Windows they sold. Then, it would require a users action (and explicit opt-in) rather than being forced...

And the huge amount of servers and data centers is an expansion problem, not a start up problem. You could launch a search engine on a single machine (IIRC, when google first went live, it was off a single box)... This kind of relation doesn't hold for nearly any other business (To build a car, you need a factory... Even if that factory is in a garage, there's still a significant capital investment before you're able to produce vehicles)...

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying that the emergence of Google to the top spot was a combination of the right product at the right time, using the correct levers to get people hooked?

Remind you of any other companies? Like... all of the big ones, especially Microsoft?

Fact remains that to dominate the search market you would need vast sums of cash, but it was Google that created a search market so centrally valuable and profitable because they took advantage of market trends with a superior product and monetized it through effective advertising.

Bing is not a superior product attempting to create a new market or centralize an existing market. It is an average product attempting to eat into the market share of an existing product. To do that they need a better product that people notice to be better, but they simply don't have that product. A good example is how people switched to FireFox from IE because it works a lot better... people want good stuff for free. Google gives people what they want, where Bing gives people what they already have somewhere else with no incentive to change.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[Anonymous Coward]

Earning a monopoly through a good product doesn't make it any less of a monopoly. The problem with a monopoly is that it means a lack of competition, and capitalism requires competition.

If Google holds a monopoly position that creates a barrier to entry for competitors— including those who might do it better than Google, then, according to capitalist economics, there no longer exists a reason to keep their product good, or continue to introduce more good products.

Monopolies are bad. Period. I don't care how they came about.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[ircmaxell]

Barrier to entry:

"A cost of producing which must be borne by a firm which seeks to enter an industry but is not borne by firms already in the industry"

Therefore the cost of hardware is not a barrier. Neither is the cost of advertising. Neither is the data itself (since the firms already in place still need to mine it). So the only barrier to entry is the willingness of someone to do it. Is it easy? No way, but there are few (if any) barriers to entry...

The reason Google is in top spot today, is that in the past decade it was the best (or at worst #2) search engine around. If you can figure out a way to return better search results, you could absolutely overthrow them. The issue you're alluding to is that the if in that sentence is a lot harder to achieve today than it was in 1998. But should Google be blamed for finding a better way? I thought that was the spirit of a free market...

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[Alwin Henseler]

The entry fee 1998 for beating up the competition and securing a top spot was microscopic compared to today, when applied to "web search engine".

The entry fee 2010 for beating up the competition and securing a top spot is microscopic compared to 10~15 years from now, for some yet-to-become-popular application. There, fixed that for you.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[jedidiah]

There is one key difference between Microsoft and Google.

Using a Microsoft product will make it harder for me to use a non-Microsoft product tomorrow. Microsoft will actively work to make that effect larger rather than smaller.

I can use any search engine I like any time I like. I can switch search engines easier than can change toothpaste.

Apple is much more like Microsoft in this respect and Google is like neither of them.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[centuren]

Google datamines everywhere on the Internet. They gather as much as detailed data as they can on their search engine. They datamine what links people click on the results (via background javascript http request). This gives huge advantage for Google with less common search queries, as they see what results people think are relevant to their search. Their competitors don't get even closely the same amount of data.

Don't forget Google Analytics. Offering that service freely has lead to it's widespread use across the Internet, on a whole range of different sites. A tremendously detailed "opt-in" datamine of sorts.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[thetoadwarrior]

Microsoft and Bing use most, if not all the same tactics. Their problem is that they don't do it as well.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[Amouth]

the one thing i use google for alot is

X site:msdn.micosoft.com

it is pathedic that it is easier to search the MSDN from MS than to use it's search or even the local install

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[ircmaxell]

Holding a monopoly position isn't bad at all. USING that monopoly position to impact the market is what's bad. That's why anti-monopoly cases are called Anti-Trust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law... You can be a Monopoly and still play fairly....

If Google holds a monopoly position that creates a barrier to entry for competitors-- including those who might do it better than Google, then, according to capitalist economics, there no longer exists a reason to keep their product good, or continue to introduce more good products.

You're mixing terms. Being a monopoly doesn't in itself create any such barrier to entry... The major experience that most US citizens have with regards to Anti-Trust is AT&T. The reason they were split up (well, one of anyway) is that they held the entire telecommunications infrastructure. From the connection to your home, to the international cross-connects. THAT creates a barrier to entry (because you'd need to run wire to any company, and/or lease capacity from AT&T). But in Google's case, it's quite a bit different. There's nothing (other than popular culture) that keeps Google where it is. If BING (or any newcomer) is truly better, it'll win in the end. Google's monopoly position doesn't impact that. Now, if Google used their position to play unfairly (artificially inflating their ad bidding process, cutting their ad fees to so low that other companies simply can't compete, slandering the other companies, actively preventing interaction, etc), then it would be an issue. But there's no inherent problem to having a top dog (It's demonized by the government and media because it does open the opportunity for such abuse, but it is not inherently bad)... And there is incentive to keep there product good and to continue to introduce more good products. The incentive is staying in business. Look at MS. They didn't "innovate" for many years (look at the UI changes from windows 95 through XP... Very minor given the nearly 10 years between them) which opened the door for Apple to regain market share...

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[vaniderstine]

Actually, the only reason that Google has market share is that it is easier to type into a browser. Back-in-the-day, the only search engine i used was AltaVista, but then Google came along and save me time typing.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[NeutronCowboy]

And now they are getting complaints that they are too successful? Bunch of communists.

Spot on. It seems to me that MS primary complaint is that Google's product is so good that they can't catch up. Really? What happened to Capitalism? Free market? Not to mention that I don't buy the argument, for two reasons.

One, the basic algorithm had nothing to do with what users click on after they search, and I don't know how much weight that gives to links now. My guess is: not all that much. I frequently click on multiple links in a search, and, if I'm not happy, I change the query. I doubt Google's analysis of user behavior is that sophisticated that it can distinguish between a successful and a failed search.

Two, the long-tail argument is nonsense in the context of a monopoly. Them being successful in rare queries does not translate to being successful overall. On the contrary: when I test out a search engine, I use common queries where I know the results already. So the engine better be successful on the common stuff - where apparently, there's no network effect that Google can exploit.

I'm not shocked that MS is trying that bullshit, but I'm kinda shocked and disappointed by how many techies buy that argument.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[WNight]

Google datamines everywhere on the Internet.

Yes, including the secret parts Microsoft isn't let into.

just like Microsoft used to leverage Windows marketshare to gain marketshare for IE

Outright crimes? Deliberately ruining standards processes? Lying about and suing their competition?

You're a roaring idiot. Microsoft got ahead by breaking laws and acting like assholes. Google got ahead by providing better results and a decent user experience.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[evanbd]

My biggest search feature request: the ability to block a domain from all future searches I see. If Google never gave me another hit from some of those atrocious sites that just re-link things like paper abstracts and throw some ads around them, my search experience would improve.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[Tolkien]

Thank you. Finally someone sane.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[GaryPatterson]

So your point is that Microsoft can't compete with Google, because... what? They don't have enough funding?

What stops Microsoft getting into search in the same way as Google?

Nothing at all that I can see. They are giving it a red-hot go with Bing. People may or may not like it, but it's hard to construct a good point around Google making the market difficult to enter when Microsoft are in the process of doing exactly that.

