There may be some legitimate claims here -- plenty of mention of where the DOJ has already stopped some anti-competitive behaviour from Google -- but overall it just screams "Google is KILLING us, we can't compete, so obviously there's a monopoly here, so lets legislate instead of innovate."
"There of course will be some who will point out the irony in today’s filing. Having spent more than a decade wearing the shoe on the other foot with the European Commission, the filing of a formal antitrust complaint is not something we take lightly. This is the first time Microsoft Corporation has ever taken this step. More so than most, we recognize the importance of ensuring that competition laws remain balanced and that technology innovation moves forward."
Obfuscated code to prevent Windows 3.1 from running on competing MS-DOS systems like DR-DOS. Microsoft VP internal memo:
> What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable,
> and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS
> and then go out to buy MS-DOS."
Licenses and threats that prevented Hitachi from pre-installing BeOS on in a dual boot configuration with MS-Windows. From the Be complaint:
> Hitachi eventually explained that the terms of its license
> with Microsoft prohibited preinstallation of another operating
> system in a dual-boot configuration. Hitachi also
> revealed that after it notified Microsoft of its intention to
> preinstall BeOS, Microsoft sent two U.S. managers to Japan who
> expressed their “anger” with Hitachi over its arrangement with
> Be, and “reminded” Hitachi of the terms of its Windows
> license."
An explicit strategy of "embrace, extend, extinguish":
> [Former Intel exec Peter] McGeady also testified to MS's
> professed strategy of "embrace, extend, extinguish." MS
> planned to "extend" the HTML standard to the point where it
> would be incompatible with the Netscape browser and then to
> encourage developers to use the MS HTML such that web pages
> couldn't be read with Netscape's browser.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Compared to these, "Google makes it too hard for us to index YouTube" sounds pretty tame in comparison.
I'm not saying Google isn't Evil, there's definitely some questionable things they've done as of late, but to try to compare them now to when MS was at its "evil" peak is disingenuous. Google built things people want to use. Microsoft built things so that you had to use them.
But in any case, the issue with Google is that we're the product and the advertisers are the customer. Google's ad product probably is worse than any comparable MS product I can recall -- at least from the perspective of the customer.
And lets be clear, MS never built something you had to use, any more than you have to use Google's ad product. You use them both because they are dominant in their industry. But for both, there was a time when they weren't the most dominant. People made a choice to use their products.
The thing that almost makes Microsoft a more sympathetic monopoly is that their monopoly was to the customers that used the product. So if you want to end their monopoloy in Windows, stop using the product and use something else. If enough people do that, the monopoly ceases.
Google's monopoly is indirect. As an advertiser, even if I move to another ad platform -- if my product doesn't move (the people searching with Google search), I'm still screwed. An uprising by the customer can't change the monopoly -- they need to get to the product.
(Note, there are technically different names for these two different forms of industry domination, but its not uncommon to refer to them under the same name -- anti-competitive behaviors can apply to either).
... the list goes on but show me a similar list from Google.
How did this happen? Was Bill Gates president and make that the law? There's no way you could use WordPerfect? That was illegal? Oh, WordPerfect start sucking in the 90s didn't it, so you stopped using it like I did? But that didn't have anything to do with it, did it?
Try transfering your ad campaign from Google to Bing? It is incredibly poor fidelity. Support for the .doc format in 1997 was better than the support you get porting your ad campaign.
I'd like to have other search providers use my gmail email data. How do I do that? Oh, it's not supported? I thought it was my email? As an advertiser can I decent placement support or clickfraud data? No. OK, I'll just go to another search ad provider -- oh wait, you're the only game in town. I'll play by your rules.
2) This is totally not a one sided problem. You think Microsoft is emailing Google to work with them on the issues? Ha.
3) You can POP/IMAP into your Gmail and download all of your email.
4) You squashed this into the same paragraph as the email thing, but yeah, that sucks. I agree. Alternatively you can use them until you are big enough and then hire someone to get ads directly from people but that doesn't help the small guy. I don't know what a noble solution is to this is - maybe everyone should agree on a format for moving ad campaigns around?
But hell, even Chrome asks on first run what search provider you want to use in a SANE way that encourages people to pick, unlike the IE of today that makes you jump through 15 screens just to get to pick a search provider.
I'd hardly say they are being monopolistic (which is the actual illegal part of being a monopoly).
When I can't even get a simple table from Office to WordPerfect to work properly what's the point (nothing fancy), where not talking excel formulas. If the document specs had been made available, you bet WordPerfect would have that implemented in no time. Word did have good support for WordPerfect files thus it was a one way street.
Wat? This is the whole principle of an ad exchange.
He used product tying and manipulated vendors into anti-competitive agreements such that they would either use what Microsoft wanted them to use exclusively or they wouldn't be able to offer it at all.
As for how they got the initial traction, they managed to get bundled with the IBM PC. IBM back in the day used exactly the same sort of tactics ("Nobody ever got fired for using IBM" & they invented FUD), though they've reformed quite a bit since then.
WordPerfect, Borland's compilers, etc. were widely considered the best back in the day, so I don't think it was primarily the strength of Microsoft's products which made people use them.
My recollection of this is a fair bit different. WP seriously began to lag Word in the 90s. While WP wss the undisputed king in MSDOS, on Windows it was buggy and late. Office 95 in particular was pretty crushing.
