Microsoft files monopoly complaint against Google(theregister.co.uk)
theregister.co.uk
Microsoft files monopoly complaint against Google
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/microsoft_google_monopoly/
17 comments
Money quote:
"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."
"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."
Just some historical context for the anti-competitive behaviors that Microsoft refined and perfected into an art:
Obfuscated code to prevent Windows 3.1 from running on competing MS-DOS systems like DR-DOS. Microsoft VP internal memo:
Licenses and threats that prevented Hitachi from pre-installing BeOS on in a dual boot configuration with MS-Windows. From the Be complaint:
An explicit strategy of "embrace, extend, extinguish":
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.
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.
Funny how the tune has changed. If this was Microsoft 10+ years ago, everyone would scream Monopoly and want the problem legislated away. Now that it involves Google, a "cool" company that can "do no harm", it's fine.
Well first of all it's "Do No Evil", and frankly I don't think you can compare the two. Where Microsoft 10 years ago did everything they could to force you to use their products (bundling the browser, exclusivity with all consumer computer OEMs, etc), Google has made really good products that people want 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.
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.
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.
Google Talk and Documents aren't very good, but I'll give you GMail.
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).
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).
Wow, I mean, I'm young but I do remember the late 90s where every document had to be in .doc format (last I checked it's still pretty mendatory) or else no one could open it and Microsoft did everything they could to prevent other from reimplementing that format. Or how microsoft took a protocol like netbios and then smb and made it so that no one could interface with their network protocols without some crazy reverse engineering (thank you Tridge). Or how IE took over and slowly started adding incompatible stuff (look at activex and jscript as a good example) to make it impossible to work without, I still find apps that require IE6 to function. What about their attempt to re implement java and make it incompatible.
... the list goes on but show me a similar list from Google.
... the list goes on but show me a similar list from Google.
I do remember the late 90s where every document had to be in .doc format
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.
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.
1) He was saying doc was a standard and that Microsoft was ensuring no one else could create doc files. The latter part is the monopoly.
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).
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).
You could download all your emails with pop or imap if you wanted. This has always been supported. It would have been nice to use WordPerfect but as you mention people wanted a conversion that retain the layout of the original .doc
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.
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.
> Try transfering your ad campaign from Google to Bing? It is incredibly poor fidelity.
Wat? This is the whole principle of an ad exchange.
Wat? This is the whole principle of an ad exchange.
> How did this happen? Was Bill Gates president and make that the law?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> on Windows it was buggy and late.
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.
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.
Furthermore, Google actually actively fights user lock in with the "Data Liberation Front". Decide that Google has gone evil and you no longer want to use their services? Grab your data and get out. It's the exact opposite of the kind of crap Microsoft pulled.
That's not the same thing. With Word and Excel you could always save to RTF, TXT, or CSV. Plus supporting exporting to a huge host of 3rd party proprietary formats as well.
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.
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.
Even basic fidelity was not possible due to some really complex issues (excel date format) which were not documented anywhere. Look at the PDF format, it's a very complex format that almost no one fully support, but the 95% of features people use are supported in a bunch of non-adobe viewers and creators. This only happened after adobe made the PDF spec open. And they still make a ton of money off Adobe Acrobat.
I just exported a bunch of date fields to a CSV. They look fine. Probably 95% of Excel files in use can be exported as a CSV and capture all the data.
> With Word and Excel you could always save to RTF, TXT, or CSV.
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.
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.
1) actually they did force you to use IE, it was called directly by the OS, and some of their online interactions required it.
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.
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.
1) actually they did force you to use IE, it was called directly by the OS, and some of their online interactions required it.
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.
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.
you're forgetting that microsoft actively leaned on hardware manufacturers so that they were forced into deals where they had to exclusively sell pcs with windows installed, or be penalised with higher licensing costs. that in turn meant that yes, you did have to use microsoft's product, or at the very least pay for it.
