Microsoft files monopoly complaint against Google
theregister.co.uk
theregister.co.uk
There may be some legitimate claims here -- plenty of mention of where the DOJ has already stopped some anti-competitive behaviour from Google -- but overall it just screams "Google is KILLING us, we can't compete, so obviously there's a monopoly here, so lets legislate instead of innovate."
"There of course will be some who will point out the irony in today’s filing. Having spent more than a decade wearing the shoe on the other foot with the European Commission, the filing of a formal antitrust complaint is not something we take lightly. This is the first time Microsoft Corporation has ever taken this step. More so than most, we recognize the importance of ensuring that competition laws remain balanced and that technology innovation moves forward."
Obfuscated code to prevent Windows 3.1 from running on competing MS-DOS systems like DR-DOS. Microsoft VP internal memo:
> What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable,
> and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS
> and then go out to buy MS-DOS."
Licenses and threats that prevented Hitachi from pre-installing BeOS on in a dual boot configuration with MS-Windows. From the Be complaint:
> Hitachi eventually explained that the terms of its license
> with Microsoft prohibited preinstallation of another operating
> system in a dual-boot configuration. Hitachi also
> revealed that after it notified Microsoft of its intention to
> preinstall BeOS, Microsoft sent two U.S. managers to Japan who
> expressed their “anger” with Hitachi over its arrangement with
> Be, and “reminded” Hitachi of the terms of its Windows
> license."
An explicit strategy of "embrace, extend, extinguish":
> [Former Intel exec Peter] McGeady also testified to MS's
> professed strategy of "embrace, extend, extinguish." MS
> planned to "extend" the HTML standard to the point where it
> would be incompatible with the Netscape browser and then to
> encourage developers to use the MS HTML such that web pages
> couldn't be read with Netscape's browser.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Compared to these, "Google makes it too hard for us to index YouTube" sounds pretty tame in comparison.
I'm not saying Google isn't Evil, there's definitely some questionable things they've done as of late, but to try to compare them now to when MS was at its "evil" peak is disingenuous. Google built things people want to use. Microsoft built things so that you had to use them.
But in any case, the issue with Google is that we're the product and the advertisers are the customer. Google's ad product probably is worse than any comparable MS product I can recall -- at least from the perspective of the customer.
And lets be clear, MS never built something you had to use, any more than you have to use Google's ad product. You use them both because they are dominant in their industry. But for both, there was a time when they weren't the most dominant. People made a choice to use their products.
The thing that almost makes Microsoft a more sympathetic monopoly is that their monopoly was to the customers that used the product. So if you want to end their monopoloy in Windows, stop using the product and use something else. If enough people do that, the monopoly ceases.
Google's monopoly is indirect. As an advertiser, even if I move to another ad platform -- if my product doesn't move (the people searching with Google search), I'm still screwed. An uprising by the customer can't change the monopoly -- they need to get to the product.
(Note, there are technically different names for these two different forms of industry domination, but its not uncommon to refer to them under the same name -- anti-competitive behaviors can apply to either).
... the list goes on but show me a similar list from Google.
How did this happen? Was Bill Gates president and make that the law? There's no way you could use WordPerfect? That was illegal? Oh, WordPerfect start sucking in the 90s didn't it, so you stopped using it like I did? But that didn't have anything to do with it, did it?
Try transfering your ad campaign from Google to Bing? It is incredibly poor fidelity. Support for the .doc format in 1997 was better than the support you get porting your ad campaign.
I'd like to have other search providers use my gmail email data. How do I do that? Oh, it's not supported? I thought it was my email? As an advertiser can I decent placement support or clickfraud data? No. OK, I'll just go to another search ad provider -- oh wait, you're the only game in town. I'll play by your rules.
2) This is totally not a one sided problem. You think Microsoft is emailing Google to work with them on the issues? Ha.
3) You can POP/IMAP into your Gmail and download all of your email.
