| gooch_destroyer said: Google>Bing. Just saying... |
I don't think anyone denies this. Ballmer is just saying Google's market share of the search engine market is so large that it is a monopoly which is unhealthy for a market
| gooch_destroyer said: Google>Bing. Just saying... |
I don't think anyone denies this. Ballmer is just saying Google's market share of the search engine market is so large that it is a monopoly which is unhealthy for a market
kowenicki said:
|
At least Google is starting to encrypt its search and drive documents, and is the most vocal among the tech industry in making the US govt more transparent about its NSA involvement, which should get the NSA to back off.
So, you should give credit where it is due.
kowenicki said:
Not so. Microsoft and Google have teamed up to bring a joint legal action against the NSA. Its a joint attack. |
All of the facts that I stated about encryption are correct, not just my opinion on something. Secondly, Google is also starting to make searches more anonymous with its alternative to cookies:
http://www.dailytech.com/Cookie+Cure+Google+Preps+AdID++to+Supposedly+Limit+NSA+Advertiser+Snooping/article33402c.htm
The google search and Drive encryption, as well as this, make MSFT look relatively passive by comparison. I realize that they are teaming up with Google to protest, but MSFT could be doing more.
kowenicki said:
|
Fixed.
Naninho said:
Fixed. |
This makes MSFT's Scroogled campaign seem hypocritical.
It is more than a bit amusing to hear Microsoft complaining about someone else using unfair business practices. Witnessing a certain other person berating others for being biased is also good for a chuckle.
That aside, he is right about Google holding too much power. Google is close to critical mass in the search engine world, where they have so much control that the resources needed to unseat them would be enormous. Microsoft is really the only one with a chance, though ironically, it means using their own monopolies to leverage Bing, which would also be unfair.

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.
| 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. |
seems hypocritical
dallas said:
|
How am I being a hypocrite? They are two different things. One is a choice the other isnt.
Let me try it another way.
Going to McDonalds over other fast food places is a choice. Going to McDonalds because they are the only option for food in your area is not.
If you dont like Google, there are plenty of other options you can choose for the exact same experience
If you dont like MS, you dont have the same option for choosing another OS that is just as viable as Windows. Sure you can use Linux but you wont be gaming as much on your PC then.You wont have access to the same software.
ListerOfSmeg said:
Let me try it another way. Going to McDonalds over other fast food places is a choice. Going to McDonalds because they are the only option for food in your area is not. If you dont like Google, there are plenty of other options you can choose for the exact same experience If you dont like MS, you dont have the same option for choosing another OS that is just as viable as Windows. Sure you can use Linux but you wont be gaming as much on your PC then.You wont have access to the same software. |
I think that MSFT is the hypocrite.