|
|
Post by Swimmy on Feb 3, 2008 17:55:00 GMT -5
Microsoft-Yahoo deal poses antitrust issues: GoogleI'm really hoping that the SEC investigates this deal seriously with the intent to prevent ms from effectuating a massive monopoly here in the U.S. Europe already docked them big time, it's time the U.S. stepped up its efforts to foster competition without ms having its name all over the place!
|
|
|
|
Post by rrogers40 on Feb 3, 2008 18:00:25 GMT -5
 Google is worried about Microsoft creating a Monopoly? LOL - if anything it should be Microsoft asking for an investigation of Google. Google being the biggest search engine on the web today- along with possibly being one of the biggest privacy rights violators. |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Feb 3, 2008 18:03:12 GMT -5
While google is the biggest search engine, there are several other competitors and the consumer has multiple options of which engine to use, e.g. altavista, askjeeves, etc.
As for the privacy rights violators thing, you are leaving out the rest of the computing industry. Unless I'm mistaken, to date, Google has not complied with President Bush's request.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Feb 3, 2008 19:50:16 GMT -5
The problem will be that if MS is successful in acquiring Yahoo, they will likely integrate it into their operating system, making it more difficult for unsophisticated users to access Google or any other search engine.
Of course, that was one of the arguments used by Netscape in their suit against Microsoft in the '90s. The fact that Internet Explorer sucks like a black hole eliminated any chance that the predictions made back then would ever come true. Despite the fact that installing Windows puts about 30 impediments to you using Mozilla on your computer, IE has failed to establish a monopoly on the browser market. The same is likely to hold for their eventual integration of Yahoo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Feb 3, 2008 20:12:41 GMT -5
No, but IE still holds about 90% of the market share with Firefox commanding about 8%. Real player successfully sued ms for shutting it out of market share. Microsoft made windows media player the default player and made it damn near impossible to change. You had to wait until windows media player loaded, then close it out and then run real player. Then playback on real player was choppy, purposely programmed into windows to do so. It was a mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Feb 3, 2008 20:52:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Feb 3, 2008 20:54:45 GMT -5
Ralph, that's awesome! There is nothing more you can say about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Feb 4, 2008 10:52:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Feb 5, 2008 8:04:58 GMT -5
I find this an interesting contrast to the news I heard yesterday that both ATT & Time-Warner have revealed they are considering monitoring internet activity of their users. The premise is that they are looking for ways to limit copyright piracy. The volume of pirated music being downloaded is 20 times that of legally purchased downloads. However, it's speculated that the monitoring is a precursor to ISPs charging for the amount of traffic you use.
Microsoft, ATT and Time-Warner may all want to preserve internet openness and innovation, as long as you pay for it. Look for another meter to be installed next to your water, electric or gas meters soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Feb 5, 2008 8:10:38 GMT -5
The ISPs have always monitored Internet usage since broadband access became available. I remember reading stories of how people were kicked off and their accounts canceled for taking up too much bandwidth. The ISPs have been exempt from the copyright law depending on how they have their access system setup. If it is passive and does minimal active monitoring, they're free from liability. There is something more going on than what ATT and Time-Warner are alluding to. Comcast is ahead of those two.
|
|
