Is Google Hypocritical About Microsoft?

[Pangloss]

Two apparently conflicting stories:

 

Google Wants More Vista Changes (re: Microsoft desktop search)

 

Google Extends iPhone Partnership With Apple

 

We haven't had a good debate about the politics of computer science recently. I think Google is very rapidly losing its "cool kid" appeal and becoming quite the evil empire. What do you all think?

[theCPE]

Sometimes you have to fight the evil empire with another evil empire.

 

If nothing else, they might create competition, which is always better for the consumer.

[Dak]

I don't see any conflict to be honest. in both cases, google have expanded their reach; in one case, microsoft misused their role as OS-supplier to try to forse people to use their desktop search engine and not anyone elses, and so google resorted to the courts.

[mooeypoo]

Google seems to - so far - work quite a lot with open source (or semi-open source, and developer tools) which is encouraging, and quite QUITTTEE different than microsoft.

 

Since microsoft is taking advantage of its power to constantly hold a monopoly, I am actually encouraged by google's fight. No company is perfect, obviously, but relatively speaking, considering the notion of a business world, google seems to be the good guy here.

 

Those are my 2 cents, anyways.

 

~moo

[1veedo]

Seconded. Google works a lot with open source eg it's summer of fun thing. Google earth even runs natively on Linux so there's no complaining there (lol even though it was me who figured out how to get the windows google Earth running in Wine).

[Pangloss]

Google seems to - so far - work quite a lot with open source (or semi-open source, and developer tools) which is encouraging, and quite QUITTTEE different than microsoft.

 

Since microsoft is taking advantage of its power to constantly hold a monopoly, I am actually encouraged by google's fight. No company is perfect, obviously, but relatively speaking, considering the notion of a business world, google seems to be the good guy here.

 

Those are my 2 cents, anyways.

 

~moo

 

Isn't that more a perception and historical issue than a reality, though? How is Microsoft (presumably you mean "unfairly") "taking advantage of its power to constantly hold a monopoly" today? Specifically? Note that I've given university lectures on the subject of Microsoft's blunders both legal and otherwise, so when I say specific I do mean specific.

 

Moreover, the field I mainly teach in, web development, has benefitted tremendously not only by Microsoft's presence, but more recently by Microsoft's embracing of "open source". To give an example of the proprietary side of innovative contributions, Visual Studio is still considered far and away the best IDE, and it's been quite obvious the way Borland and NetBeans have followed its developments over the years, adding VS ideas to their own editors (and vice-versa, of course). To give an example of the "open source" side, we have Microsoft to thank for the core component that allows AJAX to function. MS has also embraced "open source" within the ASP community, using it to encourage AJAX embracement amongst ASP developers, as a most recent example.

 

While we still dwell in a predominently Perl-scripted, Linux-hosted Web (and probably benefit from that fact), I believe that this competition drives the industry forward far faster than it would be moving otherwise.

 

Also I do agree with your point about no company being perfect, but calling Google "the good guys" is a bit dangerous, don't you think? Perhaps you meant that specifically for this subject, but I think it's a very bad idea to assign hat colors to companies. Maybe this is what got us into trouble with Microsoft in the first place -- too many people seeing them as being "the good guys" and unable to do wrong.

[Sayonara]

Google lost their cool kid image when they floated.

[Pangloss]

Would've been better if they'd stayed private to serve the impulses of their creators, I agree.

 

Of course, then it would've just been inhereted later by some Paris Hilton type.

[1veedo]

Microsoft's latest open source moves are more talk than anything else. They have two minor programs under the CPL, and deals with Novell (but just that, deals) and that's about it but the media went crazy about the idea.

 

Meanwhile Microsoft is trying to sue Ubuntu and other open-source companies (ahem whatever you call Ubuntu) for copy-write infringement which makes no sense to me. Millions of people from around the world edit open source software. Microsoft wont even name what the infringements are.

 

The only real reason Novell and a couple other distros have deals with microsoft is because of this issue (Novell actually has a partnership which is a little different but Linspire and a couple others have just sold out to keep running). If they sign some pretty shifty legal paperwork Microsoft is excusing them. Microsoft is clearly coercing Linux distros to "sign up with them" so Microsoft can get in on the Linux business, that it is currently losing market share to, which is a great example of them "taking advantage of its power to constantly hold a monopoly" even today.

 

Microsoft is still using its same old tactics. If you cant see this then you're practically blind. We can't blame Microsoft though; it's just doing what any good business does. That's like where people hate on Wall Mart for how bad they treat their employees but Wall Mart isn't the only one; they're just doing what any other business would (eg Target), get the most out of their employees for the lowest they can pay them. There's nothing inherently wrong with this.

