Share via


Still Seeking Resolution to Search Competition Issues

Posted by Dave Heiner
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, Microsoft

Two years ago, Microsoft applauded the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the European Commission when they opened their antitrust investigations into Google’s business practices. We believed then, as we do now, that the future of competition in search is at stake in these investigations. This is important not just for Microsoft, but for the thousands of smaller companies whose businesses depend on a competitive search marketplace. That is why so many companies have made their concerns about Google’s misconduct known to regulators on both sides of the Atlantic.

The European Commission has stated publicly that Google must address four areas of concern regarding its business practices, or else it will face enforcement action. We understand that the European Commission and Google are working toward a binding, enforceable legal order that would address these competition law concerns. Meanwhile, in the United States, news reports have stated that the FTC may close its investigation if Google merely makes certain “voluntary commitments” to reform its behavior. Separately, news reports suggest that Google will finally agree to live up to its promises to make its standard essential patents available to all on reasonable terms. Unfortunately, this agreement appears to be less demanding than the pledge the U.S. Department of Justice received from Apple and Microsoft nearly a year ago.

You might think that Google would be on its best behavior given it’s under the bright lights of regulatory scrutiny on two continents, particularly as it seeks to assure antitrust enforcers in the U.S. and Europe that it can be trusted on the basis of non-binding assurances that it will not abuse its market position further.

However, as we enter 2013, that is not the case. Here’s just one example: We continue to be dogged by an issue we had hoped would be resolved by now: Google continues to prevent Microsoft from offering consumers a fully featured YouTube app for the Windows Phone.

We formally raised this concern almost two years ago with the European Commission. (See “Adding our Voice to Concerns about Search in Europe,” Microsoft on the Issues, March 30, 2011.) Subsequently, we’ve discussed this matter with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which also is investigating Google’s misconduct.

As we wrote at the time, these restrictions are just one example of where we believe Google is impeding competition in the marketplace:

“[I]n 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.”  

Despite government scrutiny, Google continues to block Microsoft from offering its customers proper access to YouTube. This is an important issue because consumers value YouTube access on their phone: YouTube apps on the Android and Apple platforms were two of the most downloaded mobile applications in 2012, according to recent news reports. Yet Google still refuses to allow Windows Phone users to have the same access to YouTube that Android and Apple customers enjoy. Microsoft has continued to engage with YouTube personnel over the past two years to remedy this problem for consumers. As you might expect, it appears that YouTube itself would like all customers – on Windows Phone as on any other device – to have a great YouTube experience. But just last month we learned from YouTube that senior executives at Google told them not to enable a first-class YouTube experience on Windows Phones. 

Google often says that the antitrust offenses with which it has been charged cause no harm to consumers. Google is wrong about that. In this instance, for example, Google’s refusal deprives consumers who use competing platforms of a comparable experience in accessing content that is generally available on the Web, almost all of which is created by users rather than by Google itself. And it’s inconsistent, to say the least, with Google’s public insistence that other competing services, such as Facebook, should offer Google complete access to their content so they can index and include it on their search site. 

Google dismisses these concerns as little more than sour grapes by one of its competitors. But the reality is that consumers and competitors alike are getting “scroogled” across the Web on a daily basis from this type of misconduct. 

Hopefully, Google will wake up to a New Year with a resolution to change its ways and start to conform with the antitrust laws. If not, then 2013 hopefully will be the year when antitrust enforcers display the resolve that Google continues to lack.

Comments

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    Does Google prevent you from delivering Portico to unlocked phones too?

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    treat google as second class on windows :)

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    @demba, unless I misunderstood, MS is willing to develop a full blown YouTube app for WP. Why would Google not allow it? What would be the cost to Google/YouTube for allowing that, regardless of WP market share?

