And they say what matter is games or secret sauce, but it's MS dominance and money.

Its funny to complain about a free service provided and that the customer have free will to choose... more funny would be if they complain about the navigator, when they shove ie on every machine and everybody is obligated to use its greatest feature download firefox and/or chrome.

Its about search enigine advertising monopoly.. Google recieves 95% of all that..
Their CPC Cost per Click are waay more expensive then anything other out there 300 to 400%
google has control on so much personal data.. Yes you can "delete" that but by then they already earnt 10 bucks from you because of the ads displayed tailored to you..

They even "enhanced" their google adwords but actually removed the ability only target smartphone or desktop ones cause google is really ineffictive in their mobile advertising.. Google has bullied their advertisers but since their audience is that big advertisers have little to few alternatives..

facebook is an alternative with cheaper CPC then Google so what did google do? Make Google+ so that they could also have that share.. Or did you think it was because they are so nice and want to innovate? They even forbade app makers using different geo locators on your android phone then the google one otherwise they couldn't collect your data.. Peope should realise that Google is a personal data collector and seller first and all their products are based around that

Surely you didn't expect serious discussion about this here OP. Of course people would just sneer at omg the audacity!

No one forces you to use Google.

This. Google's leadership depends on users choice, it could fall at any moment like Yahoo and Altavista leaderships fell in the past. Not to mention that Windows and Office monopoly on desktop is actively enforced thanks to legacy apps and closed formats and protocols, and in the past it was even worse, MS arrived to charge PC producers also for PCs sold without Windows. If users instead decide to abandon Google, there aren't closed formats and protocols that lock them to it. BTW, back in the time of the battle between MS Windows and IBM OS/2, MS won also because IBM was still scared by possible antitrust actions, despite not having had a monopoly for years, and so its attacks were very weak, its support to OS/2 not strong enough, while MS was actively building its own monopoly, also with unfair tactics against Digital Research, undisturbed. It was subject to fines and other legal actions later, for its behaviour against others (and always too late to save its competitors), but in the battle against IBM the antitrust actually favoured MS and damaged IBM, despite IBM not being a threat for free competition anymore in the PC market. Is MS trying to be helped again this way?
Other MS unfair actions punished too late or never: not disclosing fully Windows specs and APIs to competing SW houses writing SW for it, it used undisclosed APIs and specs to give MS Office and other SW an unfair competitive advantage on competitors like Lotus/IBM Smartsuite, WordPerfect Suite and others. MS unfair actions against Netscape and Java are well documented, and MS was fined for them, but, as usual, too little and too late.
 

Why?? People choose to use Google. Google doesn't force people to use their search engine.

My question is more regarding how much of a monopoly it is. It seems he is more just crying "unfair". I mean, they have what, 16% and growing? They complain that Google isn't losing any marketshare, but what if Google is trying just as hard to gain marketshare? It would be unfair if there was an uncompetitive advantage, but the only advantage is the brandname. How does the FCC bring Google in line then? It's just a search engine. Make Bing the default homepage for all computers? Isn't the problem in the first place that owners of new computers, for the most part, opening ie only to download firefox, and then change the homepage to google? How does one regulate consumer mindset?

I use google only because my brain auto types it in whenever I want to search something. I would have to re program my brain if I wanted to change that. plus google just rolls of my fingers when im typing.

LOL...No. I've never met a Sony fan and had a conversation with them about Kaz who could say they liked him. Most think hes a dick but they respect him from my knowledge.

As for balmer, even the guys who initially created the Xbox hate him. One of the retired Xbox founders wrote a book and basically talks about how bad of a person he is. Microsoft has to have some of the most hated individuals in gaming. They took the least popular guy at Sony in Phil Spencer when he jumped ship to Microsoft. To tell you the truth, he belongs there. He's making money, but he's still a creeper. Yusuf Mehdi....well...theres not much to say about that guy.

Just because Company A has some destructive business practices (MS) does not mean they cannot point that out in others. Nor make it any less relevant.

Like the article states, it isnt really Google bullying the market into making itself a Monopoly, but how good it is. Bing has taken the shared of the other sites, not taking anything from Google.

I had a "Bing" week at work last week and used it exclusively, and I have to say it was a definite mixed bag. For the real technical, document searches (not in a title or a page etc) Google destroys Bing, but for Titles/Headings I did like how Bing did its organization.