[Pangloss]

See how politically incorrect it is to ask these questions? You're ridiculed and accused of being "practically blind".

 

Never mind the stuff that Microsoft actually did -- that's all forgotten and unlearned. All that matters today is that the Linux caused be advanced, whatever the cost, even if the product is actually inferior, and defaming whomever and whatever has to be defamed in the process.

 

The ironic thing is the promotion of the concept of competition, and yet at the same time doing everything to thwart it, up to and including ignoring good products in favor of inferior ones.

 

That's not a good thing. It's a bad thing. And I don't care how cool it is.

[1veedo]

Calm down your temper. You get upset too easily. I'm not the one trying to "argue" here, I was just pointing out that microsoft is coercing Linux distros into "signing up with them." What exactly do you call this? Looks like they're still trying to pull their same old tricks, even today.

The ironic thing is the promotion of the concept of competition' date=' and yet at the same time doing everything to thwart it, up to and including ignoring good products in favor of inferior ones. [/quote']There will always be competition in open source. You don't need Microsoft for this.

[Dak]

you asked, 1veedo answred. and there's nothing 'politically incorrect' about supporting/dissing ms. it's not like ms is black, or gay

 

How is Microsoft (presumably you mean "unfairly") "taking advantage of its power to constantly hold a monopoly" today?

 

lacking on detail mainly as i assume you'll get what i'm talking about without me having to look up irrelivent points, if you lecture on this.

 

in no particular order:

 

#the case that they still owe the EU money over; failure to release source-code for certain parts of their server, which prevents inter-operability (the EU court agrees that this is unfair use of monopoly)

 

#including impossible-to-remove applications with their OS, such as windows-mediaplayer (EU agrees this is unfair, too), IE, etc. note it's the unremovability i'm saying is unfair; merely including a default (ms) application is fair enough.

 

#the case you linked too, where they try to prevent people choosing to ditch a microsoft product and get a google one (US court agrees this is monopoly abuse)

 

#stubbourness over open-office standardised formats, which most (if not all) other companies have agreed to. this, of itself, is their prerogative; however, combined with continually changing the way in which ms-word stores documents forses vendor-lockin, as alternatives are less likely to be able to open documents written in ms word (ie, if you wish to recieve and understand documents, you need ms-word as most people will send .doc's, tho open-office seems to be quite good at getting reading them).

 

#spreading FUD against linux, semi-specifically:

##novel case and threats of legal action v linux

##biased TCoO reports, in disagreement with independant ones

 

#my personal pet-hate: forsed (i.e., unneccesary) incompatability between non-ie browsers and hotmail (open in tabs wont work due to javascript), and windows-update (even if you're using an active-x compatable one; not that active-x is required, as 62nds proves).

 

The ironic thing is the promotion of the concept of competition, and yet at the same time doing everything to thwart it, up to and including ignoring good products in favor of inferior ones.

 

gotta agree with this. the ubuntu specs for the next version include, iirc, 'replace adobe flash with open-source gn...something'.

 

now, last i looked, gnsomething was crap. why replace a functional proprietry program with a half-functional open-source one? bollocks to that.

 

i'll use the open source one to try to promote it all else being equal, but the refusal of some linux people to used closed-source does somewhat seem dumn.

 

tho i'm aware its moreoften the other way around, with the proprietry programs not supporting linux.

 

anyhoo, you still haven't answred my question of where the conflict actually is in googles actions.

[Pangloss]

Maybe. I think the picture on that issue is so muddy right now you might as well ask the Magic 8-ball what's really happening. The bit about Office file formats is at least partially revisionist (these programs far predate not only the concept of internet-common standards but even the appearance of open source in the computer industry), and wrong (Off07 = XML; how much more open source does it get than XML?). There are counterpoints and offsetting arguments to each other other points you raised as well (not that I have any intention of acting as Microsoft apologist here -- I'm the devil's advocate, not a true believer, though you may think whatever you choose).

 

But all of this just confirms the original point of this thread, which is that people will fall all over themselves to condemn Microsoft regardless of its actions, while thoroughly excusing companies undertaking exactly the same kinds of practices or worse. To answer your question about Google, why isn't it seen as exactly the same kind of monopolistic practice when they (and they alone) get to put applications on the iPhone's desktop, or corner the market in a dozen different Web-based applications? Do you really believe that Google engineers don't have Patent Cubes littering their desktops just like Microsoft engineers?