"(bundling the browser, exclusivity with all consumer computer OEMs, etc)"
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.
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.
Yes, Google has many good products people want to use and aren't forced to use. But the same was true for Microsoft at its "evil" peak. They made business applications, games, development tools, peripherals, and technical books, for instance that people wanted to use, but were not forced to use, and for which good alternatives were available.
I'm glad we're on the same page. I'm just sick of the one-sided and biased tech community.
Wasn't there a time when Google bundled the toolbar with all PCs from Dell and maybe other companies? Isn't that almost like "forcing" me to use Google (I mean... I didn't mind, but those toolbars were annoying) as preinstalling IE "forced" me to use IE?
Actually, it's "Don't be evil". It often gets confused/merged with the hippocratic oath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_evil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_evil
I managed to paste the link incorrectly and am unable to edit it, my apologies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
At the time, Microsoft monopoly appeared to force intractable bugs on everyone; one had to wait months for patches, that often made things worst; the culprit was clear.
Now, the main impact of Google dominant position is 10 blue results that could be more suited to your query, and that are changed depending on what people click: grey SEOs, animal instincts or customer preference for anything Google can explain bad results, unchallengeable position and Google product dominance—allowing Matt Cutts to claim the engine is neutral i.e. good.
Plus, Windows was expensive, unnaturally so (copies are free, versions priced differently were the same) while Google makes sure you can check that you earned more money than they cost you before billing. Google didn't uproot a higher-end competitor with better design that boosted your self-image.
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.
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.
Wasn't IE5 way better than Netscape at the time?
10+ years ago Microsoft seemed the unbeatable behemoth. Google may be a behemoth today, but I don't think that people are under the impression that they are unbeatable.
Can understand the anti-MSFT crowd here but after being smashed so many times for anti-competitiveness [rightly, I might add] - but equally I can appreciate the "mix" of feelings MSFT have.
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.
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.
" everyone uses Google because it's where EVERYTHING you use is located and Bing doesn't offer anything "better" than Google - so why change ?"
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?
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?
No, by the logic of my argument we should seek to ensure that anti-competitive behavior does not simply trump competitors who offer services of a nature which is just as good if not better "but for" the entrenchment that Google has in consumer web.
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.
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.
No No No. Anti competitive behaviour doesn't arise when consumers all choose to use a particular product because they can't be bothered to try others out. That means the product they chose is likely sufficient for their needs. The dominant use of Google Search doesn't preclude anyone from using Bing if they choose, and for this reason Google's dominance in search isn't anticompetitive. It's only when they use this dominance to enter and dominate another market (or, as in this case, preventing WinMobile's youtube app from accessing the same video metadata available to Android and iOS youtube apps).
The anti-competitive behavior they're accused of is using their dominance in online-video to secure their dominance in search.
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.
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.
Define "search properly".
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?
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?
@timmyd: But there is innovation in the search space, some companies are making efforts to have features google doesn't have currently. Duck Duck Go, wolframalpha... I wouldn't say any of those doesn't have a chance to become big.
> Secondly he accused Google of blocking Windows Mobile phones from working properly with YouTube.
Hah! I'd love to hear more details about this. Isn't it up to Microsoft to add fucking HTML5 or Flash support to their phones? How is Google doing anything but providing videos and Microsoft refusing to write code that reads those videos?
This is the dumbest complaint ever, unless there are some details we're missing...I'm curious. This is just too much, it can't be real.
Hah! I'd love to hear more details about this. Isn't it up to Microsoft to add fucking HTML5 or Flash support to their phones? How is Google doing anything but providing videos and Microsoft refusing to write code that reads those videos?
This is the dumbest complaint ever, unless there are some details we're missing...I'm curious. This is just too much, it can't be real.
Seeing as how every YouTube video I've tried to play in a Windows Phone has worked, I fail to see what the issue is at all.
Clearly details are missing.
Clearly details are missing.