Borland was somewhat similar. They had a good set of dev tools, and for example, their C++ compiler was blindingly fast and the VCL was relatively clean (at least compared to MFC). But around VC 4.0 that began to change (at least build speed). VC started to beat Borland in build time and seemed to spread its lead in code quality. This coupled with a better IDE made is Visual C++ become the more common choice. Although I also think the strength of VB played a large role in the uptake in VC. No data to back it up, but anecdotcally I saw a lot of ISV shops bring VC along, because they were building a lot of internal tools with VB (and no one really had anything to compete with VB).
And lets be clear... VC was never shipped as part of Windows nor any bundling of VC with OEMs. So there's no monopoly ties that help push your case that VC became dominant through some monopoly manipulation.
There are emails that say that that was due to being deliberately hampered on Bill Gate's orders, unless I'm confusing them for one of the other companies he did that sort of thing to. I think someone else linked to that already.
> And lets be clear... VC was never shipped as part of Windows nor any bundling of VC with OEMs. So there's no monopoly ties that help push your case that VC became dominant through some monopoly manipulation.
They also had access to Windows internals and such, but I will grant that they made a good product too.
But people wanted the full fidelity of the MS file formats on different systems. Like I want the full power of GMail with a different ad provider.
Getting the data out is easy. You could do that with any version of Word/Excel. In fact, you could have built automation tools to do this, drop it into an ETL, and have it anywhere you like.
The data is rarely the full issue. It's the fidelity of service that people want.
Good luck with your formulas in CSV...
> Getting the data out is easy. You could do that with any version of Word/Excel.
Ken... I have had problems with different releases of Office (PC and Mac) importing Office documents... It was never easy. It wasn't even very predictable.
2) mostly it wasn't forcing you, just making it very hard for you to leave their ecosystem. exporting your email out of outlook for example was intentionally made difficult.
So you were required to use Windows? I used an Amiga until it was on its deathbed, so I find it hard to believe that you had to use Windows.
Right. At the same time (10 years ago), there were many different variants of Desktop Linux available, a few different office type applications, and a ton of other open source technologies.
Google is bundled with Firefox as the default search tool. Like bundled IE, you can just choose something you prefer to use.
"I'm not forced to use Gmail, or Google Talk, or Documents, but I choose to because it's the best out there."
If everyone used gtalk and you were forced to because all your friends are now using it, would you consider it a monopoly? So many geeks did 10 years ago in Microsoft's case.
"Google built things people want to use. Microsoft built things so that you had to use them."
Not true. I gave examples of valid competition out there to Microsoft's main products. At the time, the alternatives sucked, but that doesn't mean they weren't there.
The multi-sided market dynamics are as complex, and the impact on innovation could be similarly worrying (I explore those intensively in my PhD) but the attribution of guilt is much harder.
Bing is not even a blimp on Googles radar in Europe and in turn this adversely affects all other MSFT offerings [email, search, advertising, business apps etc etc]. MSFT were slammed for locking in IE as part of the OS and basically every Google App I use now shoves the "Use Google Chrome instead" in my face at some point. Google is now practically the 1eading search engine, leading email, leading advertising, leading online apps programs, leading new browser --> and it just keeps adding up. They all work synergistically together and in turn they all reduce competition for other players to some degree.
Screaming hypocrisy from MSFT ? You bet. Justified ? Perhaps - they'd be the best to know because they've been sued more times than anyone. I love Google, use all their products because they are the best - but as 100's of articles on HN have illustrated --> Bing is JUST as good as Google, arguably the search results are not that much different --> everyone uses Google because it's where EVERYTHING you use is located and Bing doesn't offer anything "better" than Google - so why change ?
This "lax" attitude is exactly what creates monopolies and exactly what stifles competition. If Google have 99% of the search market - nothing is "pushing them" to innovate. Maybe I would use Bing more if Hotmail didn't suck ? But the question is not always pointed towards what "technology buffs" are looking to use because the organic nature of being a techy is that you'll understand the differences.
Question is then - what do Mums, Dads and non-techies use and is this fueling anti-competitive behavior ? How are data practices maintained and what is Google doing with the enormous amount of data it gathers ? Relevant questions. Important ones and while I find it unbelievably ironic that MSFT is doing this - I'm glad someone is holding Google "accountable" because left unchecked - it's MSFT all over again.
That the problem with Bing, what's the point of it? Plus it's by a company who has a tarnished reputation.
By the logic of your argument we should complain because MSN is entrenched in my country (Canada) thus they have a monopoly because no one feels like switching away. Except MSN messenger does what people want, why would they switch to the same thing elsewhere?
The problem is that Google have so effectively cross-marketed their products through their search engine that you have no reason to switch. They have all your data, everything about you and you actively now "refuse" to use alternative services EVEN IF better services exist. Bing returns results which are just as good - sometimes better - but no one actively uses it ? "Google is better" --> that's the 10 years entrenchment Google has over everyone.
Your suggestion - "That the problem with Bing, what's the point of it?" - is exactly why anti-trust cases begin in the first place. "Why bother with competition?" --> I think your statement has just answered itself.
Bing can never compete effectively with Google if Google blocks them from properly indexing video.
By your Android analogy, the allegation is that YouTube is preventing you from searching properly using anything but Google Search.
I am sure the MSDN content on Microsoft's site that's indexed by Google is indexed by crawling the pages. I am sure if Bing folks ask the MSDN folks for access to that data and won't be turned down.
Bing can crawl the entirety of YouTube all they want, grab each and every snippet of information I can see on my screen. Why would they need anything more?