More like Microsoft with every passing minute

[cookie_monster]

BBC NEWS | Technology | Apple blocks rival smart phones

 

Maybe the EU should get involved with this as well

[AngryTechnician]

It does bug me that they are allowed to get away with extremely uncompetitive behaviour simply because they aren't 'big enough'. Should be one rule for all really. It's a move that doesn't even seem to make sense - I was under the impression that Apple made more money on complementary sales of MacBooks and music sales from the iTunes store than on the actual iPod/iPhone hardware itself.

[cookie_monster]

I still don't think they will want a rival platform gaining ground, they control the platform when it's accessed on their device. If Palm gain a foothold they might start a decent rival service or someone else might that will take users away from i-tunes.

[Michael]

If Apple want to gain a bigger market they need to stop this nonsense being tied to one phone provider. In the UK it's O2 and in France it's Orange. It just doesn't make any business sense to do this.

 

If the iPhone could be used on any network in any country they'd be little market for competitors, unless they can create an equivalent iPhone for a considerably cheaper amount.

 

I do agree that the EU should step in on this one. The common trend I have noticed is that I can go and buy a CD from any music store that I choose from the high street, whereas Apple are deliberately blocking users doing this when it comes to digital portable music; MP3s in other words. You must buy an iPhone and you must download it through iTunes. It's not right and that's one reason why I don't have an iPhone

[jamesb]

Please, Apple are more Microsoft than Microsoft are nowadays.

 

While Microsft are (very cautiously, and with more than a little difficulty) embracing open source Apple have built their own closed-source Linux which will only run on their hardware, and will sue anyone who tries to built hardware compatible with it. They're also locking people into their media players and phones as tightly as they possibly can, and doing their best to kill the possibility of anyone else using their (admittedly relatively good) media store.

 

Obviously Apple have finally learned from Microsoft's tactics, just when Microsoft are starting to get beyond them. Google are just as bad.

[Michael]

They're also locking people into their media players and phones as tightly as they possibly can

 

Microsoft were forced by an EU directive to remove or create a version of Windows without Media Player and they did so with Windows XP N, and now Windows 7 will be released without IE in Europe. If that's anti-competitive than Apple are blatantly being anti-competitive. I do dislike double standards!

[ahuxham]

Google are just as bad.

 

How so?

[ahuxham]

Microsoft were forced by an EU directive to remove or create a version of Windows without Media Player and they did so with Windows XP N, and now Windows 7 will be released without IE in Europe. If that's anti-competitive than Apple are blatantly being anti-competitive. I do dislike double standards!

 

One hopes the next release of OSX will come without Safari, following the same guidelines Microsoft are being forced to adhere to.

[jamesb]

One hopes the next release of OSX will come without Safari, following the same guidelines Microsoft are being forced to adhere to.

 

My, you are an optimist.

 

As to Google they're a monopoly, in every sense of the world. Not only that but their practices with online advertising are plainly immoral. They obfuscate the method as much as they can, refusing to give any details. They've brought in such wonderful things as automatic matching (if your budget isn't spent by your normal bidding, they'll automatically spend the rest each month unless you opt out - which takes some doing). Its possible to pay over the odds for a keyword, and still have your result showing on the fifth page of the searches, and they actively encourage domain parking (content free sites full of adverts).

 

On top of all this they're facing various data protection charges, their behavioural tracking is worse than any government's, and they have the guts to say that their company motto is 'Don't be evil'.

 

I think that last bit is what gets me most of all. At least Microsoft never pretended to be the good guys.

[CyberNerd]

As to Google they're a monopoly, in every sense of the world

 

A monopoly on what? Search engines? They have an 80% market share on search engines, which is pretty good going but hardly a monopoly compared to MS desktop share.

When Google are have anything close to the number of convictions for illegal business practice I'll change my mind. But for now google are still the good guys IMO.

[CyberNerd]

One hopes the next release of OSX will come without Safari, following the same guidelines Microsoft are being forced to adhere to.

 

And google will release ChromeOS without Chrome. Hmm.

[localzuk]

Microsoft have been convicted several times of anti-competitive behaviour, ie. leveraging their monopoly in the desktop market to force their way into other markets (web browsers, video players for example). They were also found to have edited code in the past to prevent competitor software from being able to run MS software and visa-versa (thinking of the early windows vs non-ms-dos thing).

