Maybe not the most suitable response to your post but jazzc does make a point. I will reply below but first just wanted to say that in my opinion the "antitrust" stuff with Microsoft is also bullshit. I've not followed the whole issue so I may be wrong but if my understanding is correct then it's a joke. Why should a company be told what to do with their own software? If people are clueless about their options then that's their fault and not Microsoft's. Microsoft provides something that is ready to go, why should it promote other software?
No company should be told what to do with their software, unless that software is harming the principles of the context in which it exists. I can write my bots, but if my bots start harming your servers, then authorities should reign in my bots.
The problem with Microsoft was they had 90% of operating system market share and used those 90% to bundle a horrible web browser in the operating system, thus financially destroying a much much better competitor web browser. Their operating system dominance allowed them to destroy competition in a related niche. That's when authorities stepped in and said wait, Netscape is hands down better than IE, why are you using your OS dominance to destroy a great product? This has a direct parallel to my point about Google: Google's search is awesome, but their search is being used to destroy millions of small websites and businesses who might offer something better than Google. Google's not very good at local niches, little local stores are being booted from Google. I just saw a charity site disappear after this latest update. This sucks....they do it because they have a dominance in search and they do it for profit, for ad sales, therein lies the abuse.
Nowhere have I said that the WWW belonged to Google. That's not what my reply stated.
I understood and sentence in your other reply to mean that.
Now that I'm here I can't fault jazzc's reply because I now see why he replied the way he replied and I'm not sure what to say, but anyway, I will try to give my point of view on it.
I have no idea what he said or tried to say, his logic is far more advanced than anything my brain is able to process.
What happened was this:
- Google started a party on the WWW, everyone enjoyed it and decided to tag along
They didn't quite start it, they were late in fact, but I take your point.
- The WWW has many other parties and is always open to new parties
That last part is debatable and it's becoming more questionable by the day.
- Google's party became massive and had the whole WWW join in
I'd say Google joined the already existing WWW party...and then started kicking people out of that party so only they could have a party.
- Google's party is still going strong and no one wants to go elsewhere
Lot's of people want to go elsewhere, but the streets are blocked all over the place and their secret police are keeping everyone in check around the block.
- Other's have started their own parties but not many people wanted to join in
If the streets weren't all blocked, we'd have more people in more parties.
- Google has made some rules so that their party doesn't go out of their control
Their party is happening in a public space, which is the problem. They don't own the place where the party happens but they're trying to control it. The WWW does not belong to Google and they have no business keeping or not keeping that under control.
- Some people don't like these rules so they bend and twist them but they still enjoy the party
People are unable to leave the party because the streets are blocked, so they must stay, but if they stay they are subjected to draconian rules, so they wish to leave, but they can't leave. Thus authorities must come in, break the party and set things straight.
- Other people don't like these rules and think the party sucks so they try to get it regulated
That's not my point at all and you and jazzc have failed to understand what I said. I don't want them regulated because I can't beat them, I want them regulated because they've set up an unfair system that obviously violates anti-trust legislation.
- Google is still going strong
Unfortunately.
- The WWW is still a free/libre medium open to everyone with many things going on
Not any more.
So if you don't like Google's party and think it sucks because of its rules you should go elsewhere or start your own party and get people to join it. You can't fault Google for having an amazing party, at the end of the day people have decided to stick to that party and not try anything else. You can't start bossing yourself around at someone else's party or you will get kicked out, and trying to get it regulated is trying to boss yourself around, it's not your party, it's not for you to decide how the party should be. Some enjoy the rules others will do their own thing and still enjoy the party. No one is forcing you to do anything, you've been given guidelines to follow if you want to get the most out of Google's party but no one is forcing you to follow them. Most important of all the WWW is still a free/libre medium open to everyone, including those that want to start their own parties too. Google's party is so huge that not many will be able to make a better party and those that try, don't exactly make their parties any different/better hence people stick to Google's party. You are still free to start your own thing, no one is forcing anyone to stick to Google or to follow its guidelines, it's just that people like to tag along rather than do the work themselves. Or sometimes it's easier and faster to tag along.
You're just repeating what Google says. "You're free to move along." That's not true at all. Google has 85% of WWW search traffic under their control, which means there is no alternative.
Maybe not the best way to put my opinion/understanding forward but I hope it makes sense.
Your opinion is fine, I dig it, but I can agree to disagree with you.
