Why Google is more dangerous than Microsoft

Why Google is more dangerous than Microsoft

Summary: Is Google the next Microsoft? NO, Google will one-up Microsoft.

TOPICS: Microsoft, Google

Is Google the next Microsoft? NO, Google will one-up Microsoft.

While John The Google Search Battelle pleas "Death of Journalism--Blame Google? No, Ask Google to lead? Yes," Google merrily pursues its Google News is NO friend to newspapers stance.

Google has learned a thing or two from Microsoft, NOT in a good way.

Why is Bill Gates STILL the richest man in the world? Why does the company he founded STILL benefit from the industry monopolization Gates gained for it?

Microsoft's "Evil Empire" financial success was derived from cunning ecosystem manipulation and brutal industry intimidation aimed solely at creating and extending Microsoft monopoly pricing power.

What really sealed Microsoft's monopoly fate, however, was a no holds barred, take no prisoners modus operandi. Thanks to Bill Gates' dogged persistence and shrewd maneuvering, Microsoft achieved the industry domination he sought, no matter who or what tried to cross Microsoft en route to unrivaled economic power and world glory.

Today's technology power house, "Do No Evil" Google, is no different, in desire or effect. In fact, Google power is even more insidious, because Google has the "consumer" on it side.

CEO Eric Schmidt plays a good Google is no Microsoft game, exhorting that competition is but a mouse click away.

The top Googler himself, nevertheless, is at his finest when he publicly chastises household name content production companies that "there is no need to sue." After all, Google has the fans, all of them.

Google fears nothing, not multi-billion dollar lawsuits, not FTC investigations, not even the U.S. military: Can YouTube out maneuver Pentagon?

In Is Google a public service? I analyze how Google uses its pompous "organize the world's information" supposed mission to position itself in consumers' minds that Google IS just like the U.S. Library of Congress!

So that is why Google is determined to digitize every single word ever written in the history of mankind for archiving in perpetuity in Google-owned top secret server farms strategically built around the world? NO.

Google wants to be the world's for-profit librarian and benefit handsomely as monoploy information gatekeeper.

It is touching, but naive, that Professors of Journalism and ex-journalists are now calling upon Google to exercise its "civic repsonsibility" in the name of the future of news.

Google DOES indeed believe it has a "civic responsibility," a "philanthropic" one in fact.  Just don't ask for Google to relinquish a single penny of its high-margin AdWords billions.

Welcome to the philanthropic "arm of Google," the Googleplex cheeringly, but misleadingly, proclaims.

The Google co-founders, and world-class billionaires themselves, underscore their "lofty" purpose, Sergey Brin and Larry Page:

We hope that someday this institution will eclipse Google itself in overall world impact by ambitiously applying innovation and significant resources to the largest of the world's problems.

Brin and Page can very well "hope" they will do good, but they are not opening themselves up to "ambitously applying significant resorces" to actually do so.

Google's position on philanthropic funding requests:

We are not accepting funding requests and unsolicited proposals at this time.

The world need not worry, though. Google wants to be generous where it REALLY counts: AdWords!

Yes, the Google solution to solving "the largest of the world's problems" is to make charitable donations of AdWords campaigns: The Google Grants Program!

We’re currently exploring the best approaches and solutions for significant, positive impact. While we continue to determine the best ways we can have impact,

Google gives free advertising to selected non-profits through its Google Grants program, supporting more than 2,100 non-profit organizations in 16 countries to date. Current Google Grants participants include the Grameen Foundation USA, Doctors Without Borders, Room to Read, and the Make-a-Wish Foundation

Even in running "in-kind" AdWords accounts "for a good cause," however, Google is not doing it out of the goodness of its $150 billion corporate heart.

NO, Google is obligated to "donate" AdWords as the result of one of those pesky lawsuits it somehow continues to find itself up against,  The Lane's Gifts v. Yahoo Inc. et al. click fraud case:

Google continues to invest in the Google Grants program.  We are increasing the budget we allocate to Google Grants by offering AdWords advertising to qualified 501(c)(3) nonprofits as part of our settlement in Lane's Gifts v. Yahoo Inc. et al.

