Microsoft takes off gloves against Google
Microsoft left little doubt Friday that it was one of the companies leading the charge against Google worldwide.
In a blog post entitled "Competition Authorities and Search," Microsoft Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Dave Heiner said part of the motivation for Microsoft and Yahoo's search deal was "we are concerned about Google business practices that tend to lock in publishers and advertisers and make it harder for Microsoft to gain search volume." The post comes at the end of a week in which European authorities asked Google to explain its search algorithms after complaints from competitors--one of which is owned by Microsoft.
"Microsoft would obviously be among the first to say that leading firms should not be punished for their success," Heiner wrote in one of Microsoft's strongest public statements regarding Google to date. "Our concerns relate only to Google practices that tend to lock in business partners and content (like Google Books) and exclude competitors, thereby undermining competition more broadly."
A Google representative declined to comment on Microsoft's post.
For all the obsession about Google's supposedly deteriorating relationship with Apple, make no mistake: the two most diametrically opposed companies in the tech industry are Microsoft and Google. The two titans are increasingly locked in a struggle to define the next generation of computing.
Microsoft, of course, has two franchises to defend against Google's moves into operating system and office productivity software, as well as the broader philosophy that the Web--rather than the desktop--is the platform of the future. And for all Google's financial might, it remains mostly a one-trick pony with the vast majority of its resources financed by its search dominance: exactly where Microsoft is aiming with Bing and the Yahoo partnership.
It's personal, too. "Novell, when current Google CEO Eric Schmidt was at the helm, was never hesitant about complaining to regulators about Microsoft," Heiner wrote. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and Schmidt are said to despise one another; according to court documents, Ballmer pledged to "f***ing kill Google" after learning of Google's plan to hire a key Microsoft engineer in 2005.
Google has definitely been in the sights of governments around the world over the last several years, although the European Commission's decision to look into its search practices represents a new step. The U.S. Department of Justice was prepared to block a Google-Yahoo search partnership designed to fend off Microsoft in 2008, and has objected to Google's settlement with publishers and authors that is also opposed by the Open Book Alliance: a Microsoft-backed organization.
Competitors have fueled much of this scrutiny, which is how antitrust regulation has begun for decades. As Heiner noted above, Microsoft faced a litany of complaints from competitors that ultimately led to government prosecution, and similar complaints have prompted government action against AT&T and IBM in the past.
"Of course, as we have always said, it is vitally important that competition law authorities also listen to and assess the views of customers, business partners and everyone else affected by a dominant player's business practices. Ultimately what's important is not who is complaining, but whether or not the challenged practices are anticompetitive," Heiner wrote.
As part of Microsoft's meetings with the DOJ over its recently approved search deal with Yahoo, it acknowledged that the conversation turned to Google on several occasions. It's no secret that Microsoft has advanced arguments against Google in the past through a variety of consulting firms and lobbyists, but has very rarely fired such direct and public shots against the company.
"Both search and online advertising are increasingly controlled by a single firm, Google," Heiner wrote. "That can be a problem because Google's business is helped along by significant network effects (just like the PC operating system business). Search engine algorithms 'learn' by observing how users interact with search results. Google's algorithms learn less common search terms better than others because many more people are conducting searches on these terms on Google."
Google has in the past rejected this argument--the company's chief economist Hal Varian went so far as to call it "bogus" last August--in saying that smaller competitors who want to improve their search algorithms can conduct wider testing on the samples they already have. Still, it seems this is a key part of Microsoft's push against Google, arguing that its sheer scale discourages competitors from believing they can match Google's mass of data.
Both Google and Microsoft are at turning points in their history as this debate grows louder. Microsoft's shot will not be the last.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Google, as the most prominent company on the Internet defends its search juggernaut while expanding into nearly anything it thinks possible. He has previously written about Apple, the traditional PC industry, and chip companies. E-mail Tom. 
Pot, meet kettle. (waah)
"...we are concerned about Microsoft's business practices that tend to lock in OEMs and developers and make it harder for anyone else to gain usage volume."
Its hard to argue against the fact that Google holds all the power when it comes to search. They can make or break companies and competitors with a tweak of their calculations.