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    @Demba Microsoft is not asking Youtube to develop the apps. Just to allow Windows Phone access to Youtube similar to the access that iPhone developers have been getting. Disallowing Microsoft (and RIM) the same acces as android and iphone developers This case is similar as how Microsoft was forced in antitrust cases to allow fair access to Windows file servers and Exchange mail servers by opening their protocols or similar to opening up the MS Office binary and Office open XML fileformats. If Micrsoft would take severely limit access to Exchange servers from Android phones making android phones useless in most commercial mail environments they would certainly get in trouble with the antitrust autorities.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    @BIGBENWP No company cares about Linux, and No company cares about Windows Phone. Deal with it. You have access via the mobile site, and thats why Google won't be forced to create API's for Microsoft. Google is handling this with impeccable precision. Microsoft and Windows Phone will be strangled off from Googles popular services, and it will ensure Windows Phone remains stillborn.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    Where is the Skype app for BlackBerry ?

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
     @Lols   NO ONE CARES ABOUT LINUX MATE. WINDOWS IS POPULAR AND PEOPLE ARE DEVEELOPING WINDOWS PHONE, SO SOME DEVS CARE ABOUT WINDOWS PHONE. SO SHUT UP

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    @Demba Because no one used office in that situation, or would. But they are developing it for over platforms, iOS, android and so on, where it would get used. Marketshare has nothing to do with it, because it doesn't cost them anything to allow someone to access an API, they are simply blocking it. MS are trying to improve their software, and google are blocking them access to improve it! This is exactly what anti-trust should be about, not stupid internet browsers that you could quite easily freely download another and not have any issue with never using IE again. Umm... you can buy bare computers from quite a few places... And if you don't want to use windows, and don't want an OS on it anyway, you are clearly capable of building your own computer. Do you really think consumers want to buy a computer that doesn't work because it has no Operating System? Grow up.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    @Lols windows phone is nearly 3 YEARS OLD AND its growing not a stillborn you make me laugh. so shut up. Google needs to be sued for being stupid, you will say the same thing to blackberry (stillborn) platform. wow.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    @Lols marketshare got nothing to do with Youtube not being on windows phone, windows phone is 2.5 (2010) years old and Google still in 2013 haven't released youtube app for windows phone. not being open to 3rd parties, on api, being the next Apple. closed limited services, that's why I throwed my droid in the bin.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
     @john ITS IN THE WORK OR YOU CAN SIDELOAD ANDROID SKYPE APP ON BLACKBERRY 10, TADA, YOU GOT SKYPE.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    Much in the same way that Microsoft decides to block everyone out of incorporating their DirectX API on other OS. The day that Microsoft decides to stop being an egocentric, selfish entity will probably be the day that other companies will reciprocate. Moral of the story for Microsoft is Don't ask others to share their own stuff when you're not willing to do the same.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    Here's the thing though... Google allows access to all of the information from Youtube, Google+, Blogger, etc to competing search engines. The details of the deal with the Youtube app for iOS are not publicly available, but Google was pretty tightly integrated with iOS at the time. It was the default search engine and they gave access to Youtube and Maps to Apple. Apple was probably paying them for that access, or it was allowed because Google was the default search engine. That being said, Apple no longer has access to that API. Nobody does. Right now, Youtube works great from any web browser, and is more feature-rich in the web browser than it was on the Apple-made iOS app (not the current Google-made iOS app). MS, you are in no position to complain about this. Google is fully within their rights, and if Windows Phone eventually gains the market share to make it worthwhile, I'm sure Google will be happy to develop an app for the platform. But for now, it's not worthwhile for Google to do so.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    LOL! is MS serious? all they do is trash Google at every turn, and now want to play with their toys... MS is a failure at playing fair and the company is now paying for it.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    I dont believe this FUD.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    @Lola   google =fail. sorry google.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    @Al DIRECTX IS NOT A SERVICE, ITS A GRAPHIC API OF GRAPHIC CORE OF WINDOWS, SO THATS A DIFFERENT STORY, GOOGLE YOTUBE IS A SERVICE, AND NOT BRINGING INTO ALL PLATFORMS, ONE DAY GOOGLE WILL FEEL THE SAME THING THAT MICROSOFT HAD, WITH YOTUBE TROUBLES IN WP.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    @Tassels MS got the right to block Google search on IE too. its got nothing to do with marketshare mate.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    @BIGP ; They are looking for the same thing, access to the Youtube API, so they can create their own Youtube app. Google will not do so, they already stated they have no plans for any Windows based apps. Point being is, Microsoft keeps not wanting to share with other platforms their own DirectX software, while doing absolutely nothing worthwhile to innovate, capitalize, or promote it in any way, shape, or form, but keeping a tight monopoly on it simply because it's theirs. Why is Google not entitled to do the same? Especially after never-ending continuous Social Network slandering? [url]skattertech.com/.../i-won-the-windows-phone-challenge-but-lost-just-because[/url] [url]www.droid-life.com/.../microsofts-new-droidrage-twitter-campaign-against-android-backfires[/url] Microsoft is being incredibly selfish and entitled, if and when they decide to change their approach to marketing and property management in general then they might see others do the same, but for that to happen the world will need to see a little bit of good faith from Microsoft first.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    does the opposite. lol.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    Seems like double standards, complaining about Antitrust rules whilst locking Mozilla out of Windows RT. Microsoft is taking inspiration from Apple; and is repeating the IE monopolising game again.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    So make something better than YouTube. You aren't entitled to an app from a competitor.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    Dear Dave Heiner, how come XBOX have a beautiful Youtube App, with Categories, See Later, and so on, and Windows Phone have any? Could you use the same API?

