Microsoft Complains About Google's Monopoly Abuse 384
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Frustrated at the FTC's blessing of the Google/Doubleclick merger, Microsoft is complaining to the EU. Its latest filings detail how the merger would give Google a stranglehold on the advertising industry. While these complaints aren't new, the diagram [PDF] Microsoft created gives you an interesting look at the sort of competition Microsoft fears from Google."
Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sweet, sweet irony.
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sweet, sweet irony.
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Funny)
or
"Merging disk partitions and formats in a way that keeps people stupid (c:) cool" ?
But your point is well taken.
Can't let the bugbear-as-messenger become a distractor, for all the idea of "shooting the messenger" never seemed more appropriate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
MS uses \ (the backslash) for path separators, unix-a-likes use forward slash
MS uses drive letters (C:, D:, etc) for partition labels, wherease unix-likes just use regular labels, like / or
It's fairly arguable that / for root,
The Unix approach is arguable a little cleaner/simpler, but they're both fairly arb
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Macintosh uses (or used, before it was Unix) a colon as a path separator. So there.
But the part you're missing, none of these systems (NONE of them) were designed to inter-operate with each other. It just simply was not part of the spec they were building from. Considering that, the path separator *is* entirely arbitrary. (Sure, it can cause problems *now* that systems inter-operate, but the design of DOS couldn't have anticipated that back w
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:4, Informative)
Letters as drive labels made lots of sense when that was the only way to distinguish a device's files from another device's files.
Once directory support was added, MS's developers really wanted to use '/' so it would look like Unix. However, they were already using it as an option character. Making the command interpreter distinguish between an option and a path when both started with the same character would have been a mess. Getting people to change from '/' to '-' for options and then using '/' for directories would have been a support nightmare. So MS bit the bullet and preserved backwards compatibility with earlier mistakes.
They chose a character that was little used by everyone other than programmers, and it resembled the Unix path separator as a mirror image (I'm sure there's some font set where they look a little less alike, but...). So MS, while basically screwing the pooch on a path separator, did so by lack of foresight and not through an arbitrary decision to be different.
DOS didn't even use file handles, pipes, or command redirection until 2.0 so the path separator was far from the only thing that was strange about it to Unix programmers and Unix users.
So yes, MS operating systems have pretty much always sucked from a Unix user's perspective. However, for its day on home micros, MS-DOS was pretty cool compared to most of the alternatives until OS/2 came out. Once the 386 was mainstream, though, the free Unixes (and the original SCO) started targeting it. So OS/2, BSD, QNX, and Linux might be better than DOS, but they weren't there in the beginning.
From here down is a small treatise on what MS has done wrong, what they've done right, the state of MS vs. some alternatives, and some possible reasons. It follows from the above, but meanders well away from the topic at hand. I thought I'd give fair warning, so if you don't want to get too distracted you can just skip to another part of the thread.
MS also did a decent job, in my estimation, of making the Windows 9x compatible with enough DOS applications to make it worthwhile. They also made sure XP would run enough Win 9x apps to make it worthwhile. I haven't yet done any extensive testing of Vista because I can't get past the initial bad taste it leaves with me. From what I've read and heard from others, it seems the new OS breaks far more apps than the previous milestone OSes from Microsoft. That's largely the application vendors' fault, since it has to do with improper use of the weaknesses of XP. MS will still get most of the blame.
Other problems of Vista, like the large number of memory-bloated background tasks, probably were design trade-offs on Microsoft's part. Very likely, with a commercial OS being about five years behind schedule, there are things the developers at MS would have like to do better. They probably would have liked to simplify parts of the OS. They surely would have liked to optimize it more. However, doing more work for the sake of elegance and pushing back the delivery date even more was probably not a bankable decision.
The strength of Open Source software that's most often mentioned is probably the many eyes that can help find bugs. Another common one is that those many eyes can speed development. Yet another is that you're not trapped by one vendor, and that even if you're not a programmer you can at least still pay a third party to modify the source. On that Microsoft is probably really up against, though, is one that I don't see mentioned very often. In a command-and-control situation with a commercial goal like at Microsoft, what those limited eyes work on is dictated by the goals of the people at the top. With Open Source, the eyes look where the individual finds something interesting. If that means replacing a function th
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Informative)
Wait Microsoft used to be cool? When was that?