Both organisations are out for making money not charity, who ever gets a chance would blame other's business practice. No business, I repeat, no business in today's time is clean and would go to any length to keep stockholders happy, some would even hide the fact that their cars accelerate on will !
If people want to see clean practices, they should go to a Buddhist monastery in Tibet or some where
"Its hard to argue against the fact that Google holds all the power when it comes to search"
Having power is not unlawful, unless you abuse it. And from where I sit, it is Microsoft that keeps abusing its two-decade old OS monopoly...
Sorry, but no. There's a vast diff between a 95% monopoly (Microsoft had that in desktops/laptops) and a 60% majority (search)... let alone a company with a mere 10% (computer) marketshare.
Google only has a 60% majority in marketshare when it comes to search, and has no way to lock in eyeballs, advertisers, et al (esp. when you consider that IE comes on 90% of all desktops sold nowadays, with Microsoft's Bing/Live/MSN as its default search option). In other words, Google got that 60% by choice, not by default.
Your admitted bias and hatred for Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with this at all, right?
Based upon your comment history by clicking on your user profile, it would appear that this is your entire purpose of being here or posting comments.
I only have one question for you- WHY?
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?qprid=4
85% global marketshare would not be considered a "majority", but rather a monopoly by every known method of measure I have ever hear of.
Your ascertions about IE are also flawed as Google continues to advance it's market share with alliances to make Google Search the default search engine on every browser it can, including smart phones like the iPhone. Google also pays Mozilla milions of dollars to to ensure that every Firefiox browser defaults to Google Search. I give you an A+ for effort, but a D- for accuracy. Better luck next time, but keep trying, you might just luck out and get it right one of these times.
"Having power is not unlawful, unless you abuse it."
I think you'll find many cases where companies claim Google has done just this. Try searching..on Google?
Think of the effect if an e Commerce company disappeared from Googles rankings.
I'm unsure why everyone thinks Google is the perfect citizen they hope they are. Aren't they out to make money? Where did their billions come from? Did they win the lotto?
They much like every other for profit company.
Apple's business model would completely crumble if they were forced to open up their APIs and banned from tying products together.
Bundling does provide benefits to consumers in many cases. However, the regulators seem to pay more attention to the complaints of competitors than the effect on consumers.
For example, most US cell phone users bought a bundle package - e.g. cell phone and phone connection bundled together in one contract. Verizon and Comcast users mostly buy in bundles - Internet and Television being the most common one these days. Even within subsets, most folks normally do bundles - for television customers, it's usually local TV + movie channels + extras.
Other bundles were assembled with bad intent, and were expressly designed to lock out competitors, or to use a monopoly in one arena to force out competition in others (see also bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, then making it so that one could never really entirely remove IE, at least until recently).
if a time comes when apple phones have 90% market share and they control what you install on your device and do not allow independent vendors to have browsers, voip apps etc, they would be declared a monopoly.
end of the day, competition helps consumers.
However, the Europeans have been making unpleasant noises about the iTunes music business, and I suspect they will drag Apple out for their pound of Euros soon enough.
But the bottom line is this - if there are alternatives that are relatively easy to access, then claims of monopoly are technical incorrect. Market share should not, in my opinion, be the criteria that necessarily qualifies a situation as being a monopoly against which legal action need take place. Otherwise, monopoly cases would be filed against the US Post Office, or McDonalds, or the NFL, etc.
Google is a popular search engine. Just because Microsoft hasn't figured out how to convince people to use Bing should not result in an automatic pay day for the lawyers.
Likewise, just because a large number of people have chosen to use iTunes should not qualify as a trigger. The availability of other sources of music to purchase - from sites like Amazon and others, provide people with choices.
An argument of "well, I can't get my favorite artist there" should not be sufficient either. I can't buy many of my favorite foods at McDonalds, but that shouldn't be _their_ problem. I just need to choose to make my selections based on my own personal criteria.
I recommend that those thinking that charges of monopoly will some how make them look like the injured party and customers will run to them in sympathy think again.
Apple will rule the earth as our Lord Jobs has decreed!
