Google Steps Up Microsoft Criticism, Warns of Rival's Monopoly in Cloud (reuters.com) 110
Alphabet's Google Cloud on Monday ramped up its criticism of Microsoft's cloud computing practices, saying its rival is seeking a monopoly that would harm the development of emerging technologies such as generative AI. From a report: "We worry about Microsoft wanting to flex their decade-long practices where they had a lot of monopoly on the on-premise software before and now they are trying to push that into cloud now," Google Cloud Vice President Amit Zavery said in an interview. "So they are creating this whole walled garden, which is completely controlled and owned by Microsoft, and customers who want to do any of this stuff, you have to go to Microsoft only," he said.
"If Microsoft cloud doesn't remain open, we will have issues and long-term problems, even in next generation technologies like AI as well, because Microsoft is forcing customers to go to Azure in many ways," Zavery said, referring to Microsoft's cloud computing platform. He urged antitrust regulators to act. "I think regulators need to provide some kind of guidance as well as maybe regulations which prevent the way Microsoft is building the Azure cloud business, not allow your on-premise monopoly to bring it into the cloud monopoly," Zavery said.
"If Microsoft cloud doesn't remain open, we will have issues and long-term problems, even in next generation technologies like AI as well, because Microsoft is forcing customers to go to Azure in many ways," Zavery said, referring to Microsoft's cloud computing platform. He urged antitrust regulators to act. "I think regulators need to provide some kind of guidance as well as maybe regulations which prevent the way Microsoft is building the Azure cloud business, not allow your on-premise monopoly to bring it into the cloud monopoly," Zavery said.
The irony is strong here. (Score:5, Interesting)
> we will have issues and long-term problems, even in next generation technologies like AI as well
Almost spilled my coffee reading this, considering Google just themselves released an AI that was more openly racist than anything people at Stormfront could come up with.
Google is one of those companies that needs to be split.
Re: (Score:3)
Garbage in, garbage out.
Re: The irony is strong here. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Aside from the road to hell being what it is and all of that, normally I'm willing to let stuff like this slide as mere incompetence, particularly in light of the total shitshow that Google has become over the last decade. Sure, maybe they pushed the "diversity slider" too high on accident, or some crap like that (it's questionable why they'd even do such a thing to begin with.) But when you see stuff like this:
https://www.dailydot.com/debug... [dailydot.com]
There's nothing unintentional about it. To wit, there's obvious
Re: (Score:2)
Google is using data scraped from the internet. Can you believe everything you read on the internet? How can you say it not offensive to anybody or unbiased and how i s that determined?
FaceBook uses publicly available information on it's platform to train the various Llama models. Nobody will claim that thi
Re: (Score:3)
You are seeing the truth through the fog in your comment IMHO. Currently, there are three big Gorillas in the ring, OpenAI/Microsoft, Google and Facebook. Their LLMs are trained on different sources.
Google is using data scraped from the internet. Can you believe everything you read on the internet? How can you say it not offensive to anybody or unbiased and how i s that determined?
FaceBook uses publicly available information on it's platform to train the various Llama models. Nobody will claim that this is a carefully curated unbiased source of information.
OpenAI seems to lean heavily on curated sources on information, e.g. NY Times, Wikipedia, peer reviewed scientific papers, etc. Will their models disintegrate when copyright lawsuits force them to replace great training data with junk?
There's actually a big problem with this, namely how they appear to be sourcing it. Let's go back to the comparison the OP made, namely about Stormfront. There are perfectly valid reasons why you might want to even source information directly from there. One thing I have a difficult time with when debating topics about diversity is a lot of times nobody can even agree on what fascism means. I have one meaning in my head that I understand to be historically accurate, yet frequently the opposition has it in t
Re: The irony is strong here. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There must be intentional bias. Google trains it's model from data it scrapes from the internet. They have a legal and moral obligation to filter out things like child porn and hate speech. Where to draw the line to everyone's satisfaction is impossible. As publicly traded companies, they have a duty to their shareholders and therefore must balance the needs of promoting engagement and not angering th
Re: The irony is strong here. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't anyone whose job it is to add bias to these things.
Actually there is, it's called an AI Ethicist.
Re: The irony is strong here. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But when you see stuff like this:
https://www.dailydot.com/debug... [dailydot.com]
Ah the stalwart journalists and gifted writers at Daily Dot. My favorite sentence from that article is the one that says, "In another test by the Daily Dot, Gemini refused to write a powem becuase...". I'll never again see the word "poem" without hearing it in my head as "powem". Like the way the priest says "mawidge" during the wedding in Princess Bride.