4) You squashed this into the same paragraph as the email thing, but yeah, that sucks. I agree. Alternatively you can use them until you are big enough and then hire someone to get ads directly from people but that doesn't help the small guy. I don't know what a noble solution is to this is - maybe everyone should agree on a format for moving ad campaigns around?
But hell, even Chrome asks on first run what search provider you want to use in a SANE way that encourages people to pick, unlike the IE of today that makes you jump through 15 screens just to get to pick a search provider.
I'd hardly say they are being monopolistic (which is the actual illegal part of being a monopoly).
When I can't even get a simple table from Office to WordPerfect to work properly what's the point (nothing fancy), where not talking excel formulas. If the document specs had been made available, you bet WordPerfect would have that implemented in no time. Word did have good support for WordPerfect files thus it was a one way street.
Wat? This is the whole principle of an ad exchange.
He used product tying and manipulated vendors into anti-competitive agreements such that they would either use what Microsoft wanted them to use exclusively or they wouldn't be able to offer it at all.
As for how they got the initial traction, they managed to get bundled with the IBM PC. IBM back in the day used exactly the same sort of tactics ("Nobody ever got fired for using IBM" & they invented FUD), though they've reformed quite a bit since then.
WordPerfect, Borland's compilers, etc. were widely considered the best back in the day, so I don't think it was primarily the strength of Microsoft's products which made people use them.
My recollection of this is a fair bit different. WP seriously began to lag Word in the 90s. While WP wss the undisputed king in MSDOS, on Windows it was buggy and late. Office 95 in particular was pretty crushing.
Borland was somewhat similar. They had a good set of dev tools, and for example, their C++ compiler was blindingly fast and the VCL was relatively clean (at least compared to MFC). But around VC 4.0 that began to change (at least build speed). VC started to beat Borland in build time and seemed to spread its lead in code quality. This coupled with a better IDE made is Visual C++ become the more common choice. Although I also think the strength of VB played a large role in the uptake in VC. No data to back it up, but anecdotcally I saw a lot of ISV shops bring VC along, because they were building a lot of internal tools with VB (and no one really had anything to compete with VB).
And lets be clear... VC was never shipped as part of Windows nor any bundling of VC with OEMs. So there's no monopoly ties that help push your case that VC became dominant through some monopoly manipulation.
There are emails that say that that was due to being deliberately hampered on Bill Gate's orders, unless I'm confusing them for one of the other companies he did that sort of thing to. I think someone else linked to that already.
> And lets be clear... VC was never shipped as part of Windows nor any bundling of VC with OEMs. So there's no monopoly ties that help push your case that VC became dominant through some monopoly manipulation.
They also had access to Windows internals and such, but I will grant that they made a good product too.
But people wanted the full fidelity of the MS file formats on different systems. Like I want the full power of GMail with a different ad provider.
Getting the data out is easy. You could do that with any version of Word/Excel. In fact, you could have built automation tools to do this, drop it into an ETL, and have it anywhere you like.
The data is rarely the full issue. It's the fidelity of service that people want.
Good luck with your formulas in CSV...
> Getting the data out is easy. You could do that with any version of Word/Excel.
Ken... I have had problems with different releases of Office (PC and Mac) importing Office documents... It was never easy. It wasn't even very predictable.
2) mostly it wasn't forcing you, just making it very hard for you to leave their ecosystem. exporting your email out of outlook for example was intentionally made difficult.
So you were required to use Windows? I used an Amiga until it was on its deathbed, so I find it hard to believe that you had to use Windows.
Right. At the same time (10 years ago), there were many different variants of Desktop Linux available, a few different office type applications, and a ton of other open source technologies.
Google is bundled with Firefox as the default search tool. Like bundled IE, you can just choose something you prefer to use.
"I'm not forced to use Gmail, or Google Talk, or Documents, but I choose to because it's the best out there."
If everyone used gtalk and you were forced to because all your friends are now using it, would you consider it a monopoly? So many geeks did 10 years ago in Microsoft's case.