(And I hope you realize the irony of the oomment, especially based on your own comment history)
Microsoft knows that google is their ultimate enemy. Google is pretty much the only company that can take significant market shares away from them so MS needs to slow google anyway they can. I'm not sure if its all in vain though. I definitely see some foundation from google that will significantly hurt MS. Unlike apple who is not likely to do so. With all the ads that apple has thrown, it really hasn't made a significant enough of an impact to MS's business that suggest apple would take those shares away. But google, thats a different story.
"we are concerned about Google business practices that tend to lock in publishers and advertisers and make it harder for Microsoft to gain search volume." sort of like how Windows locks in with manufacturers and makes it harder for other companies to develop a OS?
World is just full of crap today.
Saying oh well they can't complain cause they have marketshare in another market is irrelevant and considering Microsoft already has/is under investigation its not a issue.
It's Google's turn.
I disagree. Microsoft would LOVE to have a monopoly in Search, in addition to their existing monopoly in desktop productivity suite and OS. Last time I checked, the EU was pushing Microsoft ONLY on IE, whose share of the browser market was shrinking on its own.
Other than IE, there are no investigations of Microsoft's 90% domination in desktop productivity suite and OS.
And Bing is coming fast to challenge Google's search market leadership too...
For the rest - Google is lagging severely. OS? They have not sold a single copy yet! Businses productivity? They are definitely not giving MS office and exchange any sleepless nights there! Xbox? They don't even have a product to compete in that space. Zune? Ditto! Mobile? Android is certainly creating awareness, and increasing share at a record pace there.. but still, compared to MS Windows Mobile, their share is still small (I say this even when I hate WinMo - it has a significant share despite such bad product). Very few people use their other products - Orkut is only used by a large population in India and Brazil. Picasa web albums are almost not seen when I get pictures to view from friends and family (most are on Flickr or Facebook). Buzz - the less said the better.
The ONLY thing they did well so far in is search and gmail.. I would not call that "all" battles in any way.
Unless there is money involved, in which case you don't count.
Battles Google is "winning" or at least doing well enough in to be a winner.
gMail
Google Earth
Search
Android (The mindshare has passed WinMo, the phones are better).
Google Docs.
There are others.
Maps: Bing Maps has as many users as their search service, which is to say, nowhere close.
Video: Youtube rules all (Hey! I just found out Bing has a video service!).
OS: They haven't sold a single copy because they don't plan to sell.
Business productivity? I bet they're doing 10 times better than Office Live
Xbox? They don't plan to compete here. Where's Microsoft's refrigerator?
Mobile? Their marketshare is about where it should be, given MS's headstart. A moral victory for them, I guess...
Zune? Android does media play too. And they've sold 6.5m+ devices by now:
http://mobiledevworld.com/2009/10/26/31-8-million-android-devices-will-be-sold-in-2013/....Zune? I'd estimate about 5m tops sold (based on 2m+ sold figure in '08 as told by MS).
Orkut/Picassa/Buzz: Conceded, although MS doesn't have alternatives for these services themselves.
So yeah, Google is a hit on most 80% of what they do.
Google, in the pretext of "open source", does a lot of things that many people are not aware. For instance, they created Android, and heavily mention that it is open source. However, they have only made over 8 million lines of code public from 12 million plus lines. From that 8 million, over 7 million lines of code are from the linux kernel it is built on top of. Where is the "open" part of open source here?
The statement MS is making is rather accurate - they do have a model to lock advertisers. Their search algorithm is not fair at all. Most people, including me, find it unfair that MS bundled IE with Windows. GOOG is similar - when you search for an address, they bundle their maps application into search. When you search for an item, they bundle Froogle into search. If you are a company that wants to compete in maps arena, you have an impossible task ahead of you. They really do not have "net neutrality here" - which is a shame for a company that really claims to be a big proponent of net neutrality.
I can go on and on. As an advertiser, I am forced to use Google because of its dominance, and it has not been fair at all - their terms and conditions keep changing, it is hard to keep up with it. If you compete in an area they compete in, your site will get ranked lower because of the "bundling". It is an unfair monopoly.. the regulators need to understand that bundling can happen with web apps too - not just native desktop apps.
