Google isn’t particularly happy about Microsoft’s recent proposition to acquire Yahoo. In fact, the company called the bid “hostile” and noted that the move would hurt the “openness of the Internet”. The search giant suggested that the move was anti-competitive and that it would only extend Microsoft’s monopoly, from the PC to the Internet: including services that both Internet giants dominate, such as instant messaging, web email, and Internet portals. Google emphasized that the interests of Internet users should come first, and that serious questions about the possible acquisition need to be asked.
“Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC? While the Internet rewards competitive innovation, Microsoft has frequently sought to establish proprietary monopolies -- and then leverage its dominance into new, adjacent markets,” said David Drummond, Google's Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer.
“We take Internet openness, choice and innovation seriously. They are the core of our culture. We believe that the interests of Internet users come first -- and should come first -- as the merits of this proposed acquisition are examined and alternatives explored,” he concluded.
Update: Microsoft responded with the following statement,
"The combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will create a more competitive marketplace by establishing a compelling number two competitor for Internet search and online advertising. The alternative scenarios only lead to less competition on the Internet. Today, Google is the dominant search engine and advertising company on the Web. Google has amassed about 75 percent of paid search revenues worldwide and its share continues to grow. According to published reports, Google currently has more than 65 percent search query share in the U.S. and more than 85 percent in Europe. Microsoft and Yahoo! on the other hand have roughly 30 percent combined in the U.S. and approximately 10 percent combined in Europe. Microsoft is committed to openness, innovation, and the protection of privacy on the Internet. We believe that the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will advance these goals, said Brad Smith, General Counsel, Microsoft.
And don't you think Google would've done the exact same thing, if it had the chance?
Freaking whine a** cry babies!
For many years now I have been a Microsoft supporter. I still am, partially. I staunchly defend Windows Vista while it seems very popular to bash it. I think it's a great operating system. But for the online front, I support Google. Microsoft already dominates the OS and office suite industry, and they are making progress in dominating the gaming industry. They don't need total control over everything tech-related.
For many years now I have been a Microsoft supporter. I still am, partially. I staunchly defend Windows Vista while it seems very popular to bash it. I think it's a great operating system. But for the online front, I support Google. Microsoft already dominates the OS and office suite industry, and they are making progress in dominating the gaming industry. They don't need total control over everything tech-related.
Screw Firefox (I'm writing this on it lol, last time I use it.) Such a memory hog. For some reason it's using 174,032 KB. of RAM.. thats as much as FarCry uses.
I just loaded them both up on google.com, came to neowin.net then visited this page and Firefox is reading around 40,000 (with many extensions) while iexplorer is over 55,000 (nothing extra as I rarely use it). Firefox for me rarely goes above 100,000, and usually sits around 80,000.
But to be perfectly honest unless you need that RAM for some other use at the time its perfectly acceptable for it to be making use of RAM. If you have several tabs open all with several pages of history each then 174,000 is acceptable. Check out other OSs to see how they behave when you do the same. If it was using 1,000,000 I'd be a little more concerned.
It'd be great if Google's offer was for $1 and Yahoo took it.
But I would prefer if both of them left Yahoo alone. At least it wasn't Google that started this, now what choice do they have?
google saying microsoft is hurting the "openness of the internet" how many companies has google bought?
Isn't Yahoo the second biggest player in email after Hotmail? And I'm sure that Yahoo! Portal thing is popular as well (MS have a tonne of portals in a tonne of countries).
Isn't Yahoo the second biggest player in email after Hotmail? And I'm sure that Yahoo! Portal thing is popular as well (MS have a tonne of portals in a tonne of countries).
search engine wise i think the stats are
Google
Msn
Yahoo
yahoo is definitely tons bigger then anything else googles aquired.
Isn't Yahoo the second biggest player in email after Hotmail? And I'm sure that Yahoo! Portal thing is popular as well (MS have a tonne of portals in a tonne of countries).
search engine wise i think the stats are
Google
Msn
Yahoo
yahoo is definitely tons bigger then anything else googles aquired.
nope, yahoo has more search engine market share than microsoft.
really? wow...
this is bigger then i thought.
really? wow...
this is bigger then i thought.
