Google: The Anti-Microsoft

Google: The Anti-Microsoft

Summary: Life was simple when Microsoft ruled (monopolized) the tech roost: Just hate Microsoft! Many, of course, persist in hating Microsoft. More, however, many more, LOVE Google! Why Google love, but Microsoft hate?

TOPICS: Google

Life was simple when Microsoft ruled (monopolized) the tech roost: Just hate Microsoft!

Many, of course, persist in hating Microsoft. More, however, many more, LOVE Google! Why Google love, but Microsoft hate?

Is Google really on a selfless, world-serving mission to organize its information and make it universally accessible to all its inhabitants with no ulterior motives, OR:

Is Google not a ruthless, profit driven corporation, as is Microsoft?


Would Google not do anything to “steal” talent from a competitor, as would Microsoft?


Does Google not seek to win more in “win-win” dealings with all its constituents, as does Microsoft?


Why is the three decade old $287 billion market cap Microsoft dissed while the “barely legal” $144 billion market cap (and counting) Google is cheered on?


Is it because Google hired a high-powered, expensive advertising and PR firm to give rise to a warm and fuzzy Google “brand”?


NO, as Google proudly touts itself: 

Google's utility and ease of use have made it one of the world's best known brands almost entirely through word of mouth from satisfied users.

Google has built the most loyal audience on the web. And that growth has come not through TV ad campaigns, but through word of mouth from one satisfied user to another. 
Is it not hypocritical for a company which derives all of its $144 billion market cap valuation by selling advertising to other companies to proudly proclaim that it does not believe in advertising for itself? 

Google, in fact, aims to sell its advertising to every single company in the world and wants every single company in the world to buy all of its advertising through Google: video, radio, print, television…SO, why does Google dismiss advertising itself?

The entire Google $144 billion riddle is a study in hypocrisies:


The world should hand over all its information to Google for free, but don’t ask Google to disclose any information on itself,

Trust the Google cloud with all your personal data, but don’t publish personal data about Google management found by searching at,

Google AdWords are sold by democratic auction, but don’t question how the Google “house” always wins,


Google AdSense is a boon for Web publishers, but don’t ask for a commission schedule…


Google CEO Eric Schmidt put forth his favorite slogan at the Web 2.0 conference earlier in the week: “Don’t bet against the Internet.”


Translation from Google Speak? Don’t bet against Google.


SEE: "Do Google $$$ billion acquisitions kill competition?" and
"Is Google's multi-billion dollar free ride over?"

Topic: Google

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Wow, I'm beyond impressed

    Someone finally has the courage to stand up and say the truth.

    You expose the double standards that exists in peoples judgement/perception of companies/world. How blatantly Google does things and gets away with it and whats worse people keep begging for more.
    • The flaw in single-mindedness

      That's the problem with so many being so single-minded where Microsoft is concerned. If you only see one evil in the world, all the others will sneak up on you...

      Carl Rapson
      • Click Fraud

        Why did the author of this article not even mention Google's click fraud issues? Google has many other problems, controling search engine results is fraught with corruption.
    • Microsoft earned their reputation with all of the dirty tricks. Also,

      remember, Google is not a monopoly and earns their money by competing straight up. Google has trust because they earned it. Remember, it takes a user about 2 seconds to change search companies, with NO compatibility problems.
      • Google is not a monopoly?!?!?!?

        You say Google is not a monopoly?!?!?!? Why, because the Bush Administration's pro-business justice department hasn't gone after them yet? Or because you hate Microsoft and everyone else looks good to you?

        IMO, Google is a far worse a monopoly than Microsoft. Google can change their search engine results and put entire segments of industry into tailspins or out of business. Microsoft can't begin to control the revenue of so many companies.

        Worse from a monopoly point of view, Google does not allow a publisher that uses Google AdSense to use any other keyword targeted advertising service. That is an incredibly insidious monopoly which doesn't allow a competitor a chance to compete, and which I find far more dangerous than Microsoft.