Was it in 1976, when their only actual product (BASIC) was less well-known for its use than for Bill Gates's whining letter to the community scolding them for piracy [blinkenlights.com]?
Or was it in 1980, when they managed to dupe IBM into shipping machines with an OS they licensed in beta form [wikipedia.org], ported badly, and quietly acquired the rights to just before IBM made it popular?
Those events are my first knowledge of Microsoft, so maybe they had a few seconds of coolness somewhere even earlier than that. But if so, it was in a far more fetal stage than Google's current one.
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, there is a fundamental difference between a web-driven advertising company and a company that has a stranglehold on the actual computers on which the web is normally accessed.
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, the web is a wide open platform. If you can do better than Google, you have a much cheaper distribution path than Microsoft ever had. It's not the same kind of business at all.
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
What does this have to do with Google's take over of online advertising? Google isolating itself would hurt more than anything. MS isolating itself to x86 was a business move that helped it grow because the other competitors to x86 were weakening, not growing stronger as Firefox and Safari are doing now against IE in the web sphere.
You may have a cheaper distribution path, but you have the same difficulty breaking into the market. Do you think that website X would rather go with a large, well established advertiser such as Google or DoubleClick, or with Advertiser Joe Shmo to serve ads on their page? You are likely to get a very small niche along the lines of Linux at best, but you have very little chance of getting more than a couple percent of the internet's ad revenue, even if your product is light years ahead of Google's tools.
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus far I know of no one saying that Google is doing anything illegal. Yes, when they go in purchase something like Doubleclick we should be wary, but there is no meaningful analogy between the growth of the two companies. Microsoft was willing to bully and extort its way into dominance, and because the wheels of the market watchdogs are so slow, by the time they first went after Microsoft for those nasty OEM deals, it was too late.
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus millions of those ad dollars are going to open source projects and other good causes.
So far Google hasnt shown any reason to make us doubt their good intentions.
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
But, by the same token, the platform that Google's technologies work on is significantly different than the one that Microsoft gained dominance on. The x86-based PC was a bottleneck that Microsoft could use to great effect. Only a limited number of player produce it, only a limited number of players distribute it, and, because the DoJ was several years too late, those restrictive OEM agreements basically gave Microsoft vast control of what went on to the overwhelming majority of personal computers sold throughout the world.
The web simply isn't like it. There's no way to set up a roadblock in the distribution of a web site. Microsoft tried that with the serious incompatibilities it intentionally put into Internet Explorer, and in the end, guys like Google put up with the development and support pain and worked around various browser idiosyncrasies. Rather than trying to beat Microsoft head on, these guys have played the game by the rules Microsoft created once it had wiped out Netscape as a competitor.
We're within five years by my guestimate of a serious competitor to the Windows-Office monopoly which is the core of Microsoft's business. Everything else; Zune, XBox etc. are meaningless in what keeps Microsoft ticking. They are scared, and watch for them to start trying to open channels to various governments to try to attack Google legalistically. We're going to see patent bombs being thrown within the next year or two against open source projects that look like they're going to eat into Microsoft. They already have a disaster with Vista, and their business model is dangerously close to compromise.
It's gonna get ugly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, they might be able to set themselves up as a barrier to advertisers reaching the public and prop up third parties in that fashion, but really, who is going to stick with a Yellow Pages that screws around with the listings?
It's not like there aren't a bakers dozen would be search giants waiting in the wings if t
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is not a monopoly and has never been one. You become a monopoly when you are ruled one by the court. Microsoft was ruled a monopoly. Apple nor Google are monopolies. Not only that, monopolies are not illegal. It simply means that they must comply with additional laws meant to govern their behavior. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they were convicted of criminal use of their monopoly. They had their day in court.
We will see the EU essentially just chastise Microsoft for their obviously blatant attempt to get a government to intercede in a market they are not able to compete in successfully. There's really no justification for this and there's no reason anyone should be giving Microsoft any credit. What they are doing is for their own benefit, not the benefit of others. They are doing it to make money for them, not for others. Microsoft, given the chance to be in the same position as Google is with advertising, would be doing the same thing--pushing for even greater market share.
