US Senate: Google on Trial

In senate hearings, competitors lied, stating that Google was there first and thus was a monopoly with which others could not compete. That is clearly false as the first search engines appeared in 1993 and Google did not start up until 1998. I can remember using Mamma.com (1996) and Altavista (1995) before I used Google. I remember M$ and others making fun of Google for “free search”.

“In the seven years after Google’s founding in 1998, Microsoft stock did not increase in value at all. During that same period, Google shares came to be worth more than $80 billion.

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates talked often about what his company would deliver in future versions of Windows, and how it would eventually crush and trump Google as it had others before.

The more Gates talked, the less realistic he sounded. In the fall of 2004, Microsoft secretly planned a major announcement concerning a search engine of its own in test form. The headline-grabbing news it wanted to unveil was that its search engine had crawled five billion documents on the Internet, besting the comprehensiveness of Google’s index, which had four billion. But a few hours before Microsoft released news about its purported triumph, Google announced that it had doubled its own index to eight billion Web pages, encompassing virtually the entire known Web and surpassing anything anyone else had done. Google posted the new page count on its homepage, in the spirit of Space Race the McDonald’s signs showing the number of “Billions Served.” Microsoft, caught flat-footed and red-faced, was once again seen as a laggard in a race with Google.”

see The Google Story

“the most ridiculous testimony came from Thomas Barnett, a lawyer for Covington & Burling, who was representing a bunch of Google competitors who put together an operation called FairSearch. When asked about whether or not Google was a monopoly player, Barnett flat out lied, claiming that Google is dominant and can’t be unseated “because it got there first.” “
see How Quickly We Forget: Google’s Competitors Falsely Claim Google Dominates Because It Was ‘First’

What’s the penalty for lying to the US Senate?

see also Google’s side of things

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to US Senate: Google on Trial

  1. oiaohm says:

    Contrarian Skype is not a major usage. Google has Google Talk also Skype is on Android.

    I know a old rule Contrarian too many cooks spoil the broth.

    Both Nokia and Microsoft will be attempt to make profit.

    WP7 Tile style has mostly been rejected by consumers. WP8 is hoping consumers warm up to it. If it don’t they are in trouble.

    Remember Nokia is desperate themselves. Android has broken there supply lines. Reason for the back out from Meego is that result would have been more broken supply lines. They have grabbed hold of Microsoft as a kind of life line.

    Google with icecream is going a different path. What Microsoft is doing is basically a simplified version of the early Android interface. So yes WP7 is a copycat.

    I am serous-ally correct when I say if Nokia is going to be releasing just WP7 they are fairly much dead man walking.

    Now if Nokia releases Windows 8 on the mobile phone market other than undermining MS profit share might give both of them a chance.

    But with what Xoom did more than 1 Linux can be put on a android kernel to counter this.

  2. Contrarian says:

    “Contrarian name the special feature Windows Phone 7 has that bates business or end user to buy them.”

    I think that Microsoft and Nokia are likely to be plotting some sort of strategy to differentiate themselves from the herd, #oiaohm. They all went to good business schools and I am sure that they know they have to do that. Between the two of them, they will come up with an effective campaign.

    The WP7 advertising seems to push their tiles style of top level icon as does the Windows 8 preview. if iPhone and Android start showing up with a similar look, we can then claim that MS is leading the pack and setting the styles, eh? Microsoft did ust buy Skype and there may be some angle there, too. You are too stupid to understand the sort of synergy that can form with the collusion of big brand names like Microsoft and Nokia, I know, but try to remember that when it hits you in the face.

  3. oiaohm says:

    Contrarian Google did a check of numbers less than 20 percent of there machines were Windows. Google in fact has more apple machines.

    When you get up into big companies Microsoft being small is not strange.

    Basically we have a divide. Large enterprise is using less and less Microsoft and Small enterprise is using more Windows. What large does can effect small in time.

    Simple fact is coming to the wake up that Apple might be out the phone and tablet market completely by the end of year. So it will not be those that can afford iphone any more.

    Never ever attempt to screw one of your key suppliers over the way Apple attempted todo with Samsung. The result is when they hit back you are ruined.

    Nokia backing WP7 is the fact they don’t have hardware production any more in volume and are infact having there supply lines in china revolt against them. Nokia is not what you call being in a healthy location. So WP7 devices are going to be the more expensive devices on the shelf.

    Android is a form of Linux. More and more android devices are coming with means to unlock them todo more.

    Baba being opened up to more hardware makers will make it interesting. At this point android vs Baba will become a battle for the ages. RIM and Meego most likely will become 3 and 4 as both of those will be able to run Android applications.

    In fact shock horror RIM Meego Baba are all posix based for native code development. Android is a broken posix based for native code development. OSi for development is also posix based. Hmm only one in the market left not posix based in some form WP7. So harder to port applications to WP7 than around the others.

    Yes Samsung nuking Apple gives Baba room to grow.

    WP7 No android application support no big music store like Apple basically sorry it mostly stuffed.

    I remember a few years back here I would go into most phone shops here in Australia and find mostly Windows Mobile phones on sale. Today its mostly Android. Most the shelf is Android. There is more baba than Windows phones. Also HTC has already released WP7 along with others. Sales have been poor. So unless Nokia is releasing WP8 they are dead man walking here.

    No shop is going to buy in WP7 phones that basically just sit on self with everyone buying iphones, androids, baba and rim devices.

    Special feature of windows mobile was it means to link to exchange these days everyone can.

    Contrarian name the special feature Windows Phone 7 has that bates business or end user to buy them.

  4. Contrarian says:

    “so it will be possible for the end user to think they looked at a diverse market share when the only phones they have been shown are Linux.”

    I am sure that you silly puddings look at the world that way, which is why you are so often surprised by events. But it is not the case. For one thing, it is not “Linux”, it is “Android” and more specifically it is “Google’s Android” that is specified for the non-Apple phones whose specs are rarely read.

    Those who cannot afford an iPhone are happy enough to select between Samsung, Motorola, Sony, Hitachi, and some lesser lights. It will be interesting to see how Nokia fares with WP7 this fall. Can Microsoft make any money selling an OS in this space? For some reason they think they can.

  5. Contrarian says:

    “Windows on every PC”

    When you think about it, that is pretty much the case today. If it isn’t using Windows, it isn’t a PC. Remember the Apple ads, i.e. “I’m a PC and I’m a Mac”? Everyone got the message except for the silly Linux fans.

  6. Bender says:

    Linux monopoly, that sounds great 🙂
    Have you all already forgotten about Microsoft messing with bootloaders to make then OS2 fail to boot or to make their software work better on Ms dose than on Dr dose? It seems all MTE’s have very short memory or is that needed on your CV to get these positions in Redmond?

    Robert, the mere fact you are on their “target list” means you are making a difference and they can’t let you stop them from making Bill Gates dream of Windows on every PC.

  7. oiaohm says:

    Yes the Linux guys are up to the shell game in reverse.

    You go in look at many different looking and acting and named OS phones so it will be possible for the end user to think they looked at a diverse market share.

    When the only phones they have been shown are Linux.

  8. oiaohm says:

    D-G History. Samsung and Motorola were selling Linux phones before Android existed. Did they advertise they were Linux phones no. That phones advertise they are using Android is one hell of a step up. The Linux brand name is tarnished so I expect the successful to avoid saying to for a while.

    Samsung baba and Google Android are lining up to go head to head with each other. Before this it was Samsung baba vs Motorola Moto.

    Yes those are both mobile phone versions of Linux.

    Funny enough Samsung baba is lining up to play the more open game against Google Android. So yes we will have 2 Linux distributions on Phones and Tablets backed by hardware makers for sure.

    There is a chance of a third. This gives Microsoft a problem. In most market places there is only room for 1 and 2 to make good profit 3 and 4 get the crumbs. So Android and OSi are currently 1 and 2. Rim is in 3. Baba only from Samsung at this stage has more market share than Windows Phone 7. So once released to other hardware maker Baba could bolt into number 3 or 4 or higher.

    Yes Linux world also has a third card in Meego. Android + Baba + Meego if they all get into the market with Apple strength could basically ruin the market for Rim and Microsoft.

    This is the problem Linux can create phones that look to be completely different in interface but in fact sharing OS development in background so the total market share of all is contributing to the development costs of all. So branding Linux on the outside is not effective. Hidden fact that they are all Linux has advantages.

    Android, Baba, Meego use a lot of the same libraries as well as kernel. Where OSi and RIM and Windows Phone are in fact solo development.

  9. D-G wrote, “It’s irrelevant if Android is based on the Linux kernel.”

    Irrelevant to you, maybe, but not to me nor to M$.

  10. D-G says:

    No. They’re buying Android phones. It’s irrelevant if Android is based on the Linux kernel. Consumers don’t know anything about the Linux kernel even if they buy Android phones.

    http://www.htc.com/europe/smartphones/htc-sensation/

    Is Linux mentioned anywhere? I sure don’t see it. And it’s the same for all other mobile phone manufacturers.

    You can’t buy something that doesn’t exist in the perception of the public.

    Society is more complex than you think.

  11. The consumer doesn’t have to care. They just have to buy and they are buying Linux.

  12. D-G says:

    Android is called Android. It’s not called Android/Linux. Just as Ubuntu is called Ubuntu, Debian is called Debian, Fedora is called Fedora, and so on and so forth. Name isn’t but sound and smoke.

    And it’s Android that has MORE marketshare (as per Wikimedia statistics) than all other Linux-based distributions combined. Not Linux (whatever that is).

    That’s the problem with you people. You try to sell every Linux-based (as in: Linux the kernel) project that’s even marginally successful as a success for Linux (as in: Linux operating systems, Linux ecosystem, whatever). But the consumer doesn’t see Linux when he buys an Android phone. And he doesn’t care.

    Wikimedia statistics make it abundantly clear. The only Linux-based brands worth giving a damn about are Android and Ubuntu. And if they are successful it will be Google’s win and Canonical’s win respectively. Not Linux’s win.

    Deal with it.

  13. Shares of usage of Linux are independent of shares of “naming” Linux. Why make the distinction? Is it a straw man? Are you wasting time/bandwidth?

  14. Contrarian says:

    “The shares of Android/Linux and GNU/Linux are about the same size, both important.”

    It is almost shameful how you have to create such artificial perceptions of products, #pogson. Android is the product that Google is trying to promote amongst the OEMs who make cell phones and tablets. Linux is never mentioned in public and has almost nothing to do with the overall Android system. The few bits and bytes that comprise the kernel could be easily replaced by other designs if necessary.

    GNU is even less of a product, needing the association with Linux to register at all on anyone’s level of perception. Why not call Microsoft’s product Norton/Windows since Symantec’s utilities are at the core of Windows maintenance functions?

  15. Contrarian says:

    “M$ spends hundreds of millions on promotions that are most of the OEMs margins.”

    Microsoft promotes its products, certainly, #pogson. Any successful business would do the same. But the Windows business is very profitable for Microsoft and it is silly to claim that they are somehow buying it via bribes or other inducements. OEMs do not use Linux as part of their product offerings in the main PC market for a long litany of business reasons, none of which are payoffs or kickbacks.

  16. Contrarian says:

    “BeOS, Palm, Amiga, Xandros, Linspire and other companies went belly up because of Microsoft’s lawbreaking activity and Microsoft paid huge fines in several cases.”

    Those companies went belly up because next to no one bought their products and they could not stay in business due to financial losses. Even people working with open source mostly need to be paid and there was very little revenue to be had from the cheapskates that favor FOSS.

    Microsoft was not fined one nickle in regard to any of these companies, either. #twitter makes up stories like this, either out of ignorance or out of a deep set hate for Microsoft, it is hard to say, he is certainly qualified in both conditions.

  17. The shares of Android/Linux and GNU/Linux are about the same size, both important.

  18. D-G says:

    “Then you guys run into Android bashing as if Android’s non free software problems were Google’s fault rather than the carriers and publishers who demanded the ability to rape customers they way they can with iOS or Windows.”

    Don’t twist the facts, Twit. Google allowing carriers and device manufacturers to do what they do was a NECESSITY for Android to succeed in the first place. Don’t paint this one-sided, as if Google had been bullied (a laughable image in itself).

    You also must be deaf and blind, because otherwise you would have noticed that many a manufacturer has now openly contemplated switching operating systems, should it come to pass that Google favors Motorola and puts Android on a tighter leash (including delayed/reduced source code access). If that happens there aren’t really much incentives for companies to use Android.

    Face the facts. Google with all its wanna-be openness has learned very quickly that they’ll have to play this game by the market’s rules. Hence their buying lots of patents together with Motorola, for a hefty price. That reeks of desperation more than anything else. Google wanted to play the game by its own rules, but has since been fu**ed up.

  19. twitter says:

    Google bashing has got to be the most transparent Microsoft Tech Evangelist indicator ever and you trolls have outdone yourselves today. People with memories and common sense are easily able to refute this nonsense. The irony is that the most effective way to make people hate Google or make people forgive Microsoft is to equate Google to Microsoft.

    Google has a monopoly in the same sense that Microsoft has a monopoly, i.e. they are the dominant supplier of a basic element of computer usage.

    If Google is a choice then Windows is a choice, too.

