By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Balmer calls Google a monopoly, demands that they come under greater scrutiny by anitrust authorities

No matter what the anti-trust laws need to be put back into practice. At some point we stop enforcing many of them.



Around the Network

Well I am glad Windows is a sufficiently open platform that I can use the browser I want and I can use openoffice instead of paying MS more money for MS office. And I can use an open source email programme too. Essentially the only MS product I use is Windows. So MS are behaving themselves by not shutting developers of competing programmes out of the Windows environment. Is Apple the same way?



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

binary solo said:
Well I am glad Windows is a sufficiently open platform that I can use the browser I want and I can use openoffice instead of paying MS more money for MS office. And I can use an open source email programme too. Essentially the only MS product I use is Windows. So MS are behaving themselves by not shutting developers of competing programmes out of the Windows environment. Is Apple the same way?

This is part of the problem with Balmer's comments.  Microsoft back in the day, made that very difficult.  They didn't ban anyone, but they made it very difficult for anyone.  Competitors were bought out or pretty much bullied out by free software (This itself is not a bad thing).  It's why MS was hit with antitrust in Europe and why Internet Explorer couldn't be bundled with Windows.



Ballmer accusing google for monopoly is
like hitler accusing mussolini for being an fascist and antisemite.

both companies must be split into several small pieces.



kowenicki said:

Why does that make him a hypocrite? It make him a perfect man to judge. Having been under fire for it for years.

He has faced several attacks over the years.... its Google's turn. He is right.

The hypocrites are the ones who would say he isn't right. Those same people that have a go at MS for their "monopoly" are giving Google a free pass? Do me a favour. Google;'s monopoly is FAR more dangerous imo, because it is a potential monopoly of personal information.

Take your multi-coloured Google goggles off.


Not surprising you are the first one here defending MS....

 

This is totally different. MS was charged and convicted numerous times because of unfair practices, Google, is simply a choice. MS used underhanded tactics and bundling software with Windows to try to force market share in their favour.

 

Totally different, and yes, this is quite hypocritical.



Around the Network

See ya later Balmer!



The only way for Microsoft to defeat Google in search engines is to help bring anti trust suits against Google. Face it Microsoft barely anyone wants to use Bing. People choose to use Google.



Augen said:
Google managed to find its dominance at the right time when search engines became more prevalent. I remember Yahoo was the big guy and plenty of competitors such a Lycos and Dogpile and others. Yet, Google overtook all of them because it offered faster, easier and more preferred search results. None of those managed to become synonymous with searching, yet people started saying "I Googled it".

Microsoft's big uphill fight is they think being as good as dominant company is good enough. It is not. Google has become habitual for many people that you would have to offer a great deal to get them to switch from it. Just the way it goes. If you think I am picking on one, Google itself has experienced this trying to challenge Facebook with Google+. On paper as good or even a little better, but people have gotten use to Facebook now.

This can change, but Microsoft needs to give people a reason to use Bing.


Lycos! lollll blast from the past man, showing your age maybe.

Ebay is another monopoly people used to say.  But what about Amazon.  Craigslist (Free).  Etc. 

Windows.  What about Apples OS.  Linux (Free). Etc.

Google.  But type in Bing.  Yahoo.  Etc.  

 

Bottom line is people choose to use those companies.  I would rather the government go after corrupt cartels like diamonds, oil, etc.  Then again, I would rather the government stay out of it completely.  You don't need any of the listed above to survive (maybe you can make a small case for oil).  This isn't a bread and water scenario (aka humanitarian) so keep the goverment out.



Alby_da_Wolf said:
ListerOfSmeg said:
There is a bit of a difference. Google use is not forced on anyone. People just choose to go there because of its quality.
Now when you buy a PC, you have no option but Windows as an average consumer. You don't get to actively choose to support MS.

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.
 

Remember OS2 warp? IBM spenspent all that money and times and resources, and what did Microsoft do? Yeah no one really is crying about a open source search browser dominance really except for a company that has not been able to dominate it like they have done in pretty much every market that the company has ever been in with patent tax on every Linux distro out there, I think crying about one area of an area that with all the resources, that are @ Microsoft they cannot just come in an toll tax them like they have to any and every Is that has a non windows stamp on. Call an IP that is full open source that Microsoft is complaining about is like a very large Armed force that attacks a castle that has a very large moat and than complain about that the defenders are pure defensive to defend themselves. Google's is a Most defense its based n open source people can and will use other means for search. Hell Microsoft spent 20 billion on bing and has now recovered back 8 billion back with bing, so the fact they are making money on bing but complaining about Google is pretty d@men silly.



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

kowenicki said:
theprof00 said:
Says the guy whose company literally sent their bing searches through google and pretended the results were their own.
Sorry MS, but Google is big because it offered a high-quality service at a time when everyone else was looking at nickels and dimes, and it continues to do so today. It's not the Google products that controls the market. It's their brand-name, and they've done a great job building it. Maybe that should teach you a lesson in business.


None of which is relevant in any way.

A monoploy is a monopoly, it is irrelevant if it is the best or not.

I dont disagree that Google is the best search engine, but it should be scrutinised and regulated as a monopoly, just as Ballmer and MS was with its successful products.

Lets not be hypocritical about this.

While they are at it, Apple should face something similar for some of their bundled software.

Apple's bundled software?

That's not really the same thing now is it. Apple sell hardware. Their software is part of the product you buy. It's like complaining that Windows and its apps are part of a Windows phone. -__-