What does Microsoft think we are? Do they think we are willing to listen to every complaint they have? It's like a criminal robbing a store and then complaining that they just can't make any money any other way. Microsoft has been robbing us blind for years and locking us their software with various technologies thus denying us choice. Only through the efforts of the Open Source community have we been able to even remotely consider something else. For the average Joe there's no choice still, because they don't know its there. Do advertisers have a choice? Can they hit the customer with their ads? Of course they can. They can chose to use Microsoft. They can choose to use Yahoo.
You're going to tell me that they are complaining to the EU because Google gives them a better choice to reach a larger crowd than Microsoft can provide to them?
That's just silly and it is in a way another abuse of its dominance in computing to influence by obfuscation. They obfuscate the issue, making it seem more complex than it is, and then push some of the uneducated -- because the computing industry workings are complex due to software being complex, software patents and copyrights.
Without obfuscation it clearly becomes an issue where Microsoft is being a child here who is saying that "we're loosing, so please change the rules to favor us".
When we can prove that Google is doing something illegal then we can petition the courts and the EU (and/or others) to correct the wrong. But right now they are not doing anything that has been proven to be wrong, so it is simply one company complaining that they can't compete. Period.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, I do not think you are being real. No insult intended, but let's be real here. Microsoft is no golden child intent on helping the industry do anything any longer (unless it gets a cut of the pie). Microsoft is a pit, dark and deep. Its intent is to keep others from gaining dominance, anywhere.
Was I saying otherwise? Really, did you see that anywhere?
Let's talk about Google and stop hiding behind Microsoft's bad motives. The article is about what Google is doing and the bulk of your post is blatantly off-topic.
As someone else here has said by now which I was essentially saying: Tu quoque.
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:4, Insightful)
Google is a multi-billion dollar company and guess where every cent of their money comes from?
Yep. Adwords.
They arent growing, they have already grown.
They give free email, free search, free maps, donate millions to open source projects and more all from those little text ads.
I dont think DoubleClick is a big deal for Google. They would like it but if they dont get it then the world isnt over.
DoubleClick deals with a completely different segment of the market to Adwords and they want to get in to that side as well.
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that we all despise our Monopolizing Micro$oft overlords and such, but that does not invalidate [wikipedia.org] their argument. Imagine that the complaint was coming from a small company with a solid innovation that was getting pulverized by Google, would you at least hear out the small company?
That said, I agree, it is funny to hear microsoft whining about monopolies. Just try to remember that their past does not, in itself, make them wrong.
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
I also expect to see a number of congressman start gripping about Google.
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be similar to having China pointing their finger at GWB and saying that he is a totalitarian. His admin shows elements of that, but they certainly are not. Likewise, in the courts, if you have been shown to be a liar, you are rarely used as a witness (and certainly none that you want to have credibility). MS is the WRONG company to be speaking out about this. What does Yahoo have to say about this? And a really great example is that back in 97 (actually, even before then), we were griping on the net that AltaVista had a monopoly on search. Everybody was using it. Where are they today?
Look, Google does not have a monopoly. While they certainly appear to be rocketing towards it, they are not likely to obtain it. Why? Because South Korea, china, and Russia are all backing their own search engines. Even EU is trying to build one. So, will Google obtain it? Not likely. But lets assume that they do. Is it illegal? Nope. Not one iota. What is illegal, is the abuse of that position. MS started from the git-go, abusing everything. In fact, so did IBM and ATT once they got their monopoly. But so far, Google shows NO signs of abuse. In fact, far from it. They seem to want to work with just about everybody, and expand the market rather than control it. About the ONLY company who is likely to oppose this IS MS. This combined with Linux appears to be slowly killing MS's monopoly. That is WHY MS is screaming to EU.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In that you are willing to ignore anything that comes out of MS, regardless of what it is about or how logical it is or what its implications are to you/us. Why do you need another company/third party to validate an argument? You believe its right or, you believe its wrong or you don't know yet. You can depend on blindly trusting or not trusting a third-party to supply your opinion, but why wouldn't you just independently think about what is being presented and not in
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO Search?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And doubleclick is one of thousands of ad agencies. No monopoly there either. And if you don't have a monopoly you can't use
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If all those competing pipes were shown properly, everyone would see that competition still holds over 1/3 of the market in both areas mapped out instead of it appearing that a monster has taken over the advertising world.