MSN only accounts for 12.8% of market share (earning them 3rd place) with Yahoo in 2nd at 28.8& leaving Google in first with 43.7%.
http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2156431
http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2156431
these are the stats you all need to read before you say it's going to make it less competitive, if you add both MS and Yahoo, you actually get some competititon for google which it has not had since it started... ever wonder why people dont say 'search for it on the internet', they say 'google it' beasue google has become the default search for pretty much everyone
There is no need to blame someone if they want to buy something, it is the nature of business.
They are just putting on this stance to slow the process down with regulators and make them -Google - look like angels
It's all PR.
It also seems to be 'common knowledge' that Google has the most accurate search results, when this is definately not true, in all cases.
It also seems to be 'common knowledge' that Google has the most accurate search results, when this is definately not true, in all cases.
no just in MOST cases, have you ever compared the results form both search engines when searching for the same things, if not come back and tell us what you find, from my expierience google alwasy gives better results, adn yes i have tried live search, as far as the desktop search, Microsoft is defiantely a lot less reliabale in terms of search results and being able to rely on it being up to date.
On a more serious note, I think this is a VERY BAD thing. Less competition will mean less desire to innovate. We need more companies to try and fight each other off and keep innovating to be better than the others. If competition disappears, they will stop giving a ****!
On the other hand, this will be very interesting to see Google and Microsoft be in direct competition
and it will not mean less competition, as YAhoo isnt really any competition for google as it is and neither is MS.. if anythign it will create more competition for google, considering right now Google doesnt have any real competition in search..
and do you not realise MS has been in search for a LONG time and has been in direct competition with google for a LONG time.. all this will do is hopefully make them competitive
I do agree that this is a bit silly, Microsoft's market isn't on the Internet. When they do move onto the internet, it isn't really all that great (Live search for example). They just want to compete with Google.
However, I kind of feel bad that Yahoo is failing... they used to be a bit back in the day, now barely anyone bothers with Yahoo. It would be interesting though to see what another company would do with Yahoo's resources.
Infact outside of Search and Advertising I'd say most of Googles services trail behind competitors. Youtube is the one exception but that was a buyout too. Areas like GMail and Google Talk don't have the same audience as other company's products. Google Maps is good but it's still a bit of a niche app at the moment although it should become increasingly more useful as phones ect start to utilise it more. ATM I'd say it's more often used as a "cool thing to try" more than anything but.
Besides that, Google doesn't have anything to worry about...
Would Mike Tyson have complained because the #3 contender's sponsor wanted to buy the #2 contender?
Would the #1 team in any sport complain when the #3 team buys players from the #2 team?
Get over yourselves Google. If you've got a good product, it'll survive. If you have to rely on lawyers to protect your position, you're pathetic. It seems you're just another whiny group of SFBay liberals that are spoiled to the core. Competition comes at you and you want someone to step in and protect you. You're addicted to power and recognition aren't you? What do they say about power corrupts?
For starters, Google doesn't try to force anyone to use their products. They make quality products and put it out there for anyone to use for free, and people choose to use them despite default settings in their operating system or elsewhere. Microsoft, on the other hand, tries to force everything they do down your throat and go out of their way to make it complicated or difficult for you to change that.
Do people go to Google.com because its the default search engine in their factory-installed copy of MSIE that automatically assumes dominance on your new PC? No. They go to Google.com because Google's search engine is one of the best on the internet. Same with Gmail, GoogleMaps, Firefox, and most of their other services and products.
Bash Google as a monopoly all you want, but they do little if anything to truly mark themselves as a vicious monopolistic corporation. They're simply popular and build upon their popularity. Microsoft is the corporation guilty of underhanded schemes and questionable tactics to get their market shares and they do whatever they can to *make* people use their products... and that's exactly why they're the (relatively speaking) bad guys.
i havent used it but i assume it is google???
if you havea product why woudl you promote someone elses competing product in one of your products, it woudl be like Apple installing windows as default, coke sticking advertising for pepsi on it's cans... business is business....
Someone missed the "factory-installed" bit of the post he was replying to. There's a huge difference between a default setting in an optional program and a hardcoded application that refuses to let you change how or what it uses.
Google doesn't incorporate itself unwillingly into your operating system (though a few of its shady so-called "partners" try to shove their products in here and there despite Google's policies). Google doesn't bug out if you try to use something else or make it virtually impossible to do so. Google doesn't force you to use Firefox to run its applications. etc.
