I hope they have continued good fortunes on this front. The entire Microsoft 'monopoly' was ridiculous, I remember hearing about it and trying to explain it to my Dad at about the same time I was using Office on my old Mac. And I think I actually believed it anyway. Sad.
Now we're in the even more ridiculous position that MS can't include the same features in their OS as Apple can, for example.
I have yet to have demonstrated to me any actual monopoly that, without government help, caused any real harm.
I spit on Teddy Roosevelt's grave, by the way.
CountRob
· 2 years ago
It's impossible for there to be a "true" monopoly on the internet. Google is at the top because it is the best, as you seem to have implied. It doesn't matter if you have a 200 billion capital, if your web product is crap, no one is going to use it no matter how much you promote it. It's a shame Microsoft doesn't get this.
Let's look at it this way. YouTube was started by three guys working in a garage. As YT grew more popular, Google took notice and made their own competing product, Google Video. In a real world scenario, the bigger company would likely overtake the smaller one. However, they were both offering free services so it made little difference to consumers. Even though they had infinity better resources, Google could not compete because YouTube was a superior product.
FakeMA
· 2 years ago
Last
Pete
· 2 years ago
Last.
Matt
· 2 years ago
If you are gonna play the philanthropy card, then you should toss Bill Gates and the billions (not piddly millions) he donates to various charities. Although the donations were by Bill Gates and not Microsoft, when people cry "microsoft evil", a lot of the finger pointing gets directed his way...
Jon Smirl
· 2 years ago
Google is using fair tactics to compete. Bundling IE with Windows for free, spending $2B to develop and promote it, all without attempting to get a dime in revenue or profits is not a fair tactic.
A fair competitive business is one that you could conceive of a VC backing. No VC would even consider backing MSIE the way it was done.
Microsoft did the equivalent of the gas industry buying all of the electricity producers in 1900 and shutting them down in order to extend the life of gas lighting for another 20 years. Preventing the future from happening is not a good thing.
SuezanneCBaskerville
· 2 years ago
One view of of what real monopolies are, the one I hold, is that real monopolies are grants of government privilege, restrictions on the provision of goods and services enforced by the State.
Examples would be the monopoly Entergy has on providing electricity to me, or that Comcast has on providing me cable internet service.
One minute people will argue that monopolies enforced by government are essential, that it is necessary and important to prevent the chaos of unfettered, cutthroat competition out of a certain economic domain, such as the two I mentioned above.
Next minute the same people will argue that monopolies are evil and must be prevented by use of government force. The same people argue for and against monopoly, apparently not being aware that what they say in one case is inconsistent with what they say in another case, but there is a constant factor in their arguments: the delusion that force, organized, premeditated threats of force are the answer to social and economic problems.
AntiDumbs
· 2 years ago
Do you have a brain?
Allan
· 2 years ago
I am curious: why did you say "alleged monopoly" in reference to Microsoft? The allegations have been proven to be be true numerous times by US State Department in it's numerous law suits and findings against the company.
When a person is a accused of murder, they are "alleged criminals"; when they're found guilty by a judge and jury, it's safe to drop the "alleged" part, and just call them criminals :)
Not to nitpick or anything . . .
:)
Josh
· 2 years ago
There are plenty of well researched articles and court cases that document Microsoft's techniques in getting rid of competitors. Any individual that takes the time to read these will see that what Microsoft engaged in in the early and mid 90's was evil. Countless lawsuits and anti-trust allegations were brought up and then settled with little or no press. And as Allan states above, a few were taken all the way through court and MS was found guilty.
Google escapes these allegations because they are not out to crush competition. Many of their employees publicly give props to competitors when the competitors do something right. However, Google does compete and they do it by making better products that users want to use. That's not a monopoly. That's quality.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 2 years ago
I use the term "alleged monopoly" because my intention wasn't to focus on the debate of a Microsoft Monopoly, but to focus on the idea that's been raised regarding a Google monopoly.
jozay
· 2 years ago
Simply "being a monopoly" is not illegal.
Anti-competitive practices are illegal. Being innovative and providing a better service than the competition are not anti-competitive practices. Giving away products for a loss now in order to make it up later (once your competitors have gone out of business) is anti-competitive.
Some monopolies are economically efficient, and that is exactly why those specific monopolies are government-sanctioned (as well as regulated).
Search is a service, and the very real cost is looking at ads.
All Comments
Now we're in the even more ridiculous position that MS can't include the same features in their OS as Apple can, for example.
I have yet to have demonstrated to me any actual monopoly that, without government help, caused any real harm.
I spit on Teddy Roosevelt's grave, by the way.
Let's look at it this way. YouTube was started by three guys working in a garage. As YT grew more popular, Google took notice and made their own competing product, Google Video. In a real world scenario, the bigger company would likely overtake the smaller one. However, they were both offering free services so it made little difference to consumers. Even though they had infinity better resources, Google could not compete because YouTube was a superior product.
A fair competitive business is one that you could conceive of a VC backing. No VC would even consider backing MSIE the way it was done.
Microsoft did the equivalent of the gas industry buying all of the electricity producers in 1900 and shutting them down in order to extend the life of gas lighting for another 20 years. Preventing the future from happening is not a good thing.
Examples would be the monopoly Entergy has on providing electricity to me, or that Comcast has on providing me cable internet service.
One minute people will argue that monopolies enforced by government are essential, that it is necessary and important to prevent the chaos of unfettered, cutthroat competition out of a certain economic domain, such as the two I mentioned above.
Next minute the same people will argue that monopolies are evil and must be prevented by use of government force. The same people argue for and against monopoly, apparently not being aware that what they say in one case is inconsistent with what they say in another case, but there is a constant factor in their arguments: the delusion that force, organized, premeditated threats of force are the answer to social and economic problems.
When a person is a accused of murder, they are "alleged criminals"; when they're found guilty by a judge and jury, it's safe to drop the "alleged" part, and just call them criminals :)
Not to nitpick or anything . . .
:)
Google escapes these allegations because they are not out to crush competition. Many of their employees publicly give props to competitors when the competitors do something right. However, Google does compete and they do it by making better products that users want to use. That's not a monopoly. That's quality.
Anti-competitive practices are illegal. Being innovative and providing a better service than the competition are not anti-competitive practices. Giving away products for a loss now in order to make it up later (once your competitors have gone out of business) is anti-competitive.
Some monopolies are economically efficient, and that is exactly why those specific monopolies are government-sanctioned (as well as regulated).
Search is a service, and the very real cost is looking at ads.