So, yesterday I saw screens of Microsoft's browser ballot...

[Kasz216]

Soleron said:

Kasz216 said:

...

Microsoft gave away it's internet browser free with windows. Googe intentionally downranked competitors... One of these helps the customer and is reasonable... the other hurts the customer and serves no benefit. What are links needed for? This is the basis of the two claims. One bitches that internet explorer comes with windows... which is a better alternative then say, having to pick a disc and install the browser, which may or may not still be your browser when you can just use IE to download whatever browser you wan... vs intentionally downranking your competitors so they can't beat you. What about that "smells'. IE bundled into windows has benefit to the consumer. What google is doing has none.

Microsoft has a far longer list of crimes than that. Patent scares with Linux, paying OEMs not to ship other OSs, OEM lock-in by making it cheaper to sell Windows than no OS at all (yes that does make sense), Media Player bundling, limiting netbook form factor, the OOXML not being truly open thing, making a deliberately incompatible version of Java to weaken it, RROD and not doing enough to admit it and extend warranty permenently, refusing people Windows refunds even when the license called for it...

Not all of those are serious or indeed illegal but if we're going for corporate ethics then MS is the worst.

And you're assuming Google actually did those things. I doubt they did, and I doubt if they did that it was intentional. If I see some evidence I'll reconsider.

I'm talking simply about these two cases... which is what the thread was about.  Comparitivly the google one is MUCH more a problem.

Also, you doubt google actually did this?  Based on what?

Based on the fact that because they had a spat with Apple they decided to remove Ipad pictures for their search engine.

Google has shown the ability and willinginess to alter their search records for their own goals.