Hey, maybe Viacom will settle its $1 billion lawsuit for YouTube "massive copyright infringement" for a billion dollars worth of AdWords!

Microsoft is not looking so dangerous, these days!


Topics: Microsoft, 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
  • This kind of "Slam Google" article was due.

    Google's stock has started rising steadily again and is approaching 500. When this happens, Microsoft needs to stop the rise.

    That is when you can look for a Microsoft press release promoting a competitive product and/or a "Slam Google" article like this one.
    • Information is Power and Google is God

      This article is so on the mark and just touching the tip of the iceberg that its scary.

      For those who know "Information is Power", they should know that those who control the information and the flow of it are gods. Then again in the US many don't seem to realize that what has happened via newspapers, television etc...is now happening on the Internet too. Any one care to guess what Ted Turner owns and controls? (Michael Moore can tell you I'm sure)

      Google IS "the institution" at its finest. For those who think the Internet provides a means of getting your message out to the masses, you better think again, wake up and realize that if you don't have that Mega-Cash in your wallet for Google Adwords, you may find yourself in the dark deep recesses of the Internet that no one visits...unless of course you're willing to sink some money into Google Adwords to see if maybe you get a hit or two.
    • Or another way of looking at it

      [i]Microsoft's stock has started rising again and is When this happens, people like jjon2121 needs to stop the rise[/i]

      Microsoft didn't write the article, yet more and more people are seeing Google for who, and what, they really are and are starting to write about it. Not all of it will be good and positve, no matter how much someone wants to blame someother company's wrong doing on Microsoft.
      John Zern
      • Microsoft didn't write the article

        are you sure that they had no input to this article when they admit to dishing out laptops to bloggers? It was stated cleary how MS got to their current monopolistic position.
        I'm not a fan of anyone who collates information about me and my preferences without me putting a tick in the box to allow it.
      • Re: Or another way of looking at it

        [i]Microsoft didn't write the article...[/i]

        And you know that how?

        Lest you think I'm some kind of conspiracy freak, read the news. I don't trust any but a few journalists, and no bloggers - especially any that have a hardon for something like this one here has for Google.

        none none
  • Main Difference - Google 2-Second Shelf Life

    I know you're just trying to bait people or maybe you are just ultra paranoid - in the second case, there is clearly a massive. massive difference. You can stop using Google in 2 seconds. There are literally 300 other search engines out there.

    You can switch in 2 seconds and NEVER search with Google. You can wipe your cache & cookies and you can even go on Google and turn off history tracking - you can vow never to click on an adsense ad - most ads give you enough info so you can do a search in another engine to find that url.

    Changing an OS requires a a thousand or more dollar commitment - that is why MS has an 85% desktop share and a 10% search share. That's how feeble we think of MS & search, we're not even willing to test them for free - only takes 2 seconds.

    Google earns its business every 2 seconds, it may be the purest form of consumer decision making - you don't need them but you choose them at ZERO cost to you (since you don't pay them for your computer or internet access).

    They have to deliver every 2 seconds or you go elsewhere with no hinderance as a consumer . Even if you buy a stick of gum for $.50 and hate it, they still made $.50 from you - with Google, you own them nothing and they own everything to you.

    • I See You Are Talkin

      I see you are talkin through you backside. It's always about Microsoft. Microsoft this, Microsoft that. Google is the new evil empire. You'd be the kind of person back in the 30's saying that the Nazi's are harmless, it's them Russians who are the evil ones. There can be more than one bad company, Microsoft don't have a monopoly on that one.
      P.S. Do you want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?
      • lack of anecdotal evidence showing google is bad

        Everything I've encountered that they make is great. Any time of day try another search engine, and you're back on google in 2 minutes.

        There is a big campaign (by Microsoft evangelists) to try to pull Google down. But where is the anecdotal evidence?
        What have they actually ever done wrong?

        Nothing as far as I can see.

        By comparison the Nazis left a lot of dead bodies wherever they went, and Microsoft keep going to court and losing (Halloween memos, the killing of BeOS and subsequent settlement).
        Give me examples where Google has done something bad, instead of saying "they must be bad".
        • Evidence

          So you're looking for evidence of evil on the part of google? I think I can help. First, don't forget their policy of cooperating with China in censoring the internet. If you need proof, that can be arranged.