 

Apple in this case are behaving in a very similar way, and I do believe the EU bods should investigate these behaviours. The whole exclusive supplier thing is being investigated in the USA at the moment too. So, Apple are not just being let to do things - they will be investigated.

 

Google, on the other hand, are not using their market share in search to force people to use Chrome, to force people to use Picasa, Gmail, etc... They are simply releasing them as other products.

[ahuxham]

Google, on the other hand, are not using their market share in search to force people to use Chrome, to force people to use Picasa, Gmail, etc... They are simply releasing them as other products.

 

Well said, and clear to the point.

[jamesb]

Google, on the other hand, are not using their market share in search to force people to use Chrome, to force people to use Picasa, Gmail, etc... They are simply releasing them as other products.

 

But they are using their market share in online advertising/search engines to force people to use their advertising mechanism despite the layers of secrecy that prevent customers being able to use it effectively, and which unfairly impose surcharges on customers.

 

Not to mention the ethics of selling other people's trademarks to competitors in many countries.

 

A monopoly is a monopoly, even if its in a service.

 

Approximately 88.4% of machines which log on to the internet are running a Microsoft OS.

 

In the UK google have approximately 90% of all search hits.

 

Many browsers use google as the default search engine, and make it very hard to change (Yes, IE uses Bing but its easy to change if you want).

 

As such, the only option for advertisers is to go to google and accept their unethical business practices. Yes, this is google leveraging their market share to force unfavourable terms on many of their advertising clients.

[localzuk]

But they are using their market share in online advertising/search engines to force people to use their advertising mechanism despite the layers of secrecy that prevent customers being able to use it effectively, and which unfairly impose surcharges on customers.

 

Err... No. No-one is forced to use google for advertising. Yahoo offer competitive advertising rates. As do Microsoft. There are a huge number of advertising companies operating online.

 

Not to mention the ethics of selling other people's trademarks to competitors in many countries.

 

Ok, I find this issue to be a bit odd - how on Earth can Google police this? There are millions of trademarks, and millions of companies, using billions of keywords. Google do not check every keyword sale by hand.

 

A monopoly is a monopoly, even if its in a service.

 

It doesn't matter if they are a monopoly or not - it is what they do with it that is the issue.

 

Approximately 88.4% of machines which log on to the internet are running a Microsoft OS.

 

In the UK google have approximately 90% of all search hits.

 

Please don't try to be clever with statistics - if you're going to compare worldwide with UK search hit stats then it is obvious you aren't willing to do actual research. ie. you just show your bias by doing this.

 

Many browsers use google as the default search engine, and make it very hard to change (Yes, IE uses Bing but its easy to change if you want).

 

Name them. Firefox can change search engine in a few clicks, just like IE. Opera is exactly the same. Even Chrome, Google's own browser allows you to change the default engine with 3 clicks! (and, I might add, they include a list of competing search engines pre-installed, which IE most certainly doesn't do) What more do you want?

 

As such, the only option for advertisers is to go to google and accept their unethical business practices. Yes, this is google leveraging their market share to force unfavourable terms on many of their advertising clients.

 

You haven't actually proven anything yet...

 

NOTE: I am not simply defending Google because I like them, I do think some of their practices could be cleaned up a bit, but rants about them being anti-competitive without any substance annoy me.

[Dos_Box]

I must admit that network lock-in is the only thing that stops me from buying an iPhone.

[Jamo]

I must admit that network lock-in is the only thing that stops me from buying an iPhone.

 

And the fact you have to "Jailbreak" it to run Monkey Island.... i mean what is that about.... get your priorities right Apple!!!

 

 

 

I saw this the other day and saw it as such bad business practice, down with the Apple!

[jamesb]

Err... No. No-one is forced to use google for advertising. Yahoo offer competitive advertising rates. As do Microsoft. There are a huge number of advertising companies operating online.

 

No one is forced to use Windows for computing. Linux is available for very competitive rates. Obviously then Microsoft don't have a monopoly.

 

Google's market share means that Microsoft and Yahoo are rarely used. When did you last see any site using someone else's advertising banners, other than possibly alongside Google's?