You don't get to be a real monopoly like Microsoft without twisting the "truth", spinning FUD
Re:Well if anyone knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:MS is just seeking parity (Score:4, Insightful)
Yahoo is on both sides (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:MS is just seeking parity (Score:4, Insightful)
Got any references for that?
MS has been forced to provide documentation. That is good for everybody, OSS and closed source companies.
Same goes with things like ODF. Nobody says OpenOffice must be used. MS can implement ODF if they want to compete.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, God forbid this merger get cancelled, we'll miss out on all the great advertising and privacy violations that GoogleClick would innovate! I'll cry myself to sleep every night, if only we'd known the horrific repercussions of enforcing antitrust laws!
Won't anyone think of the billion dollar advertising Goliaths?
I just don't see the connection (Score:3, Interesting)
Confidential (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Confidential (Score:4, Funny)
even more ironic (Score:3, Funny)
Missing? (Score:2)
Re:Missing? (Score:4, Insightful)
As an old prof once told me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's one of the oldest strategies out there. If your competitor is beating you with their offerings, then you find a nice friend (the govt) to help make it more difficult for them. Hopefully, the govt will not take up this cause as M$ is already a convicted monopolist, themselves.
From Ayn Rand's Reardon character to the latest round in the ongoing SCO saga, the courts have ALWAYS been used by lesser competitors to slow down/stop/hassel the competition.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ummm...Ayn Rand wrote fiction, you know. You can't judge the court system by non-real happenings in it.
Yea, I know..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't you remember WHY Reardon was in the courts in the first place? Because his competitors complained that his product was better than theirs.
While fictional, it is very appropriate.
The answer is simple - arrange a trade (Score:2)
Ok, Microsoft - if you're worried about all these destructive monopolies then I propose you arrange a swap with Google.
Google will give up on their advertising mergers if you release a fully documented API for Windows. One hundred percent, nothing hidden. You know, what you were ordered to do (and *still* haven't done) by the EU because of your monopoly desktop position. Detail everything. File formats, network protocols - the works. Make it something that the Wine guys could grab and implement.
No?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bologna. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it can be done. Wine is about 90% functional and they got all that with simple observation and no access to the code whatsoever. Same goes for the Samba crew.
If you had the code in front of you, it would become simple.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
not the whole story (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft Not Suffering (Score:2)
Whining. (Score:2)
Regardless, Google isn't a monopoly and won't be one anytime soon so MS should shut up and quit whining like their own competitors
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whining. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My first degree was in Economics and I have a big pile of dusty textbooks, I don't need to look it up, but you do - in a real publication. Or look at any government's competition authority, you will see the normal threshold is 25% for them to pay an interest. It is not revisionist, it is the classical defin
Some good spelling there... (Score:2)
Any less true? (Score:2)
Really, folks. Lets discuss the merits of the argument.
Monopolies should be regulated before their damage is done. We arrived too late on the scene to stop the damage Microsoft had done to the marketplace. Perhaps we should start thinking ahead a little.
Re:Any less true? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Any less true? (Score:5, Insightful)
The claim the MSN and Yahoo are the only 2 companies with their own advertising tech is laughable. To start with, *anybody* can create a system of barter over email and Paypal. And I visit websites whose owners actively make a living that way. As far as private Doubleclick style software goes, the Keencorp pages seem to be littered with ads served off of something called 'gavsad', which seems a good example of 'publishers with proprietary ad-serving tools' to me.
The complaints also seem to ignore the rich plethora of small, hardly heard of ad networks/tools that various websites use. (Indieclick and Project Wonderful both come to mind). These ad companies seem to manage to exist without any real threat from monopolies.
Internet advertising seems to be a bad place to hope to squeeze the life out of all the competition simply by being bigger. It's not like traditional businesses. Overhead costs are largely linear, there are no suppliers to fight with simply because the small guy is beneath their notice. And refusing to use one product will never prevent you from using a different one.