They are talking about video metadata. I really can't see what the problem is. Does Google have a private API they use for Android phones? Did Apple pay for it so that YouTube is featured on iPhones. Does Microsoft want this data for free?
The problem is that that by acquiring large stores of content (e.g. Video, Books) and stopping other search engines from to indexing them properly, they are giving Google Search an unfair advantage.
If they aren't stopped from doing this they'll repeat the process for one content type after another, and the so-called search engine competition that keeps them honest will be killed completely.
If they aren't stopped from doing this they'll repeat the process for one content type after another, and the so-called search engine competition that keeps them honest will be killed completely.
Microsoft can't complain YouTube is the only game in town - they discontinued their Soap Box thingie. Besides that, YouTube is not the only video hosting provider - There are Vimeo, blib.tv and a host of others. Also, Google scans that books and bears the cost of the scanning. Why would they give this data to Microsoft for free? If Microsoft wants to scan their own books or provide a video hosting platform, they are free to do so, but I don't see why Google has an obligation to provide them these services.
YouTube is the only game in town for user created videos on the web. What percentage of user created videos do you think YouTube streams? I wouldn't be surprised its in the 80%s or higher.
Which in itself is just fine. But now they're using their monopoly position here to bolster another unrelated product. Once you start doing that you're doing an IE/Windows abuse.
Which in itself is just fine. But now they're using their monopoly position here to bolster another unrelated product. Once you start doing that you're doing an IE/Windows abuse.
Good news for you:
http://vimeo.com/upload/video
http://blip.tv/dashboard/upload
You have choice!
edit: and I love how blip.tv gets the podcast RSS thing.
http://vimeo.com/upload/video
http://blip.tv/dashboard/upload
You have choice!
edit: and I love how blip.tv gets the podcast RSS thing.
I have started suggesting that everyone use Vimeo. I will stay away from YouTube as best I can.
Blip.tv? The site doesn't look so hot.
Blip.tv? The site doesn't look so hot.
Too late to edit the other answer.
http://clojure.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
http://pycon.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
http://djangocon.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
Are my three favorites.
http://clojure.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
http://pycon.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
http://djangocon.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
Are my three favorites.
How would I find those if you didn't link them? Doesn't seem obvious how to find these "channels".
I think they are all linked in the corresponding project, event or community sites.
You can also search (this is one I never did before):
http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+site%3Ablip.tv
which led me to:
http://blip.tv/file/399103 and to its channel.
BTW, there is an http://oscon.blip.tv that promises to consume even more of my free time.
You can also search (this is one I never did before):
http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+site%3Ablip.tv
which led me to:
http://blip.tv/file/399103 and to its channel.
BTW, there is an http://oscon.blip.tv that promises to consume even more of my free time.
It's very good. PyCon and Clojure have lots of videos there. I am right now listening to a PyCon 2011 presentation from it.
And they got the podcast thing right.
And they got the podcast thing right.
So it's ok to have Google Search be a monopoly that nobody can compete with because they own the content too?
Personally, I think competition in the search space might lead to better results.
Personally, I think competition in the search space might lead to better results.
I have a monopoly on the content I own, much like Microsoft has a monopoly on Hotmail, Windows and Office and Google has a monopoly on the content they created or captured.
But do you see how Google buying up significant percentages of web content and only allowing their own search engine to index it properly would make it impossible for other search engines to compete?
I don't see this "buying up significant percentages of web content" thing happening. Is that the books thing where they scanned the books themselves? Is is YouTube, where they offered a good enough video platform? Is AdSense and AdWords, where they made monetizing a website simple and painless?
And Microsoft's Brad Smith saying "It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google" is beyond hypocritical. He can't possibly be stupid enough to believe that himself.
No. Microsoft is not complaining of unfair practices by Google. It's complaining because now they can't use the same practices they always relied on to squash a competitor that has grown too large for them to feel comfortable.