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    well you did allso block Wordperfect , netscape , and in 2011 on windows phone 7 you block 4000 developers, with your marketplace stunt wicth manny are bankrupt now,,

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    Have you seen the outlook.com app for android?... there might as well not be one with this lovely interface: play.google.com/.../details

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    I love Windows Phone but i'm old enough to remember Microsoft's past history.  All that comes to mind is Malcom X's comment about "chickens coming home to roost".   :)

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    What would be the problem with windows starting their own video streaming site?

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    When Android gets a fully featured Office app, Microsoft sounds like a whiny hypocrite.

  • Anonymous
    January 02, 2013
    *Until Android ^^

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Oh my sides, Microsoft is complaining about this? How about DirectX, Win32, SMB and AD (ok MS was forced to give documentation about the last two by a judge). Microsoft is trying since years to boot the competition with undocumented closed APIs and Services and now they complain about this?

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Yes - it certainly seems like Google has studied the history of how Microsoft has prevented others from getting a foothold where Microsoft was dominating. Hypocritical that such a statement is coming from Microsoft.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    SMB, LDAP, NTFS, xFat, Office...

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Microsoft, you have just experienced the concept known as "Karma". If Google are in fact doing this, then I can fully understand why Microsoft would be justified to complain. However given Microsoft's past tactics in trying to undermine the competition, perhaps they should eat humble pie. Anti-competitive browser tactics through bundling, non-compliant standards (IE6), deliberately making it hard for SAMBA to integrate with AD, these are just two things that have personally turned me against Microsoft in the past. More recently, launching Twitter campaigns to try and spread Android FUD and on the other complaining that Google aren't playing fair? Take a look in the mirror Microsoft. Maybe, just maybe, Microsoft shouldn't be complaining so much when they block or use non-standard protocols on their devices, in particular WP ones:

  • Skydrive, the more or less standard way to get stuff in and out of Windows Phones, doesn't implement WebDAV in a open manner, making it difficult to use with Linux or BSD;
  • The hardware search button in Windows Phone is tied to bing, and users can't change it;
  • Windows Phone doesn't support standard protocols (standard MTP, USB file access) to access its filesystem, so it doesn't play well with Linux or BSD;
  • Windows RT and Windows Phone specify a locked bootloader, so that users can't install anything else on their devices; I could go on and on here, but these 4 examples should be enough... They really should fix their act before complaining that others aren't playing fair.
  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Ironic, isn't it? Karma is a ***.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Can you use chrome on xbox? No, you have to use Internet explorer. Can you change from Bing to Google search? No, Bing or Ask. Don't complain.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Chickens coming home to roost, I'd say. Microsoft are an irrelevance in the mobile sphere, so why should anyone care?

