Microsoft's pot calls out Google's kettle

Article first published as Microsoft's Pot Calls Out Google's Kettle on Technorati.

A friend of mine sent me a few links to a Microsoft blog where the company's legal department apparently has issues with the recent FTC ruling on Google's alleged anti-competitive practices. I could write paragraphs of babble but I think a direct quote sums up Microsoft's position best.

"Unfortunately, this agreement appears to be less demanding than the pledge the U.S. Department of Justice received from Apple and Microsoft nearly a year ago."

Microsoft's ruffled feathers come from Google's apparent blocking of the Microsoft YouTube app from Windows phones going back as far as 2010.  A service available to Apple and Android users by the way.  Again we'll let a direct quote tell the story...

"Google often says that the antitrust offenses with which it has been charged cause no harm to consumers. Google is wrong about that. In this instance, for example, Google’s refusal deprives consumers who use competing platforms of a comparable experience in accessing content that is generally available on the Web"

A more classic case of a jealous pot bashing the upstart kettle there has never been.  Replace "Google" with "Microsoft" in the preceding quote and it's 1996 all over again.  And there's the rub.  Microsoft doesn't think Google is getting punished enough and has somehow equated an inferior YouTube experience on Windows phones with Google's apparent monopoly on Internet search.

" We are concerned that the FTC may not have obtained adequate relief even on the few subjects that Google has agreed to address."

Microsoft appears to want to link two largely unrelated topics in their complaint which in spite of their claims to the contrary equate to little more than sour grapes. Microsoft's assertions bank on the short memory of the Internet and consumers in general.  Ironically a Google search can correct that.

Remember that the FTC went after Microsoft not because they had the leading operating system but because they abused their market position with it.  The tight integration of Internet Explorer with Windows operating systems starting with Windows 95 made competing browsers inferior on the platform.  It also allowed Microsoft to claim that the Browser and the Operating System were too closely interrelated to expose the details to competing browsers.  To do so would allegedly expose their trade secrets.  The FTC didn't buy it.

As for search, if Microsoft Bing is damaged by Google's dominant position in search and Google's related products it has less to do with anti-competitive business practices than it does with poor execution.   Let's be honest, nobody goes around saying, "I'll Bing that." Google's about search and has managed to leverage that simple fact in all of its products.  Bing isn't a poor search engine because of Google, It's just a poor search engine.

Consumer preference can be influenced but not controlled.  That's why Bing has been and always will be an also ran search engine just like Yahoo and the bygones like altavista or askjeeves.  Windows Phone still holds less than 5% of the worldwide Smartphone market and will likely continue to do so until it offers the features that can lure consumers away from Apple or Android.

Neither Google nor Apple have any obligation to help them improve that number.  A fact driven home by Google's impending removal of support for syncing Microsoft Exchange accounts (via Exchange Activesync) to its Gmail service as of January 30th.  Luckily Microsoft has it's hotmail service to fall back on.  Yes, that's a joke.

The bottom line is that right now Google's services are the consumer's choice for web applications.  Apple learned that the hard way with the Apple Maps fiasco but to their credit at least they tried.  Instead of complaining about being excluded from Google's services Microsoft should be trying to create a better competing service.  After all, software and servers are their thing, right?

Then again what else would you expect from a Microsoft legal blog?

The new revenue stream

Originally published on Technorati as "The New Revenue Stream."

Remember way back before the Iphone or the I anything for that matter?  Those were the days when we went out and bought a piece of technology and whatever else we needed for it and Boom! we were pretty much done.  When we wore it out we went and bought a new one.

Getting a cell phone was a pretty simple proposition.  You picked the device and how many minutes you thought you'd need and paid your bill every month.  Now you'd be hard pressed to find a phone without features you'll never use but are charged for anyway.  Not to mention overage charges for data or unlimited plans that really aren't unlimited either cutting you off or degrading your service over a preset limit.

Everything's a subscription now.  Seems like you never stop paying.  Services like Netflix started it.  Used to be you'd pay a small subscription fee and get your choice of DVD's every month.  What made them successful was the elimination of late fees and the highway robbery of the chain video rental stores.  Now it's streaming movies at 8 bucks a month to any device that can use the service.  Even if you don't use it.

Yes, it's wonderful that you can go to Itunes and just buy the song you like for 99 cents and leave the rest of the selections on the curb .  Of course you've bought a lesser quality version of the song for roughly the same price as the same song on CD but hey, it's in your Itunes now, so long as you don't lose your password...

You can even subscribe to Microsoft Office 365 to essentially "rent" the use of office applications.  Too bad if you miss that monthly payment and want to open your Word document.

I can go to carbonite.com and back up my computer to the cloud automatically, for a fee of course.  That fee goes up if I have more than one computer and/or external device to back up by the way.

Gee, used to be I got a backup program with my operating system or I could get a better one and that was it.  I didn't have to subscribe to anything.