"Google built things people want to use. Microsoft built things so that you had to use them."
Not true. I gave examples of valid competition out there to Microsoft's main products. At the time, the alternatives sucked, but that doesn't mean they weren't there.
The multi-sided market dynamics are as complex, and the impact on innovation could be similarly worrying (I explore those intensively in my PhD) but the attribution of guilt is much harder.
Bing is not even a blimp on Googles radar in Europe and in turn this adversely affects all other MSFT offerings [email, search, advertising, business apps etc etc]. MSFT were slammed for locking in IE as part of the OS and basically every Google App I use now shoves the "Use Google Chrome instead" in my face at some point. Google is now practically the 1eading search engine, leading email, leading advertising, leading online apps programs, leading new browser --> and it just keeps adding up. They all work synergistically together and in turn they all reduce competition for other players to some degree.
Screaming hypocrisy from MSFT ? You bet. Justified ? Perhaps - they'd be the best to know because they've been sued more times than anyone. I love Google, use all their products because they are the best - but as 100's of articles on HN have illustrated --> Bing is JUST as good as Google, arguably the search results are not that much different --> everyone uses Google because it's where EVERYTHING you use is located and Bing doesn't offer anything "better" than Google - so why change ?
This "lax" attitude is exactly what creates monopolies and exactly what stifles competition. If Google have 99% of the search market - nothing is "pushing them" to innovate. Maybe I would use Bing more if Hotmail didn't suck ? But the question is not always pointed towards what "technology buffs" are looking to use because the organic nature of being a techy is that you'll understand the differences.
Question is then - what do Mums, Dads and non-techies use and is this fueling anti-competitive behavior ? How are data practices maintained and what is Google doing with the enormous amount of data it gathers ? Relevant questions. Important ones and while I find it unbelievably ironic that MSFT is doing this - I'm glad someone is holding Google "accountable" because left unchecked - it's MSFT all over again.
That the problem with Bing, what's the point of it? Plus it's by a company who has a tarnished reputation.
By the logic of your argument we should complain because MSN is entrenched in my country (Canada) thus they have a monopoly because no one feels like switching away. Except MSN messenger does what people want, why would they switch to the same thing elsewhere?
The problem is that Google have so effectively cross-marketed their products through their search engine that you have no reason to switch. They have all your data, everything about you and you actively now "refuse" to use alternative services EVEN IF better services exist. Bing returns results which are just as good - sometimes better - but no one actively uses it ? "Google is better" --> that's the 10 years entrenchment Google has over everyone.
Your suggestion - "That the problem with Bing, what's the point of it?" - is exactly why anti-trust cases begin in the first place. "Why bother with competition?" --> I think your statement has just answered itself.
Bing can never compete effectively with Google if Google blocks them from properly indexing video.
By your Android analogy, the allegation is that YouTube is preventing you from searching properly using anything but Google Search.
I am sure the MSDN content on Microsoft's site that's indexed by Google is indexed by crawling the pages. I am sure if Bing folks ask the MSDN folks for access to that data and won't be turned down.
Bing can crawl the entirety of YouTube all they want, grab each and every snippet of information I can see on my screen. Why would they need anything more?
Hah! I'd love to hear more details about this. Isn't it up to Microsoft to add fucking HTML5 or Flash support to their phones? How is Google doing anything but providing videos and Microsoft refusing to write code that reads those videos?
This is the dumbest complaint ever, unless there are some details we're missing...I'm curious. This is just too much, it can't be real.
Clearly details are missing.
If they aren't stopped from doing this they'll repeat the process for one content type after another, and the so-called search engine competition that keeps them honest will be killed completely.
Which in itself is just fine. But now they're using their monopoly position here to bolster another unrelated product. Once you start doing that you're doing an IE/Windows abuse.
http://blip.tv/dashboard/upload
You have choice!
edit: and I love how blip.tv gets the podcast RSS thing.