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Yeah right..

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Firefox for windows RT coming soon.. NOT.:-)

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Haha What goes around comes around, Microsoft.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Lol, the company whose business modell is acting unfair ("Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" and FUD) is whining about harmless market strategies of its competitors.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    I had to check the calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1st after reading this.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Ever heared about a software called browser?

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Cry baby cry

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Well done Microsoft - who's laughing now? Keeping formats over the years non public and whining when others do the same. Seriously I hope that you'll be blocked from all services like you did it in the same way in the past.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    still waiting for the full skype documentation to build working skype gateways for asteriks.... oh wait...

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Ok Microsoft, where is the Skype app for Playbook and BalckBerry 10? Thousands of users are begging you for over a year, but you seem to hear selectively. You want your WinRT to join the league of Android and iOS - you listen. You don't want RIM to challenge you over the 3rd vendor spot - you ignore. Hypocrisy is your name!

  • Ex-Microsoftee
  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    cough Skype cough Shame on you

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Heiner doesn't get to play the saint card as long as the company is proven guilty of the exact same conduct they accuse their competitors of. tl;dr = Hey Heiner! Yes you! Where's skype for android? or blackberry? i can continue the list but i don't think i have to, you all know the deal very well.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    IE has been THE most problematic Non-confirming browser from the dawn of Internet.  IE does not know what it means to be HTML5 conforming and its own ActiveX/security has been the most ridiculous tale in the industry.  Yet, you Monopolize the browser market by bundling that browser to Windows OS, how does that give you any rights to complain about anti-trust?  Do you have No Shame?

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Every time Microsoft cries an angel gets its wings.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    I'm sure it's on their radar....

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    MS ,Enjoy eating your own dogfood. And I wish google/apple will sue you for patents the way you did to HTC and Amdocs.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    developers.google.com/youtube

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    whining

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    I'm sorry Dave, you don't like it then create your own MS controlled video site to compete. The internet is not exclusive to YouTube. Oh, and I'll add, yea, MS has been wholly forthcoming in making sure they don't have any anti-trust issues. A post like this coming from a ranking MS "C" should be fired.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    I am confused - you say that Google have no rights to deny you access to the data and its anti-competitive. Yet Microsoft in the law suit with Novell over WordPerfect is taking the stand point that it is under NO legal obligation to provide access to its API to anyone. So which one is it ?

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    maybe microsoft should take from google its messanger app hotmail and xbox and everything.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Microsoft is the worst monopolist ever. They have no right to complain.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    On a side note and with direct respect to my post which immediately precedes this: Bing is another Cow Flop. You people just don't get it, do?

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Demba: "Why does Microsoft not develop Microsoft Office for Linux ????" Simple. Greed and Open Source do not play well together.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Google is not under any obligation to open up private APIs to anyone else.  On the other hand, Microsoft is certainly free to buy an Android phone and reverse-engineer the YouTube app.  Google's unlikely to make a change that will break their own apps, so stop whining, Microsoft, and get your engineers on it.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    Sour Grapes. Period.

  • Anonymous
    January 03, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 04, 2013
    Mostly agree with this post. On the other hand , these are the same kinds of practices Microsoft engaged in for years. But on the flip side , this is a totally different beast we are dealing with now , so isn`t comparable to the tie-in Microsoft had in the past.

  • Anonymous
    January 04, 2013
    Well, sir, now you know how I felt when, using my Linux work station, I would go to a web site that used Silverlight and COULD NOT EVEN VIEW THE SITE. Nada, Nothing, Zilch--a white page. The Moonlight replacement did not even work. I am hard-pressed to feel the least bit sorry for you and your company, now that you're on the receiving end of that which you dished out for years.

