Microsoft Complains About Google's Monopoly Abuse

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Frustrated at the FTC's blessing of the Google/Doubleclick merger, Microsoft is complaining to the EU. Its latest filings detail how the merger would give Google a stranglehold on the advertising industry. While these complaints aren't new, the diagram [PDF] Microsoft created gives you an interesting look at the sort of competition Microsoft fears from Google."

I just don't see the connection

[FredFredrickson]

How is teaming with an online marketing company giving Google quite the stronghold that MS actually has? I mean- it's not like this means Google owns the billboards and television commercials.

Confidential

[orclevegam]

Anyone else notice the little confidential text in the corner of all the slides in the linked PDF?

Not wrong

[Pojut]

You know, I don't think it's a secret that Microsoft controls what many consider to be a monopoly (I personally don't think they are a monopoly, but then again I don't think Microsoft is the only (or even the fifth) software developer out there...but I digress.

Just because it's the pot calling the kettle black, or being crybabies, or anything else you folks here on teh dot like to toss around in regards to Microsoft...does that make them wrong?

I don't know about you all, but I am WAY more worried about Google than I am about Microsoft. So the company attempts to create a monopoly and have their OS everywhere...big deal. Eventually, the general public will wise up and move to either OSX or Linux, and Microsoft's stranglehold will dissipate.

Are you people seriously worried about Microsoft when Google is quickly becoming the private sector equivalent to the CIA? I mean, come on...they track, store, and record EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. Google is far and away the world's most popular search engine...that, combined with the mountains of data that they store, and combined with the number of various companies that they are buying up, with a dash of the number of web pages that have ad links FROM Google on them...do you see what I am saying?

Microsoft may be running a monopoly on the operating system market, but Google is very slowly (so slowly you won't even notice...) building a monopoly on the control of the Internet and our very lives.

Google is two steps away from becoming a government agency. Watch.

Enforcing monopoly laws

[mlwmohawk]

Microsoft should be a little more careful in asking the FTC to enforce monopoly laws. I mean, come on now! If *anyone* should be broken apart it is Microsoft. Microsoft currently enjoys a U.S. "justice" department that is so pro-business that it refuses to enforce the laws that stand and has dropped action in progress.

If we should get a "Justice" department in the U.S. again, one which will investigate wrong doings by corporations and government, including the executive branch, Microsoft is toast.

Is Microsoft so stupid as to not know that poking a sleeping dragon is not in one's own best interest? Or are they so sure that Google is going to cut off their air supply they are willing to risk it?

The P.C. is a dinosaur, think of this post. I'm running Firefox on Linux. If *most* software becomes web based it makes no difference who's using what. Furthermore, someone like Google could take something like the OLPC device give it away with a subscription to Google's web applications.

Between OLPC, web ads, web 2.0 rich applications, the E.U. investigation prompted by Opera, Microsoft must see its Office and OS monopoly in deep trouble. Their "back-office" strategy is competitive but not monopolistic enough to support the corporation once the OS and office products no longer have ~90% of the users.

Not to be a detractor

[euxneks]

Not to be a detractor, as I hate MS as much as every other sane person does, but monopolies in any form in my opinion are BAD. Just because it's Microsoft that has a competing product and is whining doesn't mean that there might be a genuine problem with the Google/Doubleclick merger or whatever it is. I don't know anything about this whole affair, but it's not right to just offhandedly dismiss the claims because Microsoft is making them.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Moreover, simply having a monopoly isn't illegal. Only using that monopoly in an anti-competitive fashion is. Google, for all their dominance in the field, just go about their business. The only way they make it difficult for competitors is by doing it better than their competitors can. The complaint doesn't list any abuses of that monopoly on the part of Google, it only says they'll control a too large a piece of the ad market.

And, because we all need our daily slice of irony...the "Wah...Google will have a monopoly" complaint was filed by Microsoft in the form of a Microsoft Word Document!

Re:Bologna.

[orclevegam]

You forgot that the Wine and Samba guys had good developers and somewhat limited goals, where as MS has corporate slaves^Wdevelopers (for the record I'm a corporate developer, but not a MS one) and has always attempted to maintain backwards compatibility (which means implementing not only the old API, but all the old bugs as well). From the stories I've heard this is also a side-effect of the way teams are broken out at MS. Where as in the OSS world the goal is on co-operation in large corporations like MS middle managers are often more interested in carving out their own domains and will even go as far as sabotaging other projects to make theirs look better. It's this mentality that has led developers at MS to put hidden optimized backdoors and function calls all over the place that allows them to write software that doesn't follow the API, but performs better than code that does follow the API. This also tends to lead to a sort of NIHS where developers unaware of the hidden functions others created recreate the same functions.

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[sm62704]

Then the money will be traced back to MS

SCO Search?

Yahoo is on both sides

[Marcion]

Interesting in the PDF, the first shows Google differently than Yahoo. Google is put together as if it is some outrageous monopoly, but yahoo is put at both ends.

Re:Yahoo is on both sides

[teh_commodore]

Also interesting to note in the PDF: on page one, Yahoo and MSN are listed as intergrated partners.
When google was asked for comment, their response was:
"Did you mean: integrated [google.com]"

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your definition of cool probably differs from mine, but I think Microsoft is a cool company. They have some great products.. Windows Server 2003, IIS 6, MOSS 2007, Exchange 2007, Windows XP (it has matured a lot since initial release), XBOX hardware at least (I use XBMC with it, which absolutely rocks), XBOX 360. I am the first to admit they are a slimey as hell company, but I just like some of their products. Also I'm not some MS fanboy. I like Linux.. have an Ubuntu machine which kicks ass. I also have a m0n0wall computer at home, which I know is all a GUI interface, but it is still BSD nonetheless.