And Microsoft's Brad Smith saying "It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google" is beyond hypocritical. He can't possibly be stupid enough to believe that himself.
No. Microsoft is not complaining of unfair practices by Google. It's complaining because now they can't use the same practices they always relied on to squash a competitor that has grown too large for them to feel comfortable.
You're saying this is not anti-competitive?
One of the ways that search engines attract users is through distribution of search boxes through Web sites. Unfortunately, Google contractually blocks leading Web sites in Europe from distributing competing search boxes. It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google. Google's exclusivity terms have even blocked Microsoft from distributing its Windows Live services, such as email and online document storage, through European telecommunications companies because these services are monetized through Bing search boxes.
How is Google contractually blocking other search boxes any different than MS telling Dell that if they ship Linux boxes then they can't ship Windows?
The hypocrisy here is staggering.
One of the ways that search engines attract users is through distribution of search boxes through Web sites. Unfortunately, Google contractually blocks leading Web sites in Europe from distributing competing search boxes. It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google. Google's exclusivity terms have even blocked Microsoft from distributing its Windows Live services, such as email and online document storage, through European telecommunications companies because these services are monetized through Bing search boxes.
How is Google contractually blocking other search boxes any different than MS telling Dell that if they ship Linux boxes then they can't ship Windows?
The hypocrisy here is staggering.
Can't Microsoft make their AdCenter better than the deals those sites have with Google?
I would love to see the real complaint and not just Brad Smith's Technet post.
"It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google"
I loved that part. People around me in the office wondered why I laughed so loud.
I would love to see the real complaint and not just Brad Smith's Technet post.
"It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google"
I loved that part. People around me in the office wondered why I laughed so loud.
Well its hard to get better when you have a monopolist using their monopoly weight to keep customers from using your product or other content that you have a monopoly on.
I find it odd that you're not saying that Google should let there be an open playing field. If a site wants to host both Google and Bing they should be able to.
Of course when it comes to Google they can do no evil -- because they told you so.
I find it odd that you're not saying that Google should let there be an open playing field. If a site wants to host both Google and Bing they should be able to.
Of course when it comes to Google they can do no evil -- because they told you so.
No, they can't make it better if Google prevents them from indexing significant parts of the web.
The point has been made, several times by more than one person, and yet you ignore it.
The point has been made, several times by more than one person, and yet you ignore it.
You don't think YouTube contains a large percentage of web video, or you don't think Google bought YouTube?
Oh... But they don't own the content there - whoever put it there is free to port it to, say, Soapbox. Or Vimeo, or blip.tv or justin.tv or even S3. And even delete the instances in YouTube, leaving Google with nothing.
The only problem with that is that Soapbox no longer exists. Because Microsoft didn't want to spend any more money on it.
The only problem with that is that Soapbox no longer exists. Because Microsoft didn't want to spend any more money on it.
What incentive would there be for everyone to remove their content from YouTube?
I guess you didn't read the article.
The core complaint is that YouTube isn't allowing search engines other than Google to access their metadata, preventing Bing from searching properly.
If Google is actually doing this, and is allowed to continue, then no search engine will be able to compete properly with them.
That's a pretty real and serious accusation.
The core complaint is that YouTube isn't allowing search engines other than Google to access their metadata, preventing Bing from searching properly.
If Google is actually doing this, and is allowed to continue, then no search engine will be able to compete properly with them.
That's a pretty real and serious accusation.
This is from their blog:
First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube—and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google.
Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft’s new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It’s done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn’t offer a competing search service.
Unfortunately, Google has refused to allow Microsoft’s new Windows Phones to access this YouTube metadata in the same way that Android phones and iPhones do. As a result, Microsoft’s YouTube “app” on Windows Phones is basically just a browser displaying YouTube’s mobile Web site, without the rich functionality offered on competing phones. Microsoft is ready to release a high quality YouTube app for Windows Phone. We just need permission to access YouTube in the way that other phones already do, permission Google has refused to provide.
