Hacker News Reader

Comment by euske | Hacker News Reader

I find it amusing how their argument is similar to the MS' antitrust argument in 90s.

Microsoft: "An OS should include everything. Third party apps aren't needed. It's only good for consumers."

Google: "A search engine should include everything. Third party websites aren't needed. It's only good for consumers."

More interesting is the HN (and elsewhere) crowd that never relents on Google apologetics, yet presumably would be (and among those older, were) among the Microsoft critics.

People's allegiances and opinions often settle in when they're younger, and they will stick to those brand loyalties for decades into the future. A lot of us grew up (or got into tech) during the Microsoft lawsuit days, which set in that view, and when Google came around, they were a breath of fresh air.

It's really hard for people to realize that times have changed and the tables have turned.

You're describing me and it pretty much comes down to trust. I trust Google a lot more than I ever trusted Microsoft back when they were the bully.

Why do you trust Google a lot more? What did they do to deserve your trust?

They gave things away for free.

Microsoft gave tons of Windows 10 licenses for free. Does that mean you can trust them?

For me it's not that Google is more trustworthy, but that their influence and abuse of monopoly position doesn't affect me as much. As a developer I'm well aware of my options for search and operating systems.

I can choose not to use an Android phone. I can choose not to use Google search, block Google domains in my hosts file, etc. While the alternatives are probably not as pleasing or convenient, I can definitely get by without Google.

I can also get by without Microsoft. I've used Linux almost exclusively for 15 years now. But choosing to stick on Linux has been made harder with Microsoft's monopoly. It's easier now but I can remember when it was very difficult to find good hardware to run Linux and not have to pay a premium or pay for a Windows license even if you never wanted Windows (and definitely didn't want to pay out of principle).

As far as I know, Google's dominance on search doesn't affect my experience when I use other services. I haven't seen a "Halloween documents" event out of Google's camp.

Which seems foolish. Microsoft just dictated the format your save file was in. Google ensures that by default most users never have their own data to load into another product at all. You seem to trust them because they have their hands around your throat rather than just your wrist.

Google Takeout let's you grab your data from their systems, easy. Import is another story

> Which seems foolish

I'm yet to see any malicious actions by Google that comes close to the Halloween Documents or the licensing shenanigans. I don't know if you're looking back with rose-tinted glasses, but at it's peak, Microsoft was capital-E Evil (or ruthless if you're against moralizing): comparing Microsoft then to Google today seems foolish to me.

Edit: I naively think Google works with the principle that "What's good for the web is good for Google" and works to improve the web (and to my benefit). 90's Microsoft principle was "What's good for Microsoft is good for Microsoft. Destroy anyone who tries to mess with that"

> Microsoft: "An OS should include everything. Third party apps aren't needed. It's only good for consumers."

What? MS was all about third party apps and encouraged the vendor lock in they provided. Windows was absolutely spartan compared to what you'd get with a linux distro at the time.

I know the included certain apps that were contentious, like a browser, but Balmer wasn't kidding when he made that "dvelopers, developers, developers" speech.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com