Yea, I know.....

[tacokill]

Yes, but the premise I was making made the example relevant. Of course I know Rand's character was fictional but the character was there to demonstrate the relationship between business and the state.

Don't you remember WHY Reardon was in the courts in the first place? Because his competitors complained that his product was better than theirs.

While fictional, it is very appropriate.

A monopoly for a market that doesn't exist yet!

[AtariDatacenter]

60% of you will underestimate this.
20% of you will misunderstand this.
10% of you might believe it.
10% of you will totally get this.

The next step in 'Internet advertising' doesn't exist yet, and doesn't directly center around the web browser and web pages. There is a real integration of three technologies that is coming around the corner, and Google is far ahead of the game than any other player. In fact, most of the other players don't even know the game exists.

What is this magic combo?
Cellular Data [real time, anyplace, data transport to a computing device] +
Internet [not web pages, but providers of location based services (Google)] +
GPS [one of the new key data fields that everything will hinge upon]

"But we already have those things today!" "This is nothing new!" "My phone currently does all three!"

Yes. Those are three discrete services that your phone may have. But are they INTEGRATED?

New world example:

You're hungry. You want a place to eat. You go to your [smart device]. It could be a cell phone. It could be a Nokia N800 like device. Yes, it could be built into your car like your existing GPS mapping device. It already knows where you are (and shows your position on the default screen). You query (not through a web browser, but an integrated interface) for a nearby fast food restaurant. With me so far? You didn't go to a web page Yahoo! Local or Google Maps. Your map application was built into the device.

Quite a number of nearby locations pop up on your map. But there are a few bolded map selections. Arby's has free desert with any meal purchase. Bill & Ruth's sub shop has a discount of $1 towards any sandwich. And some small pizza place you never heard of has a 2-for-1 special. And then there are quite a number of other choices.

How did those bolded deals get there? Some large company built up the infrastructure required to run a service where any advertiser (major corporation or little mom-and-pop shops) could put in advertisements at a local level. They've got the transaction engine necessary to take and bill for advertisements. (That would be an existing online advertising company.) They've got the scale to do this on a nationwide (or even worldwide) basis. They've got a yellow pages database. They've got a way to deliver this to consumers.

Who has something like this today? The only things close that I've found are Yahoo! Local [yahoo.com], and our friend Google.

Google doesn't have all the pieces yet. But they're assembling them. Adsense is going to start allowing location based advertising. (I wish I kept my reference for that.) They're working on an integrated delivery platform to get that to you (Gphone). They practically have all the pieces in place, and they're working towards the goal of making this happen.

Now, DoubleClick is a major online advertising company. They could be competition to Google in this future world. But, if Google absorbs DoubleClick before the market even exists, then they can avoid the whole monopoly issue. So Google isn't just playing for the here and now, but they're playing for the future in advertising. Nobody else (such as local telephone companies which maintain their own yellow pages) will be in a position to compete (because they lack everything needed to gather the ads nationwide, and they lack everything needed to present the ads, except for some ownership of the mobile devices). Which... of course... Google managed to take away their walled garden when it comes to the mobile devices allowed on the next generation wireless networks.

And Google totally has this figured out. Hello? Google Maps? Want to know what the business looks like that you're heading for? Google street view. Google is totally lining all of its ducks in a row to corner this new market.

DoubleClick

Re:Well if anyone knows...

[erroneus]

Buying something cool doesn't make you cool. Look at all those "casual friday" guys buying Harley-Davidson motorcycles! Does that make them "bikers" now? NO! It doesn't! When my brother was talking about having his motorcycle SHIPPED to the Sturges rally, I nearly exploded with internal laughter!

Since when has google used FUD to destroy

[NullProg]

a competitive product?

1) Since when has google used a AARD code in a Operating system to instill FUD for a user to purchase an alternate OS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code [wikipedia.org]
2) Since when has google informed a user to remove a competitors program upon installation/upgrade of a new one? http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/12/20/505887.aspx [msdn.com]
3) Since when has google forced install GGA (Google Genuine Advantage) software to frisk and accuse a user of being a thief when their not? http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/archive/2007/08/27/update-on-validation-issues.aspx [msdn.com]
4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but google has't put yahoo, msn, ask jeeves out of business by bundling their service with computer manufacturers. Computer makers can bundle all or none except when they bundle Windows (Windows Live).

Microsoft stopped being a software company back in 1991. They are now a an exclusive Windows only monopoly protection company. Just like the contract they signed with (CBS), they are old and busted (MTV).

Silverlight is a copy of flash (but won't work on my cell phone). .Net is a copy of Java (but doesn't have a native compiler and doesn't work outside of a WinCE phone). Live office is joke compared to Google. My tweens (and their friends) want their computers/cell phones/ipods just to work regardless of the computer. Microsoft doesn't get this.

Microsoft assumed that they would steal away Ad dollars (UK Pounds, French EU etc) from google by being Microsoft. They don't understand yet that the Microsoft brand name is tainted and means squat for most of the world. Their not Coco-Cola for sure. They have brand recognition for being un-secure, BSOD, RROD (xbox360), and greedy.

In the USA a Microsoft ex-attorney is allowed to be head of the Microsoft DOJ oversight commission (Government). Hopefully the EU wont have a Microsoft employee overseeing their Microsoft anti-trust suit (Anyone can be bought by a company with ill-gotten $40 billion in the bank.

Microsoft is not evil. Just greedy. They forgot about making computer software thats simple and easy (Apple). Somehow they forgot that they were computer programmers, not Windows programmers.

Enjoy,