I got back to the office today to find a message from a concerned Chris of the organization "Americans for Technology Leadership." Chris thought that I might be alarmed to note how the impending Google/Yahoo search deal will negatively affect us by creating, as Chris said, a monopoly that will essentially allow them to set their own pricing.
That's all I needed to hear to get me plenty pissed and quickly call back. And that's before I knew just how full of shit the organization was.
From SourceWatch:
In August 2001 the Los Angeles Times reported that a ATL was behind a "carefully orchestrated nationwide campaign to create the impression of a surging grass-roots movement" behind Microsoft. "The campaign, orchestrated by a group partly funded by Microsoft, goes to great lengths so that the letters appear to be spontaneous expressions from ordinary citizens. Letters sent in the last month are printed on personalized stationery using different wording, color and typefaces--details that distinguish those efforts from common lobbying tactics that go on in politics every day. Experts said there's little precedent for such an effort supported by a company defending itself against government accusations of illegal behavior."
Not that it was difficult to figure out that the bucks behind the phone calls were coming from Microsoft's pocketbook. A quick trip to the website lists them as one of the 9 founding members, along with the failing CompUSA and Staples, among other companies that will no longer enjoy my patronage.
Don't get me wrong. I understand some of those fears. But there are serious holes in their argument.
First, pricing isn't set by Google or Yahoo. How much I spend is determined by the open marketplace whether that is on Google, Yahoo or whoever's platform. To imply otherwise is to assume the people they call to be ignorant.
Secondly, I have serious issues with calling Google's search program to be a monopolistic endeavor. Google didn't become Google, and hasn't stayed Google, because of a lack of choice. There are hundreds of search engines from which to choose, whether along certain verticals or in general. Google won by building a better product, and for them to be punished for that is ridiculous. Ask.com spent how many millions to increase their share? And by how much did Google increase their own during the same time period?
As I explained to Chris, Google holds massive share because people chose their service, and continue to choose their service over the likes of MSN. I didn't use MSN and don't use Live because I don't really like the product. Plain and simple.
Now, as for Microsoft, is this really a company that can credibly whine about this? Can this possibly be anything other than idle bitching from the same folks that have shipped millions of computers with Windows and IE and countless other Microsoft products pre-installed?
Frankly, I find these astro-turfing campaigns to be the worst in deplorable. It's deceptive, misleading and ultimately makes those spending the dollars look like assholes. And Microsoft, you look like an asshole.
For the record, I don't mind IE being preinstalled on computers. I hate the other trial software that comes preinstalled (like AOL, etc.), but that's part of the reason I have a Mac. That I have that option speaks to the fact that PC-users also have a choice, just like those who use Google do.
All those years Microsoft was being sued for integrating IE, I thought they had the high ground. Even after some of the decisions didn't go their way (which was, IMO, a travesty of justice).
However, they've now embraced the tactics of their accusers with full steam. Who knows? Maybe they even hired them to do it in their stead.
Posted by: Cam Beck | July 29, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Cam- Couldn't agree more. I thought most of the IE/Microsoft anti-trust stuff was bullshit. But the fact that they would go through it, then try and use it against their competitors is more than a little shady...
Posted by: Paul McEnany | July 30, 2008 at 09:39 PM