Google also fails to engage in ani anti competitive tactics. Nobody is ever asked to sign contracts that prevent them from using a Google competitor as well (Something Microsoft continues in to this day). Nobody is refused search results or advertisement because they're competitors. (Given the dominance of Windows Live junk ads out there, Microsoft knows this damned well). And frankly, simply because Google *might* commit a crime at some point in the future, is no reason for them to be punished now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't see how this deal makes Google a monopoly. This deal gives Google the largest market share and makes it the biggest player on the block. One of the definitions of monopoly is that no other close substitutes exist. As far as I know, companies can still go to MS and Yahoo if they wanted.
Even if it were a monopoly, that does not make it illegal. People seem to attach a stigma to the word "monopoly" when in itself a monopoly is not per se illegal. What got Microsoft in trouble was how it obtained
Microsoft complains about monopoly abuse? (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-mcgrew [slashdot.org]
Enforcing monopoly laws (Score:4, Interesting)
If we should get a "Justice" department in the U.S. again, one which will investigate wrong doings by corporations and government, including the executive branch, Microsoft is toast.
Is Microsoft so stupid as to not know that poking a sleeping dragon is not in one's own best interest? Or are they so sure that Google is going to cut off their air supply they are willing to risk it?
The P.C. is a dinosaur, think of this post. I'm running Firefox on Linux. If *most* software becomes web based it makes no difference who's using what. Furthermore, someone like Google could take something like the OLPC device give it away with a subscription to Google's web applications.
Between OLPC, web ads, web 2.0 rich applications, the E.U. investigation prompted by Opera, Microsoft must see its Office and OS monopoly in deep trouble. Their "back-office" strategy is competitive but not monopolistic enough to support the corporation once the OS and office products no longer have ~90% of the users.
Misleading title (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, the monopoly being abused here is Microsoft.
Its Obvious... (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft is big and powerful (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
How sad (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I big, bad company like Google picking on a itsy-bitsy company like Microsoft. Will there never be justice in this world?
If ./ readers haven't noticed, Googles gross revenue is getting mightily close to M$FT. In fact, if you extrapolate the growth, 2008 will likely be the year Google surpasses M$FT in gross revenue.
M$FT also knows Google could fire a missile right at M$FT that would be hard to take. Imagine if Google put out GooLinux, one click download and install with Open Office.....right over XP or
Series of Tubes (Score:2, Funny)
Using API's as an anticompetitive tool (Score:2)
Microsoft Complains About Google's Monopoly (Score:2)
The Other Fear (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to be a detractor (Score:3, Interesting)
Google/Doubleclick... Monopoly? (Score:2)
Question. How is this different from... (Score:3, Insightful)
It Seems that (Score:2)
The pot just called the kettle black.....
Microsoft? Ads? Hello? (Score:2)
Why am I asking you?
A monopoly for a market that doesn't exist yet! (Score:4, Interesting)
20% of you will misunderstand this.
10% of you might believe it.
10% of you will totally get this.
The next step in 'Internet advertising' doesn't exist yet, and doesn't directly center around the web browser and web pages. There is a real integration of three technologies that is coming around the corner, and Google is far ahead of the game than any other player. In fact, most of the other players don't even know the game exists.
What is this magic combo?
Cellular Data [real time, anyplace, data transport to a computing device] +
Internet [not web pages, but providers of location based services (Google)] +
GPS [one of the new key data fields that everything will hinge upon]
"But we already have those things today!" "This is nothing new!" "My phone currently does all three!"
Yes. Those are three discrete services that your phone may have. But are they INTEGRATED?
New world example:
You're hungry. You want a place to eat. You go to your [smart device]. It could be a cell phone. It could be a Nokia N800 like device. Yes, it could be built into your car like your existing GPS mapping device. It already knows where you are (and shows your position on the default screen). You query (not through a web browser, but an integrated interface) for a nearby fast food restaurant. With me so far? You didn't go to a web page Yahoo! Local or Google Maps. Your map application was built into the device.
Quite a number of nearby locations pop up on your map. But there are a few bolded map selections. Arby's has free desert with any meal purchase. Bill & Ruth's sub shop has a discount of $1 towards any sandwich. And some small pizza place you never heard of has a 2-for-1 special. And then there are quite a number of other choices.
