Microsoft paying news outlets to bail on Google

GnomeQueenGnomeQueen The Lulz QueenMountain Dew Mouth Icrontian
edited December 2009 in Science & Tech
Microsoft paying news outlets to bail on Google

Comments

  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Icrontian
    edited November 2009
    Ethics concerns?
  • LincLinc Owner Detroit Icrontian
    edited November 2009
    Wow, Microsoft is indeed determined to drive itself into the ground with all the force it can muster.

    I don't think it's an ethics concern; it's a concern for MS's shareholders about how it's going to further damage its non-Windows finances.
  • QCHQCH Ancient Guru Chicago Area - USA Icrontian
    edited November 2009
    Ethical... not sure but didn't Intel use similar tactics against AMD? Hmmmmm what was the EU fine for that again?
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Icrontian
    edited November 2009
    QCH wrote:
    Ethical... not sure but didn't Intel use similar tactics against AMD? Hmmmmm what was the EU fine for that again?

    That is what I am thinking. Paying someone not to use the other guy? Just seems wrong to me.
  • shwaipshwaip bluffin' with my muffin Icrontian
    edited November 2009
    Eh, they can have News Corp.
  • ButtersButters CA Icrontian
    edited November 2009
    shwaip wrote:
    Eh, they can have News Corp.

    Thank you, I wasn't going to say it.
  • airbornflghtairbornflght Houston, TX Icrontian
    edited November 2009
    What they are attempting to do is roll back history and limit consumer choice.

    I don't much like the idea of going to the store for food and being told which brands I may purchase.
  • GrimnocGrimnoc Marion, IN
    edited November 2009
    airbornflght wrote:
    I don't much like the idea of going to the store for food and being told which brands I may purchase.

    Then go to a different store. This happens naturally in stores all the time as some carry brands that others do not.
  • GrimnocGrimnoc Marion, IN
    edited November 2009
    Cliff_Forster wrote:
    Ethics concerns?

    Nope. Not in the slightest. It would become an ethical concern if Google were forced to index or display results they would otherwise choose not to(for whatever reason that may be).
  • TheHeartSmasherTheHeartSmasher
    edited November 2009
    Grimnoc wrote:
    Nope. Not in the slightest. It would become an ethical concern if Google were forced to index or display results they would otherwise choose not to(for whatever reason that may be).

    Yeah the whole safe search service that google provides would have to killed if they where forced to show all indexed material without some sort of warning. I think if Microsoft where able to innovate better ideas they would not have ideas of paying off sites to remove their indexing from Google. As in the end it hurts the end the end user and will decrease traffic from those that remove their results from Google search. One rule of business that many large companies keep forgetting is if you want to beat the other guy you should work hard at it and innovate to keep ahead of your competitor. Google did this and now they are number 1 in the search engine game. I don't know about you guys but when I use Bing I don't always find what I am looking for when compared to what I get when I use Google.
  • GrimnocGrimnoc Marion, IN
    edited November 2009
    Grimnoc wrote:
    Nope. Not in the slightest. It would become an ethical concern if Google were forced to index or display results they would otherwise choose not to(for whatever reason that may be).

    Upon re-reading the initial article this makes no sense. What I meant to communicate was that if a search engine (such as Bing or Google) decides on their own to not list something (for whatever reason) it is not unethical. It however would be unethical to force them to list something they would otherwise choose not to (for whatever reason).
  • Savage
    edited December 2009
    Of course it is wrong to pay off businesses to favor your products!!! WTF!!!! Why is it that this is allowed in the first place!! It is politics! They have been allowed to do these things because of less regulation.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI Icrontian
    edited December 2009
    Only wrong if you're a monopoly, etc
Sign In or Register to comment.