"Their search algorithm is not fair at all."
One thing about search algorithms is that, by definition, half of all the sites will score below average, which of course will make half of all the site owners tell you that the algorithm is "unfair".
The only true definition of "fair" results is results that are organically better, that is, results that users like more. Therefore, to make its money, Google has all the incentives to provide the best results they possibly can.
Given that, unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't lock in its consumers, I think there is a lot of competition to keep out there to keep the company honest.
When it comes to Android, I do not find it too surprising that not all of the Android code is open-sourced. But the best way to agree on the platform's openness is not the number of lines, but adaption rates. If manufacturers choose to adapt the platform, they must consider it to be sufficiently open, at least for the value that it provides to them. Given the number of Android phones currently on the market or coming out, they must love it.
" If manufacturers choose to adapt the platform, they must consider it to be sufficiently open, at least for the value that it provides to them"
By that definition then, Windows would be the most open thing ever, given the number of OEMs and Manufacturers adpoting to it..
But no - the reason Windows got adopted so much was the lack of competition and usability. Apple would not allow its OS to be used on OEM hardware, while *nix did not have the usability in terms of driver detection, etc.
The case with Android is similar. Given that most developers are going to develop for either Apple, Google, or Microsoft; the OEMs did not have a choice. Android was the only OS they could use since WinMo was not usable and desirable for many end users, and Apple did not want its iPhone OS to be used on other hardware.
In other words, the fact that manufacturers feel OK using a product is not a testimony that it is open enough.
The problem is not that half of the sites get ranked below average. The problem is that by default, Google products bubble to the top. That is not organic and open - it is delibrately bundled to "cross sell" their properties and increase adoption of maps and other sites that Google own.
And speaking of openness, how many lines of WinMo code does MS make available?
under handed business dealings
appears this week in a variety of
curious Halloween outfits.
First Masquerading as a tiny helpless
business being beat up by the big
bad Google monster.
Then a quick costume change to become the
big brother and Saviour of small
struggling businesses throughout the EU.
Microsoft is owed a refund by that drunken
political campaign manager they must of hired
as these tactics went out of style
with beta-max and 8-track tapes.
Even the "wheres the any key?" crowd
is wise to Microsoft's track record
of deception , and total lacking of
business morals to the point
where they are lampooned on The Simpsons.
But hey Uncle Bill , give us another
round of stories , but not too much
as I might laugh up my lunch.
The reason Internet Explorer is such a crappy
browser and Microsoft along with it's friends
are up in arms is that with things like HTML5
and cloud computing the particular
OS involved will matter less and less
and Internet applications with the abilities
of the desktop applications will matter more
and more.
Google has indeed been famous for search , but their
goal is the Internet as the applications
development platform which would make the OS
a matter of quality not quantity. In that type of competition
Microsoft sees death.
1. Microsoft forced IE on to users by bundling it with their paid Windows OS to destroy competition. (It did not offer a version of the OS without the browser.)
2. Microsoft's argument that Google's search engine learns better than others does not amount to abuse of monopoly power. It is just technologically superior.
3. Unlike Microsoft, which forced IE onto users, Google isn't forcing advertisers on to its services. (The alleged network effects are very weak in this case.)
4. Microsoft, the larger of the two companies, which has monopolized the PC OS & software market is now using its lobbying might to crack the search market. The question is, after having allowed Microsoft to monopolize the OS & PC software market, are the regulators going to facilitate a way for it to control the web too?
1. Google, forced users to use Google Maps, Gmail, Google News and other related products. Instead of using its search engine to push Gmail, it should have shown organic search results for existing free email service providers. (Google did not offer a homepage with hyperlinks to Gmail, News, etc)
2. Microsoft's argument that Google's search engine learns better than others does not amount to abuse of monopoly power. It is just technologically superior.
In that case, MS' OS is technologically superior to everything else out there.
3. Unlike Microsoft, which forced IE onto users, Google isn't forcing advertisers on to its services. (The alleged network effects are very weak in this case.)
