More important monopoly means NOTHING in the US regulatory body. No one would make a public accusation like that unless they had something to gain and there was evidence of it. To claim, “oh, but one of their competitors….”, who cares about their competitors for all intents and purposes no one is stupid enough, outside of Microsoft to make such a accusation with no evidence to back it up and for it to hold any water. The only people who would believe the horse crap about Google being a monopoly would be a corrupt public servant with an axe to grind and a politician wanting to make a name for themselves. People could label them as being worse than Stalin, that they kill little puppies and use their entrails to power their server farm – it doesn’t make it right. Mention ‘monopoly’ in a post it becomes a Rorschach blot. Never said they would be a monopoly, only be in a position where a disgruntled adsense/gmail/chrome competitor can call them that. Google could be accused of anticompetitive behavior if they start bundling with OEMs, as a result gain significant market share. If Chrome does get a monopoly, it’ll be because of people wanting it, and maintaining it will because of a superior product and not because of vender lock in courtesy of proprietary platform specific extensions. *WORSE* case scenario you’ll see HTML5 development speed up, open video and audio taking hold over flash and the scripting capabilities of Javascript realised instead of developers reliant on what Microsoft and Adobe have to offer. The side effects of monopoly are of little concern with Chrome simply because Apple, Google, Firefox and Opera all have a vested interest in pushing web standards and have no interest in developing a web based on either flash or silverlight. What the hell are you crapping on about – what you said makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Maybe Opera will start to think and antitrust complaint is the road to success.īut again, not being serious – just offering food for thought. Should Google start ‘encouraging’ other OEMs to promote Chrome through incentives: skyrocking marketshare, a complaint from a GMail competitor that Chrome is favoring the Google app over others, could set it off.Īnd what with Chrome being the ‘Google OS’ it might be just enough to grab the attention of the DoJ. Wasn’t serious really, but you never know in these crazy times. So in short: imo any monopoly Google currently has (and potentially will have in the future) isn’t (wont be) damaging the IT market like MS’s dominance has been This is something that MS, Apple, and many other of the big names, don’t do.īut as I said before, this is mainly down to the fact that Google (currently) don’t care what software or hardware package combo a user has – just so long as they sell their advertising. Google seems to support this same philosophy (in about as much a way as any major corporation can) by opening up their products to allow their customers to use said products in conjunction with any other non-Google product that customers should choose to / might prefer to use. Generally I try and support the smaller companies where-ever I can / it’s not impractical not to, because I like to support freedom and competition. * GMail supports POP3 (thus can run in any e-mail client easily) – MS Hotmail is a PITA to view in any mail client other than MS’s own Outlook clients. * Google Docs can be run on any PC and support open formats – MSOffice can only run on Win & OS X and defaults to proprietary formats. * Android can be sync’d on any PC – MS WM can only be officially sync’d in Windows via an MS app (though i admit there are unofficial work arounds) * Chrome supports open standards – MS IE supports MS’s own standards (albeit ones based on w3c) Where as MS’s business is in software – so they’re best interest is in locking people into their software. Thus Google don’t really care what platform you communicate with so long as it can sell the ads. Chrome, Android, Google Docs, GMail, et al are just means to generate advertising. Google’s only monopoly, it’s only real business, has been advertising. They frequently give back to the open source community and don’t tie their users into Googles own lock ins. Google have always been one of the few “mega-corporations” that have pushed open standards. I don’t think the bit in bold is entirely fair. when Google is shaping up to be the Microsoft of the 2010s. After all, a monopoly isn’t 100% market share, and ‘monopoly abuse’ is subject to interpretation, esp.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |