Monopolistic company Google accuses Microsoft of monopolistic behavior

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 1,025   +302
Staff
Facepalm: After accusing Microsoft of antitrust violations in Europe, Google is now bringing the same case before the US government. This could be the Internet Explorer legal mess all over again, with a new twist as Google has been repeatedly accused of being a monopolistic company as well.

After recently doing the same in Europe, Google has now publicly accused Microsoft of anti-competitive behavior over the US cloud market. Mountain View singled out Microsoft in a letter sent to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which was seeking industry comments about the business practices of cloud computing providers that could "impact competition and data security."

In its letter to the federal agency whose main mission is to enforce antitrust laws in the United States, Google said that Microsoft is using its dominant products for computer and productivity markets (Windows Server, Office) to "lock in clients." Redmond is making it difficult for its userbase to consider third-party infrastructure offerings outside its own Azure cloud platform, Google says.

Microsoft's licensing restrictions are a "complex web" of rules and limitations designed to prevent business diversification, Google states, which is essentially the same thing the advertising corporation said to European regulators earlier this year. Microsoft (and Oracle as well) are forcing customers "toward a monolithic cloud model," Google says, while limiting freedom of choice, increasing costs for end customers, and "disrupting growing in digital ecosystems in the US and around the world."

Furthermore, the internet corporation accuses Microsoft of representing a national and cybersecurity risk. Microsoft products are routinely compromised by advanced and dangerous threats like SolarWinds, Google highlights, providing enemy countries with a route toward the heart of America's digital infrastructure.

Microsoft has a long, troublesome history with antitrust authorities. The legendary United States v. Microsoft Corporation case forced the Windows maker to partially modify its business practices in the web browser market, but Microsoft is now seemingly trying the monopoly route once again in the cloud business and elsewhere. The UK's CMA recently blocked the Activision Blizzard acquisition stating that the Redmond corporation could extend its monopoly over the cloud gaming business.

According to Corey Quinn, chief cloud economist at consulting company The Duckbill Group, all the major cloud providers are actively focused on making it nigh on impossible for customers to switch between cloud providers And that's what Google is doing as well.

Google has its own antitrust lawsuits to attend to while accusing Microsoft of anticompetitive practices. In October 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice under the Trump administration accused the company of exploiting its monopoly over web search to cut off competition. Furthermore, three other antitrust cases brought by a group of state attorney generals are focused on Mountain View's advertising practices.

Permalink to story.

 
"Furthermore, the internet corporation accuses Microsoft of representing a national and cybersecurity risk. Microsoft products are routinely compromised by advanced and dangerous threats like SolarWinds, Google highlights, providing enemy countries with a route toward the heart of America's digital infrastructure."

So is everyone's eventually. Big corporations always have security issues due to the size of their networks/systems and deciding on what security to implement by committee or executives just outright ignoring security suggestions because it would be 'too costly' since they're chasing pleasing share holders over the customers.


 
Pot calling the kettle black, althoight odd Google raised the issue in Europe, as normally the EU legislators usually turn around and go "no, both of you are monopolistic", so its like Google shooting itself in the foot so it can shoot MS in the face
 
The irony! One has to laugh. If they fight each other that's good. Less time to figure new nicely worded helpful ways to improve our our browsing, anything on line pretty much, so that we live in a computing paradise.
Of course, they "may collect a very tiny bit of user data, in the process, but rest assured.. blah blah."

But what about security!?! Well, both these companies already know more about us than we do. I would never say that either company has criminal intent, but such massive amounts of data is not a nice thought.

Maybe I'm paranoid, but privacy is non existent. Security isn't bad, until there is a real huge cleverly crafted criminal group that can get their hand on some of it. (Which would be a massive amount.) Probably 99% of it would be useless to real criminals - that's just opinion, but it's still a lot people/companies. 1% of "some" of the user data I mean.

This would lead to law suits, many of them. And hostility, total loss of trust, by the average user.
Hopefully enough to lower main R&D, creative ways of grabbing more data and sell it to honest advertisers.
They would take a big hit and maybe just maybe the main focus would move to security and REAL privacy options for users. While exposing at least some of their practices that both would really prefer we don't know about - and we don't! (I'm thinking Google Chrome browser, but just for focus and example)

Their names would be trashed, people would try to find alternatives. Not easy, but it would give less power/data crazy companies a chance to get into the browser market, and more.

Current alternatives are still linked at the waist to google. Seen the structure and layout of Brave browser?

It's not much different to Chrome. Granted, they do block out a lot of trackers, that's good, but it's not private at all. DuckDuckGo, sounds great, and could one day be a real rival in the browser market, but they were caught out in a lie (search and find if interested) involving data and MS recently, and they just aren't that good really.

Okay, everything I said is pretty out there, daft, but sarcastic. It wont happen like that. We have lost privacy pretty much though. If security gets worse that's a different kettle of fish.

Note: anyone who lacks sarcasm, please do not read my post exactly word for word. It's daft. But it may illustrate, to few, a little bit, the power these companies have.

That's why I think the big two fighting each other is a wonderful thing. Hope it gets really messy and leads to some real exposure of the real extent of data gathering that goes on whenever we go online.

But we all accept it to a degree, (again example, Chromes massive data gathering operation.) The only real way is to only ever use our PCs offline. And what use is that?

Disclosure: I use Chrome as my main browser. Privacy sailed away a while back, but I still use it.

So finally and non sarcastically if a full blown war between these two huge bloated data gathering companies, with an OS, and a speedy browser thrown in for free would be real drama.

One big wide spread practice of MS that was introduced a few years back. Do you remember? An example then I'll shut up.

DCH anyone? The worst example that comes to mind is Realtek on board audio including their decent higher level codecs. 12 years ago even the cheapest on board sound had a decent interface and simple options with a visual interface by default.

Now that doesn't exist. MS totally wrecked all that. There are many online tech forums etc that exchange ideas about how to dump the literally useless DCH MS store forced interface, and get just the very old real Realtek interface, basic, yes, dated, yes, but 100% better than the DCH stuff that MS forced on many companies. NVCP etc etc......

I could go on but already, I hear many zzzzzz's in CyberSpace. MS and Google hear it too.

Oh, and I doubt I'll be eating popcorn anytime soon.
 
Back