3. Unlike Google, which forced Google on Mozilla, iPhone and Android, Chrome, Chrome OS, Microsoft lets users change browser (new choose browser screen) and change default search engine.
4. Microsoft, the larger of the two companies, which has monopolized the PC OS & software market is now using its lobbying might to crack the search market. The question is, after having allowed Microsoft to monopolize the OS & PC software market, are the regulators going to facilitate a way for it to control the web too?
4. Your superiority theory has already suggested that MS has better product.. And the question, after having penalized MS in web browser issue, are regulators are going to ignore Google?
1. Google does not force you to click the first link if you're looking for a mail service. Right below it is the next most popular link to free email, which takes all of the effort of moving the mouse just a little downward.
2. What does this have to do with anything??? Are you saying that Google is a monopoly because they have a better product??
3. So Google "forced" Mozilla and Apple to accept an advertisement deal? Wow. That's totally like preventing your users from removing your browser...
4. The question is not whether Google has a monopoly, but whether they're using shady business practices to kill off competitors. Google doesn't operate that way; it just gained marketshare by making the perfect search engine. Not by bundling it with the OS, like MS does. So they've done nothing illegal.
but it doesn't, so I don't
people are not out there trying out search engines.
I think a new search provider could suceed the same way Google did. They need to come out with a superior product and get the technical community to adopt it, and it will get passed on to other users. I'm not ready to recommend Bing (or others) to my family and friends yet.
Tough. Grow up and deal with it.
As if you don't know. Please you look really silly pretending that certain technologies locks the web for IE use only.
Not true any more with Win 7 - updates are independent of browser. Its an app console within control panel that does not use IE or any browser for that matter; but uses a different protocol to find and download/install updates.
I really enjoy how you are playing your cards lately, aggressively.
Lol, Did you just imply Microsoft was a small business?
to actually being able to acees and buld data like p2p systems for a worls wide database.
For the acknowledge fiirst,and will to program this for a business,
Microsoft looks already too weak about for don't know how to make it good.
That if its really any good,for not give better focus on its OS software to jump in on the
money but very disposible efort for marketing.
But google makes it a system for it,to think about.
Things are about to goin more and more to money,if should not loose any focus for new ideas.
I love my Apple stuff, but I'll give grudging credit where it's due.
Monopolies are wrong because at no point in history have we (the human race) shown that we can handle absolute power.
MS was a necessary evil to consolidate the industry and they made mistakes (no surprise ? it?s a company made up of people) but to assume Google is the benevolent dictator just because they are not MS means we?re all doomed to repeat the same incidents with Google that we did with MS.
Fan boys/girls ? read the news and try and form an opinion for yourself, don?t let the editors/ads make up your mind for you. We would all love to hear your well thought out support for ?MS Bad-Google Good? or ?Apple Good-MS Bad? ?it?s not a numbers thing ? it?s a content thing.
Microsoft Revenue US58.437 billion (2009), Operating income US $ 20.363 billion (2009)
Google Revenue US$23.651 billion (2009), Operating incomeUS $8.312 billion (2009)
- by AndroidFTW February 27, 2010 9:36 AM PST
- I have a Droid...but i`m going to WP7 when it hits...sorry Google.
- Like this Reply to this comment 2 people like this comment
-
-
- by symbolset February 27, 2010 11:17 AM PST
- WiFi cloudsynch on a Windows Phone? It sounds like a hoT-mobile phone, the kind you could take pub crawling with your trusty sidekick. But isn't that Dangerous?
- Like this 2 people like this comment
-
- by stickfu February 28, 2010 3:31 PM PST
- @Android
- Like this 1 person likes this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (103 Comments)And my Windows Live mail I like better than that mess called Gmail.
It`s more reliable too.
Native Outlook support , sync over wifi cloud AND PC connected , BT voice dial hands free a great media experience. All the stuff Android doesn`t do. C-ya !
About the article: Microsoft asking that Google be preemptively prevented from abusing their market position. Isn't that precious. Well, if preemptive restraint to prevent abuse of markets is permissible, let's cast a wider net and find some more obvious risks.
So I assume you`ll be nym shifting....... again?