10 ms·

Also Internet Explorer. This case seems almost a mirror of MS except in the phone space instead of PC. Only difference is that when the issue came up in Congres

Also Internet Explorer. This case seems almost a mirror of MS except in the phone space instead of PC. Only difference is that when the issue came up in Congress, MS was confrontational with regulators and Google cut some fat checks.

joering2 8y ago
Also Chrome. Chrome was the biggest shocker to many @ Goog. Even as a Noogler, people often sit down in cafeteria and talked about how Chrome got traction and so popular only because it got a main spot on Google's homepage; something noone, no company or individual advertiser can ever bid for. If that's not Google's "Microsoft Internet Explorer anti-trust" moment, then nothing is.
- ToFab123 8y ago
  What is a "noogler"?
  - insensible 8y ago
    New Googler.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- dmix 8y ago
  You're missing the massive point that it was also happened to be far superior to Firefox and IE when it came out... And it held the #1 spot (by far) for nearly a decade while Firefox fumbled around and IE remained IE. It's crazy to say a product only succeeded because Google pushed it hard. Google (and Microsoft, Yahoo, etc) has a LONG list of failed products they pushed hard (Wave, Google Plus, etc). Did it play a role? Sure. But prominent advertising is not the same as forcing hardware manufacturers to pre-install software. Nor does it suddenly make customers want a shitty product they wouldn't otherwise use.
  - nojvek 8y ago
    Chrome basically got a fresh start and built on top of existing WebKit codebase with new ideas. They did well with the “second mover advantage” Firefox and IE were riddled with code debt issues so they couldn’t move fast. Chrome was a great example of software written by a company with resources to dominate a huge market segment relatively quickly. I’m guessing Chrome earned Sundar Picchai a lot of good karma within Google to later become CEO.
    - bruinjoe 8y ago
      Excellent points. Chrome has the best development tools. I used the dev tools so much that I just launch Chrome out of habit when I want to browse the web.
      - hackujin 8y ago
        While at the same time they've been stripping out vital features or outright disabling them on mobile. It's almost like gasp they don't care about the users but only their bottom line.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Actually, the biggest thing in Chrome's favor was being an installer pack-in. People still get sometimes Chrome installed on them if they go download Adobe Reader without unchecking the box. (McAfee Security Scan Plus is Adobe's other paid pack-in, you might see that instead, depending on your location.) People seem to vastly forget that a large part of Chrome's dominance of the ordinary user is the fact that installing half a dozen plugins or tools on Windows has or still installs Chrome and sets it as your default browser. When doing PC support for layusers, I've found that: Most people don't know what Chrome is, and don't know the difference between it, Edge, IE, and the malicious Chromium fork they have installed on their PCs. (Side note: May the soulless individuals behind the "WebDiscover Browser" suffer a life of misery and despair as punishment for their crimes.) They end up with Chrome (or a malicious fork thereof) due to a bundle installer.
    - 8y ago
- keerthiko 8y ago
  Why is that a shocker? They own google.com and they want to upsell another product, and aren't forcing it upon users or vendors. This seems like normal/standard business practice. Bundling IE with Windows was not the problem, but forcing PC vendors to only sell with Windows installed, and aggressively forcing IE to be the default browser was. On the other hand, building "web" apps that only run on chrome, that was a shocker for me.
  - unit91 8y ago
    > On the other hand, building "web" apps that only run on chrome, that was a shocker for me. Wow, I wasn't aware of this. Do you recall any examples?
    - mrguyorama 8y ago
