6 ms·

Full complaint: http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/03/30/adding-our-voice-to-concerns-about-search-in-europe.aspx http://blogs.tech

Full complaint: http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/03/30/adding-our-voice-to-concerns-about-search-in-europe.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2... 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."

rick888 16y ago
Funny how the tune has changed. If this was Microsoft 10+ years ago, everyone would scream Monopoly and want the problem legislated away. Now that it involves Google, a "cool" company that can "do no harm", it's fine.
- pyre 16y ago
  10+ years ago Microsoft seemed the unbeatable behemoth. Google may be a behemoth today, but I don't think that people are under the impression that they are unbeatable.
  - timmyd 16y ago
    Can understand the anti-MSFT crowd here but after being smashed so many times for anti-competitiveness [rightly, I might add] - but equally I can appreciate the "mix" of feelings MSFT have. 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.
    - nkassis 16y ago
      " everyone uses Google because it's where EVERYTHING you use is located and Bing doesn't offer anything "better" than Google - so why change ?" 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?
      - timmyd 16y ago
        No, by the logic of my argument we should seek to ensure that anti-competitive behavior does not simply trump competitors who offer services of a nature which is just as good if not better "but for" the entrenchment that Google has in consumer web. 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.
        infinite8s 16y ago
        No No No. Anti competitive behaviour doesn't arise when consumers all choose to use a particular product because they can't be bothered to try others out. That means the product they chose is likely sufficient for their needs. The dominant use of Google Search doesn't preclude anyone from using Bing if they choose, and for this reason Google's dominance in search isn't anticompetitive. It's only when they use this dominance to enter and dominate another market (or, as in this case, preventing WinMobile's youtube app from accessing the same video metadata available to Android and iOS youtube apps).
- jameskilton 16y ago
  Well first of all it's "Do No Evil", and frankly I don't think you can compare the two. Where Microsoft 10 years ago did everything they could to force you to use their products (bundling the browser, exclusivity with all consumer computer OEMs, etc), Google has made really good products that people want 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. 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.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    Google Talk and Documents aren't very good, but I'll give you GMail. 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).
    - nkassis 16y ago
      Wow, I mean, I'm young but I do remember the late 90s where every document had to be in .doc format (last I checked it's still pretty mendatory) or else no one could open it and Microsoft did everything they could to prevent other from reimplementing that format. Or how microsoft took a protocol like netbios and then smb and made it so that no one could interface with their network protocols without some crazy reverse engineering (thank you Tridge). Or how IE took over and slowly started adding incompatible stuff (look at activex and jscript as a good example) to make it impossible to work without, I still find apps that require IE6 to function. What about their attempt to re implement java and make it incompatible. ... the list goes on but show me a similar list from Google.
- bertil 16y ago
  At the time, Microsoft monopoly appeared to force intractable bugs on everyone; one had to wait months for patches, that often made things worst; the culprit was clear. Now, the main impact of Google dominant position is 10 blue results that could be more suited to your query, and that are changed depending on what people click: grey SEOs, animal instincts or customer preference for anything Google can explain bad results, unchallengeable position and Google product dominance—allowing Matt Cutts to claim the engine is neutral i.e. good. Plus, Windows was expensive, unnaturally so (copies are free, versions priced differently were the same) while Google makes sure you can check that you earned more money than they cost you before billing. Google didn't uproot a higher-end competitor with better design that boosted your self-image. 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.
  - recoiledsnake 16y ago
    Wasn't IE5 way better than Netscape at the time?
RyanMcGreal 16y ago
Money quote: "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."
- haberman 16y ago
  Just some historical context for the anti-competitive behaviors that Microsoft refined and perfected into an art: 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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code 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." http://www.beincorporated.com/msft_complaint.pdf http://www.beincorporated.com/msft_complaint.pdf 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. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/transcript/summaries2.html http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/transcript/summaries2.htm... 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.

rick888 16y ago

Funny how the tune has changed. If this was Microsoft 10+ years ago, everyone would scream Monopoly and want the problem legislated away. Now that it involves Google, a "cool" company that can "do no harm", it's fine.

pyre 16y ago
10+ years ago Microsoft seemed the unbeatable behemoth. Google may be a behemoth today, but I don't think that people are under the impression that they are unbeatable.
- timmyd 16y ago
  Can understand the anti-MSFT crowd here but after being smashed so many times for anti-competitiveness [rightly, I might add] - but equally I can appreciate the "mix" of feelings MSFT have. 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.
  - nkassis 16y ago
    " everyone uses Google because it's where EVERYTHING you use is located and Bing doesn't offer anything "better" than Google - so why change ?" 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?
    - timmyd 16y ago
      No, by the logic of my argument we should seek to ensure that anti-competitive behavior does not simply trump competitors who offer services of a nature which is just as good if not better "but for" the entrenchment that Google has in consumer web. 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.
      - infinite8s 16y ago
        No No No. Anti competitive behaviour doesn't arise when consumers all choose to use a particular product because they can't be bothered to try others out. That means the product they chose is likely sufficient for their needs. The dominant use of Google Search doesn't preclude anyone from using Bing if they choose, and for this reason Google's dominance in search isn't anticompetitive. It's only when they use this dominance to enter and dominate another market (or, as in this case, preventing WinMobile's youtube app from accessing the same video metadata available to Android and iOS youtube apps).
jameskilton 16y ago
Well first of all it's "Do No Evil", and frankly I don't think you can compare the two. Where Microsoft 10 years ago did everything they could to force you to use their products (bundling the browser, exclusivity with all consumer computer OEMs, etc), Google has made really good products that people want 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. 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.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Google Talk and Documents aren't very good, but I'll give you GMail. 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).
  - nkassis 16y ago
    Wow, I mean, I'm young but I do remember the late 90s where every document had to be in .doc format (last I checked it's still pretty mendatory) or else no one could open it and Microsoft did everything they could to prevent other from reimplementing that format. Or how microsoft took a protocol like netbios and then smb and made it so that no one could interface with their network protocols without some crazy reverse engineering (thank you Tridge). Or how IE took over and slowly started adding incompatible stuff (look at activex and jscript as a good example) to make it impossible to work without, I still find apps that require IE6 to function. What about their attempt to re implement java and make it incompatible. ... the list goes on but show me a similar list from Google.
bertil 16y ago
At the time, Microsoft monopoly appeared to force intractable bugs on everyone; one had to wait months for patches, that often made things worst; the culprit was clear. Now, the main impact of Google dominant position is 10 blue results that could be more suited to your query, and that are changed depending on what people click: grey SEOs, animal instincts or customer preference for anything Google can explain bad results, unchallengeable position and Google product dominance—allowing Matt Cutts to claim the engine is neutral i.e. good. Plus, Windows was expensive, unnaturally so (copies are free, versions priced differently were the same) while Google makes sure you can check that you earned more money than they cost you before billing. Google didn't uproot a higher-end competitor with better design that boosted your self-image. 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.
- recoiledsnake 16y ago
  Wasn't IE5 way better than Netscape at the time?

RyanMcGreal 16y ago

Money quote: "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."

haberman 16y ago
Just some historical context for the anti-competitive behaviors that Microsoft refined and perfected into an art: 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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code 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." http://www.beincorporated.com/msft_complaint.pdf http://www.beincorporated.com/msft_complaint.pdf 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. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/transcript/summaries2.html http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/transcript/summaries2.htm... 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.