Google Gets Away With What Microsoft Couldn't

FreshlyShornBalls writes "WebProNews is reporting that Google's new beta toolbar apparently sports an "AutoLink" feature which appends hyperlinks to existing content. These hyperlinks, of course, point to their services, such as maps for addresses, isdn numbers for books, etc. Sounds an awful lot like Microsoft's "Smart Tags"." Update by J : ... except that Microsoft's proposal was in the monopoly browser while Google's software is a third-party add-on, and Microsoft's was (originally) on by default while Google's is a button to click.

hah!

[CaptainPinko]

when microsoft divests itself of operating systems then we'll talk, until then it's two seperate cases.

Here is a quick example and counter-argument: Mr. Mizter: Why can't I marry a blonde? Mr. Foo married one. I should be able to marry one too...
Mr. Bar:...but you've already married a brunette whereas Mr.Foo hasn't. If you'd like to seperate from your brunette then you can feel free to have yourself a try at marry a blonde.

Google is not getting away with anything.

Monopoly owners get different treatment.

[javaxman]

It's very simple, and nobody should be shocked by the double standard.

I will treat _any_ company that is not a monopoly differently than a monopoly.

When the monopolist does it, it's abuse, because it might be difficult to find alternatives, or to remove it. Anyone else? If I don't like their product/service, it's easy to dump it. But when so many lame-ass websites write IE-specific content because it's the main browser in use, and it's the main browser because it comes with the 'standard' operating system, and it's the 'standard' operating system because of anti-competitive licensing strategies ( among other unfriendly business strategies ), it's somehow reasonable that I don't want Microsoft to foist their content on me when I didn't ask for it.

Having said that, I don't use Google's toolbar, either, and somehow I don't think I would. I'm pretty sure I have bookmarks and tools that do all of the things it does. That or I just don't understand what makes it 'cool'...

Re:There are a few minor differences

[Osty]

SmartLink was intended to replace existing tags with links to places MS wanted you to go, and to add links that would only work if you happened to be running Windows.

This was modded informative? Man, I want some of that moderator crack. First off, I assume you're referring to Microsft's Smart Tags (no idea what "SmartLink" is). Second, it wasn't at all intended to replace existing links. It was in addition to any links on the pages (think similar to VibrantMedia's intellitext crap, but way less intrusive, and still under your control). Third, of course it would only work if you happen to be running Windows. The Google thing only works if you happen to be running Windows, IE, and the Google toolbar. So what? Fourth, Smart Tags were and are configurable. You could remove tags you didn't want, and install new ones you did. Perhaps there would've been security issues with the tags installing by themselves, but I never saw that (I used the IE 6 beta back in the day), and now it would only be speculation. You could write your own smart tags and distribute them completely independent of Microsoft, and most of the smart tags I've seen were useful, not advertisements (ie, a name gets tagged so you can look it up in your Outlook contact list, an address gets tagged so you can look it up on mappoint, etc).

People reacted poorly to Microsoft's Smart Tags because they were from Microsoft, not because they were inherently evil. That's also why people are not up in arms about Google doing it (they "Do no Evil," right?). At least in Microsoft's case the API to build your own smart tags was available (I don't know about Google's, since I don't run the Google toolbar and I've not looked into this deeper).

Re:BIG Difference

[igrigorik]

I think that in reality, we dont have as many choices as you may think. What are you going to turn to? Yahoo (yeah right), MSN Search? The remaining ad filled, over-verbose, inaccurate engines? But that's not the point. The 'pretty' image of Google will inevitably change as they grow. What evolved as a free service, became a growing corporation (and it will continue to expand). The more power they yeild over the market, the more radical the opposition will become, simply because of their share. To me, the parallel between Microsoft and Google is simple, both employ the best guys they can find (lets not get into rhetoric discussions of how Microsoft 'sux' and Google 'wins') and are dominant forces in their regions. Furthermore, Google is evolving along the exact same lines as Microsoft, it's becoming a hegemon that trumps all competition in comparison. Microsoft has it's own record of 'abusing' this power. BUT, both sides have a good argument in this case. You could easily make the case for the fact that since Google is a dominant engine, the more services they put out, the more they integrate an average user into their model. Eventually this process will lead to same endpoint as Microsoft, they will impede development of smaller companies (dont they already?). Expect more discussions like this one in the future, mark my words.

Linux will not kill Microsoft,

[LokiSteve]

Google will. Probably harnessing *nix.

Google is getting people used to storing files externally, and earning a ton of trust from being one of the best search engines around. They have a huge user base and have some truly amazing market penetration. Google has become a verb. We have this innate trust for Google. They run BSD. They aren't Microsoft. They must be good.

My money is on a Google dumb terminal within the next 3 years.

//slightly off topic, but just had a big discussion about it yesterday.

Re:It is simple

[QMO]

Consider how MS was working with IBM in developing OS/2. The reality may be a little murky, but the appearance is that once MS had enough to go it on its own, IBM was "betrayed".

Consider the agreement that MS had with Novel that Novell would keep out of OS and MS would keep out of networking. I'm not making this up, but read it in a computer magazine, just before NT got big. (market-wise, not bloat-wise, I believe that it was always bloated)

Consider MS's development of hard drive compression technology that they built into MSDOS 6? Of course, some people consider that "information was meant to be free" and may not think that Stacker had a right to beef about the theft of their software.

MS may not be evil, but some some individuals that have substantial control over actions of the corporation make decisions that I regard as evil.

Re:It is simple

[jocknerd]

You are right, a corporation is not a person. They are just granted the same rights as one in the U.S. And because the executives of American corporations don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions like CEO's of foreign corporations, our corporations only act in the interest of the majority stockholders.

Re:It is simple

[ramsejc]

Ahem....

[Quoted from above] Don't steal, don't murder, don't lie, etc...

Microsoft steals.
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/2004 1115_1354 58.html

Microsoft Murders.
http://www.chez.com/johnt/antims/antimsu s.htm
(See in particular the lines about Norton's Utilities and the theft of Stacker...)

Microsoft lies.
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/hallowe en5.php
(They've lied about linux so many times, I didn't even spend one full minute searching for an example on this one.