 

Ok, I find this issue to be a bit odd - how on Earth can Google police this? There are millions of trademarks, and millions of companies, using billions of keywords. Google do not check every keyword sale by hand.

 

The point isn't whether they can police it or not, its whether, when called on it, they allow it. Google have stated that they believe this is fair and reasonable and that they will not be preventing the sale of trademarked keywords to competitors for advertising, nor preventing competitors using trademarked terms in their adverts.

 

Just to clarify that would mean that as far as Google are concerned Coca Cola could buy Pepsi as a search term, and use it to advertise their own products.

 

It doesn't matter if they are a monopoly or not - it is what they do with it that is the issue.

 

What they do with it is mislead their customers, charge them variable amounts with little or no justification or explanation, and abuse their dominant marketplace position.

 

Please don't try to be clever with statistics - if you're going to compare worldwide with UK search hit stats then it is obvious you aren't willing to do actual research. ie. you just show your bias by doing this.

 

Worldwide search stats have proved very hard to track down, but Google is far and away in the dominant place in most countries. The only exceptions that are noted by hitwise are Russia, the Czech Republic, Korea, China and Japan.

 

If you can find an actual worldwide statistic, feel free to let me know. Google's market share is close to 90% in the UK, and over 70% in the US. That seems like something very close to a monopoly for me, but maybe I'm just assuming that having a dominant market position and abusing it to unfairly profit from your customers is what monopoly laws are there to prevent.

 

Name them. Firefox can change search engine in a few clicks, just like IE. Opera is exactly the same. Even Chrome, Google's own browser allows you to change the default engine with 3 clicks! (and, I might add, they include a list of competing search engines pre-installed, which IE most certainly doesn't do) What more do you want?

 

Safari. IE8 by the way gives you the option during install to change the default search engine, as well as the search accelerators used. This's improved since last time I looked, so my mistake.

 

NOTE: I am not simply defending Google because I like them, I do think some of their practices could be cleaned up a bit, but rants about them being anti-competitive without any substance annoy me.

 

Try looking into how they treat their advertisers. Not the big companies who can afford to pay a fortune, but the more common, reasonably sized companies. There are sources all over the place about the unethical practices by google to unfairly target these people.

[cookie_monster]

@ localzuk

 

Come on you're a closet Google fanboy admit it... no no put the flame thrower down not the napalm

[localzuk]

No one is forced to use Windows for computing. Linux is available for very competitive rates. Obviously then Microsoft don't have a monopoly.

 

Not quite the same. Moving your business from MS software to non-MS is so expensive, and in some cases impossible as files from their range of products cannot be converted effectively to other versions.

 

Not to mention the fact MS were *convicted* of anti-competitive behaviour.

 

Google's market share means that Microsoft and Yahoo are rarely used. When did you last see any site using someone else's advertising banners, other than possibly alongside Google's?

 

Online ads are not just about search. Yahoo ads and MS ads are all over the web on websites.

 

 

The point isn't whether they can police it or not, its whether, when called on it, they allow it. Google have stated that they believe this is fair and reasonable and that they will not be preventing the sale of trademarked keywords to competitors for advertising, nor preventing competitors using trademarked terms in their adverts.

 

Just to clarify that would mean that as far as Google are concerned Coca Cola could buy Pepsi as a search term, and use it to advertise their own products.

 

I don't see that as unfair either. They aren't actively infringing on the trademarks, ie. saying that Pepsi is Coke. It'd be like advertising Audi cars in 'BMW magazine' if such a thing existed.

 

What they do with it is mislead their customers, charge them variable amounts with little or no justification or explanation, and abuse their dominant marketplace position.

 

In your opinion. Yet to be proven in a court... You are basing your views on anecdotal evidence. And I base mine on the outcomes of judicial dealings. If we were to be talking about a person, would you think it fair to be doing that?

 

Worldwide search stats have proved very hard to track down, but Google is far and away in the dominant place in most countries. The only exceptions that are noted by hitwise are Russia, the Czech Republic, Korea, China and Japan.

 

If you can find an actual worldwide statistic, feel free to let me know. Google's market share is close to 90% in the UK, and over 70% in the US. That seems like something very close to a monopoly for me, but maybe I'm just assuming that having a dominant market position and abusing it to unfairly profit from your customers is what monopoly laws are there to prevent.

 

So, as the stats are difficult to come by, you decided to use the equivalent of picking out the ones which suited your purpose. Why didn't you pick China's Google usage? Or Russia? Because those numbers didn't fit into your view. Looking at numbers from 2007, Google's worldwide search market share was 53.6%. Hardly a monopoly. If I do a quick scout, this number varies depending on the source (for example, a 2009 figure on one blog put them at roughly 79%).

 

Statistics can be used to prove anything when used incorrectly.

 

Safari. IE8 by the way gives you the option during install to change the default search engine, as well as the search accelerators used. This's improved since last time I looked, so my mistake.

 

Ok, one browser. Well done. So you're blaiming a third party company for part of Google's evils? Riiight.

 

Try looking into how they treat their advertisers. Not the big companies who can afford to pay a fortune, but the more common, reasonably sized companies. There are sources all over the place about the unethical practices by google to unfairly target these people.

 

I've been one of those people and had no troubles. Every company in existence gets complaints about how it works. Without a legal judgement, they are just anecdotal evidence. I could go out and find 1000 happy customers - it's like the statistics thing above all over again.

 

@cookie_monster - nope. I prefer Bing for image search, use Digg.com and other sites for news aggregation, and use Zoho.com for online applications, Flickr for image hosting.

[cookie_monster]

I must say that I think Bing image search is really good as well.

[jamesb]

Not quite the same. Moving your business from MS software to non-MS is so expensive, and in some cases impossible as files from their range of products cannot be converted effectively to other versions.

 

Not to mention the fact MS were *convicted* of anti-competitive behaviour.

 

If you're concerned only about legal cases then Google are currently being investigated for their settlement regarding orphaned books, giving them a monopoly on rights for any books where the rights holder is unknown or cannot be contacted.

 

I suspect more cases will follow now that Google are no longer seen so much as the sweet innocent kid of the internet.

 

Online ads are not just about search. Yahoo ads and MS ads are all over the web on websites.

 

Where? I very rarely notice any adverts which aren't provided by Google.

 

I don't see that as unfair either. They aren't actively infringing on the trademarks, ie. saying that Pepsi is Coke. It'd be like advertising Audi cars in 'BMW magazine' if such a thing existed.

 

No, it'd be like sneaking into an Audi showroom and slipping up to potential Audi customers, handing them flyers advertising BMWs. Or given that they can use misleading language in the adverts themselves, more like setting up your own showroom in front and slapping to wrong logo on your door to get people to come in.

 

Google condone this.

 

In your opinion. Yet to be proven in a court... You are basing your views on anecdotal evidence. And I base mine on the outcomes of judicial dealings. If we were to be talking about a person, would you think it fair to be doing that?

 

Before Microsoft's unethical practices were determined in court, were they still unethical?

 

If someone doesn't face trial for something immoral, does that mean they did the right thing?

 

If a loophole lets someone escape, should they be said to be innocent?

 

So, as the stats are difficult to come by, you decided to use the equivalent of picking out the ones which suited your purpose. Why didn't you pick China's Google usage? Or Russia? Because those numbers didn't fit into your view. Looking at numbers from 2007, Google's worldwide search market share was 53.6%. Hardly a monopoly. If I do a quick scout, this number varies depending on the source (for example, a 2009 figure on one blog put them at roughly 79%).

 

So what you're saying is the number varies widely, and that China's usage (with a huge population) skews the figures?

 

I'll have a look and see if I can find Microsoft's market share in England and the US, since we've got Google's share in those two countries. A monopoly doesn't have to be world-wide, it can apply to one nation.

 

Ok, one browser. Well done. So you're blaiming a third party company for part of Google's evils? Riiight.

 

Yeah, like I said, I goofed on that one. My bad. Doesn't discredit the rest of my argument and at least I admitted my mistake.

[ZeroHour]

IMO google are very close to being evil, they are very careful with what they do to ensure that they dont overstep the mark.

Adsense: It dominates, fact. Yahoo's own publisher network used to even hook into adsense. MS publisher network is dead I thought?