Blip.tv? The site doesn't look so hot.
http://clojure.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
http://pycon.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
http://djangocon.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
Are my three favorites.
You can also search (this is one I never did before):
http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+site%3Ablip.tv
which led me to:
http://blip.tv/file/399103 and to its channel.
BTW, there is an http://oscon.blip.tv that promises to consume even more of my free time.
And they got the podcast thing right.
Personally, I think competition in the search space might lead to better results.
And Microsoft's Brad Smith saying "It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google" is beyond hypocritical. He can't possibly be stupid enough to believe that himself.
No. Microsoft is not complaining of unfair practices by Google. It's complaining because now they can't use the same practices they always relied on to squash a competitor that has grown too large for them to feel comfortable.
One of the ways that search engines attract users is through distribution of search boxes through Web sites. Unfortunately, Google contractually blocks leading Web sites in Europe from distributing competing search boxes. It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google. Google's exclusivity terms have even blocked Microsoft from distributing its Windows Live services, such as email and online document storage, through European telecommunications companies because these services are monetized through Bing search boxes.
How is Google contractually blocking other search boxes any different than MS telling Dell that if they ship Linux boxes then they can't ship Windows?
The hypocrisy here is staggering.
I would love to see the real complaint and not just Brad Smith's Technet post.
"It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google"
I loved that part. People around me in the office wondered why I laughed so loud.
I find it odd that you're not saying that Google should let there be an open playing field. If a site wants to host both Google and Bing they should be able to.
Of course when it comes to Google they can do no evil -- because they told you so.
Excuse me but wasn't the default browser and default search engine selection mechanisms something Microsoft was forced to adopt (and dragged its feet for as long as they could to do it, in fact, insulting the EU in the process)? I mean... They were perfectly willing to abuse their desktop OS monopoly to push Google and Mozilla out on a regular basis. Now they are shocked by this "blatant" abuse?
Google should not be able to restrict what site owners do with their search boxes or ad spaces. Google should also not prevent Microsoft from indexing its content but I maintain this is not what's happening.
The only reason Microsoft is complaining is to create a bunch of news headlines with "Google" and "Monopoly" in them. When I open a page in YouTube, there is a lot of data there and Bing would be quite effective if it indexed that. Are they suggesting Google sends different content when the crawl comes from Microsoft servers? Let them show it.
Microsoft is the definitive authority on monopoly abuse, but allow me not to take their word for it without proof.
The point has been made, several times by more than one person, and yet you ignore it.
If Google wants to give up some of their marketshare, I'm sure no one will complain. But when you have monopoly status, you are required to play by different rules. MS knows something about that (for example almost everything MS did in the antitrust case would be legal of a company w/o the market influence they had).
Hard to do? Of course it is! Do they want the government to step in to mandate all problems be easy to solve?
Google is even restricting its customers’—namely, advertisers’—access to their own data . . . Google contractually prohibits advertisers from using their data in an interoperable way with other search advertising platforms, such as Microsoft’s adCenter http://searchengineland.com/microsoft-comes-out-of-shadows-w...
And here's "Do No Evil" Google's action in the Skyhook case: Skyhook and Google are competitors in the location positioning space. There was a time when Google tried to compete fairly with Skyhook. But once Google realized its positioning technology was not competitive, it chose other means to undermine Skyhook and damage and attempt to destroy its position in the marketplace for location positioning technology. In complete disregard of its common-law and statutory obligations, and in direct opposition to its public messaging encouraging open innovation, Google wielded its control over the Android operating system, as well as other Google mobile applications such as Google Maps, to force device manufacturers to use its technology rather than that of Skyhook, to terminate contractual obligations with Skyhook, and to otherwise force device manufacturers to sacrifice superior end user experience with Skyhook by threatening directly or indirectly to deny timely and equal access to evolving versions of the Android operating system and other Google mobile applications.
I know in your world Google can do no wrong, but trust me, they do.