First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube—and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google.
Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft’s new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It’s done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn’t offer a competing search service.
Unfortunately, Google has refused to allow Microsoft’s new Windows Phones to access this YouTube metadata in the same way that Android phones and iPhones do. As a result, Microsoft’s YouTube “app” on Windows Phones is basically just a browser displaying YouTube’s mobile Web site, without the rich functionality offered on competing phones. Microsoft is ready to release a high quality YouTube app for Windows Phone. We just need permission to access YouTube in the way that other phones already do, permission Google has refused to provide.
[deleted]
I've long been against Microsoft's practices, but from what I can tell, they are clearly in the right on this: Google is using it's market power to restrict competition in various ways.
This anti-competitive behavior should be stopped, regardless of the irony.
It doesn't matter if it's Google, Microsoft, Apple, the NFL, AT&T, IBM, U.S. sugar producers, or a company you haven't heard of yet - if one or more companies are leveraging market power to enter new markets or limit competition in their market, they should be stopped.
This anti-competitive behavior should be stopped, regardless of the irony.
It doesn't matter if it's Google, Microsoft, Apple, the NFL, AT&T, IBM, U.S. sugar producers, or a company you haven't heard of yet - if one or more companies are leveraging market power to enter new markets or limit competition in their market, they should be stopped.
Good thing typical small businesses don't rely on software and documents that can only be rendered correctly by Microsoft products anymore. Cuz if that were the case, this suit would be extreme hypocrisy.
Sarcasm aside, this doesn't necessarily invalidate the premises of the argument. Even so, I don't see that current Google offerings have anywhere near the lock-in of Microsoft products.
Sarcasm aside, this doesn't necessarily invalidate the premises of the argument. Even so, I don't see that current Google offerings have anywhere near the lock-in of Microsoft products.
The complaint is that Google has a conflict of interest as it becomes a content provider as well as a search engine, and that it is exploiting this.
For other content providers, more search engines indexing their stuff, means more traffic. There is only upside to letting more search engines in.
For Google, hobbling other search engines indexing their content is a great way to keep their search engine on top. It's a virtuous circle for them.
In a way it's hard to see how they aren't privileging Google search in some way. Does Google Search use a public API to scrape YouTube, or is there some backend integration? If there's integration, doesn't that support Microsoft's claim?
For other content providers, more search engines indexing their stuff, means more traffic. There is only upside to letting more search engines in.
For Google, hobbling other search engines indexing their content is a great way to keep their search engine on top. It's a virtuous circle for them.
In a way it's hard to see how they aren't privileging Google search in some way. Does Google Search use a public API to scrape YouTube, or is there some backend integration? If there's integration, doesn't that support Microsoft's claim?
It seems like there's a lot of people commenting here who haven't read the article in full. Some key points of it are that Microsoft isn't filing against Google Search - rather they are complaining that Google is providing meta data to other companies (apple) and are crippling Microsoft's access to it. As a result, Microsoft's Windows Phone and other devices can't build an integrated youtube app on their phone. They claim that Google is doing this because Microsoft is a search competitor.
In addition, they are filing numerous complaints against Google's ad networks, and their attempt to have unfettered and exclusive access to orphaned books.
Right now, it seems like Microsoft may have a leg to stand on in regards to the youtube metadata control. I'll await google's response to this though before I choose sides, and I'd recommend others wait as well.
In addition, they are filing numerous complaints against Google's ad networks, and their attempt to have unfettered and exclusive access to orphaned books.
Right now, it seems like Microsoft may have a leg to stand on in regards to the youtube metadata control. I'll await google's response to this though before I choose sides, and I'd recommend others wait as well.
I just saw a TV ad for a Windows 7 phone last night that heavily touted integration with Xbox Live.
Much in the spirit of Bing & Youtube, I wonder if other mobile devices will be able to integrate just as easily w/ Xbox Live?