I find the thinking exposed in your posts fairly muddled, sopssa. You lack logic and seem to be defending Microsoft when no need exists. They're doing fine without you, and this cases will stand or fall on its merits regardless of the /. groupthink.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[GaryPatterson]

If Google holds a monopoly position that creates a barrier to entry for competitors— including those who might do it better than Google, then, according to capitalist economics, there no longer exists a reason to keep their product good, or continue to introduce more good products.

Thankfully Google cannot create such a barrier, and has not done so. In fact, it's hard to imagine how any search engine could do that, without being locked into an OS.

Monopolies are bad. Period. I don't care how they came about.

Excellent thinking. Now what can you do about that local power company monopoly? Nothing without the required $100M to build your own power station? Well then, it seems like you're just whining for the sake of posting a bland, motherhood statement. "Things I don't like are bad!" you cry, but say nothing of substance.

Monopolies are an inevitable result of business. They are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. That you dislike them for existing is a naive view of business.

Re:Given the monopoly by the people

[drsmithy]

Holding a monopoly position isn't bad at all. USING that monopoly position to impact the market is what's bad.

It's pretty much impossible to hold a monopoly without "abusing" it.

You can trust Microsoft

[gmuslera]

It's just too predictable. The last time Microsoft surprised me was when they did something even worse than they use to do. Even comics villains are more dimensional than them.

Wait, is there a law against

[Arancaytar]

Using your market share to make your product better?

It's not the same as what Microsoft has been doing, ie. using their market share on some products to force their other products onto their customers.

Does it? Does it really?

[spun]

Long-tail keyword phrases are invaluable data and give a huge advantage for Google to taylor their search results.

I hope they can do that Swiftly.

I'm confused...

[fahrbot-bot]

Microsoft's well-received Bing search engine ...

...I thought Bing (But It's Not Google) was a "Decision Engine". :-)

Re:I'm confused...

[SpaceLifeForm]

It can't decide what it wants to be, so it is still
searching for the meaning of it's existence.

Re:I'm confused...

[Culture20]

...I thought Bing (But It's Not Google) was a "Decision Engine". :-)

It hasn't told me where I want to go today or any day yet.

Re:I'm confused...

[Clandestine_Blaze]

Maybe Bing should Google the meaning of existence.

Re:For once the system works

[bmajik]

Once Microsoft's competitors opened the "anti-trust" Pandora's box on the software industry, it's gloves-off all around.

The entire whole volume of anti-trust "law" is arbitrary and capricious. It is a giant favor and influence peddling racket, with no basis in objective reality, and no underlying premise.

It takes a while to condition the public to allow a much-loved company to be "ready" for politicians to dig in and do some carving. Google is getting there.

Re:For once the system works

[NotBornYesterday]

Microsoft's strategy is not "Let the free market work, and the strong will win", it is "Win at all costs". So actually, this is consistent with their past behavior.

Google make me nervous

[Attila Dimedici]

I don't like the fact that Google is the overwhelmingly dominant search engine. The problem is I dislike Microsoft's dominance even more. From everything I have seen the only competitor for Google that meets my satisfaction criteria for a search engine is Bing. I am not about to move from Google to Microsoft. I am concerned that as Google's dominance grows the temptation to do bad things will grow until it becomes irresistable. However, while I have seen hints about Google abusing its dominant position, Microsoft has blatantly abused their dominant position in other areas. I am not about to contribute to the possibility of a Microsoft product becoming dominant.

Re:Google make me nervous

[astrashe]

Microsoft had a really bullying culture back in the day -- when everyone was locked in, they seemed to really enjoy turning the screws. They were almost like villains from comic books or something.

But Windows was always comparatively open -- they have the most open of all the proprietary ecosystems. You can write you own programs and install them wihtout anyone's permission, you data lives on your disk, and anyone can write a device driver. It's more open than OS X (which only runs on Apple's hardware), and it's a lot more open than platforms like the iPhone/iPad, which only run programs Apple approves.

When Google released Buzz, it was a reminder that if they wanted to break gmail pretty badly, they'd be able to, and we'd have no recourse. With software on your own computer, you can at least refrain from running the upgrade.

It would be great if MS started pushing their openness as a selling point, and if they differentiated themselves from google in the cloud by being scrupulously responsible with our data. For example, I'd love to see MS roll out a privacy enhanced Bing -- no records kept, no targeted ads, for $10/month (or whatever).

Gmail won't even put marker tags in the Gmail HTML that would make it easier for FireGPG (a firefox plugin that supports GPG encrypted mail) to parse your mails, so FireGPG breaks all the time. They should do that instead of making empty threats to pull out of China.

The power concentrated in all of these companies is pretty troubling. Google at least has the sense not to be flamboyantly abusive with their power. Microsoft used to be almost theatrical in their bullying. That's dogging them now.

Re:Google make me nervous

[HiThere]

Windows open?!?!?

I'm sorry, we must live in a different universe. Even Apple was more open than MSWindows. (I mean, here, Apple ][, ][+, LC, LC+, etc. up through System 7.5. I can't speak of after that.) MS not only failed to properly document their system for developers, they lied about what they did. (Possibly it was just LOTS and LOTS of mistakes.)

If you compare MSWind to what came before, then it exhibits a truly paranoid degree of closed-ness. Also if you compare it to either BSD or Linux, or even the proprietary Unixes. Apple, however, has become nearly as closed as MS...but I've stopped developing for them, so I don't know if they lie about their specs. Actually, I don't know if MS still lies about it's specs, as I stopped developing for them, too. Now I develop on Linux, and if it runs on MS, great. If not, sorry, I don't have a system to test it on. (It's often Java, Python, or Ruby, so it *SHOULD* run everywhere. This, of course, doesn't mean it does.) (If I ran into trouble with a BSD implementation, I'd install a BSD partition or VM. Hasn't happened.)

N.B.: My development environments are nominally cross-platform. But you know what that means. Things usually work. If I can get it to work under Wine, that's as much MSWind support as I'll handle. (I read EULAs.)

Re:Google make me nervous

[Thaelon]

When Google released Buzz, it was a reminder that if they wanted to break gmail pretty badly, they'd be able to, and we'd have no recourse. With software on your own computer, you can at least refrain from running the upgrade.

It's worth mentioning, however, that Google unfucked the situation in less than 48 hours. Complete with deployment to everyone's Gmail account.

When Microsoft fucks you, you stay fucked until it's more profitable to pull out.

Re:Google make me nervous

[walterbyrd]

Microsoft had a really bullying culture back in the day

WTF? How does Microsoft have less a bullying culture now? Try reading groklaw.net or boycottnovell.com, hardly a day goes by that msft has not started some new scam. Msft is all about astroturfing, patent trolling, bribing government officials, fake "studies" or other such "Tonya Harding" tactics (those are words of US federal judge.

Re:Google make me nervous

[Maestro4k]

But Windows was always comparatively open -- they have the most open of all the proprietary ecosystems. You can write you own programs and install them wihtout anyone's permission, you data lives on your disk, and anyone can write a device driver. It's more open than OS X (which only runs on Apple's hardware), and it's a lot more open than platforms like the iPhone/iPad, which only run programs Apple approves.

That's an interesting definition of openness there. What about all the problems in interfacing with Windows with 3rd party products like SAMBA? How about all the hidden APIs that MS uses but didn't make available to others (at least until recently, I think they've opened up on those now). Sure it was open from the standpoint of writing software to run on it, that is, unless MS decided they wanted to complete with your product and then started intentionally doing things to break your program (but of course their version wasn't affected.)

It would be great if MS started pushing their openness as a selling point, and if they differentiated themselves from google in the cloud by being scrupulously responsible with our data.

Oh I would too, just so I could watch the circus that resulted as everyone pointed out how un-open MS really was and still is. It'd be entertaining for a while at least.

Re:Google make me nervous

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

When Google released Buzz, it was a reminder that if they wanted to break gmail pretty badly, they'd be able to, and we'd have no recourse. With software on your own computer, you can at least refrain from running the upgrade.

Except, of course, GMail works with POP and IMAP so you can run your own software on your own computer, in fact you can run pretty much any e-mail program because it does a reasonable job of adhering to open published standards, unlike MS's e-mail offerings.

Why the surprise?

[jpmorgan]

What, you think companies get investigated for anti-trust violations spontaneously? The original Microsoft anti-trust trial was spurred by coalition of IBM, Sun, and a couple of other politically well-connected companies whose names escape me, quietly complaining to the US DoJ.

Re:Why the surprise?

[Elektroschock]

That is the way it works. Indeed.

It is just that maybe the Commission should attack the Microsoft Cash cows like Office first.

Re:Why the surprise?

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Quiet! Or you'll spill the beans on how the DOJ changed course and decided to go after Microsoft under the orders of the new Clinton administration that needed to appease the California software industry in order to guarantee enough electoral votes for re-election.

Next thing you know you'll bring up the fact that the Bush administration considered killing the case political suicide because it too needed the electoral votes for re-election, but instead decided to accept a very favorable (for Microsoft) settlement therefore ending the affair without sacrificing votes from California and Washington.

How are we suppose to keep the charade of an independent court system, when you point out that the plaintiffs and judges are political appointments?

Loose lips sinks ships ;)

Re:For once the system works

[91degrees]

Google is hard to compete with because they have a search monopoly. Microsoft were punished for their monopolistic behaviour. Why shouldn't Google be?

Join the Tautology club

[Culture20]

Google's algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google.

Google is better because Google is better?

Re:Join the Tautology club

[wintercolby]

You know, there's an xkcd comic for this.

I can switch search engines in less than 5 seconds

[Colin Smith]

And have no loyalty to Google.

But they do provide the best results, and until they don't, i'll keep using them.

 

Re:For once the system works

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft were not punished for their monopolistic behaviour (and what does that even mean by the way?) They were punished for their anti-competitive behaviour!

Nothing wrong with monopoly

[Tran]

It is the abuse of that monopoly position that would be the issue - you know - the one of which MS has been convicted.
Until Google somehow abuses its monopoly position there is no issue.

Doesn't google provide search statistics?

[Drethon]

All Microsoft needs to do is look at what Google's most common searches are (perhaps even look at Google's auto completes) and they have the data refined from having more customers.

Oh, this doesn't provide Microsoft an advantage over Google you say? Tough...

Re:For once the system works

[kanweg]

Only *abuse* of monopoly is taken action upon.

Bert

http://www.google.com/linux

[miknix]

Does it provide Linux centric queries?

This is for the cynics

[ickleberry]

Google: BAD
Microsoft: WORSE

Microsoft is late to the party.

[bobs666]

Microsoft is just crying. Its only hope is to make open source and competition illegal.

Its like Jay Leno, now that people have changed the channel and seen Dave Letterman its going to be hard going back.

One wonders why we are still using a Micro system software when we are in the super computer age.

One day people will change the channel and discover The 'X' windows system and Linux there will be no going back. Leno on the other hand may have a chance. Microsoft on the other hand is obsolete. only its money sustains it.

Which side is their delusion buttered on?

[http]

I wonder how their heads didn't explode writing it. Roughly, Google's searches are better because more people use it. We've got algorithms that don't depend on how many people are looking for data. But we need more people using Bing so we can give better search results.
Does MS have such a strong Reality Distortion Field that they can say ANY random, contradictory stuff and people will take them seriously?

Re:Which side is their delusion buttered on?

[H0p313ss]

Does MS have such a strong Reality Distortion Field that they can say ANY random, contradictory stuff and people will take them seriously?

"We have always been at war with Google."

Re:Which side is their delusion buttered on?

[Archrage]

Unfortunately, it does seem like that is the case. I strongly agree with what you said. It seems like M$ is taking the approach that since Google is so much better at being a search engine than their Bing, they decided to try semi-shadaly to push the fact that more people use google which helps give them better results, even if this isn't true. I wish more people would stop taking the idea of "Hey X guys makes Y product well, so lets take Y, add our own spin to it, and sell it as something so much better" and in microsofts cause, find ways to complain about the original group X to help their product. But hey, i may be missing some major point and could be all wrong, its just my point of view on this.

People miss the huge difference.

[miffo.swe]

Its one thing to blatantly abuse a monopoly like Microsoft has been documented doing time and time again. Having a monopoly because you have a good popular product have never been illegal.

That said im not so sure Google even fit into the monopoly description. A monopoly have barriers making it hard to switch to a competitor.

Only reason i have not using Bing is that i wouldnt trust Microsoft with filtering my information. When dead people write letters i stay the hell away.
 

Microsoft is pissed because google is a verb

[presidenteloco]

Seriously though, Microsoft is just miffed because it can't start 10 years late and be competitive.

Re:For once the system works

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Capitalism stopped being an issue once the DOJ and EU became involved.

Court mandated "Capitalism" is still not capitalism...

This is for the realists

[Drummergeek0]

Google: Successful Capitalist American Company
Microsoft: Successful Capitalist American Company

Anticompetitive behivour?

[twoallbeefpatties]

Has Google participated in any actions that deliberately force their rivals out of the market? Or have they acted in any manner that abuses their position as a majority holder, such as configuring their systems to deliberately work more slowly with competing products? I mean, I certainly appreciate the concerns being raised as to what happens when one company has that much market saturation, but I think that a company has to conspire to do something illegally before they can be busted up. I don't think that just being the major player makes you eligible for antitrust regulation. (For example, I would think we would've busted up Ticketmaster for much worse by now.)

Re:Microsoft is late to the party.

[Some.Net(Guy)]

only its money sustains it.

and where do you think it gets that money from? so long as a company has enough paying customers to keep turning a profit, it cannot be considered obsolete.

They need less common terms eh?

[Hojima]

How about everyone start searching for "Microsoft+how+to+destroy" on bing. Ah the irony if it has an accurate yield.

Re:They need less common terms eh?

[halowolf]

I had managed to forget that Bing exists. Thanks Slashdot for reminding me. :(

Re:They need less common terms eh?

[spun]

Oh come on, Chandler was the nerdiest character on Friends, and you've forgotten him already?

Re:They need less common terms eh?

[AndrewBC]

I think you forgot the paleontologist with a Ph.D, tenure, Unagi, and a monkey. I don't blame you, though.

Re:They need less common terms eh?

[beav007]

How about everyone start searching for "Microsoft+how+to+destroy" on bing. Ah the irony if it has an accurate yield.

Especially as it would be the only accurate yield on Bing to date...

Re:They need less common terms eh?

[spun]

Damn skippy she did. You could cut glass with those THOs.

Re:They need less common terms eh?

[spun]

No, Ross was the geekiest. Chandler was the nerdiest. The show demonstrated the difference between geeks and nerds quite well, I think.

Re:They need less common terms eh?

[Runaway1956]

Cool idea.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Microsoft%2Bhow%2Bto%2Bdestroy&go=&form=QBLH

In other old news

[ClosedSource]

Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Oracle lobbied the DOJ to investigate Microsoft through their membership in ProComp.

ProComp is an industry group whose director, Mitchell Pettit, offered this mission statement in 1998 when it was founded: "Our goal is to get Justice to file an antitrust lawsuit and win it."

Wait...

[Locke2005]

Microsoft is complaining that Google's near monopoly in internet search gives them an unfair competitive advantage?!? Sounds like M$ simply took loaded some of the complaints against M$ into MS-Word and did a few global search & replace operations, doesn't it? (e.g. "1,$s/Microsoft/Google/g")

Re:For once the system works

[MozeeToby]

Because Google isn't using their monopoly to limit customer choice! Have we really forgotten what the purpose of anti-trust laws are!? Having the majority of the market share is not against anti-trust laws. Using that market share to stiffle competition is. Using your market share to improve your project is not stifling the competition.

Re:For once the system works

[bunratty]

According to the definitions of monopoly I've seen, Google does not have a monopoly on search. Perhaps if they ever handle 90+% of Internet searches, then they could be considered a monopoly. However, there are no laws in the US against simply having a monopoly. There are laws against abusing a monopoly.

Kind of ironic...

[joeyblades]

... that Microsoft would complain about this since, in most other software realms, Microsoft gets to play the part of the 800 pound gorilla.

But it's no Good

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't beat em.... sue OR complain real loudly about how unfair a better product is.

Microsoft can't win...

[CFBMoo1]

Googles pages just seem less noisy then the ones Microsoft Bing conjures up. I'm talking look and feel for me more then the actual search results. I noticed my eyes drifted off the search results to the side bar and the header at the top which seemed more distracting then helpful.

Just in case you want to file a complaint

[Elektroschock]

Just in case you want to file a complaint against a dominant company operating on European markets, just use this form.

Not quite

[Locke2005]

More like, "More people use Google because Google is the best search engine because more people use it!" I take you are a founding member of the Tautology Club?

Re:Not quite

[maxwell demon]

More like, "More people use Google because Google is the best search engine because more people use it!" I take you are a founding member of the Tautology Club?

It may sound like a tautology, but really isn't, just like "Most people use Microsoft Windows because most people use Microsoft Windows" isn't. It's called positive feedback. In the context of usage statistics it's also known as the network effect.

People seem to act like

[ebbomega]

... without Bing there is no competition.

The Search Engine market is HUGE. Yahoo's been around forever, and the only way that google ousted them was by having a better product.

Microsoft just plain doesn't deliver to the consumer. Algorithms alone don't make a search engine. I like google because right away on the first page I get straightforward results, usually a wikipedia article, images and videos with thumbnails, news results, a pdf-to-html converter, etc. etc. etc.

First result I seem to always get on bing is ebay. Yeah, google has ads, but they don't hide them amidst the regular results, they keep them off to the side.

Google still just has a better product. Microsoft can complain about proper competition when they have a product that competes.

all hail

[martas]

cutthroat bitches!

Re:For once the system works

[jedidiah]

"capitalism" only exists with the rule of law. You can either have anarchy where you have genuine robber barons (as opposed to the metaphorical kind) or you can have a nice orderly society with laws and rules and courts that will enforce your contracts. You really should not expect to get all of the benefits of civilized society without any expectation to act with consideration for others.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[sopssa]

It's interesting how far people go to defend Google, just an another company, on slashdot. Their PR sure has worked good on geeks.

Boo-fuckin'-hoo.

Their complaint boils down to "It's not fair that Google is successful."

Again, boo-fuckin'-hoo. Make something useful and maybe people will use it.

Lets put that quote to another context.

Boo-fuckin'-hoo.

Linux users complains boils down to "It's not fair that Windows is successful."

Again, boo-fuckin'-hoo. Make something useful and maybe people will use it.

See how the image changes right away when you just switch places with something that /. users envy?

Re:For once the system works

[Bill_the_Engineer]

"capitalism" only exists with the rule of law. You can either have anarchy where you have genuine robber barons (as opposed to the metaphorical kind) or you can have a nice orderly society with laws and rules and courts that will enforce your contracts. You really should not expect to get all of the benefits of civilized society without any expectation to act with consideration for others.

You are correct, and I was to general in my post.

I'm not talking about enforcing contracts.

"Capitalism" or probably more aptly "Free Market" cease to exist when a court can force company to enter into an agreement.

Re:For once the system works

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Sorry I hit submit instead of continue editing:

..."Capitalism" or probably more aptly "Free Market" cease to exist when a court can force company to enter into an agreement.

Court creating a monopoly from a business method or algorithm is just as bad.

It's a double edged sword.

Yes, yes ... using product improves it

[Anonymous Coward]

Because as we all know, the immense popularity of Microsoft's software means Microsoft gets huge amounts of critically useful feedback that helps them to make their products so much better over time, and that's unfair. For example, it took user feedback from several versions of Office before they introduced Clippy as a solution, and several more versions of additional user feedback before they removed it. Same for such things as WGA in Windows, which was introduced in later versions to address user complaints about receiving counterfeit versions of Windows. That kind of incremental improvement due to feedback from users was completely unfair to the competitors because they were unable to implement similar features.

Haw.

Maybe we need to revisit Microsoft's tactics.

[thetoadwarrior]

They include firewall, zip archiving, anti-virus, browser, email and messenger software which all have a knock-on effect for companies in those areas and some of which can't be removed and they have the nerve to cry because they can't monopolise search?

Re:I can switch search engines in less than 5 seco

[Blakey Rat]

Have you bothered to try the alternatives? (Bing, in this case?)

They should know

[Tibia1]

not to go and complain about competitors, heres why.
First of all it's google.
Second, it's good to have a diverse set of search engines and a diverse set of algorithms. The more there are out there, they higher chance any site has of ranking up or down.
Third, if they want to make search their own way, why not post about it like a normal company? No, they have to go all drama queen and start crying about google, the most popular and innovative search technology we've seen yet.

Re:I can switch search engines in less than 5 seco

[MonsterTrimble]

Agreed. I used Metacrawler for the better part of a decade before finally giving up on them and moving to Google. Their search results often gave shopping results or glorified warez sites at the end, so google just was better. If metacrawler came back or somebody did it better, I'd jump in a heartbeat.

a tautology!

[Anonymous Coward]

when i read this, all i hear is the tautology king saying:
google is better because they're better.
therefore, we need laws against them.

Standards

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Last time I checked, Google was promoting open standards. Chrome scores rather nicely on the Acid3 test as an example. Chrome on Linux: 100. Even on Windows Chrome scores 93. IE on Windows: 12.

That's the biggest difference between the two to me.

Re:Standards

[Pharmboy]

On xp/3, chrome gets a 100 on my box, although I do see an X in the upper right corner that doesn't belong. And yes, IE8 gets a 12.

Re:Standards

[truespin]

Last I checked Firefox doesn't pass the Acid3 test either though - 94/100...

Why my Google sites page is not found on Bing?

[ozzee]

Is this the reason why after numerous attempts to have my Google sites page crawled by Bing, I get no results whatsoever from Bing? Is MS not crying fowl on Google when they themselves are to blame?

Foundem again its a low quality affilaite site

[mjwalshe]

any one who works in search knows that Foundem and Caio are thin afilates with low quality sites - all foundem et al are trying to do is to become middlemen and take a cut of shopping on the internet - also its rumored that the Foundem founders are mates with some highups in the Uk paper industry which is why a low quaity site gets such good press. Most people hate this sort of crap that infest the SERPS I used to work for a Big electronics mega store that had been going for 25+ years and there serps where full of thease "comparison engines" in a sensible serps page 1 should have mostly real suppliers not 90% junk comparison sites. Its particular industrys that have traditionaly used midlemen that are having difculty in adapting and its no surprise that thease sectors are infested with spam and black hats Insurance is particularly bad.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[oztiks]

Yes someone needs to mod you up.

Why, is Google looked upon as being so good? There is nothing nice about Google, they are just like any large company attempting to keep their dominance.

Lets see, Google is giving people access to use their "Free" DNS service, I ask why? there is not charitable reason for this. It's simple you get enough market control over peoples DNS and you can start calling your own shots, Microsoft even tried this one on once upon a time.

Google, is notorious for sneaking in IP grabs on peoples data when using their Cloud services, granted they get caught out then play the "oh how did that get in the fine print? must be some sort of mistake" but the fact remains they still try it on.

Google grabs your personal data and sells it to advertising companies? Not evil?

If you use, Google desktop, Google toolbar, Google web history, or Google analytics (or a combination of any of these apps) and blamo you cant move on the web without Google knowing exactly every move you make. Yet, us geeks will weed out every other privacy concern on the internet and point the finger to the culprit and call them evil but Google? again seems to get another free ride.

Don't take all these bad points I raise and flag me a Google hate, no no no. Personally i think having the EC on your ass over the fact your to successful, I would consider as a badge of honor in the IT market. Microsoft was there, now its Google's turn.

If its Google's turn to be more accountable for their actions so much the better, it might help tone down their "evilness" and put them in a more pleasant light in my own POV.

Personally, I preferred the Google we had 5 years ago, the Google we have now is a very different creature indeed.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[Rutulian]

Lets put that quote to another context.

Boo-fuckin'-hoo.

Linux users complains boils down to "It's not fair that Windows is successful."

Again, boo-fuckin'-hoo. Make something useful and maybe people will use it.

I'm sorry, when has a linux proponent ever said anything like that? Even here on Slashdot, where discussion can turn stupid really fast, I've never seen somebody say that.

Google's Unfair Advantage is...Success?

[kwiqsilver]

So Microsoft is complaining that Google's success is making Google more successful. Within the next few years, I expect the government to equip all Google engineers (starting with their best, Harrison Bergeron) with devices that interrupt their brain activity at random intervals to keep them from coming up with such innovative technology.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[Rutulian]

Lets see, Google is giving people access to use their "Free" DNS service, I ask why? there is not charitable reason for this. It's simple you get enough market control over peoples DNS and you can start calling your own shots, Microsoft even tried this one on once upon a time.

Completely speculative. Wait until they actually do something with it before complaining about it. It would be difficult for them to do something without anybody noticing, and everybody would switch really quick if they did.

Google, is notorious for sneaking in IP grabs on peoples data when using their Cloud services, granted they get caught out then play the "oh how did that get in the fine print? must be some sort of mistake" but the fact remains they still try it on.

First: what do you mean? This makes no sense the way you have said it.
Second: provide an example (even just one would be good), otherwise it is just rumor and anecdote, which is worthless

Google grabs your personal data and sells it to advertising companies? Not evil?

You mean when you use on their free services, they index the data you put into their service for the purpose of advertising. Yes, and they are very clear about that. No, it is not evil. There are other free services you can use if you don't like that, and if you think they are being more honest than Google about what they are doing with your data.

If you use, Google desktop, Google toolbar, Google web history, or Google analytics (or a combination of any of these apps) and blamo you cant move on the web without Google knowing exactly every move you make. Yet, us geeks will weed out every other privacy concern on the internet and point the finger to the culprit and call them evil but Google? again seems to get another free ride.

All optional programs. None of them required to use any of the Google web services. None of them sneakily bundled with other apps that trick you into installing them (I'm looking at you Yahoo! toolbar). None of them hijack your browser and redirect everything through Google (I'm looking at you Bing toolbar). Also, they are very clear about what they are indexing. Some have very customizable options. All of them can be blocked completely with a good firewall.

Look, does Google do everything perfectly? No. If you are going to criticize them, China is a good topic. But they are a good company. They seek profit, yes, but they make a strong effort to behave in an ethical way. Something a lot of companies stopped doing a long time ago. And they make good products and useful developer tools. All in all, they have had a positive influence on the development of the Web.

Yes, because that is EXACTLY the sam thing

[SmallFurryCreature]

Because funding an open source project where I can take the code and remove any and all reference to google with a simple grep is the same thing as buying companies to make their closed source products work only with your service.

Google sends t-shirts to an orphanage that just happen to have google on the size tag that easily comes off. MS bribes the orphanage to dress the kids in MS gear and anyone who dares to resist is kicked out.

Good vs Evil, the difference ain't all that subtle really.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[b4dc0d3r]

Microsoft's complaint here is that they don't have enough data. They've already demonstrated incompetence with the data they have by rolling out a preview with MS bias in the results, or even completely unrelated search results. So I don't see how more data will help. They still have tweaking to do on the data they already have.

That observation can be boiled down to "make something useful and maybe people will use it." Especially when it's the default search provider for Windows/IE and an increasing number of hand-held devices as financial incentives encourage companies to strike a deal, and it's still struggling. People are willing to go the extra step of typing in google.com or using a bookmark instead of typing directly into the convenient Bing-hosted search window.

Turn it around as you did in an attempt to illustrate a point, and it makes no sense. Linux is useful as a server OS, and people use it. Lots of people. "It's not fair that Windows is successful," is basically the conclusion of the U.S. legal system when they convicted Microsoft of unfairly leveraging their monopoly to gain market share in unrelated markets. It is a finding of law, it is a heavily supported conclusion to which an ordinary person would arrive given the evidence presented. The only reason most people don't use Linux is that it doesn't come on the computers they bought from Best Buy or Wal-Mart, and that's because you can't run a good chunk of games on Linux. The only thing holding Linux back right now is lack of developers making apps for Linux. The only thing the Linux community can do to help is offer to write device drivers, which they do, or try to make things easier to port, which they try by supplying cross-platform libraries like Qt, wxWidgets, Wine, or similar. Why are they in that situation? Microsoft's illegal leveraging of its monopoly which stagnated the industry to 10 years resulting in the current lock-in.

Maybe you'd like to try again?