 

For that matter, why does Apple get a pass on open source altogether? Mac fanatics are falling all over themselves to make excuses for Apple, ranging all the way to the ridiculous, 1980's-esque "it's a GOOD thing to control who can write applications for this computer". (!)

 

My goodness, can you imagine the outcry if Microsoft tried to do that with Windows CE? It woulda been World War Three.

[Dak]

[...']and wrong (Off07 = XML; how much more open source does it get than XML?).

 

oh

 

guess my info is maybe a tad out of date.

 

incidentally, i've rememberd a more up-to-date issue: the winVista kernel has something called something like 'secure kernel blahblahblah', which restricts access to parts of the kernel... parts of the kernel that anti-virus vendors need access to, putting any anti-virus vendor (other than, surprise, microsoft) at a competetive disadvantage. most anti-virus vendors point out that the secure kernel layer thing will not, actually, prevent low-level rootkits, malitious serveses, and other kernel-hijacks (which is the official intent), and the only thing it'll actually prevent is effective non-MS anti-viruses.

 

To answer your question about Google, why isn't it seen as exactly the same kind of monopolistic practice when they (and they alone) get to put applications on the iPhone's desktop, or corner the market in a dozen different Web-based applications? Do you really believe that Google engineers don't have Patent Cubes littering their desktops just like Microsoft engineers?

 

apple don't have a monopoly in the multimedia phone thingy market, so i don't see how any monopoly abuse could be happening. if writing an app to access youtube, whilst forsing other online video sites to use browser applications (presumably slower) gives google an unfair advantage, i'd be inclined to blame apple for not opening up their OS core to developers, not google for taking the advantage they were given; either way, i think the insinuation that apple is abusing its position to unfairly promote google is a bit odd ('course, if the deal was 'dont do this for anyone else and we won't offer youtube to any non-apple multimedia phone', then i'd change my mind).

 

people can choose to use iphones with non-youtube video sites, or they can choose to use a non-apple multimedia phone.

 

people seemingly can't (easily) choose to use a non-ms file indexing service, and -- due to ms's dominance and various other factors -- it's inconvienient to use a non-ms OS. hence, ms's handling of the indexing service is 'misuse of dominant position to reduce competition', whereas apple's iphone/google deal is 'annoying', as non-google video sites will probably run a bit slower, and arguably 'a reason to use a non apple multimedia phone', which is easy enough to do.

 

"The iPhone's YouTube program was built by Apple, not Google, signifying the company's intentions to limit access to the phone's operating system"

 

blame apple

[Pangloss]

Isn't the Linux kernel closed and proprietary? We can extend it but we don't get to decide what goes into it. And is the lack of Linux viruses due to inherent security or lack of interest? Apple doesn't see many viruses either, but we know the vulnerabilities exist in all three operating systems and their commonly-used browsers -- they're reported almost daily.

 

With regard to iPhone, how do you think monopolies come to exist?

 

Linux 1fanboy answer: Whatever Microsoft is doing this week.

Correct Answer: Monopolistic trade practices (whomever is doing them).

 

But the point I was making about the iPhone was more to address the proprietary subject rather than the monopolistic practices subject. Google gets to write apps for the Apple desktop; nobody else does (unless they get "approval" from Big Brother -- isn't THAT ironic?). But if you want me to extend that into the subject of monopolistic trade practices, this is hardly different from what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer, and I'll just remind you that when they did that they hardly had a monopoly on the browser market. Then, unsurprisingly, they acquired one. In this case it doesn't look like there's ever going to be a "market" to begin with, because Apple won't allow one to be created.

 

That may seem like a small thing, but is it really? Aren't cell phones the fastest-growing segment of computer "desktops" in the forseeable future? Do we want that market dominated by one or two companies working in cohoots? Apparently so, so long as those companies aren't Microsoft. That's the answer the community is putting forth these days.

 

Fair is fair. Either the same criticisms apply to all companies that perpetrate unfair practices, or they do not. Either a practice is legitimate, or it is not. Doesn't matter who perpetrates it. Either we're going to stop that from happening, or we are just going to let this sort of thing happen over and over and over again.

 

We are as much to blame as Microsoft, and it's fanboy attitudes that perpetuate these problems.

[Dak]

Isn't the Linux kernel closed and proprietary? We can extend it but we don't get to decide what goes into it.

 

is it?

 

btw, when did this become open source v proprietry, rather than 'is google being hypocritical'?

 

don't particularly mind, just curious.

