5 ms·

How is Google a way, way worse monopoly than Microsoft was? (Disclosure: I work for Google now, and I think I would not have worked for Microsoft 20 years ago)

by jefftk 6y ago

iphone_elegance 6y ago
I'd say they are about equal, the current croup has gone unchecked way longer though way too big way too consolidated and suffocating to innovation and progress; now this sounds like gibberish but at the end of the day things are a lot less 'dynamic', 'fluid' and 'creative' because of their current positions.. yeah there are still alternatives but they are vanishing and almost just allowed exist at the whims of the current leaders; fuck most of our current 'technology' is what it is because it's what serves amazon,google,facebook,apple,microsoft the best it's great for them and their businesses bad for the nation and we really should be thinking about the nation
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
Microsoft just wanted to be paid its OS and apps, not so different from anyone else selling a product. Sure, they wanted dominance but who doesn't? Google certainly can't credibly claim that. Google is inserting itself into every aspect of communication and information retrieval on the Internet to build a profile of people so that it can better cram targeted ads into their faces. Both the privacy aspect and the advertising aspect are troubling.
- bigmanwalter 6y ago
  The end result of Microsoft wanting to dominate OS is equivalent to Google wanting to dominate communication; through monopoly of a resource they are able to charge a tax to all users of consumer technology.
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    > "The end result of Microsoft wanting to dominate OS is equivalent to Google wanting to dominate communication; through monopoly of a resource they are able to charge a tax to all users of consumer technology." I agree with you and the other Google employee who brought up EEE; Neither Google nor Microsoft is better than the other in that regard. What I am saying is that Google's broad collection of personal data (over which the public has minimal visibility or control) and their focus on advertising (not really a societal good by any measure) adds on top of their desire for monopoly to clearly make Google the bigger problem.
- jefftk 6y ago
  Microsoft went well beyond just trying to get paid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis... I work on ads at Google and "inserting itself into every aspect of communication and information retrieval on the Internet to build a profile of people so that it can better cram targeted ads into their faces" is not a good model. For example, Gmail data is not used for targeting ads: https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in-the-enterprise-g-suites-gmail-and-consumer-gmail-to-more-closely-align/ https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in... (speaking only for myself)
  - deleuze 6y ago
    You work on _ads_ at Google, and are concerned about the ethics of working at Microsoft in the 90s? Sure, anti-competitive business practices might be unethical, but how can you possibly in good conscience suggest that bundling IE is more ethically problematic than building massive surveillance applications to sell ads? Just the implications of the data collection alone should be enough for you to quit your job before even considering any business angle. Hope you enjoy the stock grants!
    - jefftk 6y ago
      > Hope you enjoy the stock grants! If I thought my work at Google was making the world worse I wouldn't do it; see this discussion a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21617291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21617291 For example, I'm currently exploring whether https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/blob/master/explainers/subresource-loading.md https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/blob/master/explainers/su... can increase the security and privacy of ad loading and rendering. > bundling IE is more ethically problematic than... I don't think bundling IE was at all the worst that Microsoft was doing in the 90s. Their efforts to kill the web, Java, and Linux, all threats to their strategy of a Windows monopoly, were much more of a problem. > building massive surveillance applications to sell ads Ads fund an enormous number of sites, and without them the web and information in general would be even more centralized. If you oppose ad personalization and targeting, trying to convince individual adtech employees to quit is a terrible strategy. Instead you should advocate for legislation such as the GDPR and CCPA that set out what sorts of behavior are acceptable.
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Windows was a far more liberal and fair platform than Android is. Once you have your software installed, it could do with the system all it needed, if the user gave it enough rights. On Android, you can't really run your app in the background (trust me, we develop an app that depends on being constantly in the background), so the developers are forced to use proprietary push notifications, which are fully controlled by Google. ... And each new version of Android puts more and more restrictions on things. For example, in Android 6 I could record incoming calls easily. Not so much on Android 9, "you are forbidden to do that because it is illegal in some jurisdictions" (not in mine, btw!)
- 29083011397778 6y ago
  > you can't really run your app in the background This, last I checked, was OEM specific. I agree with your point, most OEMs are indescribably awful about killing any and all background apps - this does not, however, make it Google's fault. I've disabled GApps and the GSF on my phone, but Riot/Element still works quite well with background notifications when it's excluded from battery optimizations. > I could record incoming calls easily. This is still possible, and I do it, with the stock dailer on android 8.1. I use a VOIP provider that offers call recording. As it's my primary number, all my calls are recorded with no interaction on my part. Off-topic, but transcribed voicemail is offered as well - which I think used to be carrier or even iPhone specific. There's lots of functionality in Android that's not natively supported, but that doesn't mean it can't be done :) VOIP provider in question (that I'm not affiliated with) is voip.ms, in case anyone is curious.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    > This, last I checked, was OEM specific. Umm, no. It is nice how you cite your anecdotal evidence about riot, but if you would study this issue a bit you would know, that on Android 1.5 you could launch a background process and it would stay in memory indefinitely, and on recent androids it's only possible with persistent notificaton icon (to which a lot of users complain about). If you don't have the persistent notification, then oops. If you don't want to research this subject yourself, you should probably trust me, because we have an app with >1M installs that depends on being in memory. >> For example, in Android 6 I could record incoming calls easily. Not so much on Android 9, > This is still possible, and I do it, with the stock dailer on android 8.1 Let me check, was Android 8.1 released later than Android 9? Hm, I guess, not. Anyway, this link [1] would be a good place to start to learn more on this subject. Let me cite: "The official API for call recording was removed with the launch of Android 6.0 Marshmallow. Developers are hard to stop, so they found workarounds to keep this feature alive, but Google finally killed off the ability to record calls with Android 9.0 Pie." So, do you agree now with my point that Android is becoming a more and more restricted platform in every way? [1]: https://www.androidauthority.com/record-calls-android-1019109/ https://www.androidauthority.com/record-calls-android-101910...