      There was a solid half a year where google hangouts does not work on current versions of Firefox. It claims that Firefox support is in development, but the actuality of it is that hangouts was deprecated for hangouts meet, which does support firefox
    - javver 8y ago
      At least the web version of Google Earth is like that.
    - keerthiko 8y ago
      Inbox, hangouts video calls, google earth, off the top of my head, spent 6months+ being chrome-only. H/o video calls over a year (just a few months ago became firefox compatible).
  - AlphaSite 8y ago
    It’s literally the definition of leveraging a monopoly to enter a market.
- codedokode 8y ago
  That is an important point; you might be ten times more talented than Google engineers but you won't get your browser promoted on the on of the most popular internet pages or preinstalled with Android. Google is using its dominance in one area to disrupt competition in other areas. I think that this is something that should not be allowed.
- jpalomaki 8y ago
  Chrome was the choice of many people who really know their tools. It was fast and put the content on front instead of itself. I don’t think we should dismis doing what customers want and try to find reasons for succes only from marketing. With Chrome Google kind of repeated what they did with search.
swebs 8y ago
The other main difference it that the EU is punishing Google, while turning a blind eye to Microsoft's behavior. They were only fined for bundling IE and WMP with their OS. Locking customers out of competing operating systems is much more harmful in my opinion. The only EU mention of Windows bundling I can find is an Italian court ordering that customers should be able to get a refund for the Windows tax.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  I'd say that, in this day and age, preventing vendors from using Android forks counts as a form of locking customers out of competing operating systems. Even more so now that Android forks represent the only serious alternative available to any phone manufacturer who isn't based in Cupertino. Also, two wrongs don't make a right. Microsoft getting off way too easy does not mean that Google should get off easy, too.
  - swebs 8y ago
    I meant locking out competing OSs is worse than bundling a browser with your OS. Both companies deserve the fine.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - beerlord 8y ago
    Android already has a problem with fragmentation, which becomes a problem for customers when their phone becomes vulnerable due to a lack of security patches. There are lots of cheap Chinese Android phones simply filled with malware from the factory. If Google allowed phone makers to ship Android forks, this whole problem would become a lot worse. I think this Google policy is actually pro-consumer, and the EU is wrong on this point.
    - codedokode 8y ago
      Those Chinese phone manufacturers often use Google Services without a license. So what Google does doesn't change anything for them. Also, Google's agreements do not prevent vendors from installing malware as long it is not competing with Google apps.
wallace_f 8y ago
Not in disbelief, but could you link me to a source detailing this bribery?
- cptskippy 8y ago
  It wasn't Bribery, it was intense lobbying and campaign contributions. There's a subtle difference between them in America politics.
  - mullingitover 8y ago
    Let's be honest, they're the same thing, we just aren't able to to anything about it because the beneficiaries are the ones in power.
    - cptskippy 8y ago
      The laws clearly state it's not bribery. Just how it's not insider trading if Congress Persons act on information they received in the line of work.
      - wallace_f 8y ago
        Segregation was legal and called "separate but equal." Unjust and incorrect laws have existed.
        cptskippy 8y ago
        People tend to assume laws are right, fair, just, and moral. They're not. People also assume right equals fair equals just equals moral. Again, they're not. There may or may not be overlap on many of these but there's never a 1:1 relationship between any of them.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