        Frankly, Google needs to have their blatant anti-competitive behavior stopped.

        I blogged about it last October here:
        • Fess up dude

          People can stop using Google a lot faster than they stop using Microsoft, and if the quality of their results starts seriously declining, people would stop using them and find something else. Monopoly is related to lock-in, and in no way are people locked in to Google like they are to Microsoft -- the cost of switching desktop OSs is considerably higher than switching search engines in time and $$$.
          • It's not always...

            ...about consumers, as we have so often been told in regards to Microsoft. If a company is abusing its market position to harm competitors, that's considered an abuse as well. And this article is all about Google's alleged abuse of competitors, not consumers.

            Carl Rapson
          • So, go ask the EU to go after Google.

            It think they will agree also that Google is a 10% monopoly compared to Microsofts 85% monopoly (ie. there are many, many strong existing competitors to Google compared to what, 1 for MS?).

            Oh, and Bill Gates is the anti-christ ;-)
        • Er....

          Google is not a monopoly because they are not a monopoly.

          Good grief man! Such a simple concept for you to grasp, yet all you are clutching is a handful of air!
          • And....

            I am the Space Pope because I am the Space Pope.

            Good grief man! Such a simple concept for you to grasp, yet all you are clutching is a hnadful of air!
          • Correct. You are the Space Pope.

            Next Microsoft shill supporter please ~
        • Correct. Google is NOT a monopoly.

          Next Microsoft shill're at bat!
        • IMO, Google is a far worse a monopoly than Microsoft.

          How can Google be a monopoly when you the user can switch to another search engine whenever you please and advertisers can do the same?

          Google changing its search results would not "put entire segments of industry into tailspins or out of business." Give me a break! Do you really think businesses depend solely upon Google's search results?
    • Right

      And another MS defence article devoid of the FACT MS has been
      found to have ILLEGALLY abused consumers and competitors in
      at least 3 markets.

      Always convenient ZDNet misses that little point;-)
      Richard Flude
      • Actions, not convictions

        Whether or not a company has been convicted of monopolistic behaviour has no bearing on whether or not the company is abusive. Or are you saying that a company isn't actually abusive until it is convicted of being a monopoly? In that case, wouldn't all of Microsoft's actions prior to being declared a monopoly have been perfectly acceptable?

        Carl Rapson
  • Google has not monopoly, and does NOT user dirty tricks. Google competes

    straight up on the merits. They earn customers through trust. Remember, they are the only ones that stood up against the Bush administration. And, Google users can change search engines in a second, no lock-in.
    • Drinking the Google KoolAid, eh?

      Your first defense of Google was one thing, but now it's clear you are oblivious. Or a Google employee. Or a Google shareholder.
      • That's a rebuttal?

        How about something tangible to counter his post? Especially this part:

        [i]Google users can change search engines in a second, no lock-in.[/i]

        People use Google because they want to. If you use a computer at all, it is damn near impossible to avoid MS's influence unless you are incredibly self-sufficient or know someone who can take care of you. But even the most inexperienced computer user can find another search engine. To put it another way, most people use Google because they want to, and most people use Microsoft products because they have to, or don't know any better. And a good portion of those people still think MS invented the internet when the rest of us know that Al Gore did.
    • How would YOU know what they do and don't?

      They are one of the most secretive tech companies out there. Do you really know WHY they stood up to the Government? Short of what they said to the press?

      Iran and North Korea are standing up to the Bush Administration, too. Do you truly beleive either are looking at nuclear technology for simple power production?

      Just becuase Google refused to cooperate with the Bush Admin does not automaticly mean they are good and rightous. Could mean they have much to hide...
      John Zern
    • Google is still optional, no lock-in

      Google has to toe the line because switching to another search engine would take me about ten seconds.

      Microsoft on the other hand seems oblivious to user's wishes/desires and just stomps around the place doing whatever they feel like.