Has Google become worst then Microsoft from the 90s?


Recommended Posts

Remember the favorite phase, "Do No Evil". Well there has been a lot of articles lately about how Google is trying to close out/limited Microsoft and other companies out of web services like Google Maps only working on webkit and not supporting DOC files on Google Doc. I know there are many more I can bring up but I don't feel searching about it now. Microsoft was more open in the 90s with other companies to make sure they can use software on their OS and but Google seem to not like this. Any thoughts about this?

Remember the favorite phase, "Do No Evil". Well there has been a lot of articles lately about how Google is trying to close out/limited Microsoft and other companies out of web services like Google Maps only working on webkit and not supporting DOC files on Google Doc. I know there are many more I can bring up but I don't feel searching about it now. Microsoft was more open in the 90s with other companies to make sure they can use software on their OS and but Google seem to not like this. Any thoughts about this?

A lot of companies are bad and acting the fool latey. Google, Apple, MS, Samsung.....everyone is guilty of something at some point. Just wish companies like this could work together more than fighting back and forth. Block products from being released, suing hte crap out of others...or out right dropping support for other platforms/products. I myself use a mixture of different products from different companies.

They reverted the Google Maps block.

These are free services, so people shouldn't be hurt if Google decides to set some restrictions.

Regardless, Google makes it's money from these on ads, so they don't exactly have the intention of screwing over a large population of people.

Microsoft wasn't even that bad in the 90s. I think it was just a lot of negative press and public perception. I just remember they were knocked for bundling a browser with their Operating System. Lol. All Operating Systems come with a browser now.

What Google is doing now would be the equivalent of Microsoft not allowing anyone to install anything but Internet Explorer or blocking websites out of Internet Explorer.

  • Like 3

Microsoft wasn't even that bad in the 90s. I think it was just a lot of negative press and public perception. I just remember they were knocked for bundling a browser with their Operating System. Lol. All Operating Systems come with a browser now.

What Google is doing now would be the equivalent of Microsoft not allowing anyone to install anything but Internet Explorer or blocking websites out of Internet Explorer.

I remember Ralph Nader complaining that the shell was bundled with Windows and this created an unfair advantage against people who wanted to use alternative shells. /shakes head

Well, it is a little hard to understand what you really mean, as you completely ignore basic grammar principles... But anyway, here it goes:

One of the reasons that this is different for Google is that it isn't actually selling those services. 95% of the services Google provides, are free.

Microsoft was selling it's Windows and Office software in the 90's and you couldn't actually install any other operating system in your computer. Actually you could, but that was not 1% as easy as it is today. So, it was considered for a long time, a monopoly. Monopolies do have to behave much better than other companies, or else justice grabs them with it's powerful hands.

Google is not a monopoly... Not even on search, but that is debatable. That's why many Google's critics actually attack the company due to it's search business policies. Regarding other activities, which are also provided for free and are not considered a monopoly... Well, Google does whatever it wants!

If that is evil or not, one should say why that is evil. Protecting your free products from being used when a company doesn't want them to be used is in their rights as a private company.

Neither company has done anything "evil" in any context of that word, that you may or may not quite grasp. What's going on is normal everyday competition and MS choosing to do it's own thing and not follow standards again, not sure how this is Google's fault, and I don't know anyone that uses the .doc format, so there's nothing lost in dropping it

It's so cool for people who know "a little bit" about IT, who talk about it with friends but don't really understand it's an industry and not here to provide 101 free services to them, who want to act like they "know the score" to label companies as "evil".

It was wrongly done to MS in the 90s. Now google...

Well done, have a cookie!

It's so cool for people who know "a little bit" about IT, who talk about it with friends but don't really understand it's an industry and not here to provide 101 free services to them, who want to act like they "know the score" to label companies as "evil".

It was wrongly done to MS in the 90s. Now google...

Well done, have a cookie!

What type of cookie? YUM!

Google is in competition with Microsoft. So I guess everything is a fair game. They got lucky with Android so good for them.

I think problem is mainly with Google cheerleaders (*cough*fanboys*cough*) who defend everything they do.

For example, this is a favorite line of thought here on Neowin,

Microsoft designing for IE/Windows only: This is bad for open web and Microsoft should be ashamed blah blah

Google designing for Webkit only: Webkit is the best and Microsoft should drop Trident and adopt Webkit. <---- WTF??

They reverted the Google Maps block.

These are free services, so people shouldn't be hurt if Google decides to set some restrictions.

Regardless, Google makes it's money from these on ads, so they don't exactly have the intention of screwing over a large population of people.