So, why aren't these apps dominating the market? When most people hear or think of Google, they immediately associated Google with Web Searches and not Gmail (a fairly-good email service) or Gtalk (a fairly-good but dead-ended IM product) - but they have quite a few good-looking apps:
Orkut
Blogger
Picasa
SketchUp
Why aren't these products garnering the accolades of the IT industry? Aren't they equal to the products they compete with?
The IT industry, and computer users in general speak loudly in terms of user adoption of any given company's product. With that said, how many users are using Gtalk over WLM? On the other hand, what's the view-counts on YouTube content versus Microsoft SoapBox. or visits to MSN Spaces blogs versus Blogger content?
It's a known & published fact that Yahoo's revenue numbers have slipped significantly and that Google basically owns the Web Search Engine space; what does Google have to worry about in that space? Microsoft's offer for Yahoo won't make either the King of Search Engines and they have alot more to worry about with this proposed deal.
Besides, you should Compare them! I mean number of programmers, planners , lawyers ... google do well but they can't stand against Big microsoft ...
I am not against google! I am just telling you google is not that big! we make it big maybe! For example, compare yahoo search with google search! They are not so different! but we may use google, this may help google so much!
Besides, you should Compare them! I mean number of programmers, planners , lawyers ... google do well but they can't stand against Big microsoft ...
I am not against google! I am just telling you google is not that big! we make it big maybe! For example, compare yahoo search with google search! They are not so different! but we may use google, this may help google so much!
C++ isn't a MS tech... but they DO have to be build on W32 or MFC in the end to work on windows.. so if the app runs on windows in the end its a MS tech.. kinda like OSX carbon/coco/all that stuff all is Apple tech... that you have to build on if you want to use it on that os... even if you build on java... java still is just a wrapper for those techs in the end if you use any UI elements or anything like that.... even if you access the net with FireFox you still use W32 a MS platform in the end.... if its on windows...
Seems most of the high end google programmers are leaving once they got the stock option..
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to suffering...
Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to suffering...
lol
And basically my understanding is is Microsoft buy Yahoo then Microhoo! will be about the same size as google. To me it sounds like Google don't want competition. How can you claim having two equally used search providers is anti-competitive is nonsense.
Thats like saying in a race its better to have people who always come 1st, 2nd and 3rd rather than having two equally fast people - ye bull**it
MS should stick to what it's supposed to be doing; Desktop and Server OS's.
Perhaps if that ~$44 billion was spent on fixing Windows Vista then fewer folks would have issues with it and we could get on with what we need to be doing.
Heck, MS could give a way a free Window XP Professional Licence and copy of a Virtual Machine package with every copy of Windows Vista and still save money and resolve a lot of the compatibility issues with Vista.
Why take on another "competency" when they can't get the ones they have right?
Kind Regards
Simon
MS should stick to what it's supposed to be doing; Desktop and Server OS's.
Perhaps if that ~$44 billion was spent on fixing Windows Vista then fewer folks would have issues with it and we could get on with what we need to be doing.
Heck, MS could give a way a free Window XP Professional Licence and copy of a Virtual Machine package with every copy of Windows Vista and still save money and resolve a lot of the compatibility issues with Vista.
Why take on another "competency" when they can't get the ones they have right?
Kind Regards
Simon
None of the Company would stop with its product...they keep on developing products (take car manufactures)...they create compelling products, compete with competitors...some fail, some succeeds...its all the business..
And MS will be investing on Online services which is a need now & for future...you cant tell them to stay away from it...
By the way in our home we have 2 laptops, 1 PC all loaded with Windows Vista home premium working very fine...
MS should stick to what it's supposed to be doing; Desktop and Server OS's.
Perhaps if that ~$44 billion was spent on fixing Windows Vista then fewer folks would have issues with it and we could get on with what we need to be doing.
Heck, MS could give a way a free Window XP Professional Licence and copy of a Virtual Machine package with every copy of Windows Vista and still save money and resolve a lot of the compatibility issues with Vista.
Why take on another "competency" when they can't get the ones they have right?
Kind Regards
Simon
Sorry this is out of this topic, but I don't see anything wrong with windows Vista. Got two desktops and one laptop running on Vista. Two desktops are running 24/7 flawlessly.
Google complaining that Microsoft are expanding too much...hmmm...
Didn't they have a similar moan when IE7 inluded a search box that defaulted to live.com?
The behavior you describe sounds more like Ballmer than anyone I know at Google. What David Drummond is pointing out is the facts.
Google wants to keep their own monopoly.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.