3 ms·

Competition is ultimately good for users. As long as Google isn't using its size in a Microsoft-vs-Netscape capacity to compete unfairly and destroy innovation

by thurn 15y ago

Competition is ultimately good for users. As long as Google isn't using its size in a Microsoft-vs-Netscape capacity to compete unfairly and destroy innovation in a particular market, I think we should welcome this trend.

protomyth 15y ago
Google's release of Android parallels Microsoft's release of IE a little too closely for some (I do believe it was mentioned in some report I read).
- blinkingled 15y ago
  That makes no sense at all. IE was bundled with the OS which was licensed for money, forced down the PC manufacturers' neck with anti competitive terms and conditions along with proprietary technology (ActiveX/VBScript) to further Microsoft's monopolistic grip on the PC market. On the contrary Google is distributing an Open Source OS with well documented APIs (that RIM is using to run Android apps as-is), they aren't requiring any anti-competitive agreements/royalties from anyone to forbid them using alternative OS etc. They are betting on good-will and competence as far as I can see - that manufacturers can use it on its merits rather than being forced to do it. Of course in the process they are making money but it's win-win for everyone. IE killed Netscape - that was anti competitive for some but having lived through Netscape 4.x I can assure you that Netscape's incompetence was also a big part of their failure.
- pkulak 15y ago
  They really shouldn't have bundled Android with GMail like that.
  - abraham 15y ago
    Gmail isn't bundled with Android. In fact Google went after CyanogenMod for bundling it.
    - mdwrigh2 15y ago
      I think he's going after the inverse point and in a sarcastic manner: that Google didn't bundle Android along with any of their popular products. Microsoft did by including IE with Windows which was then shipped with every computer, thus using their dominant marketshare of the OS space in order to take over the browser space.
      - abraham 15y ago
        Could be. I read it as being a serious point but I can see how it could also be sarcastic.
        protomyth 15y ago
        Nope, I was very serious. The narrative of a company using its cash cow to finance a product, given away for free, that directly attacks the cash cow of another company was why the DoJ went after Microsoft for Netscape. A smart Microsoft lawyer could do a fairly easy narrative that in the case Google (cash cow: Ads) is going after Microsoft (cash cow: OS) via a free product (Android). Throw in patent violations and it is a pretty good narrative for a not-so-scary-anymore Microsoft. You and others (given the down votes) may not agree with the narrative and don't want to hear it, but it is a probable argument that can be used to go after Google and stay any effort to allow them free use of other companies patents. The original DoJ's case against Microsoft attacking IE was rather out there given Microsoft's other behavior (i.e. no matter what OS you buy Microsoft still gets its fee). // I think this is my last comment on any Google story. Companies can do cool stuff and still do uncool things, just like people. Every company tries to protect its revenue stream in whatever way it thinks up.
      - pkulak 15y ago
        haha, yeah, sorry. Maybe too subtle.
cageface 15y ago
This is a very important point. With iPhone and Android neck & neck in the marketplace there's a tremendous incentive for both companies to make the best products they can and to make their users happy. Let's not forget how stagnant desktop computing became in the years of the Microsoft monopoly.
- michaelochurch 15y ago
  With iPhone and Android neck & neck in the marketplace there's a tremendous incentive for both companies to make the best products they can and to make their users happy. Let's not forget how stagnant desktop computing became in the years of the Microsoft monopoly. I agree that that monopolistic era was especially pernicious. It wasn't just that Microsoft controlled a huge share of the desktop market; it was that this made them a de facto gatekeeper with regard to technology before the Web. Also, there were a lot of startups that couldn't get fair acquisition prices because there was only one buyer. The only good thing that comes out of monopolies is R&D (e.g. Bell Labs)... but I'd rather see R&D propelled by employee demands for autonomy (when there's lots of competition for talent) than by executive largess within a monopoly. One of the most exciting things to come out of Microsoft's research department is F#, and that emerged after the monopoly era was over. Apple and Google both make excellent products, with completely different approaches but an end result that's great for users. Competition is good for products and also good for employees within companies (competition for talent).