Much in the spirit of Bing & Youtube, I wonder if other mobile devices will be able to integrate just as easily w/ Xbox Live?
Is it really that hard to parse Youtube? These are the guys who made an operat..
I can't say it. I can't say Microsoft actually ever made an operating system. The one thing I've noticed with them is that they offer good download speeds. To get all the patches quicker.
I can't say it. I can't say Microsoft actually ever made an operating system. The one thing I've noticed with them is that they offer good download speeds. To get all the patches quicker.
Maybe Brad could tell me why I can't install IE9 on my Windows XP netbook and need to upgrade to Win7? I thought the OS had been decoupled due to Microsoft's OS monopoly. Perhaps I should ask Google.
That is a good one. May be all XP users should file complaint against MS for giving software that is NOT backward compatible and ask for free upgrade to whatever platform that supports their latest and greatest upgrades.
I bet Google will allow access to even their search index if Microsoft starts blocking all their applications in OS level.
That's obviously an April fool's hoax.
I mean Microsoft is bigger and richer than Google, they practically own the desktop OS and enterprise software markets, they won't accuse anyone of anti-trust because they aren't dominating search as well, would they?!
I mean Microsoft is bigger and richer than Google, they practically own the desktop OS and enterprise software markets, they won't accuse anyone of anti-trust because they aren't dominating search as well, would they?!
April fools came early this year?
In other news, Pot calls Kettle "black." More at 11.
I heard Microsoft is going to reimburse its engineers who decide to pursue a law degree as it aligns with their internal strategy to have more lawyers than coders by 2015.
Give me a break, if I want to go search I have any choice I want. There is nothing stopping me from using Google, Bing, Yahoo, Duck Duck Go or any other service. That's the beauty of the web, it's open.
You should read the article. That's not what they are complaining about- in fact, they acknowledge this directly.
EDIT relevant snippet:
On PCs it is usually not difficult for people to navigate to any search engine. Google in fact makes this point virtually every time someone raises antitrust concerns about their practices. Their defense ignores the hugely important fact that there are many other important ways that search services compete. Search engines compete to index the Web as fully as possible so they can generate good search results, they compete to gain advertisers (the source of revenue in this business), and they compete to gain distribution of their search boxes through Web sites. Consumers will not benefit from clicking to alternative sites unless all search engines have a fair opportunity to compete in each of these areas.
EDIT relevant snippet:
On PCs it is usually not difficult for people to navigate to any search engine. Google in fact makes this point virtually every time someone raises antitrust concerns about their practices. Their defense ignores the hugely important fact that there are many other important ways that search services compete. Search engines compete to index the Web as fully as possible so they can generate good search results, they compete to gain advertisers (the source of revenue in this business), and they compete to gain distribution of their search boxes through Web sites. Consumers will not benefit from clicking to alternative sites unless all search engines have a fair opportunity to compete in each of these areas.
TL;DR -- Advertisers/websites want users, Google has users, and we don't know how the fuck to compete with that other than playing dirty.
Oh Microsoft, how I'd like for you to become even more irrelevant than you already are.
Oh Microsoft, how I'd like for you to become even more irrelevant than you already are.
DR is correct.
The actual accusation is that YouTube only allows Google to properly index their videos, giving Google Search an unfair advantage.
Consumers won't switch to a search engine that can't index everything they want, and Bing can't index YouTube properly if Google won't let them.
The actual accusation is that YouTube only allows Google to properly index their videos, giving Google Search an unfair advantage.
Consumers won't switch to a search engine that can't index everything they want, and Bing can't index YouTube properly if Google won't let them.
>Consumers will not benefit from clicking to alternative sites unless all search engines have a fair opportunity to compete in each of these areas
Consumers will not benefit at all, since these companies can't index as large a portion of the web as Google could alone.
Consumers will not benefit at all, since these companies can't index as large a portion of the web as Google could alone.
Minor nitpick: I think Yahoo has been using Bing search instead of its own.
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."