How did those bolded deals get there? Some large company built up the infrastructure required to run a service where any advertiser (major corporation or little mom-and-pop shops) could put in advertisements at a local level. They've got the transaction engine necessary to take and bill for advertisements. (That would be an existing online advertising company.) They've got the scale to do this on a nationwide (or even worldwide) basis. They've got a yellow pages database. They've got a way to deliver this to consumers.
Who has something like this today? The only things close that I've found are Yahoo! Local [yahoo.com], and our friend Google.
Google doesn't have all the pieces yet. But they're assembling them. Adsense is going to start allowing location based advertising. (I wish I kept my reference for that.) They're working on an integrated delivery platform to get that to you (Gphone). They practically have all the pieces in place, and they're working towards the goal of making this happen.
Now, DoubleClick is a major online advertising company. They could be competition to Google in this future world. But, if Google absorbs DoubleClick before the market even exists, then they can avoid the whole monopoly issue. So Google isn't just playing for the here and now, but they're playing for the future in advertising. Nobody else (such as local telephone companies which maintain their own yellow pages) will be in a position to compete (because they lack everything needed to gather the ads nationwide, and they lack everything needed to present the ads, except for some ownership of the mobile devices). Which... of course... Google managed to take away their walled garden when it comes to the mobile devices allowed on the next generation wireless networks.
And Google totally has this figured out. Hello? Google Maps? Want to know what the business looks like that you're heading for? Google street view. Google is totally lining all of its ducks in a row to corner this new market.
DoubleClick
Since when has google used FUD to destroy (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Since when has google used a AARD code in a Operating system to instill FUD for a user to purchase an alternate OS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code [wikipedia.org]
2) Since when has google informed a user to remove a competitors program upon installation/upgrade of a new one? http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/12/20/505887.aspx [msdn.com]
3) Since when has google forced install GGA (Google Genuine Advantage) software to frisk and accuse a user of being a thief when their not? http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/archive/2007/08/27/update-on-validation-issues.aspx [msdn.com]
4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but google has't put yahoo, msn, ask jeeves out of business by bundling their service with computer manufacturers. Computer makers can bundle all or none except when they bundle Windows (Windows Live).
Microsoft stopped being a software company back in 1991. They are now a an exclusive Windows only monopoly protection company. Just like the contract they signed with (CBS), they are old and busted (MTV).
Silverlight is a copy of flash (but won't work on my cell phone).
Microsoft assumed that they would steal away Ad dollars (UK Pounds, French EU etc) from google by being Microsoft. They don't understand yet that the Microsoft brand name is tainted and means squat for most of the world. Their not Coco-Cola for sure. They have brand recognition for being un-secure, BSOD, RROD (xbox360), and greedy.
In the USA a Microsoft ex-attorney is allowed to be head of the Microsoft DOJ oversight commission (Government). Hopefully the EU wont have a Microsoft employee overseeing their Microsoft anti-trust suit (Anyone can be bought by a company with ill-gotten $40 billion in the bank.
Microsoft is not evil. Just greedy. They forgot about making computer software thats simple and easy (Apple). Somehow they forgot that they were computer programmers, not Windows programmers.
Enjoy,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The better question is how you can have a monopoly in Advertising anyways. It's not like you can't buy airtime, newspaper, magazine, or interweb ads from dozens of locations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pot & Kettle? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft knows (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's obviously a vertical monopoly. Because -- as everyone knows -- it's turtles all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on, that was funny.
It is actually, MicroSoft Fear and Terrorism at it's best. Now give me a PC without Microsoft tax.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as Microsoft and it's desktop monopoly, I think given some choice between a buggy, easily exploitable OS, with a bare minimum of any kind of security model, and a truly secure OS that doesn't allow spammers to take control of a PC to become part of a botnet, most folks would probably choose the more secure, non-monopoly
Re: (Score:2)
Because the people that control the data control everything. We are quickly becoming a networked species...WMD's, guns, "dirty bombs"...these are no longer viable weapons except in little wars. The true fights are being fought with data, and Google likely has more data stored than any other organization in the entire world, b
Re: (Score:2)
My reasoning is that you seriously have a problem if the FTC actually holds up a merger to investigate anti-trust violations. Especially under the current administration, which is extremely pro-business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you installed Firefox lately? The default page you see when you first start up Firefox is this one [google.com].
Guess where it goes?