    That’s rich. I wish that it was as easy to give people software freedom as it is to type a url in a browser and make a bookmark. Free software browsers like Konqueror, no surprise, make it easy for users to chose or modify dozens of premade search urls or type their own so there’s not even a free software “default search” problem of any significance. Everyone but Microsoft has to deal with trash like ACPI and the new gnu/linux excluding firmware is mandatory equipment for Windows 8.

    If you are on the outside looking in, such as the desktop Linux advocates or the Google competitors, you may want the government to do something to give you a leg up on some free business

    I really can’t equate Microsoft’s whiny search engine proxies and OS makers who are asking for relief from Microsoft’s technical, legal and market place sabotage. BeOS, Palm, Amiga, Xandros, Linspire and other companies went belly up because of Microsoft’s lawbreaking activity and Microsoft paid huge fines in several cases. The senate hearings are little more than a continuation of Microsoft’s all out attack on competitors. There were a few other independent search companies, like Yahoo, but Microsoft crushed them too. Microsoft is trying to kill Google with government intervention, exclusive cell phone deals, Facebook and retailer exclusion and other dirty tricks. They have to do this because Google consistently gives fast, honest and useful results.

    Then you guys run into Android bashing as if Android’s non free software problems were Google’s fault rather than the carriers and publishers who demanded the ability to rape customers they way they can with iOS or Windows. The only way this is related to the Senate hearing is that TE’s hate everything that does not come from Microsoft.

  20. D-G says:

    “Nope. Consider stats on Wikipedia which do count the details:”

    I always wonder how you can earnestly post data that undermines your very point. Let’s take it slow, Pog:

    Android (no, not Android/Linux) … has already … more share … than Desktop Linux!

    Do you need any more proof that Desktop Linux is a glorious failure? Instead you keep on blabbering about Android, Android, Android. Well, Android has been created by Google, not by your prized F(L)OSS community. It’s safe to say that Android has actually fu**ed the F(L)OSS community in the arse. While the free software community is bickering about desktop environments and stuff, Google is raking in money left and right. A resounding success, Pog!

  21. Free/Libre Open Source Software

    I listened. I thought he was very truthful. The most interesting situation discussed was the issue of businesses who did not want their sites scraped but wanted to be included in search results. I though they were asking for special treatment. I know if I build a search engine, showing snippets is important. Another issues is shopping sites wanted to be treated as suppliers rather than brokers so that when Google helped users find products those sites were well down the list. Too bad. I appreciate the hits Google sends my way.

  22. Ivan says:

    “Ivan may consider it non-free because some versions are not FLOSS but that is almost irrelevant.”

    FOSS, Floss is something you use to clean the gunk out from between your teeth before bed. Oh yeah, and it is not irrelevant to take an oath to tell the truth and lie through your teeth about your product before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, as Eric Schmidt did.

  23. oldman says:

    “The vast majority of devices running Android/Linux are running 2.x versions.

    For all practical purposes Android/Linux is FLOSS. ”

    The only thing for sure Pog is that version 2.x has source code available for all components. What is also true is that the non GPL’d portions of version 3.x are non source code available, and that if google chooses to keep subsequent versions as source code unavailable, then effectively Android will be closed.

    The fact that 2.x is available in the wild will become increasingly irrelevant – nobody will want a version 2.x based phone once version 4.x is out, and as far as tablets are concerned, 2.x is a non starter, and will become increasingly so as time goes on.

  24. The vast majority of devices running Android/Linux are running 2.x versions.

    For all practical purposes Android/Linux is FLOSS. Ivan may consider it non-free because some versions are not FLOSS but that is almost irrelevant. I am sure every FLOSS project has some beta-testing going on without release of source-code except to some inner circle of developers. There’s nothing remarkable about that because Google is doing almost all of the work.

  25. Ivan says:

    Google is not on trial, Bobby. Nice hyperbole, though.

    Oh and if anyone lied, it was Eric Schmidt when he claimed Android was open source, when we all know that no source has been released for the latest versions of Android.

    http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/jw57/commMP4Player.cfm?fn=judiciary092111p&st=1500

  26. M$ spends hundreds of millions on promotions that are most of the OEMs margins.

  27. Contrarian says:

    “M$ pays far more to OEMs to keep the retail lock-in going”

    I cannot see how you can continue to hold such nonsensical views, #pogson! The vast majority of Microsoft revenues derived from Windows desktop OS sales comes from the OEMs. Obviously Microsoft gets billions of dollars from that source and can hardly be said to be “paying…to keep the retail lock-in going”. Perhaps you think that Microsoft should charge a higher price overall so as to make Linux look more attractive to the OEMs, but that doesn’t translate into any sort of bribery as you imply.