Re:Stupid headline

[ppanon]

Nexus One users with quality control problems probably wish it was.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[immakiku]

You missed his point. He is relating the Google defense in this story to a potential Windows defense in theory.

Judge Google by its actions

[alispguru]

Yes, they know a lot about me. Much of it is tied to me as an individual through my Google account - they have my email address as a username.

Have they sent me spam? No.

Have they handed info about me to other businesses? If so, none of them have obviously tried to contact me.

Can I choose to divorce Google? Yes - all of their services have a take-your-data-and-leave option. I can stop using my Google account, pull my mail out of Gmail, export and delete Google docs, delete all their cookies from my browsers, and start using another search engine. Poof! No more Google in my life.

Google wins by offerring top-quality services, and by not abusing their users' trust.

Microsoft can't understand this, because they've never really had to compete on the basis of quality, and because they think nothing of abusing their customers.

I will worry about Google when they actually do something threatening.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[flimflammer]

Offtopic, Troll, and Overrated is no substitute for "-1 Disagree"

Re:This is for Microsoft

[Rutulian]

Which isn't a point at all. A linux user, at least an intelligent one, would never say something like that. The fact that Microsoft is, essentially, saying that about Google just illustrates how retarded they are.

Never

[rockwood]

Evil never dies

Re:This is for Microsoft

[db32]

Or the whole Google/China thing being related to the back doors they put in place for law enforcement easy access...

It is disturbing to how quickly people are willing to give up all of their info to Google. Some other points to remember... Google has asked the NSA to come help them secure their network. The conflict of interests there is staggering. For the NSA to succeed at their given mission they rely heavily on insecure systems so they can gather information. They have absolutely ZERO interest in assisting to secure any product that foreign (or domestic) actors are using. Now, they really aren't supposed to be collecting on citizens and all, but if those citizens willingly gave all of the information to someone, and they just happened to see that information while helping that someone "secure their network", that would probably be a pretty different story... Even if no one at Google is actually "in" on it, you can bet your ass that the NSA is going make damned sure that they understand every corner of the Google network and any defenses employed at a bare minimum.

Remember folks. Our very own U.S. Government has that whole Constitution thing that goes MUCH farther in actually defining "Don't Be Evil". Most people easily accept that the U.S. Government has frequently overstepped the boundaries laid out in the Constitution, yet why is it that Google can trot out "Don't Be Evil" and everyone quickly accepts that is enough.

CAPTCHA: Congress - How ironic...

What's the old saying about turnabout ...

[rnturn]

... bein fair play?

Come to the search game late then don't complain about being behind. "Gee... we've had a new search engine for, what, three months now? And we're not leading the market? Whaa!" It's not Google's fault that your previous attempts to field a search engine sucked like a tornado.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[10101001 10101001]

Linux users complains boils down to "It's not fair that Windows is successful."

But, that's the thing. Linux users don't complain that Windows is successful. Linux users complain that other people are effectively locked into Windows due to Microsoft's various tie-in tactics and hence Linux users have to fuss with Windows, directly or indirectly, as a by-product.

The same argument could be made about Google, except the tie-in tactics are generally not nearly as forceful (there's been less by-outs or banning of services). To that end, yes, I'm one of those people who call out Google when they try to force tie-ins instead of merely providing them. But, then, I'm one of those dirty /. Linux users. It couldn't be at all possible that I'm skeptical of Microsoft, especially when their claims seem to amount to merely the complaint "It's not fair that Google is successful." Generalities of evilness or goodness don't tend to win me over.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[somenickname]

Boo-fuckin'-hoo.

Linux users complains boils down to "It's not fair that Windows is successful."

Again, boo-fuckin'-hoo. Make something useful and maybe people will use it.

I don't think Linux users complain that Windows is successful. I think they complain that Windows is artificially successful. At certain points in Microsofts history they have had arguably the best home/office operating system available. However, as the competition has caught up or exceeded their offerings, they continue to maintain a monopoly by doing things like strong-arming hardware vendors, document lock-in, spreading FUD about patents, etc.

Regardless of how you feel about Google, they don't maintain their market share via underhanded tactics. The fact that they maintain a dominant market share, even when they may not be the default search engine on most computers, means that people choose to use their search engine because they find value in it. The barrier to entry in the search market may be high in that you have to provide a better service than Google but, if you do such a thing, adoption rates can skyrocket overnight because it's simply a matter of a user typing in a different URL for searching. So, while Google may be or may be becoming a monopoly, they can be overthrown at the whim of their users. That is not the case with Microsoft because of the above mentioned tactics in which they maintain their monopoly.

*That* is what Linux users complain about.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[GaryPatterson]

Linux users complains boils down to "It's not fair that Windows is successful."

Except for that whole anti-trust case, and the many other cases in the EU, that would be a good point.

I'm pretty sure the antipathy towards Microsoft didn't start with Linux users. I feel pretty sure that Microsoft's illegal actions have a lot to do with it. ... you do remember that Microsoft fought and lost those cases, don't you? That they are guilty of illegal actions? I can't recall the punishment in the US though.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[yukk]

Google has asked the NSA to come help them secure their network. The conflict of interests there is staggering. For the NSA to succeed at their given mission they rely heavily on insecure systems so they can gather information.

I didn't know they'd done that, but still, if the NSA really are experts in this area, I can't see why they couldn't make the Google network as secure against outside threats as possible while having Google host their own equipment internally.
I'm pretty sure that beats having the NSA + World + Dog all snooping around in there considering the NSA are going to try whether anyone else likes it or not.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[db32]

That is the point though. There have been many cases of the "justified" back doors being exploited like this. From what I have read, it seems that this latest China business is in fact one of those cases.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[Colz Grigor]

Google grabs your personal data and sells it to advertising companies? Not evil?

This is the the most common fallacy I've seen on Slashdot about what Google does. Yes, if Google actually did what you say, it'd be an evil company. Instead, Google creates a market where someone can bid for the opportunity to interact with some of your data (like search keywords and IP-based regions), but without knowing or learning anything else about you. If I'm a western boot manufacturer based in Gallup, I could bid for all New Mexico searches for the keyword "boots", and if you happen to have an IP address that's located in New Mexico and you search for the word "boots", if I'm the highest bidder at the time, my ad will be displayed to you. I don't get to learn anything else about you, and if your IP address happens to be in Arizona and I'm only paying for New Mexico queries, not only won't you see the ad, I still won't learn anything about you.

The free DNS and coming up with a potential replacement for HTTP and running fiber to homes is about solving speed problems. Making the web more useful. Because the more useful the Internet becomes, the more often people will use it, and if Google can increase the size of the market they will make more money. It's not about being charitable, but at the same time it's also not about letting Google take control and "call the shots". Especially since any time Google really does something to lose your trust, you can easily stop using their services and communicate to everyone else just how Google wronged you.

But if you're going to spew about how Google wronged you, back it up with some facts, please. I don't flag you as a Google hater. I flag you as an ignorant person who pretends to know about something that you actually don't.

Which one?

[Fish (David Trout)]

You're not tied into Google in any way and can easily block them for good by pointing their domain to 127.0.0.1 in your hosts file.

Which one?

They and other large name-brand high-tech companies have so freaking many it's impossible to truly block them all.