Adsense is a pretty poor product in my experience which is why we are going to get rid of them. Its full of spam/junk advertisers as google quite happily take their money withouth any proper audits. They also seem to continue to allow those crappy "holding" pages to run their adverts costing their customers money for junk links.

 

Back to the OP, yeh I think its pretty poor of apple but I have come to expect nothing less from them, I just wish they would sort it out so you didnt have to use crappy itunes with my iphone. Apple encrypting the DB so other software couldnt interface with it was just to force you to use itunes on mac/windows and not for any other benefit.

[localzuk]

If you're concerned only about legal cases then Google are currently being investigated for their settlement regarding orphaned books, giving them a monopoly on rights for any books where the rights holder is unknown or cannot be contacted.

 

I suspect more cases will follow now that Google are no longer seen so much as the sweet innocent kid of the internet.

 

Investigation != guilt. I've been investigated for various things in the past, and found completely innocent, as I was innocent. That's why we have a legal system.

 

Where? I very rarely notice any adverts which aren't provided by Google.

 

The 24th most popular domain in our logs here is for a company 'casalemedia.com' - an online advertising company. The 64th most popular is yimg.com - yahoo's advertising.

 

No, it'd be like sneaking into an Audi showroom and slipping up to potential Audi customers, handing them flyers advertising BMWs. Or given that they can use misleading language in the adverts themselves, more like setting up your own showroom in front and slapping to wrong logo on your door to get people to come in.

 

Google condone this.

 

As I said, I don't see a problem with the practice. They aren't pretending to be the other company, so there is little issue here. How could a small competitor to a giant company ever get into people's search results otherwise?

 

Before Microsoft's unethical practices were determined in court, were they still unethical?

 

If someone doesn't face trial for something immoral, does that mean they did the right thing?

 

If a loophole lets someone escape, should they be said to be innocent?

 

Sorry but that's a fallacious argument. You are pre-judging a company. I wait until the outcome of trials personally. Otherwise it is trial by gossip.

 

So what you're saying is the number varies widely, and that China's usage (with a huge population) skews the figures?

 

You listed half a dozen countries. You can't use a small segment of numbers to form a worldwide view. Can't you see that? Otherwise I could turn around and state that Google are a small player in some obscure country with no internet users...

 

I'll have a look and see if I can find Microsoft's market share in England and the US, since we've got Google's share in those two countries. A monopoly doesn't have to be world-wide, it can apply to one nation.

 

Yes, move the goal posts...

[jamesb]

The 24th most popular domain in our logs here is for a company 'casalemedia.com' - an online advertising company. The 64th most popular is yimg.com - yahoo's advertising.

 

Where do google sit in the popularity charts on your logs?

 

As I said, I don't see a problem with the practice. They aren't pretending to be the other company, so there is little issue here. How could a small competitor to a giant company ever get into people's search results otherwise?

 

And the other way around? It allows a giant company to quash their competition by advertising on their trademarks. Lets say you own a small company which make shoes, and you have a fairly brisk online trade. Nike are now allowed to buy your trademark so that when someone's searching for your brand name, Nike is the first thing they'll see.

 

Nope, I'm afraid I do see a problem with that.

 

You listed half a dozen countries. You can't use a small segment of numbers to form a worldwide view. Can't you see that? Otherwise I could turn around and state that Google are a small player in some obscure country with no internet users...

 

Wait, so now a monopoly does have to be worldwide?

 

You could turn around and state that if you want, but Google still have a monopoly here in England. Pretending that they don't is willful foolishness.

 

Yes, move the goal posts...

 

I'm not moving the goalposts. I said that google have a monopoly and they do. I believe there's sufficient evidence that a full investigation into the matter should be launched, and I'm relieved that this is finally starting to happen (even if it is only with the matter of the book scanning so far - more will follow).

 

I am not willing to wait and trust a company simply because they say that they don't do evil, and the nice big friendly courts haven't investigated them yet. We're talking here about a company who have a huge amount of influence - look at the number of ex-Google employees who have been appointed as advisors in the US.

 

For that matter look at the current proposal by the conservatives that your national health service records could be outsourced to google.

 

I'm not willing to wait until the damage is done before complaining about this company and calling for an investigation into them. Unfortunately I lack the political influence to do it, but I can at least try and make people aware of the unethical practices.