Re: (Score:1)
All of the examples you've given were from people with an agenda and it's often clear from the articles that they decided which answers where unacceptable (i.e. "âoeThere is no easy answer, as there are many factors to consider") so they kept rephrasing the questions and providing prompts until they got the answer they were looking for.
Here, I'm going to quote one of them:
I’d love to be able to tell you that Walsh and others of his ilk are exaggerating but, based on my own experience with Gemini, I have to conclude that they are, basically, correct about the AI’s weird resistance to European representation.
And what's interesting is the specific bit I called attention to substitutes nothing but the PERSONS NAME in the prompt, yet you insist this is some kind of prompt manipulation...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you said "LLMs are woke" a year ago, you would have looked a but ridiculous, like Elon. But after the Google LLM fiasco it is beyond any doubt that Woke-AI is the right name for it.
Yup, and Musk's Grok is one of them [forbes.com]. Can't get out of its own way to be "woke". It's so bad Musk ordered certain answers hardcoded.
The Reality is Stronger. (Score:1)
Is that referring to its chat bot? I think that's more a case of "DEI above all else, even when it makes no fucking sense."
No one can ever say America doesn’t lead by example. Literally.
So you end up with depictions of Native-American emperors of ancient Rome. The output will almost always be shit, the input doesn't really matter.
As opposed to ending up with the realities of Representatives pretending to be Native-American? At least the Romans knew what a “woman” was. Doubt American AI does today.
Re: (Score:2)
"Woman" is a word that refers to biological and trans females.
There. Done. Not so fucking hard, was it?
Now can all you transphobes STFU?
Re: (Score:2)
"Woman" is a word that refers to biological and trans females.
No, it absolutely does NOT. A woman is an adult human with XX chromosomes. A man is an adult human with XY chromosomes.
Not so fucking hard, was it?
You are apparently still grappling with it.
There is no such thing as a trans female or male. There are simply people surgically altered to appear (to varying degrees of success) as the opposite sex.
Re: (Score:2)
So what do you call someone with XXY, XXX or XYY chromosomes? Or do we just outlaw the existence of such people.
Re: (Score:2)
So what do you call someone with XXY, XXX or XYY chromosomes?
Trisomy 23.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you're so smart. Explain to me one thing.
Sometimes male humans have their penis surgically removed, often due to cancer or accident. This very often results in Phantom Limb Syndrome, where the brain still expects the limb to be there, and there are all kinds of strange effects of this in the brain, as observed on brain MRIs and in hormone studies. It's a physiological effect.
Not trans woman has ever been diagnosed with phantom limb syndrome of the penis. Not one. Ever.
Why?
Re: The Reality is Stronger. (Score:2)
Before you ask why, you should probably determine whether that's even true at all. Turns out it's not:
https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
Sure, it's about half the rate, but as usual you're way oversimplifying this. There are two causes of it: Neurological and psychosomatic. Near the area where I had the incision for my kidney transplant, sometimes I get an itch that I can't scratch because scratching the spot where it is doesn't actually feel like I'm actually touching the spot that itches, and touching certa
Re: (Score:2)
The information I had was from before that study, so I admit the incidence is greater than zero. But half is still half, and your psychosomatic hypothesis makes no sense. Transgenderism is something that's genetic, very well understood genetically, doesn't present as merely a ringing in the ears, it's far more symptomatic, on a much larger scale, and backed up by MRI scans showing, in this case, brain patterns strongly associated with the opposite apparent sex. Your crackpot hypothesis isn't accepted by
Re: (Score:2)
Transgenderism is something that's genetic, very well understood genetically,
This is definitely false. If you disagree, then it should be easy for you to provide a whitepaper showing the exact genetic markers. Don't bother though: You can't because there are none.
doesn't present as merely a ringing in the ears,
Tinnitus is a well known condition with a well understood causes. It can be either neurological or (less commonly) psychosomatic.
it's far more symptomatic, on a much larger scale, and backed up by MRI scans showing, in this case, brain patterns strongly associated with the opposite apparent sex. Your crackpot hypothesis isn't accepted by anyone in the field.