          And here's another, newer development. You may have heard that Google is getting involved in the 2008 presidential campaign with their YouChoose service...


          On the surface this seems like a public service. But what if they were to handpick which candidates were included? Would you consider that evil? Undemocratic? Of course. Turns out that's exactly what they are doing. The following candidates ARE running, but NOT included in YouChoose:

          John Cox
          Michael Smith
          Keith Sprankle

          At least two candidates have specifically asked to be included, but have been ignored.

          So...there's your evil.

          • What Party are these with?

            I haven't heard of John Cox, Michael Smith or Keith Sprankle. Are they affiliated with any political party or as write in candidates? A write in would have about as much chance as Tommy Smothers of winning the Presidency unless they could buy off the electoral college.
          • RE: What Party are these with?

            These are Republicans. There are others from the various parties, but I only sited a few in the example. They are fully legitimate candidates, not just write-ins.

            Do these candidates have a chance of winning? The real question you should be asking in a democracy is do they have a right to run and be represented.

    • 43.7% of the world's market isn't a monopoly?

      According to SearchEngineWatch, Google currently holds 43.7% of the search engine market AND RISING.

      The next competitor in the list is Yahoo! at just 28.8%.

      The concept that Google is free is absolutely insane. Any idiot who has ever noticed the price of AdWords per-click since their new pricing model can tell you all about that.

      Just because the person USING the search engine doesn't pay IN NO WAY MEANS THAT IT IS FREE. Google's billions didn't appear out of thin air or through some form of magic.

      Advertisers get no free rides on the Google train, you may be sure.

      And at what point does Google become the monopoly -- when they've bought all the competitors and have 70%, 80% or do they need to own 100% of the market before they are considered anti-competetive?

      As for the other 299 search engines -- do YOU use any of them?
      Marty R. Milette
      • Certainly not

        As long as there are other major players in it. Do you suggest hat General Motors was a monopoly when it had a similar market share? The fact that the share has since eroded (without government action to force it) should be sufficient proof that a monopoly did not exist!

        When we start seeing the other players fade away would be the time to start wondering about the possibility.

        Oh - and yes, I do use other search engines :)

    Just an old mans ramblings:
    I read the article (twice)and I see no MS bashing...What happened??I did however see "Microsoft Intimidation"!! I suggest that maybe, just maybe it may have been "Microsoft Informed Pursuasion".

    You could even start your own ISP.The ISP program is designed and resides in the Federal system.You click in the Search engine section,(it's the Federal search engine)fill in some lines,and you have an ISP.It would be ZDNET'S SEARCH ENGINE.
  • Conspiracy Theory

    I am ceaselessly amazed that any time a blogger at one of the tech news conglomerates (ZDNet, CNet, etc.) slams a large company (MS, Apple, Google, ,etc.) almost all the comments implicate the blogger with some sort of personal agenda or representing a conspiracy against their favorite company. Just like the "war" in Iraq, this is not a war of Microsoft against Google, Apple against Microsoft, etc. Only the most limited viewpoints would see it that way.

    What we really have here is the first glimmerings of the realization that Force - power applied against others wishes in a win/lose scenario - is actually the enemy. Microsoft, Google, Apple - any company that grows powerful will exercise force to maintain that power, and the force is capriciously exercised based on the biases, fears and whims of those who wield it. What this article talks about is that even with the best intentions, absolute power corrupts people into using force against one another. The dangerous enemy is us - our egos always afraid of loss and danger - not the businesses we build. As long as we view the negative results of any one company using force against others or its customers, we miss the point.

    I've dedicated myself to building a business that doesn't use force. It starts with my personal commitment to always building win/win relationships, not to "doing no evil." Especially since Evil is so relative, where one person's evil is another's good. I'm doing the practice and the research to show that business can be very successful without exercising force. Your comments are welcome at my website http://www.enkiconsulting.net

    -eric novikoff
  • FUD off!

    Sorry Donna, if you want to sell this one, try somewhere else.
  • what you say?

    This article is so poorly and haphazardly written it completely negates any argument within it. D-