Clearly details are missing.
If they aren't stopped from doing this they'll repeat the process for one content type after another, and the so-called search engine competition that keeps them honest will be killed completely.
Which in itself is just fine. But now they're using their monopoly position here to bolster another unrelated product. Once you start doing that you're doing an IE/Windows abuse.
http://blip.tv/dashboard/upload
You have choice!
edit: and I love how blip.tv gets the podcast RSS thing.
Blip.tv? The site doesn't look so hot.
http://clojure.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
http://pycon.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
http://djangocon.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
Are my three favorites.
You can also search (this is one I never did before):
http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+site%3Ablip.tv
which led me to:
http://blip.tv/file/399103 and to its channel.
BTW, there is an http://oscon.blip.tv that promises to consume even more of my free time.
And they got the podcast thing right.
Personally, I think competition in the search space might lead to better results.
And Microsoft's Brad Smith saying "It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google" is beyond hypocritical. He can't possibly be stupid enough to believe that himself.
No. Microsoft is not complaining of unfair practices by Google. It's complaining because now they can't use the same practices they always relied on to squash a competitor that has grown too large for them to feel comfortable.
One of the ways that search engines attract users is through distribution of search boxes through Web sites. Unfortunately, Google contractually blocks leading Web sites in Europe from distributing competing search boxes. It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google. Google's exclusivity terms have even blocked Microsoft from distributing its Windows Live services, such as email and online document storage, through European telecommunications companies because these services are monetized through Bing search boxes.
How is Google contractually blocking other search boxes any different than MS telling Dell that if they ship Linux boxes then they can't ship Windows?
The hypocrisy here is staggering.
I would love to see the real complaint and not just Brad Smith's Technet post.
"It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google"
I loved that part. People around me in the office wondered why I laughed so loud.
I find it odd that you're not saying that Google should let there be an open playing field. If a site wants to host both Google and Bing they should be able to.
Of course when it comes to Google they can do no evil -- because they told you so.
Excuse me but wasn't the default browser and default search engine selection mechanisms something Microsoft was forced to adopt (and dragged its feet for as long as they could to do it, in fact, insulting the EU in the process)? I mean... They were perfectly willing to abuse their desktop OS monopoly to push Google and Mozilla out on a regular basis. Now they are shocked by this "blatant" abuse?
Google should not be able to restrict what site owners do with their search boxes or ad spaces. Google should also not prevent Microsoft from indexing its content but I maintain this is not what's happening.
The only reason Microsoft is complaining is to create a bunch of news headlines with "Google" and "Monopoly" in them. When I open a page in YouTube, there is a lot of data there and Bing would be quite effective if it indexed that. Are they suggesting Google sends different content when the crawl comes from Microsoft servers? Let them show it.
Microsoft is the definitive authority on monopoly abuse, but allow me not to take their word for it without proof.
The point has been made, several times by more than one person, and yet you ignore it.
If Google wants to give up some of their marketshare, I'm sure no one will complain. But when you have monopoly status, you are required to play by different rules. MS knows something about that (for example almost everything MS did in the antitrust case would be legal of a company w/o the market influence they had).
Hard to do? Of course it is! Do they want the government to step in to mandate all problems be easy to solve?
Google is even restricting its customers’—namely, advertisers’—access to their own data . . . Google contractually prohibits advertisers from using their data in an interoperable way with other search advertising platforms, such as Microsoft’s adCenter http://searchengineland.com/microsoft-comes-out-of-shadows-w...
And here's "Do No Evil" Google's action in the Skyhook case: Skyhook and Google are competitors in the location positioning space. There was a time when Google tried to compete fairly with Skyhook. But once Google realized its positioning technology was not competitive, it chose other means to undermine Skyhook and damage and attempt to destroy its position in the marketplace for location positioning technology. In complete disregard of its common-law and statutory obligations, and in direct opposition to its public messaging encouraging open innovation, Google wielded its control over the Android operating system, as well as other Google mobile applications such as Google Maps, to force device manufacturers to use its technology rather than that of Skyhook, to terminate contractual obligations with Skyhook, and to otherwise force device manufacturers to sacrifice superior end user experience with Skyhook by threatening directly or indirectly to deny timely and equal access to evolving versions of the Android operating system and other Google mobile applications.
I know in your world Google can do no wrong, but trust me, they do.
And so should Microsoft. If these claims end up being frivolous and this whole thing just a stunt to produce lots of headlines with "Google", "Monopoly" and "Antitrust" in them, Microsoft should also be on the receiving end of a probe about anti-competitive practices.
Hopefully, one that can do what the previous ones couldn't.
The only problem with that is that Soapbox no longer exists. Because Microsoft didn't want to spend any more money on it.
But Microsoft, since it's so offended by what Google is doing, could resurrect Soapbox. They should have plenty of cash coming from those Android patents, BTW. They could also have bought YouTube (Google had their own Google Video, but that was going nowhere and credit goes to them for seeing YouTube first).
The core complaint is that YouTube isn't allowing search engines other than Google to access their metadata, preventing Bing from searching properly.
If Google is actually doing this, and is allowed to continue, then no search engine will be able to compete properly with them.
That's a pretty real and serious accusation.
First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube—and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google.
Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft’s new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It’s done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn’t offer a competing search service.
Unfortunately, Google has refused to allow Microsoft’s new Windows Phones to access this YouTube metadata in the same way that Android phones and iPhones do. As a result, Microsoft’s YouTube “app” on Windows Phones is basically just a browser displaying YouTube’s mobile Web site, without the rich functionality offered on competing phones. Microsoft is ready to release a high quality YouTube app for Windows Phone. We just need permission to access YouTube in the way that other phones already do, permission Google has refused to provide.
Hah! I'd love to hear more details about this. Isn't it up to Microsoft to add fucking HTML5 or Flash support to their phones? How is Google doing anything but providing videos and Microsoft refusing to write code that reads those videos?
This is the dumbest complaint ever, unless there are some details we're missing...I'm curious. This is just too much, it can't be real.