 

But the point I was making about the iPhone was more to address the proprietary subject rather than the monopolistic practices subject. Google gets to write apps for the Apple desktop; nobody else does (unless they get "approval" from Big Brother -- isn't THAT ironic?). But if you want me to extend that into the subject of monopolistic trade practices, this is hardly different from what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer, and I'll just remind you that when they did that they hardly had a monopoly on the browser market. Then, unsurprisingly, they acquired one. In this case it doesn't look like there's ever going to be a "market" to begin with, because Apple won't allow one to be created.

 

hmm... i guess i see your point. i'm still going to say that, unless there was an actual deal between google and apple that google be the only app thats allowed to be non-browser, then google aren't to blame for apples desision to 'unfairly' promote google. apple benifit by more efficiently suporting a popular (non-apple) service + google benifit as they are that popular service = market forses and competition, imo.

 

ms, otoh, are promoting themselves, and not because ms-indexer is more demanded than google-indexer. that's unfair abuse of position to hobble competition, intentional or otherwize.

 

Fair is fair. Either the same criticisms apply to all companies that perpetrate unfair practices, or they do not. Either a practice is legitimate, or it is not. Doesn't matter who perpetrates it. Either we're going to stop that from happening, or we are just going to let this sort of thing happen over and over and over again.

 

but the practices are different imo. some egs:

 

proprietry software is at a natural disadvantage on linux, due to the way things are done and the commoness of GNU licencing. is this 'unfair'; somewhat, but it's an unavoidable concequence of the (hippy) way things are done in linux.

 

google are (afaik) the only company given an app on apple iphone; is this 'unfair'; somewhat, but it's an unavoidable concequence of the (proprietry) way things are done in apple.

 

windows comes with lots of microsoft products. is this 'unfair'; somewhat, but it's an unavoidable concequence of the (proprietry and one-company) way things are done in windows.

 

microsoft products are usually hard to impossible to remove from the windows OS, and often conflict with competetors products; is this 'unfair'; yes, because it's not a neccesary concequence of OS design or modus-operandi, for any reason other than to squish competition imo.

 

otoh, if either microsoft or apple don't fully disclose their APIs etc, yet use them themselves, then i can see the argument that their eliminating competition from the outset, in which case both ms and apple are huge offenders?

 

but it brings us back to the fact that it's not googles fault. if anyone's to blame, barring any dodgy deals, it's apple for only letting one app onboard.

[1veedo]

...while thoroughly excusing companies undertaking exactly the same kinds of practices or worse.

Ahem?

We can't blame Microsoft though; it's just doing what any good business does. That's like where people hate on Wall Mart for how bad they treat their employees but Wall Mart isn't the only one; they're just doing what any other business would (eg Target)' date=' get the most out of their employees for the lowest they can pay them. There's nothing inherently wrong with this.[/quote']You use far too many straw men in your posts.

 

Your original argument amounted to an appeal to authority "Note that I've given university lectures on the subject of Microsoft's blunders both legal and otherwise, so when I say specific I do mean specific" and when I provided the example of Microsoft trying to make Linux sell-out to them you respond with a straw man (and ad hominem at that) "All that matters today is that the Linux caused be advanced," a red herring, "The ironic thing is the promotion of the concept of competition...," and an infraction, presumably because you didn't like the fact that I proved you wrong.

But the point I was making about the iPhone was more to address the proprietary subject rather than the monopolistic practices subject. Google gets to write apps for the Apple desktop; nobody else does (unless they get "approval" from Big Brother -- isn't THAT ironic?). But if you want me to extend that into the subject of monopolistic trade practices, this is hardly different from what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer, and I'll just remind you that when they did that they hardly had a monopoly on the browser market. Then, unsurprisingly, they acquired one. In this case it doesn't look like there's ever going to be a "market" to begin with, because Apple won't allow one to be created.

At least by this post you've changed your argument from Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong, today, to although Microsoft is in the wrong, so are other companies, like Google. Here I would agree with you, assuming you're correct about google/apple of course. I think you just had the wrong attitude in the beginning -- "Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong because other companies do it to -- these damned Linux fanboys will blame Microsoft for anything but don't care about what Google's doing." The more correct statement is that both of them are actually "wrong," and this is exactly what I was saying way back in post #9 when you lost your temper.

[Severian]

The founder of Google just married the daughter of a particle physicist I know.

[Pangloss]

Incorrect presumption, 1veedo, but nice try. On to more relevent postings:

 

is it?

 

That's my understanding.... (re: Linux kernel being controlled by Linus & Co.)

 

btw, when did this become open source v proprietry, rather than 'is google being hypocritical'?

 

don't particularly mind, just curious.

