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

    • I'm not unblocking my camera for this crapola. Sorry, Google.
    • Ummmm that is what is it supposed to do. Just turn if off in settings if you do not want it analyzing your open tabs. Chrome does the same thing with Gemini. Sarfari will do the samething after Apple's AI and even more so with the release of their 27 versions that is now powered by Googles LLM/ML models. Understanding why it is doing it and how it can help you vs jumping to some conspiracy theroy is a much better approach. As long as it can be turned off, all is good. Yes the default should be off but the a lot of people would never discover these features.
    • Just another reason (aside from many others) not to use Edge. Firefox 153.0b5 DEx64 has a similar feature added recently in prior builds that I will turn off at some point when I get around to it. It's the new "Something looks suspicious" page that pops up here and there. It cleverly hides itself between web pages that I've actually visited; as a result, you know, of selecting a web page and telling the browser where to go. The interesting thing is that it does not produce these warnings from pages that I, as the only intelligent user of the browser in my system, have ever directed the browser to open! What seems to be happening is that the browser looks at all the goofy ad links on a web page I do actually open and selects one that "looks suspicious" and then creates the "something looks suspicious" web page, which is neatly inserted, as mentioned, between web pages my RB ("real brain") has directed the browser to load in a session. The thing is, I usually look at links I am considering to follow before I ask the browser to load them, and in cases I have noticed where the link does indeed look suspicious, most of the time I will choose to not follow the link at all. Doesn't everyone do this or something similar? I am picky about what I voluntarily load... (I don't like links that start off fine, with a site designaiton that seems normal enough but then is followed by indecipherable alphanumeric strings many, many lines long, etc. I tend to reject those because they look suspicious. They may not be, but I don't care... I'll stay with Firefox, of course, if for no other reason than they usually let you turn off the junk you don't like. And because it isn't Edge... But at some point Microsoft will come to realize that putting your bookmarks on the left side is a Good Thing for a lot of people, just as Microsoft discovered when it had the bright idea of nailing the Windows taskbar to the bottom of the screen, when for decades Microsoft browsers had left that placement up to the user. They have finally reversed the obscenity of that decision. Finally.
    • Google was using the old CATPCHAs data to train their LLMs. What is the say they won't use this camera data of users to train their LLM? these companies need some strict regulations!
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
    • First Post
      carols23 earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      Tom Willson earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      259
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      94
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!