I just wanted to ask a question I remember in the 90s everyone concerned about Microsoft antitrust and putting Netscape out business and having control over industry and possibly putting Citrix out business.
But yet Google is the only game in search except for a few small players why don’t we here much about antitrust they are in the same position of power that Microsoft was in during the 90s if not more so just wondering what everyone thought and what might happen.
provision l-3
<p>Being a monopoly in and of itself is not illegal. The problem is when you use that position to harm others. For Google to run into any sort of anti-trust action it would have to be shown that they used their position as a search monopoly to in some way harm their competition. </p><p><br></p><p>It's also worth pointing out that Google has run into several antitrust issues in the EU.</p><p><br></p><p>Note: Before someone gets all upset and argues that Google is in fact abusing their place as the largest search engine, I am not saying one way or another if Google is actually abusing their power.</p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#404487">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>Raise your hand if you didn't read the note at the bottom of my comment. </p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#404508">In reply to jrswarr:</a></em></blockquote><p>Did I say that people couldn't make the argument that Google was abusing its power? No.</p><p><br></p><p>What I said was I wasn't weighing in on the subject and was simply explaining the legal mechanics of how antitrust works. Responding with how Google is (or isn't) power is pretty much irrelevant to what I was saying. </p><p><br></p><p>What's funny is how you and wright_is see a statement of fact about how antitrust works as some sort of argument in favor of Google. The fact that some people see a statement of fact as an argument for or against something is exactly why I preemptively wanted to opt out of the conversation. There is no relation conversation to be had. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#404518">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>The second paragraph in my posted acknowledged that Google faced anti-trust in the E.U. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#404454">In reply to MikeGalos:</a></em></blockquote><p>I have to agree. All you have to do is look at the remedies of the case to see what the true purpose was. Had MS been lobbying the way their competitors were at that time the case might never have happened. As it turned out some of these efforts to cash-in backfired – AOL purchased an almost worthless Netscape for far more than they ended up getting from MS.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#404629">In reply to cadrethree:</a></em></blockquote><p>I think a significant percentage of tech-savvy people hated Microsoft, but I don't believe that the average person had that attitude. Jealousy in that group was certainly a factor. I recall how it bugged me that Bill Gates, a guy that was primarily a software developer like me was the richest man in the world. Of course it was more complicated than that but that was my emotional reaction at the time. That was also period when many Open Source folks hated all things proprietary and MS was the biggest symbol of that (ignoring the fact that key elements of today's technology were born in proprietary monopolies like AT&T, Xerox, and IBM).</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#404676">In reply to cadrethree:</a></em></blockquote><p>I don't recall a lot of bugs in Microsoft software, but it's true that prior to Windows NT the existence of real mode code meant that software bugs in applications could fairly easily crash Windows. I worked at a company that used ccMail and it crashed people's PCs all the time but since my group was using NT, it only crashed itself and we just kept on working.</p><p><br></p><p>In those days the vast majority of Windows users had never used the Mac so they would have no basis for wanting Windows to function like it. </p><p><br></p><p>While a bad implementation can add complexity, most complexity comes directly from functionality. I'm not sure if offering simplistic capabilities to an unsophisticated audience qualifies as genius. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#404719">In reply to wright_is:</a></em></blockquote><p>All significant software has bugs but remember that this sub-thread is singling-out Microsoft. Did Apple even publish a bug tracking database for its products so people could compare? When I said "I don't remember a lot of bugs" I meant exactly that. For most people the only bugs that matter are those they encounter that create a problem for them. Prior to NT, the most common problem people encountered was badly written third-party applications crashing Windows. </p>
nfeed2000t
<p>Unless you have a patentable protocol like CDMA, most software is reproducible. Sometimes it is easy and sometimes it is hard to reproduce. Unfortunately for Netscape, Netscape came at a time when Bill Gates was still engaged and had a Michael Jordan level competitiveness. Of course Windows should have a bundled browser.</p>