  • Anonymous
    January 04, 2013
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 04, 2013
    readwrite.com/.../googles-ftc-settlement-is-an-epic-fail-for-microsoft

  • Anonymous
    January 04, 2013
    Everyone is missing the point of the investigation and the outcome. Read the bit by former FTC Chairman here: online.wsj.com/.../SB10001424127887323874204578220050460529918.html The key piece of information here is not that Google displays their information first, which they have a right to do. It was whether Google had a monopoly on HOW people searched. At any point in time, if you felt Google was giving you unbiased search results, you could always use Yahoo and/or Bing; fact is, nobody does because Google gives you, the consumer, the best results the fastest. Period. If MS doesn't like the fact that Google doesn't build a YouTube app for Windows Mobile, they should build their own YouTube; nothing is stopping them. Just because I make shoes doesn't mean I have to make them in all sizes; sure, I'll sell more, but I'm the shoe maker and I can make whatever size I want. Same here, Google owns YouTube and can/should choose who they build the app for. MS doesn't build an Office Suite for all Operating Systems; why? Because it isn't to their advantage so they build it for the two largest OS segments, Windows and Apple. Google build a YouTube app for the two most popular mobile clients, Android and iOS. They have stated that if/when Windows mobile becomes more popular, they will build the app. If less than 2% of the population wears a size 13 shoe, guess what kind of shoes I'm not going to make?

  • Anonymous
    January 04, 2013
    I found this blog to be miss leading and unsupported.  So Microsoft has complaints against Google, who cares?  Do you have any specific complaints or just veiled warnings about impending doom? The only example provided in your blog is the YouTube app for windows phone.  This example, while pertinent, is lacking key details, like the reason provided with the denial.  For all we know your app may be the problem.  Digging into the details which were provided, you are complaining about a lack of "...search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth..." in the existing YouTube app.  Strangely all of these seem to be search related, are you saying Bing can not be used to replace the search features provided by Google? In reality Microsoft is to blame for the lack of YouTube access.  As you stated, the lack of an advanced YouTube app denies users "...comparable experience in accessing content that is generally available on the Web...".  The solution is to enable a full web experience on Windows Phone.  Then, not only will users have full access to YouTube and all its features, they will also have access to every other great web product which Microsoft has denied its phone users from using.  I know many people who would jump ship for a fully functional web browser on their smart phones.

  • Anonymous
    January 04, 2013
    Hahahahahahahaha! What's wrong microcrap, dont like the taste of your own medicine? This is exactly what you did to BeOS and trying to do to Linux. It wont work this time, your time passed, you are more and more irrelevant by the day. Lead by example, you want Google to release their apps on your dead platform?, then release Office and Silverlight on Linux! Yeah, its not going to happen. Your company has done enough damage to the advancement in the technology field with your monopolistic ways. Its time to go.

  • Anonymous
    January 05, 2013
    Yet, you still sue every Android phone manufacturer and get money from each sold phone. Great job. Yeah, yeah. Google is sooo evil.

  • Anonymous
    January 05, 2013
    Very interesting article. Unfortunately I lack of the button to share it on my google+ account :(

  • Anonymous
    January 07, 2013
    jansch "where I haven' t been forced to pay for a Windows license I didn't want and didn't need)" You're almost right, you didn't have to pay for a Windows license but you did end up paying them a royalty for that Android phone.  

  • Anonymous
    January 10, 2013
    Let me get this straight, you're complaining about Google while denying my Firefox from accessing MSN?  Glad to see hypocrisy doesn't remain the purview of the right-wingers alone.  BTW you haven't fixed win7 yet, here comes win8!  LOL Happy New Year!

  • Anonymous
    December 18, 2013
    Pingback from Mobile trends and predictions for 2013 « Tomi Engdahl’s ePanorama blog

  • Anonymous
    December 26, 2013
    The comment has been removed