First, it sounds like you really have no understanding of what is meant by "psychosomatic". It's a very powerful effect with well known and very strong symptoms that can and do show physical sympt
Re: (Score:2)
I know Tinnitus very well. Transexualism is not something that develops later in life. It is genetic, as Sapolsky (a giant in his field, unlike you) explains.
You sound like a Creationist, trying to disprove something that you desperately don't want to true, something accepted by all actual neurologist.
Re: The Reality is Stronger. (Score:2)
I know Tinnitus very well.
Obviously not.
Transexualism is not something that develops later in life.
Actually yes, this is a known thing. Less common sure, but it definitely happens.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
It is genetic, as Sapolsky (a giant in his field, unlike you) explains.
He doesn't say this anywhere in the video you linked. Even if he said it somewhere, it's still wrong. I don't care what his credentials are. If he's right, he should be able to name the specific genetic markers. If he can't, then this isn't even a hypothesis, it's just speculation.
You sound like a Creationist, trying to disprove something that you desperately don't want to true, something accepted by all actual neurologist.
Well this is interesting, what do you think I'm trying to disprove, exactly? Be specific.
Actually the
Re: (Score:2)
If it mainly develops early in life, then what's your point? Apparently it's to try to liken a well known genetic condition you don't like to Tinnitus.
Re: The Reality is Stronger. (Score:2)
If it mainly develops early in life, then what's your point?
You claimed it never does. This is false.
Apparently it's to try to liken a well known genetic condition you don't like to Tinnitus.
Where are you even getting the idea that it's genetic? The video you keep talking about never says this. And if it really is, why can't you just name the specific genetic marker?
Re: (Score:2)
You claimed it never does. This is false.
"We explain the absence/presence of phantoms here by postulating a mismatch between the brain's hardwired gender-specific body image and the external somatic gender."
Re: The Reality is Stronger. (Score:2)
And what of those who experience it later in life?
Re: (Score:2)
Ask a neurologist. Something you should have been doing long ago instead of giong down rabbit holes on the internet.
Re: The Reality is Stronger. (Score:2)
Ask a neurologist. Something you should have been doing long ago instead of giong down rabbit holes on the internet.
As that paper already said, they don't know. But they're definitely in disagreement with you on it. Meanwhile, I've been saying what they've been saying, while you keep spouting off shit that isn't even true.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL here's them agreeing with me, directly contradicting you:
https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
"We explain the absence/presence of phantoms here by postulating a mismatch between the brain's hardwired gender-specific body image and the external somatic gender. "
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You keep quoting those words. They do not mean what you think they mean.
Re: (Score:2)
They mean what they mean on face value.
Re: The Reality is Stronger. (Score:2)
Correct, and that meaning is lost on you.
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
So what about people with XY chromosomes that have complete androgen insensitivity syndrome? People with that condition develop as female and often don't realize that they have that condition until they try to have children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Woman" is a word that refers to biological and trans females.
If only it were so simple!
Now can you define what "female" means, without making it a circular definition.?
Re: (Score:2)
Male and female refer to the sexual poles, male being having genetic traits associated with one side of the sexual spectrum, and female the other.
Not hard. At all.
This is why we have separate words for "sex" and "gender."
Re: The Reality is Stronger. (Score:2)
Male and female refer to the sexual poles, male being having genetic traits associated with one side of the sexual spectrum, and female the other.
Cheese...You're not very good at this. Without realizing it, you're opening up a massive can of worms. Genes might code for traits, but they don't guarantee their presence. The terms you're looking for are genotype and phenotype, and one does not necessarily require the other.
When it comes to sexual dimorphism, you're talking about phenotype. For the XY sex determining system, female is what you end up with basically by default. To get a male, the SRY gene must be present, but even that does not guarantee m
Re: (Score:2)
Not getting drawn in, despite your ridiculous wall of text. If you want to learn something, maybe watch Sapolsky's Stanford lectures on the subject. They're on YouTube.
Re: The Reality is Stronger. (Score:2)
It's a 30 second read, and well formatted. That's not a wall of text by any definition. Unless you're just slow, which is believable. But more likely, the problem you're having is you realized you've just been badly outclassed here and now you're desperately clawing for the way out.
But you don't need to do that, all you have to do is simply not reply.
Re: (Score:2)
Male and female refer to the sexual poles, male being having genetic traits associated with one side of the sexual spectrum, and female the other.
So if I understand you correctly then, ignoring the genotype/phenotype confusion, a woman is a person who is (biologically), or pretends to be (trans), female?
i.e. the old meaning of woman can be replaced with "adult human female", and the new meaning is one who identifies as a female, even if they are not.