How is Google a way, way worse monopoly than Microsoft was? (Disclosure: I work for Google now, and I think I would not have worked for Microsoft 20 years ago)

by jefftk 6y ago

How is Google a way, way worse monopoly than Microsoft was? (Disclosure: I work for Google now, and I think I would not have worked for Microsoft 20 years ago)

iphone_elegance 6y ago

I'd say they are about equal, the current croup has gone unchecked way longer though way too big way too consolidated and suffocating to innovation and progress; now this sounds like gibberish but at the end of the day things are a lot less 'dynamic', 'fluid' and 'creative' because of their current positions.. yeah there are still alternatives but they are vanishing and almost just allowed exist at the whims of the current leaders; fuck most of our current 'technology' is what it is because it's what serves amazon,google,facebook,apple,microsoft the best it's great for them and their businesses bad for the nation and we really should be thinking about the nation

ThrowawayR2 6y ago

Microsoft just wanted to be paid its OS and apps, not so different from anyone else selling a product. Sure, they wanted dominance but who doesn't? Google certainly can't credibly claim that. Google is inserting itself into every aspect of communication and information retrieval on the Internet to build a profile of people so that it can better cram targeted ads into their faces. Both the privacy aspect and the advertising aspect are troubling.

bigmanwalter 6y ago
The end result of Microsoft wanting to dominate OS is equivalent to Google wanting to dominate communication; through monopoly of a resource they are able to charge a tax to all users of consumer technology.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  > "The end result of Microsoft wanting to dominate OS is equivalent to Google wanting to dominate communication; through monopoly of a resource they are able to charge a tax to all users of consumer technology." I agree with you and the other Google employee who brought up EEE; Neither Google nor Microsoft is better than the other in that regard. What I am saying is that Google's broad collection of personal data (over which the public has minimal visibility or control) and their focus on advertising (not really a societal good by any measure) adds on top of their desire for monopoly to clearly make Google the bigger problem.
jefftk 6y ago
Microsoft went well beyond just trying to get paid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis... I work on ads at Google and "inserting itself into every aspect of communication and information retrieval on the Internet to build a profile of people so that it can better cram targeted ads into their faces" is not a good model. For example, Gmail data is not used for targeting ads: https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in-the-enterprise-g-suites-gmail-and-consumer-gmail-to-more-closely-align/ https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in... (speaking only for myself)
- deleuze 6y ago
  You work on _ads_ at Google, and are concerned about the ethics of working at Microsoft in the 90s? Sure, anti-competitive business practices might be unethical, but how can you possibly in good conscience suggest that bundling IE is more ethically problematic than building massive surveillance applications to sell ads? Just the implications of the data collection alone should be enough for you to quit your job before even considering any business angle. Hope you enjoy the stock grants!
  - jefftk 6y ago
