11.24.09
Confirmed: Murdoch Waves Goodbye to Google in Order to Please Ballmer
Summary: Microsoft and Murdoch are said to be engaging in talks while Murdoch is badmouthing Google using ridiculous claims
MURDOCH’S LATEST mischiefs with Microsoft are a subject that we covered in:
- Microsoft Colludes Against Google
- Microsoft’s Search Endeavours: Resorting to Bribery, Deception, and Intimidation
- Microsoft’s Use of Bribes for Search, Only 4% of Microsoft/Razorfish Clients Used Microsoft Search
- Mainstream Media Finally Discovers Microsoft’s Anti-Google AstroTurf
- Microsoft’s Anti-Google Whisper Campaign
- What Makes Mr. Murdoch Tick
- Spoof: Behind the Google Scenes
- Google’s (Staff) Index Poisoned by Microsoft
What ever happened to the “new Microsoft”? Are Microsoft’s critics just irrational “Microsoft haters”, or is it possible that there is something inherently wrong with Microsoft’s behaviour? We wrote about this question last week [1, 2].
To present some of the latest news and developments, here is confirmation that Microsoft and Murdoch are talking.
The push by News International to get Mainstream media to de-list from Google is the latest and most public salvo in this war but it won’t be the last. The Mainstream media is hurting badly, and – given the alternatives are pretty bleak – one option is to force Google to hand some of the surplus back by taking away their bat and ball elsewhere, reducing Google to search the “Long Tail of Crap” that is the rest of the Web (as far as the mainstream market is concerned, anyway). In fact, the latest twist in the tale, that Microsoft and News International are reaching a pact to delist from Google and go exclusively elsewhere, also illustrates the second trend…
John Dvorak calls it “an ugly rumor,” but he also dismisses Microsoft’s motives and method.
It’s an ugly rumor. There’s no way Microsoft would resort to bribing Web sites to get delisted from Google, is there? I mean, aside from the restraint of trade issues and the callback to the tribulations the company went through with its dirty Internet Explorer tricks, Microsoft has learned to compete fairly, right? Not so, according to the reports stemming from a Financial Times article, which highlights the company’s desire to team-up with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., in order to screw Google.
This whole thing began when Murdoch began to complain that Google was “stealing” News Corp. content. He demanded that the company pay a pittance or he would pull the plug, preventing Google from spidering its sites. Google searches provide between 25 and 50 percent of the page views of just about any site. This includes blogs, newspapers, everything. Would Murdoch throw away 25 to 50 percent of his sites’ revenue just to spite Google? Yeah, right.
The Guardian explains why Google’s service cannot be compared to “theft” or “stealing”.
The emancipatory potential of the free dissemination of intellectual property through infinite replication is overwhelming. Unlike private property that is subject to scarcity, supply and demand laws and other rigid determinations, immaterial property poses an explosive threat to our deeply rooted notions of proprietorship.
It is not only because there can be potentially infinite owners of property that the internet redefines our notion of it. It is also that people who participate in the exchange of immaterial works do not treat them as property. When they exchange music, books or movies, they are not merely transferring ownership from themselves to others; they simply do not recognise themselves as owners in the first place.
The BBC publicly rejects Murdoch’s stance and Glyn Moody adds: “oh, bad luck, Rupert [Murdoch], that’s your little plan scuppered…”
Moody also writes in a standalone post:
Poor Mr Murdoch, bless his cotton socks, is still thinking in terms of command and control – with him doing both; the Internet doesn’t quite work like that – despite the best efforts of repressive governments around the world (I’m looking at *you*, Gordon).
That’s a reference to Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister. █
NotZed said,
November 25, 2009 at 6:03 pm
About time he put his money where his mouth is. I read ‘news.com.au’ all the time, but most of the stories are from other services anyway so I doubt I’d even notice if they vanished from the internet. And it might open up space for more interesting news sources in search results.
Interesting that young James is basically complaining about competition. Typical monopolist I guess.