joering2 8y ago

Also Chrome. Chrome was the biggest shocker to many @ Goog. Even as a Noogler, people often sit down in cafeteria and talked about how Chrome got traction and so popular only because it got a main spot on Google's homepage; something noone, no company or individual advertiser can ever bid for. If that's not Google's "Microsoft Internet Explorer anti-trust" moment, then nothing is.

ToFab123 8y ago
What is a "noogler"?
- insensible 8y ago
  New Googler.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
dmix 8y ago
You're missing the massive point that it was also happened to be far superior to Firefox and IE when it came out... And it held the #1 spot (by far) for nearly a decade while Firefox fumbled around and IE remained IE. It's crazy to say a product only succeeded because Google pushed it hard. Google (and Microsoft, Yahoo, etc) has a LONG list of failed products they pushed hard (Wave, Google Plus, etc). Did it play a role? Sure. But prominent advertising is not the same as forcing hardware manufacturers to pre-install software. Nor does it suddenly make customers want a shitty product they wouldn't otherwise use.
- nojvek 8y ago
  Chrome basically got a fresh start and built on top of existing WebKit codebase with new ideas. They did well with the “second mover advantage” Firefox and IE were riddled with code debt issues so they couldn’t move fast. Chrome was a great example of software written by a company with resources to dominate a huge market segment relatively quickly. I’m guessing Chrome earned Sundar Picchai a lot of good karma within Google to later become CEO.
  - bruinjoe 8y ago
    Excellent points. Chrome has the best development tools. I used the dev tools so much that I just launch Chrome out of habit when I want to browse the web.
    - hackujin 8y ago
      While at the same time they've been stripping out vital features or outright disabling them on mobile. It's almost like gasp they don't care about the users but only their bottom line.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Actually, the biggest thing in Chrome's favor was being an installer pack-in. People still get sometimes Chrome installed on them if they go download Adobe Reader without unchecking the box. (McAfee Security Scan Plus is Adobe's other paid pack-in, you might see that instead, depending on your location.) People seem to vastly forget that a large part of Chrome's dominance of the ordinary user is the fact that installing half a dozen plugins or tools on Windows has or still installs Chrome and sets it as your default browser. When doing PC support for layusers, I've found that: Most people don't know what Chrome is, and don't know the difference between it, Edge, IE, and the malicious Chromium fork they have installed on their PCs. (Side note: May the soulless individuals behind the "WebDiscover Browser" suffer a life of misery and despair as punishment for their crimes.) They end up with Chrome (or a malicious fork thereof) due to a bundle installer.
  - 8y ago
keerthiko 8y ago
Why is that a shocker? They own google.com and they want to upsell another product, and aren't forcing it upon users or vendors. This seems like normal/standard business practice. Bundling IE with Windows was not the problem, but forcing PC vendors to only sell with Windows installed, and aggressively forcing IE to be the default browser was. On the other hand, building "web" apps that only run on chrome, that was a shocker for me.
- unit91 8y ago
  > On the other hand, building "web" apps that only run on chrome, that was a shocker for me. Wow, I wasn't aware of this. Do you recall any examples?
  - mrguyorama 8y ago
    There was a solid half a year where google hangouts does not work on current versions of Firefox. It claims that Firefox support is in development, but the actuality of it is that hangouts was deprecated for hangouts meet, which does support firefox
  - javver 8y ago
    At least the web version of Google Earth is like that.
  - keerthiko 8y ago
    Inbox, hangouts video calls, google earth, off the top of my head, spent 6months+ being chrome-only. H/o video calls over a year (just a few months ago became firefox compatible).
- AlphaSite 8y ago
  It’s literally the definition of leveraging a monopoly to enter a market.
codedokode 8y ago
That is an important point; you might be ten times more talented than Google engineers but you won't get your browser promoted on the on of the most popular internet pages or preinstalled with Android. Google is using its dominance in one area to disrupt competition in other areas. I think that this is something that should not be allowed.
jpalomaki 8y ago
Chrome was the choice of many people who really know their tools. It was fast and put the content on front instead of itself. I don’t think we should dismis doing what customers want and try to find reasons for succes only from marketing. With Chrome Google kind of repeated what they did with search.

swebs 8y ago

The other main difference it that the EU is punishing Google, while turning a blind eye to Microsoft's behavior. They were only fined for bundling IE and WMP with their OS. Locking customers out of competing operating systems is much more harmful in my opinion. The only EU mention of Windows bundling I can find is an Italian court ordering that customers should be able to get a refund for the Windows tax.

bunderbunder 8y ago
I'd say that, in this day and age, preventing vendors from using Android forks counts as a form of locking customers out of competing operating systems. Even more so now that Android forks represent the only serious alternative available to any phone manufacturer who isn't based in Cupertino. Also, two wrongs don't make a right. Microsoft getting off way too easy does not mean that Google should get off easy, too.
- swebs 8y ago
  I meant locking out competing OSs is worse than bundling a browser with your OS. Both companies deserve the fine.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- beerlord 8y ago
  Android already has a problem with fragmentation, which becomes a problem for customers when their phone becomes vulnerable due to a lack of security patches. There are lots of cheap Chinese Android phones simply filled with malware from the factory. If Google allowed phone makers to ship Android forks, this whole problem would become a lot worse. I think this Google policy is actually pro-consumer, and the EU is wrong on this point.
  - codedokode 8y ago
    Those Chinese phone manufacturers often use Google Services without a license. So what Google does doesn't change anything for them. Also, Google's agreements do not prevent vendors from installing malware as long it is not competing with Google apps.

wallace_f 8y ago

Not in disbelief, but could you link me to a source detailing this bribery?

cptskippy 8y ago
It wasn't Bribery, it was intense lobbying and campaign contributions. There's a subtle difference between them in America politics.
- mullingitover 8y ago
  Let's be honest, they're the same thing, we just aren't able to to anything about it because the beneficiaries are the ones in power.
  - cptskippy 8y ago
    The laws clearly state it's not bribery. Just how it's not insider trading if Congress Persons act on information they received in the line of work.
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      Segregation was legal and called "separate but equal." Unjust and incorrect laws have existed.
      - cptskippy 8y ago
        People tend to assume laws are right, fair, just, and moral. They're not. People also assume right equals fair equals just equals moral. Again, they're not. There may or may not be overlap on many of these but there's never a 1:1 relationship between any of them.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]