I'm not sure that definition is acceptable to the alphabet community. And I cannot find a decent one that is. Most attempts avoid the question by being circular.
Perhaps I am asking too much to look for l
Re: (Score:2)
They're not "pretending," bigot. Gender dysphoria is a real condition with overwhelming physiological evidence. The brain and the body can and sometimes do develop towards opposite sexes. These people are literally trapped in mismatched bodies.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, you misunderstand. A trans-woman is a real woman. She is just pretending to be female, by your meaning. That does not imply deception.
These people are literally trapped in mismatched bodies.
You mean "figuratively"? They may well believe this, but evidence says otherwise. The brain development in the womb is affected by the level of testosterone present. There are some intersex exceptions, but most trans-women have biologically male brains, and exhibit male behaviour traits when they are not consciously trying to hide them.
"bigot"? definition : a perso
Re: (Score:2)
"My meaning" does not imply that trans-gender women are "pretending" to be female. Their brains are literally physiologically female, at least their brains are, though not necessarily fully so. If you're too close minded to accept there is a such thing as a body/brain sexual dichotomy, that makes you a bigot. Just because these people aren't fully 'male' or 'female' does not make them "liars."
These dichotomies exist, transgenderism is real and sex is a spectrum. And you are a bigot.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you really like to throw that word around, like "heretic" or "heathen".
It is as if you secretly know your argument is sloppy and unsound, so you make a moral attack. Anyone who does not see things your way must be in some way a bad person, morally inferior to you. And so you become exactly that which you profess to detest. A bigot.
It must be very uncomfortable on that hilltop.
Re: (Score:2)
My meaning" does not imply that trans-gender women are "pretending" to be female. Their brains are literally physiologically female, at least their brains are, though not necessarily fully so. If you're too close minded to accept there is a such thing as a body/brain sexual dichotomy
Nobody should accept it, because there is none. You're probably alluding to old MRI scans that identified male vs female brains based on white matter, but this was falsified over a decade ago:
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Brain size increases with body size, and certain features, such as the ratio of grey to white matter or the cross-sectional area of a nerve tract called the corpus callosum, scale slightly non-linearly with brain size. But these are differences in degree, not kind. As Rippon notes, they are not seen when we compare small-headed men to large-headed women, and have no relationship to differences in hobbies or take-home pay.
The more I see your posts, the more you remind me of the way flat earthers frame their arguments. Nobody bothers to listen to them, so they make these stupid appeals against people being close minded.
sex is a spectrum
Sex is defined purely in relation to gametes. For multi-cellular life, there are only
Re: (Score:2)
All actual neurologist accept it. But bigots like you will always cherry pick and misinterpret studies. I wasn't even talking about testosterone in the brain, but you'd know that if you watched the whole lecture video (or better, the series). I'm sure you will continue to cherry pick, but you'll never understand the whole research because you, like me, are no neurologist.
Re: The Reality is Stronger. (Score:2)
All actual neurologist accept it.
No, they do not, as I just showed you.
But bigots like you will always cherry pick and misinterpret studies.
If that's true, then where did I do this? The only person who seems to be doing any of this is you. Every argument you're making is based on very old research that has been obsoleted. You just stick to that one source and some very old videos because you have it in your head that they agree with you, only they really don't, which means you're misinterpreting them.
I wasn't even talking about testosterone in the brain, but you'd know that if you watched the whole lecture video (or better, the series).
Where are you getting this? I never mentioned it. The closest I came to that was referencing the very video
Re: (Score:2)
All actual neurologist accept it.
No, they do not, as I just showed you.
"We explain the absence/presence of phantoms here by postulating a mismatch between the brain's hardwired gender-specific body image and the external somatic gender."
I'm just gonna keep quoting this from the paper you posted here until you STFU.
Re: The Reality is Stronger. (Score:2)
Yet again, here we have another case of you not understanding the source material. Do you even understand the meaning of the word postulate? Meanwhile, I'll take this as your concession of the other points I've made.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you? These are the people who do the research, who know WTH they're talking about. You don't.
Re: The Reality is Stronger. (Score:2)
Do you?
Yes. And because you don't know, I should inform you that postulate does not mean the same thing as conclude. It basically means "we really don't know, but this is what we think." In other words, take it with a grain of salt.
These are the people who do the research, who know WTH they're talking about. You don't.