 

I think Mooeypoo brought it in with post #4. Yeah I didn't mind either so I went with it. (shrug)

 

 

hmm... i guess i see your point. i'm still going to say that, unless there was an actual deal between google and apple that google be the only app thats allowed to be non-browser, then google aren't to blame for apples desision to 'unfairly' promote google. apple benifit by more efficiently suporting a popular (non-apple) service + google benifit as they are that popular service = market forses and competition, imo.

 

ms, otoh, are promoting themselves, and not because ms-indexer is more demanded than google-indexer. that's unfair abuse of position to hobble competition, intentional or otherwize.

 

Reasonable points, I agree. I guess the thing I worry about is that we're so busy bending over backwards to hobble Microsoft to the specific advancement of other gigantic multinationals that we're basically robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

Does anybody really believe that there's something inherently, fundamentally, intrinsically built-into Microsoft's corporate firmament that causes it to behave that way? Isn't it more accurate to say that they're doing what all companies will do given the proper motivation and insufficiently morally-balanced and/or legally-hobbled talent?

[1veedo]

That's my understanding.... (re: Linux kernel being controlled by Linus & Co.)

Linux is published under the GNU. Nobody "controls" Linux.

Does anybody really believe that there's something inherently, fundamentally, intrinsically built-into Microsoft's corporate firmament that causes it to behave that way?

The fact that Microsoft is a company? Yeah, of course. We're talking about economics 101 here. I said this way back in post #9 and again in post #17. None of this is very complicated; you were just originally trying to take a low blow to "Linux fanboys" and overlooked a very obvious aspect of economics.

 

You said, 'How is Microsoft (presumably you mean "unfairly") "taking advantage of its power to constantly hold a monopoly" today?'

 

More to the point, the fundamental issue, "Is Microsoft (unfairly) taking advantage of its power to constantly hold a monopoly." At this point you can adlib Microsoft for any other company which holds a monopoly (eg the RIAA is a monopoly?) and the answer will always be yes. We're not talking specifically Microsoft here but just basic economic theory that your average highschool graduate should know. Of course in economics nothing is ever unfair so we can't say Microsoft is being "unfair" in a literal sense. Any other company put in Microsoft's place would be doing the same thing. In a practical sense though it appears to be unfair, er, it appears we should have laws in place preventing this, but anything following this sort of logic is subjective.

[swansont]

The founder of Google just married the daughter of a particle physicist I know.

 

Is their marriage going to be monopolistic or open-source?

[swansont]

But the point I was making about the iPhone was more to address the proprietary subject rather than the monopolistic practices subject. Google gets to write apps for the Apple desktop; nobody else does (unless they get "approval" from Big Brother -- isn't THAT ironic?). But if you want me to extend that into the subject of monopolistic trade practices, this is hardly different from what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer, and I'll just remind you that when they did that they hardly had a monopoly on the browser market. Then, unsurprisingly, they acquired one.

 

But didn't they "acquire" the market, in part, by making their OS use their own browser by default, as an integrated part of the OS? I thought that was the whole point of the legal action.

[Pangloss]

Linux is published under the GNU. Nobody "controls" Linux.

 

Again, I'm talking about the kernel here, not the entire operating system. I brought this up in response to another person's question about the Windows kernel, so I think it's worth a separate answer. I don't disagree that Linux is more open than Windows -- of course it is. The question is whether the Linux kernel is really "open source", or if it is in fact controlled by Linus Torvalds. (And is that term really nullified if he does control it?)

 

Please revisit this question with a more thorough and less ideologically-spun answer.

 

 

you were just originally trying to take a low blow to "Linux fanboys" and overlooked a very obvious aspect of economics.

 

No, that was clearly not the original purpose of this thread. Another nice try falling well short of the mark.

[Pangloss]

But didn't they "acquire" the market, in part, by making their OS use their own browser by default, as an integrated part of the OS? I thought that was the whole point of the legal action.

 

I'm not sure I followed your question. Are you basically asking if it's okay for companies to make the browser an integrated part of the operating system so long as it doesn't lead them to market domination?

 

If so it's an interesting question, with implications both "pro" and "con".

[Dak]

Again, I'm talking about the kernel here, not the entire operating system. I brought this up in response to another person's question about the Windows kernel, so I think it's worth a separate answer. I don't disagree that Linux is more open than Windows -- of course it is. The question is whether the Linux kernel is really "open source", or if it is in fact controlled by Linus Torvalds. (And is that term really nullified if he does control it?)

 

the linux kernel iteself is licenced under GNU v2. if linus controls the linux-kernel progect, the good thing about GNU is that someone could just fork the linux kernel into a non-linus dominated project if there was a need.

 

anyway, linux runs on hurd too (using linux in it's common meaning, i.e. GNU OS)