And so should Microsoft. If these claims end up being frivolous and this whole thing just a stunt to produce lots of headlines with "Google", "Monopoly" and "Antitrust" in them, Microsoft should also be on the receiving end of a probe about anti-competitive practices.
Hopefully, one that can do what the previous ones couldn't.
The only problem with that is that Soapbox no longer exists. Because Microsoft didn't want to spend any more money on it.
But Microsoft, since it's so offended by what Google is doing, could resurrect Soapbox. They should have plenty of cash coming from those Android patents, BTW. They could also have bought YouTube (Google had their own Google Video, but that was going nowhere and credit goes to them for seeing YouTube first).
The core complaint is that YouTube isn't allowing search engines other than Google to access their metadata, preventing Bing from searching properly.
If Google is actually doing this, and is allowed to continue, then no search engine will be able to compete properly with them.
That's a pretty real and serious accusation.
First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube—and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google.
Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft’s new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It’s done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn’t offer a competing search service.
Unfortunately, Google has refused to allow Microsoft’s new Windows Phones to access this YouTube metadata in the same way that Android phones and iPhones do. As a result, Microsoft’s YouTube “app” on Windows Phones is basically just a browser displaying YouTube’s mobile Web site, without the rich functionality offered on competing phones. Microsoft is ready to release a high quality YouTube app for Windows Phone. We just need permission to access YouTube in the way that other phones already do, permission Google has refused to provide.
This anti-competitive behavior should be stopped, regardless of the irony.
It doesn't matter if it's Google, Microsoft, Apple, the NFL, AT&T, IBM, U.S. sugar producers, or a company you haven't heard of yet - if one or more companies are leveraging market power to enter new markets or limit competition in their market, they should be stopped.
Sarcasm aside, this doesn't necessarily invalidate the premises of the argument. Even so, I don't see that current Google offerings have anywhere near the lock-in of Microsoft products.
For other content providers, more search engines indexing their stuff, means more traffic. There is only upside to letting more search engines in.
For Google, hobbling other search engines indexing their content is a great way to keep their search engine on top. It's a virtuous circle for them.
In a way it's hard to see how they aren't privileging Google search in some way. Does Google Search use a public API to scrape YouTube, or is there some backend integration? If there's integration, doesn't that support Microsoft's claim?
In addition, they are filing numerous complaints against Google's ad networks, and their attempt to have unfettered and exclusive access to orphaned books.
Right now, it seems like Microsoft may have a leg to stand on in regards to the youtube metadata control. I'll await google's response to this though before I choose sides, and I'd recommend others wait as well.
Much in the spirit of Bing & Youtube, I wonder if other mobile devices will be able to integrate just as easily w/ Xbox Live?
I can't say it. I can't say Microsoft actually ever made an operating system. The one thing I've noticed with them is that they offer good download speeds. To get all the patches quicker.
I mean Microsoft is bigger and richer than Google, they practically own the desktop OS and enterprise software markets, they won't accuse anyone of anti-trust because they aren't dominating search as well, would they?!
EDIT relevant snippet:
On PCs it is usually not difficult for people to navigate to any search engine. Google in fact makes this point virtually every time someone raises antitrust concerns about their practices. Their defense ignores the hugely important fact that there are many other important ways that search services compete. Search engines compete to index the Web as fully as possible so they can generate good search results, they compete to gain advertisers (the source of revenue in this business), and they compete to gain distribution of their search boxes through Web sites. Consumers will not benefit from clicking to alternative sites unless all search engines have a fair opportunity to compete in each of these areas.
Oh Microsoft, how I'd like for you to become even more irrelevant than you already are.
The actual accusation is that YouTube only allows Google to properly index their videos, giving Google Search an unfair advantage.
Consumers won't switch to a search engine that can't index everything they want, and Bing can't index YouTube properly if Google won't let them.
Consumers will not benefit at all, since these companies can't index as large a portion of the web as Google could alone.