by thurn 15y ago

protomyth 15y ago

Google's release of Android parallels Microsoft's release of IE a little too closely for some (I do believe it was mentioned in some report I read).

blinkingled 15y ago
That makes no sense at all. IE was bundled with the OS which was licensed for money, forced down the PC manufacturers' neck with anti competitive terms and conditions along with proprietary technology (ActiveX/VBScript) to further Microsoft's monopolistic grip on the PC market. On the contrary Google is distributing an Open Source OS with well documented APIs (that RIM is using to run Android apps as-is), they aren't requiring any anti-competitive agreements/royalties from anyone to forbid them using alternative OS etc. They are betting on good-will and competence as far as I can see - that manufacturers can use it on its merits rather than being forced to do it. Of course in the process they are making money but it's win-win for everyone. IE killed Netscape - that was anti competitive for some but having lived through Netscape 4.x I can assure you that Netscape's incompetence was also a big part of their failure.
pkulak 15y ago
They really shouldn't have bundled Android with GMail like that.
- abraham 15y ago
  Gmail isn't bundled with Android. In fact Google went after CyanogenMod for bundling it.
  - mdwrigh2 15y ago
    I think he's going after the inverse point and in a sarcastic manner: that Google didn't bundle Android along with any of their popular products. Microsoft did by including IE with Windows which was then shipped with every computer, thus using their dominant marketshare of the OS space in order to take over the browser space.
    - abraham 15y ago
      Could be. I read it as being a serious point but I can see how it could also be sarcastic.
      - protomyth 15y ago
        Nope, I was very serious. The narrative of a company using its cash cow to finance a product, given away for free, that directly attacks the cash cow of another company was why the DoJ went after Microsoft for Netscape. A smart Microsoft lawyer could do a fairly easy narrative that in the case Google (cash cow: Ads) is going after Microsoft (cash cow: OS) via a free product (Android). Throw in patent violations and it is a pretty good narrative for a not-so-scary-anymore Microsoft. You and others (given the down votes) may not agree with the narrative and don't want to hear it, but it is a probable argument that can be used to go after Google and stay any effort to allow them free use of other companies patents. The original DoJ's case against Microsoft attacking IE was rather out there given Microsoft's other behavior (i.e. no matter what OS you buy Microsoft still gets its fee). // I think this is my last comment on any Google story. Companies can do cool stuff and still do uncool things, just like people. Every company tries to protect its revenue stream in whatever way it thinks up.
    - pkulak 15y ago
      haha, yeah, sorry. Maybe too subtle.

cageface 15y ago

This is a very important point. With iPhone and Android neck & neck in the marketplace there's a tremendous incentive for both companies to make the best products they can and to make their users happy. Let's not forget how stagnant desktop computing became in the years of the Microsoft monopoly.

michaelochurch 15y ago
With iPhone and Android neck & neck in the marketplace there's a tremendous incentive for both companies to make the best products they can and to make their users happy. Let's not forget how stagnant desktop computing became in the years of the Microsoft monopoly. I agree that that monopolistic era was especially pernicious. It wasn't just that Microsoft controlled a huge share of the desktop market; it was that this made them a de facto gatekeeper with regard to technology before the Web. Also, there were a lot of startups that couldn't get fair acquisition prices because there was only one buyer. The only good thing that comes out of monopolies is R&D (e.g. Bell Labs)... but I'd rather see R&D propelled by employee demands for autonomy (when there's lots of competition for talent) than by executive largess within a monopoly. One of the most exciting things to come out of Microsoft's research department is F#, and that emerged after the monopoly era was over. Apple and Google both make excellent products, with completely different approaches but an end result that's great for users. Competition is good for products and also good for employees within companies (competition for talent).