    > Hope you enjoy the stock grants! If I thought my work at Google was making the world worse I wouldn't do it; see this discussion a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21617291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21617291 For example, I'm currently exploring whether https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/blob/master/explainers/subresource-loading.md https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/blob/master/explainers/su... can increase the security and privacy of ad loading and rendering. > bundling IE is more ethically problematic than... I don't think bundling IE was at all the worst that Microsoft was doing in the 90s. Their efforts to kill the web, Java, and Linux, all threats to their strategy of a Windows monopoly, were much more of a problem. > building massive surveillance applications to sell ads Ads fund an enormous number of sites, and without them the web and information in general would be even more centralized. If you oppose ad personalization and targeting, trying to convince individual adtech employees to quit is a terrible strategy. Instead you should advocate for legislation such as the GDPR and CCPA that set out what sorts of behavior are acceptable.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

Windows was a far more liberal and fair platform than Android is. Once you have your software installed, it could do with the system all it needed, if the user gave it enough rights. On Android, you can't really run your app in the background (trust me, we develop an app that depends on being constantly in the background), so the developers are forced to use proprietary push notifications, which are fully controlled by Google. ... And each new version of Android puts more and more restrictions on things. For example, in Android 6 I could record incoming calls easily. Not so much on Android 9, "you are forbidden to do that because it is illegal in some jurisdictions" (not in mine, btw!)

29083011397778 6y ago
> you can't really run your app in the background This, last I checked, was OEM specific. I agree with your point, most OEMs are indescribably awful about killing any and all background apps - this does not, however, make it Google's fault. I've disabled GApps and the GSF on my phone, but Riot/Element still works quite well with background notifications when it's excluded from battery optimizations. > I could record incoming calls easily. This is still possible, and I do it, with the stock dailer on android 8.1. I use a VOIP provider that offers call recording. As it's my primary number, all my calls are recorded with no interaction on my part. Off-topic, but transcribed voicemail is offered as well - which I think used to be carrier or even iPhone specific. There's lots of functionality in Android that's not natively supported, but that doesn't mean it can't be done :) VOIP provider in question (that I'm not affiliated with) is voip.ms, in case anyone is curious.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  > This, last I checked, was OEM specific. Umm, no. It is nice how you cite your anecdotal evidence about riot, but if you would study this issue a bit you would know, that on Android 1.5 you could launch a background process and it would stay in memory indefinitely, and on recent androids it's only possible with persistent notificaton icon (to which a lot of users complain about). If you don't have the persistent notification, then oops. If you don't want to research this subject yourself, you should probably trust me, because we have an app with >1M installs that depends on being in memory. >> For example, in Android 6 I could record incoming calls easily. Not so much on Android 9, > This is still possible, and I do it, with the stock dailer on android 8.1 Let me check, was Android 8.1 released later than Android 9? Hm, I guess, not. Anyway, this link [1] would be a good place to start to learn more on this subject. Let me cite: "The official API for call recording was removed with the launch of Android 6.0 Marshmallow. Developers are hard to stop, so they found workarounds to keep this feature alive, but Google finally killed off the ability to record calls with Android 9.0 Pie." So, do you agree now with my point that Android is becoming a more and more restricted platform in every way? [1]: https://www.androidauthority.com/record-calls-android-1019109/ https://www.androidauthority.com/record-calls-android-101910...