[striglia]

You're comparing them on uneven terms. Show me one company besides Google that can even stack up to what Apple's done in Maps or with Siri. There's none. That's because both require amazing amount of expertise, money, and data to deploy properly. Apple has correctly done what they had to (break off the data flow from iOS to Google) even where it may have reduced the experience for their customers. That's a long term play.

Funny how Google is continuing to corner the data market via acquisitions like Nest. Almost feels...anti-competitive, no? I wonder how long until we start talking about Google the way we still talk about 1990s Microsoft.

Is it plausible that a new company, starting from scratch in the Maps/Search/Personal Assistant/etc. field could actually compete with Google? Or would they just get crushed under the personalizing power of Google's raw data and computational advantage?

[magicalist]

> Show me one company besides Google that can even stack up to what Apple's done in Maps or with Siri

Well Microsoft, easily, if they had the will. I guess the pieces are actually all there, but they aren't as direct with posing it as a "personal assistant" or whatever.

If you consider the products separately: there are several major mapping companies, though there have been a ton of confusing mergers and splits in the last 5 years, not to mention OSM. As for Siri, it was a tiny team at Siri, Inc that created the foundations of Siri. Apple has done a ton with it (though I was hoping for more by now), but you can easily imagine a next-gen Siri coming out of a startup.

> Funny how Google is continuing to corner the data market via acquisitions like Nest. Almost feels...anti-competitive, no?

This becomes a little farcical, honestly. First, you can get far more information from a phone, and there are like 3 orders of magnitude more Android phones out there than there are Nest devices.

But more importantly, if we're going to talk about the "data market" -- as if that's some sort of thing -- virtually any acquisition that has customers would help them corner it. But that also means any other company with customers also has a stake in that "market", in which case, no, it does not feel anti-competitive.

[striglia]

I think you underestimate the importance of context in all of this. You can't build any of these products well without knowing (deeply and certainly) users' patterns. Microsoft has no realistic way of knowing when it routes you to the wrong place...no continuous training data to let it feed and refine a personal assistant. Data products can be cool demos (see Siri) from a startup, but without both the starting dataset and the continuous feedback that you get by deploying these against real users and capturing the resulting behavior, I think they are quite limited. Continuous adaptation and learning is as important as the initial algorithm.

And while I certainly am looking into the future when I talk about cornering the market, I think it's an interesting question to ask how you compete against a company like Google that starts with this much user context. How can you build better experiences when they have the advantage in data, ML expertise, and the raw computational power? The incremental acquisitions of data and companies are not the issue...it's the web of connections that is valuable. And Google is not only trouncing Apple, their only meaningful competitor, in that race...Google is pulling even further ahead.

[product50]

Microsoft search share is around 18% in US and a number of those searches are local (Apple has none of those). Additionally, they have a growing number of Windows 8 devices which they will be using for local/maps and train their models. I have used Bing maps and though it is not as good as Google Maps, it definitely holds up against Apple Maps.

To your initial question that if there is any company which could have built Maps or Siri, Microsoft is more than a good answer. You can try to get really nitpicky on this but it is what it is.

[latch]

Whenever I see a comparison to Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior, I wonder whether people don't understand antitrust law, what Microsoft did, or both.

From a competition point of view, antitrust isn't concerned about where you are, but rather how you got there. As Sherman put it:

"[a person] who merely by superior skill and intelligence...got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist"

As far as we know, Google is doing nothing to prevent other companies, like Apple or Microsoft from making similar acquisitions and/or capitalising on the acquisitions they have made.

Microsoft told OEMs that if they sold more than X computers without Windows, their licensing cost would go up by Y. There's also their embrace, extend and extinguish (their own words) which describes their strategy to adopt a standard (Java), add custom behavior (J/Direct) and thus breaking the standard and weakening the product. And this isn't all of it, and they also did some stupid stuff in court (submitting faked videos and getting caught).

As long as Google's behavior doesn't hurt consumers nor does it unfairly disadvantage competition (and being too good and too big isn't enough, they need to actively undermine them), the comparison is absolutely and totally flawed.

[pmelendez]

"as well as he could was not a monopolist"

This sounds very strange to me given the fact that by definition a monopoly is the control of a market by one entity, it doesn't have anything to do with how it gets there.

[freehunter]

Having a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing that monopoly to gain unfair advantage in another market is illegal. People use the term "monopoly" to interchangeably mean "legal monopoly" and "illegal monopoly", which does get confusing.

[pmelendez]

>"Having a monopoly is not illegal."

Well that depends on the country. In some countries monopolies are illegal and the government is the only one that can perform ones.

Also, questionable practices are not necessarily illegal. For instance, no that long ago (well 20 years or so is not that long for me), having privileged information on wall street wasn't illegal, but questionable.