3 ms·

When Windows bundled IE, it had 90+% OS market share. Google currently accounts for about 3% of the smart phone market. It's okay to fight dirty when you're co

When Windows bundled IE, it had 90+% OS market share. Google currently accounts for about 3% of the smart phone market. It's okay to fight dirty when you're coming from behind.

gaius 17y ago
You have to compare like with like. At the time MS decided to bundle IE, what was its percentage of browsers?
- rortian 17y ago
  Anti-trust is an interesting area of law and I recommend studying it if given the opportunity. In the 90s Microsoft abused its desktop OS monopoly to destroy another companies product. Right now, Google is leveraging its map data to help its smart phone OS. This could be a legal problem in the future if: Google becomes the dominate provider of such data. Android dominates smart phones and they change the license.
  - gaius 17y ago
    I think that people have forgotten that Netscape also gave their browser away for free. Google is not leveraging its data in this case so much as it it leveraging its pile of cash made from its dominance in search. The situations are analogous.
    - rortian 17y ago
      So Google has a monopoly in cash? As I said this is an area to study, not to find 'analogous' situations. The first thing to define in a case is what is the relevant market. You could make the case, and its probably true, that Google has a monopoly in internet text advertising. However, it would be hard to argue that this market is not part of the larger internet advertising market. Microsoft had a straight up desktop monopoly. It was not legal for them to leverage that against another company. I don't know how it matters in the context, but since you brought it up, Netscape didn't give their browser away until 1998. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape
  - HistoryInAction 17y ago
    This doesn't remind me of the 90s so much as the 80s when Microsoft was paying developers to write software for DOS. When the dust cleared in the OS war, Microsoft had a tipping point of software written for DOS, so whenever someone was choosing an OS, they chose DOS/Windows because nothing else had the variety of software available for it. They built their monopoly /then/ abused it. Google's just in the building stage, though they're interesting because they're constantly pushing the boundary of their monopoly. Any history students see comparisons between Google and Carnegie Steel in terms of vertical integration throughout their industry? I do, though I don't know enough to describe it in great detail...
briansmith 17y ago
Google is closing in on a monopoly in certain segments of the advertising market. That's where they get all their money to undercut everybody else. Similarly, Microsoft had a huge percentage of the operating system market, and they leveraged that to take over the browser market.

When Windows bundled IE, it had 90+% OS market share. Google currently accounts for about 3% of the smart phone market. It's okay to fight dirty when you're coming from behind.

gaius 17y ago

You have to compare like with like. At the time MS decided to bundle IE, what was its percentage of browsers?

rortian 17y ago
Anti-trust is an interesting area of law and I recommend studying it if given the opportunity. In the 90s Microsoft abused its desktop OS monopoly to destroy another companies product. Right now, Google is leveraging its map data to help its smart phone OS. This could be a legal problem in the future if: Google becomes the dominate provider of such data. Android dominates smart phones and they change the license.
- gaius 17y ago
  I think that people have forgotten that Netscape also gave their browser away for free. Google is not leveraging its data in this case so much as it it leveraging its pile of cash made from its dominance in search. The situations are analogous.
  - rortian 17y ago
    So Google has a monopoly in cash? As I said this is an area to study, not to find 'analogous' situations. The first thing to define in a case is what is the relevant market. You could make the case, and its probably true, that Google has a monopoly in internet text advertising. However, it would be hard to argue that this market is not part of the larger internet advertising market. Microsoft had a straight up desktop monopoly. It was not legal for them to leverage that against another company. I don't know how it matters in the context, but since you brought it up, Netscape didn't give their browser away until 1998. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape
- HistoryInAction 17y ago
  This doesn't remind me of the 90s so much as the 80s when Microsoft was paying developers to write software for DOS. When the dust cleared in the OS war, Microsoft had a tipping point of software written for DOS, so whenever someone was choosing an OS, they chose DOS/Windows because nothing else had the variety of software available for it. They built their monopoly /then/ abused it. Google's just in the building stage, though they're interesting because they're constantly pushing the boundary of their monopoly. Any history students see comparisons between Google and Carnegie Steel in terms of vertical integration throughout their industry? I do, though I don't know enough to describe it in great detail...

briansmith 17y ago

Google is closing in on a monopoly in certain segments of the advertising market. That's where they get all their money to undercut everybody else. Similarly, Microsoft had a huge percentage of the operating system market, and they leveraged that to take over the browser market.