This is ridiculous. Nobody should be "required" to consider a certain company. If I own a business and I only consider MS not google, well tough shit google. They should have no right to interfere with that.

Reply

I think the issue is that it was the government which was only considering MS. What private businesses do is of no matter to the public sphere.

Reply

It still isn't their business. What I want to know is what did google say to the courts? Maybe something like...

"NOOOO! OUR MONOPOLY IS JUST AS GOOD AS THEIR MONOPOLY! HOW DARE YOU IGNORE US!"

Reply

Here's how it's going to go:

"Ok Google, we'll consider you (*5 second pause*). Ok Google, we considered you and decided to stick to Microsoft."

Reply

The U.S. government has bid contract rules it is SUPPOSED to follow.

If this particularly government entity followed the rules, then Google would have been considered. Since they were not, Google has every right to whine and b$%#.

Google didn't make the government's rules... They are merely trying to use them to their advantage just like any company would.

Reply

This is one of the most stupid things I have read about this year. (year is young, lets see what other crap happens)

Reply

So I guess you didn't read about how the hHD 6990 is going to crush anything nvidia will make :P

Reply

I'm with you on that. Bidding is a long cherished part of sucking on the taxpayers teat, has to be followed even if it a sham. Most gov't contracts are probably decided ahead of time anyway, probably why the company in question paid to elect given official.

Reply

no not read that! lol.

Reply

The Usual US problems. An american dream.

I think lotus notes will win :P

Reply

Tell that to the EU Regulatory Board. They forced Microsoft to Include a Ballot system when selling copies of Windows in Europe to allow people to choose their web browser right after installation.

Google's mission statement is essentially "do no evil", but "all's fair in love and war" when it comes to other companies/corporations. =p

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry about this comment. =p

Reply

It's like you're an advocate for discrimination. Does your hypothetical company also restrict employment by gender and race?

Reply

Actually wasn't it the 6970 that was going to CRUSH the GTX580? Now it's but but but the 6990!

Reply

Ehm, how can some people just not understand ? Of course Google _does_ have a right to complain about this because this is about the US citizens too, for chrissake.

"They should have no right right to interfere with that". You become a corporation and then come back to tell that at my face when you just lost a competition to the rival company without even being included in the decision making.

And the point is not about choosing one over the other (which might, of course, happen for Microsoft's advantage in the end anyway) - it's about choosing one without even thinking of the other.

Reply

People seem to be confusing business with government agencies, again.

If you have a private business, you're free to consider whatever product you want from whoever you want. The responsibility for that decision rests solely on you.

With a publicly-owned business, stockholders (the actual owners of the company) have a say on major deals (such as this) that would affect the entire company. Continually blowing them off is an easy way to get yourself... well... "removed" from your position.

Government is somewhat the same thing. The people are essentially the stockholders, and because most people have the attention span of a hamster, certain rules get put up to safeguard the public interest. Competition is one of those interests, and just handing off the contract to Microsoft despite other companies having viable e-mail offerings runs contrary to those interests.

You can argue back and forth over comments and forums as to whether Microsoft would actually provide better service and for a reasonable price point, but that's exactly what the whole deliberation and bidding process is supposed to encompass. All of which apparently didn't happen.

Reply

Good job Skyne... Google, show them no mercy.

Reply

A dual gpu beating a single gpu? That's totally fair. In case you can't tell what I'm doing just check what your username.

Reply

That's ethically wrong, this isn't. You need to rethink your comments because a comparison needs to be apples to apples. Also I find you accusing me of being sexist and racist EXTREMELY offensive and inappropriate, thanks so much.

Reply

This is getting heated enough without bringing Apple into this. =)

Reply

I'm thinking what you consider ethically wrong is a shaky ground of inconsistency. I'm glad you find sexism and racism offensive, we have common ground there, although, I in no way accused you of these things. I specifically mentioned forms of discrimination, or "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice", which your "I only consider MS not google, well tough **** google." would also stand to this definition. I would expect that the concept is easier to recognize as morally lacking when contrasted against other forms of discrimination, but maybe I put too much thought into my comments for your liking.

Reply

Maybe the point here is that Google DOES NOT have a product that can provide the same level of services that Microsoft can (i.e. Exchange)?

Sure Google has an email service, but that's cloud-based. This is the government fer cryin' out loud. Email has to be on a secure server/site.. even local.

Now if Google can provide them with an enterprise GMail locally on-site, then sure, bring in Google.

But as it is, Microsoft is leading this market segment, hence they won the contract.

Or am I going the wrong way here?

Reply

I'm very disapointed in you Google. What's next are you going to sue me because I prefer a Windows based Tablet PC?

Reply

The bidding process for providing goods and services to government is the correct way to go but, as a side note, the process can be so onerous that some otherwise worthy companies do not bother to bid, particularly if the amount of money involved is relatively small. A bid is not just a sheet of paper with a few figures on it. It is small book consisting of the response to the proposal (which itself is a small book), the company's qualifications, the individuals involved and their backgrounds and qualifications, legal requirements such as company non-discrimination policies, and a host of other requirements. It is bureaucracy at its finest.

I once wrote a request for proposals (RFP) on behalf of my city department and received no bids. When I asked one of the potential companies why they did not bid, they said they didn't have the resources to respond to the complexities of just the standard provisions (boilerplate) of the RFP much less the main point of the proposal.

Reply

If a Judge thought it was out of order...Then it's out of order. Laws the law.

I agree with Google challanging the government.

Reply

If you ran a private company and wanted to hire your nephew's IT firm to set up your company's IT systems then that would be fine. But don't you think there would be something wrong with that if the private company was replaced by a national government? These rules are in place to prevent corruption and nepotism and get the best value for the taxpayer, sure they're probably not perfect, but it's clearly preferable to Princeton's idea that the government should be able to hire whoever they want (with taxpayer money, I might add) for any reason, and it's no-one else's business, that's just naive lunacy.

Reply