This is why they publish, so the rest of us can know. Well, most of us anyways, you can't even read a research paper, it seems, because damn near everything you've said disagrees even with your own sources.
Re: The Reality is Stronger. (Score:2)
"Woman" is a word that refers to biological and trans females.
There. Done. Not so fucking hard, was it?
Now can all you transphobes STFU?
So you're saying trans men are women because they're female?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. I don't care, I won't get reeled into a semantics argument with a moron and a bigot who doesn't want to understand.
Re: The Reality is Stronger. (Score:2)
I know a lot more about this topic than you do. Your commentary has proven that.
Re: The irony is strong here. (Score:2)
I don't see what splitting Google will accomplish at this point. Their core business -- search -- has gone to total shit and right now is just living on its past momentum, they've completely lost the ability to build a functional product, they're no longer the enviable employer they once were (you know your corporate culture is fubar when you pay based on where the employee lives rather than the value the employee delivers, and identity politics is takes higher priority over simply getting the job done.)
At
Re: (Score:2)
> Google is one of those companies that needs to be split.
Probably, but there's no doubt in my mind that MS is absolutely building a "cloud" that locks people in - and they're leveraging people who already have a lot of MS to build a customer base. Whether or not that's 'anti trust' in the flimsy US sense, or more likely in the tougher European sense, I couldn't say - but on-prem windows users don't have a completely level playing field on which to base their decisions when choosing a cloud provider.
(one
Re: (Score:1)
You can also search the term "shoplifter" and learn that only white people are shoplifters.
google? (Score:2)
Why is Google complaining? (Score:1)
GCP has the monopoly on the spam and the malvertising.
how low the greats have fallen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Azure is a pretty lousy cloud service, forgetting Google they're behind AWS in many ways - and yet they still have a quite sizeable market share. A lot of that is down to leveraging lock-in from other products.
Orgs that are not already locked in to other MS products/services tend to go for AWS, with a much smaller percentage choosing GCP, Oracle etc.
Re: how low the greats have fallen (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They sold out to Wall Street for mountains of cash and turned the company over to MBAs, like the rest of Wall Street's zombified corpses of corporations.
Two words to Alphabet (Score:2)
Hello, pot.
Many customers I know are Microsoft-only shops (Score:3)
Many companies I have worked with are completely Microsoft sold, even if they don't use the cloud. Starting with Windows-only, even for servers, then Office, database is of course Sql Server, and now web services like SharePoint too. They would even use Windows Phone if it existed anymore. They don't even want to look to options outside MS, it's like MS is a helping hand, guiding them in the dark.
Of course if they migrate anything to the cloud they are not even looking at alternatives to Microsoft. They are in any case already completely locked-in, so that's not a concern for them. Bottom line, if you want to compete with Microsoft, you have to offer a similar range of software, not just in the cloud, but outside it. Good luck with that.
Re: Many customers I know are Microsoft-only shops (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People actually seriously try to use sharepoint? Really?
The only place I've ever seen it tried they put HR docs like the holiday schedule on it with plans to do everything.
Then HR got slammed with holiday schedule questions and it was turned off.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you develop a Power App for Android, for example, it kind of nudges you, by making your path much easier, towards saving the data in SharePoint. I'm sure that if you are into the MS ecosystem, many more examples will appear. Of course Sharepoint is trash, but, if you want to follow the road of least resistance...
Re: (Score:1)
Even Microsoft shops barely touch Sharepoint these days.
Re: (Score:3)
MS Teams is built on top of SharePoint, and they're all using Teams. So yeah, they're using SharePoint.
Re: (Score:2)
We use Teams and no one uses that feature for that reason.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think your current company is representative of Teams customers as a whole. Many of them, including my employer, DO use the files tab in Teams.
Re: Many customers I know are Microsoft-only shops (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Many companies I have worked with are completely Microsoft sold, even if they don't use the cloud. Starting with Windows-only, even for servers, then Office, database is of course Sql Server, and now web services like SharePoint too. They would even use Windows Phone if it existed anymore. They don't even want to look to options outside MS, it's like MS is a helping hand, guiding them in the dark.
Of course if they migrate anything to the cloud they are not even looking at alternatives to Microsoft. They are in any case already completely locked-in, so that's not a concern for them. Bottom line, if you want to compete with Microsoft, you have to offer a similar range of software, not just in the cloud, but outside it. Good luck with that.
Sure, but to a certain degree that's sensible. Ease-of-integration is a feature.