They reverted after a large outcry last week and that too after caught lying initially. (claiming "Maps is only for webkit" when one of their own had blogged about how it is platform independent)

I think problem is mainly with Google cheerleaders (*cough*fanboys*cough*) who defend everything they do.

For example, this is a favorite line of thought here on Neowin,

I think the problem is fanboys in general. They all suck.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Hello, Were you using a product or service from one of the companies affected by the Klue data breach?  See https://klue.com/blog/an-update-on-recent-klue-security-incident for the company's public statement.  That blog post does not list affected customer. From looking around at reports, I created this list: Gong HackerOne Huntress Insurity Jamf LastPass OneTrust Recorded Future ReliaQuest Salesforce Snyk Sprout Social Tanium It is likely there are other companies affected as well. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky  
    • SpaceX reportedly plans a Starlink mobile service for U.S. consumers by Karthik Mudaliar SpaceX reportedly wants to sell mobile phone plans directly to consumers in the United States as part of a wider expansion of Starlink. According to a report from the Financial Times, SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell discussed the plan with investors during the company’s recent IPO roadshow. The company is also said to be considering building a terrestrial mobile network to complement Starlink’s satellite coverage. The plan is quite different from how Starlink currently operates in the U.S. mobile market. SpaceX already provides satellite connectivity for T-Mobile’s T-Satellite service, but T-Mobile remains responsible for the subscription, billing, and customer support. A Starlink-branded mobile service would give SpaceX control of the customer relationship instead. It could also turn the company from a partner of traditional mobile operators into a direct competitor. T-Mobile also began testing its Starlink-powered satellite service in early 2025. The beta was initially limited to text messaging and was also available to some AT&T and Verizon customers. The service has since expanded to support limited data access through selected apps, including WhatsApp, Google Maps, AccuWeather, and AllTrails. It is designed to provide a connection in areas where normal cell towers are unavailable, rather than replace a conventional mobile network. However, if SpaceX actually has a plan to serve nationwide, it needs to do more than just satellite networks and actually support on-ground operations. It can also partner up with existing carriers and become a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO). With that said, SpaceX has already spent heavily to support its mobile ambitions. Just last year, the company agreed to acquire wireless spectrum licences from EchoStar in deals worth a combined $19.6 billion. EchoStar's spectrum includes AWS-4, H-Block, and AWS-3 frequencies that could be used for both satellite and terrestrial communications. According to a SpaceX securities filing, the Federal Communications Commission approved the transaction in May 2026, although it is not expected to close until late 2027. There's no official statement by SpaceX for now. Pricing, availability, and other details remain unknown. Source: Financial Times
    • We had no idea as kids how much time and energy it took to be an adult 😅
    • The Trump administration doesn't want you to use OpenAI's GPT-5.6 without its approval by David Uzondu Image via @realDonalTrump (X) As OpenAI prepares the release of its next model, GPT 5.6, the White House has instructed the company to limit the distribution of the software to a small group of government-approved partners instead of the general public, as it has done with previous releases. According to The Information, OpenAI Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman sent an internal memo to staff on Thursday explaining that the federal government will approve access "customer by customer" during an initial preview phase. Altman noted in the communication that this restrictive rollout is "not [their] long-term model" for software deployment, and the company plans to work toward a "more sustainable" distribution method later. CNN said that both OpenAI and the Trump administration view the capabilities of GPT 5.6 on the same level as Anthropic's Mythos and that government officials intend to "collaborate with frontier AI labs to develop shared approaches for addressing the challenges of scaling this technology." The latest restriction comes just weeks after the US Commerce Department decided to restrict Fable, a version of Mythos with extra safety "guardrails" to prevent users from exploiting software vulnerabilities. Not long after the release, though, researchers at Amazon found a way to bypass these restrictions, prompting an aggressive response from federal authorities. The government ordered Anthropic to cut off access for non-US citizens located outside the US, non-US citizens living inside the US, and incredibly, even Anthropic's own foreign-born employees. Anthropic now appears to be building a workaround to resolve this compliance block with an update to its Privacy Policy that introduces a category called "Verification Data" to handle KYC and Digital IDs. This setup could mandate digital identity checks to filter users by nationality, requiring a government-issued ID and facial biometric data. Who knows? Maybe in the future, you would have to scan your US Passport or State ID to prove your citizenship before you are allowed to chat with Fable 5 (or any other model).
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Enthusiast
      Xonos went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      400
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      127
    4. 4
      neufuse
      69
    5. 5
      Xenon
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!