This is a serious problem for the complete opposite reason however: identifying which domains you wish to allow rather than block. I have my browser security set rather high (and use a custom filtering proxy as well) that prevents e.g. javascript from running anywhere except for those sites I choose trust. All other sites are blocked.

Simply allowing "primary-domain-name.com" doesn't cut it, since primary-domain-name.com uses javascript served by secondary-domain-name.com as well as other-owned-domain-names-you-never-knew-about-and-have-no-way-of-learning-about.com too.

As I said it' a problem, and to the best of my knowledge not one that's easily solvable.

Sauce for the goose...

[Baldrson]

Microsoft whines: These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up.

Google should respond: These and other network effects make it hard for competing operating systems to catch up.

Oh wow!

[hesaigo999ca]

Like they are really going to take them seriously now, I mean, talk about being sore losers. They didn't get their bing fr their buck (pardon the pun), so now they want to shoot google down any which way they can, sad really, can't even come up with something original, let's come out with a search engine, 15 years too late, then when it does not fly, cry to mommy!
I hate M$ today, too bad Gates is gone, I wonder is this really would have been his strategy....i think he was always more interested
in bringing good innovation to light, not so much cry about it when they couldn't.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[metacell]

I wouldn't go as far as saying "Google has earned our trust", because we don't know

1. What they will do in the future
2. What they have done in cooperation with the governments of, for example, USA or China, that we don't know about

The massive amounts of data Google collects about people present a huge temptation for misuse, and I'm convinced they will be misused some day. However, as far as anti-competitive tactics go, I don't know of any case where Google has done wrong.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[oztiks]

Completely speculative. Wait until they actually do something with it before complaining about it. It would be difficult for them to do something without anybody noticing, and everybody would switch really quick if they did.

Of course its speculative, this is my opinion your reading. More importantly, why do they do it? list the possible advantages of giving free DNS server access. I can only think of two things here a) capturing the hosts people look up for data mining (privacy) and b) the other is control possibly being able to create their own rules in DNS one day, heck if they get enough people out there to use the DNS whats to stop them from creating the .google TLD?

provide an example (even just one would be good), otherwise it is just rumor and anecdote, which is worthless

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Greenbaum/?p=130

You mean when you use on their free services, they index the data you put into their service for the purpose of advertising. Yes, and they are very clear about that. No, it is not evil. There are other free services you can use if you don't like that, and if you think they are being more honest than Google about what they are doing with your data.

They do sneaky stuff, not dumbass blatant in-your-face selling. Take a Adsense on a standard account for example, I've never seen the corporate accounts or what Google Certified SEO people get, but they use keyword specific information to help invite bidders on certain keywords, is this really a favor for the bidder? No, its an advantage for Google because it insights a more competitive bidding environment, a higher bidding environment means more money for them. So, if they do that at the lower level of the playing field, what are they doing at the bigger end of town?

All optional programs. None of them required to use any of the Google web services. None of them sneakily bundled with other apps that trick you into installing them (I'm looking at you Yahoo! toolbar). None of them hijack your browser and redirect everything through Google (I'm looking at you Bing toolbar). Also, they are very clear about what they are indexing. Some have very customizable options. All of them can be blocked completely with a good firewall.

I dont think I insinuated any thing like this, I said Google can and does track your web activity, I didn't accuse them of hijacking, etc. They track your information and all these applications help them to do it and they do a good job of it. Disabling Web History helps, it doesnt stop it.

Your avg Joe isn't configuring their firewall to block Google etc, its okay for the Geek but not everyone else.

Look, does Google do everything perfectly? No. If you are going to criticize them, China is a good topic. But they are a good company. They seek profit, yes, but they make a strong effort to behave in an ethical way. Something a lot of companies stopped doing a long time ago. And they make good products and useful developer tools. All in all, they have had a positive influence on the development of the Web.

I don't believe they've been a positive influence, but an influence that isn't shaded either way for me. I have yet to see Google actually invent something new, not Acquiring, not reinventing something and making it better, really creating something that that no-one else has done.

I also believe their not a serious IT brand, i believe they are a Marketing Company, hence the only thing that has ever made them money is their advertising services. The rule of thumb for Marketing is to collect as much information to aid them in making better Marketing strategies later down the track.

I guess all in all what I'm trying to say in the crux of it all, Google is just a brand like any other, they are in the IT industry as a unique player in such a way that they've held dominance in a certain place for a long. They are trying to

Re:This is for Microsoft

[Rutulian]

Completely speculative. Wait until they actually do something with it before complaining about it. It would be difficult for them to do something without anybody noticing, and everybody would switch really quick if they did.

Of course its speculative, this is my opinion your reading. More importantly, why do they do it? list the possible advantages of giving free DNS server access. I can only think of two things here a) capturing the hosts people look up for data mining (privacy) and b) the other is control possibly being able to create their own rules in DNS one day, heck if they get enough people out there to use the DNS whats to stop them from creating the .google TLD?

Ok, well, you're free to live in your paranoid world. But the rest of us are fine with it until they actually do something evil.

provide an example (even just one would be good), otherwise it is just rumor and anecdote, which is worthless

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Greenbaum/?p=130

A zdnet blog? Seriously? This is just more speculative Google ranting. Show me an actual example of Google taking your document and selling it somebody. To save you some time...you won't find it because it hasn't happened.

You mean when you use on their free services, they index the data you put into their service for the purpose of advertising. Yes, and they are very clear about that. No, it is not evil. There are other free services you can use if you don't like that, and if you think they are being more honest than Google about what they are doing with your data.

They do sneaky stuff, not dumbass blatant in-your-face selling. Take a Adsense on a standard account for example, I've never seen the corporate accounts or what Google Certified SEO people get, but they use keyword specific information to help invite bidders on certain keywords, is this really a favor for the bidder? No, its an advantage for Google because it insights a more competitive bidding environment, a higher bidding environment means more money for them. So, if they do that at the lower level of the playing field, what are they doing at the bigger end of town?

And what is wrong with that exactly? They are bargaining for the best price they can get. Not sneaky or evil. They are selling a product, not being an altruistic cuddly bear.

All optional programs. None of them required to use any of the Google web services. None of them sneakily bundled with other apps that trick you into installing them (I'm looking at you Yahoo! toolbar). None of them hijack your browser and redirect everything through Google (I'm looking at you Bing toolbar). Also, they are very clear about what they are indexing. Some have very customizable options. All of them can be blocked completely with a good firewall.

I dont think I insinuated any thing like this, I said Google can and does track your web activity, I didn't accuse them of hijacking, etc. They track your information and all these applications help them to do it and they do a good job of it. Disabling Web History helps, it doesnt stop it.

Your avg Joe isn't configuring their firewall to block Google etc, its okay for the Geek but not everyone else.

No, you are insinuating that Google is evil. I am pointing out that they are not, that Google's competitors are far more evil. Like I said, the programs are optional, not forced on you in any way, and are clear about what they are tracking. If you have a problem with it, don't use the programs. The simple fact that they do it doesn't make them evil. It's their business, and they don't try to hide that from people.

Look, does Google do everything perfectly? No. If you are going to criticize them, China is a good topic. But they are a good company. They seek profit, ye

Here's what Microsoft is _really_ saying

[jonaskoelker]

These and other network effects make it hard for competing search engines to catch up. [...] To me, it sounds like MS is saying, "No one uses our search engine because Google provides better search results and that is wrong."

The "network effects" bit makes me think MS is trying to convey something like this:

• Google provides better search results
• Thus, more people use Google web search
• This makes Google provide better search results
• Few people use our search engine, so we have bad results, so we can't make people use our search engine. No fair.

Similarly to why people start using Microsoft Office ${next_version}: because everybody else uses it already; a competitor has to break that cycle to even get a foothold.

I'm not convinced Microsoft is doing this out of a motivation having to do with the well-functioning of the market and consumer benefit---in fact, I think Microsoft worries much more about its own benefit---but at least they have a "it's bad for the market and hence the public" angle they can use to argue and justify policy that benefits them.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[oztiks]

Your problem like the rest of the Google lovers out there, is your still all wound up by their original success story, a bunch of Avg Joes in their backyard make a Search Engine worth millions, they are real people just like all of us like us.

PFFFT, News flash, almost every company including Microsoft has the same fairy tale beginning, it makes no difference once they float the company, have a board of directors to answer too and start selling in competitive market places that's when they begin to play dirty.

I'll keep saying what I've always said ever since my original post "I dont believe Google to be evil today" but you keep saying I do. All I'm saying is that Google is merely a Marketing Brand, that's all it is.

To state that "Google cares about its users "is ridiculous, Google has the worst customer service systems for a "supposed" General IT brand and until support is setup properly in their company, not only front line support but proper SLA agreements with companies, and begin to support and sell their software and services properly (because it isnt the software itself that makes the money) then their just funky marketing brand doing no real harm in the industry, except making heaps of cash form advertising.

When Google does step up to the plate and delivers these things, they'll become as corrupted as these other brands we talk about. Its the nature of the beast Google's no different.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[Rutulian]

I'm not wound up with anything. I'm happy with what I have seen and continue to see month after month, even after the IPO, from Google. I'm just not so cynical. I don't believe anything has to happen. People make choices. They don't have to do anything just because everybody else does. And so far Google has proved that point. If they change, I will be disappointed, but so far I don't see any reason to give up on optimism.

I'll keep saying what I've always said ever since my original post "I dont believe Google to be evil today" but you keep saying I do.

Except that's not what you were saying in the beginning. It is what you are saying now because you have to admit they haven't actually done anything yet to be considered evil.

To state that "Google cares about its users "is ridiculous,

I never said that. I was making the case that it contributes to the community and follows ethical business practices. What they do in the future remains untold, but what they are doing now is good.

Its the nature of the beast Google's no different.

There is nothing "natural" about being greedy and corrupt corporate whore-mongers. You can choose to be that way, looking only at your short term gains, or you can choose to have a longer term vision. Plenty of companies choose the former, but that doesn't mean it is inevitable.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[oztiks]

The sentiment of what your saying is fair, and of course, what your saying is positive. But lets look at it a different way.

Microsoft is accused of playing tactics to maintain a strong market share in their industry, is it fair to obscone them for trying to keep this market share to continue the value of their company. What they did to Novel for example (but this only helps explain my point as well).

To the general population it isn't fair what companies like this do because they are at the disadvantage but to the shareholders its whats expected. Take fuel, cars, minerals, any industry and you'll see this to be the general consensus, whats best for the company, how to maximize profits. Not upsetting people is not on the top of their lists.

Is Google's board different? I would say no because that's the safe assumption, a floated company is a part of the free market, it means that anyone can buy into it, so unless god himself played a hand here you'd assume your typical business minds bought into the company.

Realistically Google has never had to change tact because they have gone from being a nothing business into a massive booming entity and as a result made all these people rich. If this changes desperation will sink in and the claws will come out.

Say a company came out with a search tool that eventually ate up Google's market share, drove their advertising revenue in half the share prices dropped. The people who own those shares will want blood, they'll want their investment to rekindle back to its former glory and they'll expect the CEO to do everything within his/her power to fix it (otherwise, he'll get the flick).

EC is going after Google, what I'm saying is this. Having the EC on Google ass may chop off this slow metamorphosis that i personally see is taking place. Realistically, this issue could pose as a distraction to Google in one way or another and slowing down the creation of commercial solutions.

The long term change I'm talking about is turning Google from being this hip friendly (amazingly profitable) company into a business that now has a serious bottom line that if under threat could put them in such a position to fight for territory.

Okay, lets me say it this way, Google makes X per month and Y to operate, if Z = X-Y that's their profit (saying loosely). Google takes Z and puts it into all this R&D (millions if not billions), Product Development, Marketing and Sales, Multi Tier Customer Support, an Executive Sales Dept (guys at this level expect pay checks of 250k to 350k per year), a Partner Management team, Account Management (the milkers after the farmers have been and gone), so on and so fourth. If it has the slightest dwindle of being unsuccessful the shareholders will want explanations on why so much of their Z is being eaten this year round.

If it gets to the point where too much is gone then they'll just as desperate as the other brands. Its not plane out greed here talking and these devil like business people prancing around with their pitch forks rubbing their hands together, its more realistic than that.

Here are some other points why Google is not a real IT brand yet:

- It needs to setup up a proper support and training infrastructure to deal with certified training of client staff. Their version of MCSE for example.
- Serious government or private enterprise contract requires compliance in the security and support arenas. They need to pay to accredit these people and prove themselves in the industry eg CISSP accredited engineers. PCI Compliant infrastructures, I know Google this but it doesn't make their Clients compliant.
- Partner Channel, setting up agreements with resellers to sell their goods, even setup the means for resellers to be trained to support Google products and then integrate themselves.

Google is far away from performing these task but it may seem like their future vision to embark on this. One day and they may be in thick of it as until now they haven't.

Re:This is for Microsoft

[Rutulian]

Maybe. But playing dirty is not necessary for profitability. That is what shareholders ultimately want to see. Profitability. Nothing more, nothing less. I think it would take an awful stretch for Google to get to the point where it was no longer profitable.

Competition, of course, is necessary. That's why Google keeps the details of Pagerank and other critical algorithms a trade secret. The company's future plans, for the most part, are a trade secret. Their web applications are free to use, but not freely redistributable. They have terms of service agreements with respect to their embeddable web objects. Etc etc....

They don't just give everything away. That is certainly not a sustainable company. Like you say, they will have to improve their customer service infrastructure if they want to sell support in a big way and that will be an expensive investment. However, Google has made plenty of expensive investments. I'm pretty sure they will manage just fine.

They compete fiercely with Yahoo!/Bing, but they don't do things that are ethically questionable. Google for Yahoo and you will see an entire page of search results pointing to the Yahoo website, along with suggested related searches. They could have obscured these results and made them less useful, but they didn't. Heck, a search for Bing even has a sponsored ad on the results page. Do they do this because they are nice? No. They do it because they know it is important for the integrity of their company. Playing dirty might accomplish some short-term gains, but it would hurt them in the long-run.

Bottom line is: their shareholders trust them, because, first of all, they buy into their vision and mission statement. And second, Google has demonstrated success several times over even with fairly risky new ventures (eg: youtube). Also, don't forget that Larry and Sergey still own a majority share of the company. They aren't going to lose control any time soon.