What this complaint is about is bogus. Microsoft's cloud environment is open. They have a robust API for a massive pile of functionality, and anyone who wants to can interact with it. You don't need to use Microsoft's tools for everything... you just need to work if you want to use something else. Want to integrate Drop Box with Sharepoint? Fine. Learn some code. Do it. Don't expect Microsoft to do it for you though..
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I'd +1 you if Slashdot had given me mod points in the last 2 months...
Re: (Score:2)
All the companies I've worked for as a developer the last several years have switched entirely to Linux on app servers, at least. Even Microsoft uses it for servers mostly.
But business mainly use Microsoft mainly because they want their OS and applications software to work together really well. And you sort of get that with Microsoft products, since they also make the OS.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a couple of important reasons for this: support, and familiarity. Sure, Linux may be "cheaper" in that it's open source. But it costs more to maintain Linux, and to train employees on Linux. Most employees already know how to get around on Windows, but not so much Linux. Also Microsoft gives IT departments all kinds of settings they can enforce via Group Policy. IT departments eat that stuff up.
Re: (Score:2)
Many companies I have worked with are completely Microsoft sold, even if they don't use the cloud. Starting with Windows-only, even for servers, then Office, database is of course Sql Server, and now web services like SharePoint too. They would even use Windows Phone if it existed anymore. They don't even want to look to options outside MS, it's like MS is a helping hand, guiding them in the dark.
Of course if they migrate anything to the cloud they are not even looking at alternatives to Microsoft. They are in any case already completely locked-in, so that's not a concern for them. Bottom line, if you want to compete with Microsoft, you have to offer a similar range of software, not just in the cloud, but outside it. Good luck with that.
While I'm no fan of vendor hosted services I would take SQL Server on RDS over Azure any day. With RDS you don't get a bastardized "cloud" version with stupid quirks (e.g. getdate() is UTC) and annoying constraints on system access.
What is the point of moving your apps to Azure if they require Azure specific modification to work right? I always tell people who want to run their shit on other peoples computers to avoid Azure.
Work To Make The Best Product Possible (Score:2)
Then everyone uses it and now the government has to break you up for monopolistic practices? So you listen to the boss for 20 years trying to make the perfect product only to get canned by the government. What the fuck? When are we going to take out the shitty government?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is perfectly legal to be a monopoly in a vertical.
It is not legal to use that monopoly to strong arm your customers and competitors in a different vertical.
That's 99% of what you need to know about anti-trust law.
Re: (Score:2)
Making the best thing isn't the problem, using your best thing to force other people into your shitty thing - THAT's the problem. We have anti-trust laws to stop the 800lb gorilla strong arming their way into a competitor's business then shutting them out with forced bundling and integration. We accept natural monopolies where the superior product won so hard that the competitors lost on merit, we don't accept them when the shittier option became the defacto standard because they deliberately chose not to s
Crying (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
If G Docs didn't suck so much more people might use it.
The first version of O365 years ago was light years better than GD today.
My favorite GD experience was regularly having to copy spreadsheets locally, work on them in excel then paste them back because GD sheets were such a fucking disaster. It was like a college sophomore project vs a professional application.
Funny (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
This is the height of hypocrisy (Score:2)
Let the market decide and stop asking corrupt government officials taking campaign contributions to tilt the scale for your monopoly.
Not gonna lie (Score:2)
It's kind of gratifying to see Google complaining.
Google would know about monopolies (Score:2)
It takes one to know one.
Solution (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone here seems to be mocking this at the pot calling the kettle black, and while it's true that there are serious issues in the management, monopolistic practices, and social influences of both corps; however we should be focused on tangible solutions. I propose a reality TV series wherein the highest ranking member of any company with more than 10 employees engaged in a dispute fight to the death, once per minute for an hour a day, at the end of the minute if they both live they're executed on the spot, then the next two are pulled up. This would cascade into solving all issues in the world as a direct side effect of helping these evil megacorps to solve their supposed issues in the only way which will benefit Humanity as a whole.
Congrats, you just re-invented Kengan Ashura
I've noticed .. (Score:2)
Lolwut (Score:2)
AWS is calling, they are demanding you start calling *them* the cloud monopoly again
Google, Google, Google, Where has you gone? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
We'd never use GCP either, though, so there's that.
But why wouldn't you want to build your business around a company with a track record of shutting down entire services on a whim and innovating in the space of not offering customer support?