[335] in Privacy_Forum
[ PRIVACY Forum ] Microsoft's Secret Weapon Against Google
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (privacy@vortex.com)
Sun Feb 3 21:46:27 2008
Message-Id: <200802040209.m1429AgR029673@chrome.vortex.com>
To: privacy-list@vortex.com
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:09:10 -0800
From: privacy@vortex.com
Reply-To: PRIVACY Forum Digest mailing list <privacy@vortex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: privacy-bounces+privacy-forum=mit.edu@vortex.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Microsoft's Secret Weapon Against Google
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000367.html
Greetings. A couple of days ago in "Microsoft, Yahoo, and The Three
Stooges" ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000366.html )
I suggested that the proposed Microsoft/Yahoo merger might not create
the anti-Google juggernaut that some observers have suggested would
be the case -- though a range of complex and potentially troubling
issues would certainly crystallize.
But there's certainly more to this story, as evidenced by Google's
criticism of the merger proposal
( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/technology/03cnd-google.html ).
A natural reaction by many to Google's take on this situation might
be to chuckle and mumble something about the pot calling the kettle
black. But that wouldn't really be fair, since in reality Google
brings up a crucial point.
For Microsoft still can use a powerful weapon which if unleashed
remains potentially capable not only of seriously damaging Google
but decimating many other firms as well.
That "secret" Microsoft weapon is our own complacency.
While Microsoft's business missteps in the Web world have led many
to retarget their "big firms are bad firms" arguments from Microsoft
to the services powerhouse that is Google, the undeniable fact
remains that Microsoft has an immensely important structural
advantage -- with vast anticompetitive potential -- that is without
compare.
Despite some inroads by other operating systems, Microsoft's Windows
incarnations, and their Internet Explorer browser, still control the
overwhelmingly vast majority of desktop systems, as much as hardcore
Linux and Firefox aficionados (and that includes me) might prefer to
forget this fact.
And like the telephone and cable companies that control physical
access to the Internet for most users -- wherein many network
neutrality controversies reside -- Windows (and Microsoft) are
usually in command of the fundamental software environment.
Most users of Google are on Microsoft systems, using Microsoft
TCP/IP stacks, and accessing Google applications via Microsoft's IE
browser.
It's hard to imagine a Microsoft/Yahoo merger scenario where
Microsoft wouldn't in some manner wish to leverage this structural
advantage to favor its own properties, absent relevant and effective
judicial rulings or legislative actions to the contrary.
And this brings up another crucial and often overlooked difference
between Microsoft and Google. By and large, for Google users to
switch to another service provider for most applications is
basically as simple as changing a URL, as quick as altering a
browser bookmark. Leaving Google by voting with their feet (or
rather their fingers) is usually an easy option. The only real hold
that Google has on users is the high quality of its applications and
services.
Microsoft is a different story when it comes to the Windows OS.
Despite lots of talk, lawyers' fees, and complicated agreements,
Microsoft's hold on the computing desktop is still overwhelming, and
practical alternatives for most non-techies are still lacking.
Most desktop users remained firmly chained to Microsoft as the
software gateway to all aspects of the Internet, and for most users
any major changes to this situation would be either uneconomical,
impractical, or both.
This might be "merely" problematic if Microsoft had a history of
what could be called "software neutrality" -- but unfortunately
that's not the case.
Microsoft has a long rap sheet of predatory software practices, with
their handling of Internet Explorer and their Media Player but two
examples. Microsoft at various points -- prior to significant
pushback -- has also appeared ready to leverage Internet Explorer's
search access to favor their own search services as well.
Google and Microsoft are both large, powerful, highly competitive,
and financially well-endowed firms. It's perhaps tempting to view
them as two peas in a pod, but actually each has a structure and
modus operandi that are very different indeed.
In any dispassionate comparison, it seems clear that Microsoft's
potential for broad anticompetitive behavior -- that could have very
widespread negative impacts -- remains vastly greater and more
significant than Google's.
While evaluating the anticompetitive risks of the proposed
Microsoft/Yahoo merger, we'd be wise to keep the fundamental
differences between Google and Microsoft firmly in mind.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
- Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
