01 April 2011

Microsoft vs. Google: Valid Points Or Bitchiness

The noise against Google is starting to rise. The Professor has been pointing out some of the inequities inside the Googleplex that we who are outside it have been subjected to. That is disturbing.

Now it would appear that there is much more substance to these issues. We already have several US States - and probably the Feds too who are looking at Google's behaviour. But in my view one of the most succinct statements to come out has come from that darling of Governments - Microsoft.

The electrodes are out but I understand the strictures of what can and cannot be done inside a company that is under official investigation. For companies the sizes of Google and Microsoft this is a tough job to ensure compliance for everyone concerned.

Microsoft's arguments however are logical and specific.

I highly recommend that you read Brad Smith (admittedly not a tech head but a legal guy) on this blog entry.

It should give you cause to pause. There is no possible way that in pursuing the big mission: “Google’s mission is to organize the world‘s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” that you are not going to step on some toes. However coupled with "do no evil" this to me is just another one of a long list of failed promises.

Put into context the way Google is behaving has become - Organizing the World's information our way so we can make a boat load of money and screw everyone else. And Do no evil? well that translates to - we will avoid doing evil unless it gets in the way of our commercial goals in which case this is more important.

When I worked in Redmond - some people used to pillory the MS corporate credo about putting a PC on every desktop, itself a hark back to a chicken in every pot. Now we seem to have "a Google hand in every pocket."

What options do we have? Regulatory oversight is clearly one but not terribly effective. There is a better answer. Split the company up. Something that Microsoft should have done also a long time ago.


No comments: