me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to KrK
Re: Google lobbying Feds against being labeled a monopoly
Yeah there r other search engines, ask.com, yahoo, dogpile.com, ect. |
|
yt
Premium
join:2008-06-03
| There are other OS's too, but MS was close.
When one company controls the world wide "starting point" of the Internet, the majority of all Internet advertising and all the cookies that monitor what you do, I would say they should be kept an eye on. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by yt  :There are other OS's too, but MS was close. When one company controls the world wide "starting point" of the Internet, the majority of all Internet advertising and all the cookies that monitor what you do, I would say they should be kept an eye on. I don't think the government should have gone after Microsoft and now shouldn't go after Google either. But I also don't see why Google gets a pass when Microsoft didn't. It is the same situation.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| said by TKJunkMail :said by yt :There are other OS's too, but MS was close. When one company controls the world wide "starting point" of the Internet, the majority of all Internet advertising and all the cookies that monitor what you do, I would say they should be kept an eye on. I don't think the government should have gone after Microsoft and now shouldn't go after Google either. But I also don't see why Google gets a pass when Microsoft didn't. It is the same situation. I don't think the feds should have gone after MS either (Apple and Linux anyone?) but I don't think the situations are very similar. Google has real, certifiable competition from Yahoo and Microsoft.
It could have been (and still can be) argued that Apple and Linux weren't (and still aren't) viable competition to Microsoft on the desktop. Part of the anti-trust was also that Microsoft was using undocumented API features of the OS to give their products (Media Player, Internet Explorer) an unfair advantage over competitors.
Not to get off track, but I think the feds went after MS because at the time, MS has ZERO lobbyists in Washington and didn't really play ball like the government wanted. Hell, Apple is way more guilty of anti-competitive behavior than MS ever was. The difference is Apple is still in the single (maybe low double) digit percentages on the desktop ownership market. |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to TKJunkMail
From a consumer standpoint, there are other differences.
During the lifespan of a computer, an OS choice is one that is much more difficult to change than a Search Engine choice. Google has to work to keep a consumer that could wander off on a minute's notice.
If GMail had as many outages as Win98 had blue screens, it'd have no users at all. That reflects the much tighter hold MS had over it's users.
Another example is that Google's Web App Suite has done little to chisel market share away from MS office. This is in spite of the shortcomings that make up Office 2007. I'd say Sun Office has more dedicated users than Google Apps.
We can keep looking at the technical legal differences between possible monopolies, but monopoly laws are supposed to be consumer-centric. I believe the consumer has a much easier time of choosing alternatives to Google offerings than they ever had from walking away from Microsoft.
NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :I don't think the government should have gone after Microsoft ... I think the government went after MS over the wrong thing. What I felt was monopolistic was the way MS required OEMs to sell an OS license with every computer whether the customer wanted it or not. That helped stop demand for IBM OS/2.
Nobody would consider buying a different OS if they'd already paid for one. There was no reason to even consider a choice because there effectively wasn't one (when you've already paid for an OS).
It was remarkable that the government went after MS because it came with Internet Explorer (and you couldn't uninstall it). Arguably essential to the OS. But, ignored the coercive OEM licensing thing.
Mark |
|
milnoc
join:2001-03-05
H3B
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by amigo_boy :What I felt was monopolistic was the way MS required OEMs to sell an OS license with every computer whether the customer wanted it or not. That's what I thought as well. So Google can't be considered a monopoly simply because it's not imposed on anyone.
Besides. If the DOJ causes too much trouble, Google can simply leave the USA and set up shop in multiple foreign countries. |
|