    Microsoft merely takes what is there in terms of setting their selling price to the OEM. They charge what the market is willing to pay, no more, no less.

  28. Contrarian says:

    Perhaps such oblique reasoning satisfies your urge to see Microsoft get some sort of comeuppance, #posgon, but it is pretty useless when it comes to making any actually useful decision about the future of the markets.

    Starting with the odd fact that the totals for all the OS shares in the list only come to 95%, which may call into question its accuracy, the analysis is not pertinent. Very few Linux desktops and laptops in use were shipped with Linux pre-installed. We have been round and round regarding the availability of Linux machines in the mass market and you keep pointing to obscure sources in Asia to substantiate its presence, but the fact remains that Linux machines begin life as Windows machines in almost all circumstances.

    Thus one can only add the Linux values to the Windows values in coming up with a sales rate for Windows computers. Doing that gives a much better alignment with more traditional unit counts for Windows computers versus Apple computers, which is really the only useful market statistic.

    An even finer analysis might consider whether or not the Apple market has any significant effect on Windows software sales, which are, at the end of the day, the way that Microsoft makes its money from OS.

  29. Nope. Consider stats on Wikipedia which do count the details:

    Windows

    2,854,895

    78.49%

    Mac

    280,516

    7.71%

    iPhone

    131,730

    3.62%

    Linux

    118,374

    3.25% (1.76% is Android/Linux)

    iPad

    52,872

    1.45%

    BlackBerry

    19,838

    0.55%

    SymbianOS

    6,186

    0.17%

    If we include just that other OS, MacOS and GNU/Linux the total is 87.69. M$’s share is 78.49 / 87.69 = 89.5%. They were much higher than that a decade ago, about 96%. It’s not business as usual. It’s just too bad the decline is this slow. The world would be a better place sooner otherwise.

    It is legitimate to count other architectures than x86/amd64 and ARMed thingies do represent an erosion of M$’s share. That’s why they are bothering to put “8” on ARM. If you are going to exclude all new technology consider ATX cases only. Then M$’s share would be around 90% but unit shipments would be down to ~1% per annum growth while the rest of IT sees 5-100% growth depending on architecture and region. Even the full-sized cases are decreasing. There are many minis and all-in-ones on the market. ARM will take a big share sooner or later.

  30. oldman says:

    “I guess that explains why M$’s market share is declining on the desktop… The monopoly has died.”

    IN point of fact Microsofts dominance in the desktop is relatively unchanged. what has happened is a new market for mobile devices has been born and is being lumped together with that desktop market as if they are the same.

    They are not and never have been, and when you subtract out all of the mobile devices, you are left with microsoft basically where they always have been.

  31. M$ pays far more to OEMs to keep the retail lock-in going.

  32. D-G says:

    Pog’s heroes are under investigation. Pog angry. Have you turned green?

    Let’s not forget how (un)believable Google’s side of things is:

    “Using Google is a choice. Sure, Google has lots of users, but Google is more like a GPS for the Internet — a helpful guide, but not necessary to get around”

    Oh, is it now? Let’s face the facts. If Google is a choice then Windows is a choice, too. The only thing you can argue is that a default search engine in a browser is comparatively easier to change than an OS. But that’s about it. Do not forget: Google is paying a substantial amount to Mozilla (and others?) for their continued use of Google as the default search engine. And most people won’t bother to change their search engine in the first place.

  33. I guess that explains why M$’s market share is declining on the desktop… The monopoly has died.

  34. Contrarian says:

    “Google’s side of things”

    Google has a monopoly in the same sense that Microsoft has a monopoly, i.e. they are the dominant supplier of a basic element of computer usage. Others were first and others remain available for OS and search, but people are accustomed to using Windows and to using Google. Alternatives do no offer any advantages to the mass market consumer and so the consumer is not motivated to change and does not bother to change.

    Who is going to have the next “monopoly” this way? Facebook? Twitter? Apple iPad? All are likely to be in the same sort of position. It is not a monopoly, rather, it is the popular choice.

    If you are on the outside looking in, such as the desktop Linux advocates or the Google competitors, you may want the government to do something to give you a leg up on some free business, but it is not likely to have much effect on things.

    Once the consumer has spoken, the die is cast and there is nothing left but the shouting.

Leave a Reply