Buy an IPAD or an Iphone and you're not likely to have much fun with it unless you visit the app store which generally involves a purchase or subscription depending on what you choose from it.  Oh, and don't forget that 2 year contract and/or ridiculous initial cost of the device.

Let's not forget that our workplaces will have limits on our bandwidth and most ISP's impose bandwidth limits on how much data you can use per month.

Too bad if you were backing up you Terabyte Hard drive to Carbonite...

The point is that more and more products seem to be introduced whose very design is to work with this subscription model.  Product features tend to be stripped down for the sake of it.  Even the latest version of Windows dumped their email client in favor of the useless free Windows Live suite or online applications such as Hotmail or Gmail.

 I wonder when they'll dump notepad...

Yes it's true that application suites were prohibitively expensive but if you didn't need to be on the cutting edge you could always find a deal on the previous version.  You didn't have to keep paying for it either.   It seems we've been led to believe that the a la' carte model lowers the barriers of entry to productivity and recreational apps but the truth is that we're just spreading out our buying patterns. 

With every app you buy you end up on another mailing list.  There's also this false ubiquity that anything in the cloud is secure and accessible.  Yes, it may be so long as you pay the subscription.  Let's also hope they don't go out of business taking your data with them.  Read the Terms of Service,  if they're gone, so's your data...

There's nothing wrong with making applications more accessible but to rely on the subscription model and the cloud exclusively  is dangerous.  I'd hate, for example, to lose the ability to update my resume if I had to cancel my office 365 subscription after losing my job. 

I sometimes chafe when I hear some pundit advocating how the cloud should be our primary data repository.  Really?  You have that much faith in a web page with an e-commerce portal to secure your data? 

I can't accept that a commercial entity has my best interests at heart thus I have no faith in the assumption that they do.  Yet when I look around I see a consumer mindset that accepts the premise as reasonable. 

Whatever happened to Caveat Emptor?  I guess they don't teach that in schools anymore...

Shiny Objects, Dull Minds....

I hold two beliefs,  one is that technology  will never stop advancing and the second is that human beings will always gravitate toward shiny objects. 

Crows like shiny objects too.  It's been suggested that they take them to attract a mate.  Hmm, maybe that's why all the geeks feel the need to get a new Smartphone every 6 months. 

I watch a lot of technology podcasts where all the Uber geeks and tech pundits get all misty eyed over the latest bit of techno kitsch.  I t never fails.  They anxiously await the latest whatever and when they get it in their hands they fawn over for about 15 minutes;  playing with every button, adjusting every setting and trying out every new feature.   

Then the facade starts to crack.  It could be a change in how a feature works or even the removal of it entirely.  It doesn't really matter, you can always tell by the look on their face.  It goes from a happy kid on Christmas morning to a blank stare.

The end is always the same.  Unless the thing catches fire in their hands there'll be allowances made.  Phrases like, "They'll fix that in an update" or "This is an early production model" 

We're supposed to dismiss the deficiency and focus instead on the promise of this great new thing even if it's to our own detriment.  

Smartphones are a perfect example.  It's not enough for your phone to make calls anymore.  It has to be able to surf the net, update Facebook and entertain you with a game or a movie.  It's almost as if there's some grand plan to cause the world to develop Attention Deficit Disorder.

 I still find it amazing that people went so nuts over the Iphone when it had so many issues like being chained for two years to a horrible data network, high cost, call quality and usability problems.  Still , even if you had a bad experience with the phone it still managed to check off all the items on our shiny object list.

Like the MP3 that's largely replaced the CD ,we tend tolerate a lesser experience  for greater convenience or just the chance to look cool.   There may be a more insidious penalty than that, however.

Technology can be the catalyst for inspiration but it can also be a debilitating crutch .  In his book "The Shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains" Nick Carr suggests that we may in fact be gradually becoming dumber because of our addiction to connectivity.

It's not so far-fetched an idea.  We don't even care if a phone can be relied on to make a call anymore so long as our Netflix download doesn't buffer too much.   Oh yes and we must be sure that Foursquare knows where we had lunch.  I'm sorry but nobody has the right to know that much about my habits even if I didn't notice your 30 page irrevocable EULA. 

I guess it's too bad if your favorite sushi restaurant is next door to an S&M shop.  If Google maps can't pinpoint my house accurately I suppose I should forget about any hopes of public office.  There are people who believe the president of the United States  has a fake birth certificate.  What hope do I have if my favorite  sushi restaurant is suspiciously located?

It seems we'd rather not use our long term memory either.  It's simpler to just Google whatever it was that we're too lazy to remember.  Google's a godsend then; protecting us from having to spend more than 30 seconds on any stray thought.

Any forum discussion on the topic invariably degenerates into a shouting match ending in a flurry of hyperlinks supporting their point of view.  That's sad.  We're so addicted to the internet that we can't even have a debate without using it.  Are we so enamored with our connectivity that we're becoming incapable of independent thought? 

If a Pulitzer prize finalist believes it's possible then I have to believe that there has to be some truth to it.   But then, I found out about it on the Internet.