Coffeehouse Thread

19 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Is the greatest opportunity for Microsoft Bing,google out of the Chinese market

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    peterwillcn

    google out of the Chinese market, is the greatest opportunity for Microsoft Bing?

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    I salute Google for making a principled stand (even if the evidence shows that there are other reasons for leaving), but the issue of censorship remains important, especially as it's so close to Sergey Brin's heart (he used to live in the Soviet Union).

     

    If Microsoft wants to maintain the status-quo of its operations in China, that's fine. But if they make any announcement or anything that glorifies the opportunity then I'm going to be annoyed with them.

     

    I won't deny it is an opportunity for Bing, but celebrating this is like throwing a party after being promoted at work, but only because the person you're replacing died in an unfortunate accident.

     

    If Bing wants my respect I'd like to see them make a similar moral stand. Their marketshare in China is substantially less than Google's so I imagine they're also operating at a net loss. It might be wise to leave too.

  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    W3bbo said:

    I salute Google for making a principled stand (even if the evidence shows that there are other reasons for leaving), but the issue of censorship remains important, especially as it's so close to Sergey Brin's heart (he used to live in the Soviet Union).

     

    If Microsoft wants to maintain the status-quo of its operations in China, that's fine. But if they make any announcement or anything that glorifies the opportunity then I'm going to be annoyed with them.

     

    I won't deny it is an opportunity for Bing, but celebrating this is like throwing a party after being promoted at work, but only because the person you're replacing died in an unfortunate accident.

     

    If Bing wants my respect I'd like to see them make a similar moral stand. Their marketshare in China is substantially less than Google's so I imagine they're also operating at a net loss. It might be wise to leave too.

    Sometimes people at work are morons, and celebration is a must, and usually when you are promoted, you are being cultivated to be as unreasonable as the person you are replacing, so when you 'go' a clandestine party will be held.

     

    It's not nice, but that's how things tend to be.

     

    I would love for Bing to follow suit though

  • User profile image
    itsnotabug

    yes. this is a tough position to be in. do as google and you're a follower... exploit their decision and you're a jerk. lose. lose.

     

    i predict growth in china but not because of any specific (*ahem* well marketed) push/strategy. 

     

    google is very good at making other companies look like jerks.

  • User profile image
    JeremyJ

    W3bbo said:

    I salute Google for making a principled stand (even if the evidence shows that there are other reasons for leaving), but the issue of censorship remains important, especially as it's so close to Sergey Brin's heart (he used to live in the Soviet Union).

     

    If Microsoft wants to maintain the status-quo of its operations in China, that's fine. But if they make any announcement or anything that glorifies the opportunity then I'm going to be annoyed with them.

     

    I won't deny it is an opportunity for Bing, but celebrating this is like throwing a party after being promoted at work, but only because the person you're replacing died in an unfortunate accident.

     

    If Bing wants my respect I'd like to see them make a similar moral stand. Their marketshare in China is substantially less than Google's so I imagine they're also operating at a net loss. It might be wise to leave too.

    As was said many times... it is not Microsoft's job to be the moral police.  It is their job to make money.

    It is the job of the Chinese people to change their laws and not the job of Microsoft.

    Microsft = Business

    Microsoft != Government

     

    Could it be any simpler?

  • User profile image
    elmer

    This rumour seems a bit premature just yet, and appears to be based on Google’s non-response to advertising partners, and an apparently incorrect claim that they have missed renewing their “content provider” registration... which Google claims is actually due at the end of March.

     

    While Sergey Brin is on record as being opposed to the Chinese censorship, Eric Schmidt has made clear that he is not so convinced that the best solution is to simply leave.

     

    We’ll see.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    JeremyJ said:
    W3bbo said:
    *snip*

    As was said many times... it is not Microsoft's job to be the moral police.  It is their job to make money.

    It is the job of the Chinese people to change their laws and not the job of Microsoft.

    Microsft = Business

    Microsoft != Government

     

    Could it be any simpler?

    Microsoft's job isn't the "moral police", no, China already has a police for that.

     

    You cannot say that companies are totally amoral: for example, what if Microsoft were in IBM's situation circa 1935: IBM was already providing data handling equipment to the German government, and then they decided to get IBM to build a system for recording the nation's .Jews. IBM could see what was going on, but decided to take the contract anyway, since it was good money.

     

    It's an extreme example, and I apologize for godwinning the thread already, but all companies have a point at which they disagree with what they're doing and decide to back out, Microsoft is clearly more amoral than Google, but probably a lot more than 1930's IBM.

     

    Point is, Microsoft is being complicit with political censorship if they continue operating in China. The argument that they might be able to exert "positive" influence over the Government or are somehow "helping" the population by providing a censured service is bunk.

     

  • User profile image
    Cream​Filling512

    In lieu of Google they can use their state-run search engine which has even far worse censorship.  Google was only allowed there so the Chinese government could pretend to have some degree of normalcy.

  • User profile image
    elmer

    W3bbo said:
    JeremyJ said:
    *snip*

    Microsoft's job isn't the "moral police", no, China already has a police for that.

     

    You cannot say that companies are totally amoral: for example, what if Microsoft were in IBM's situation circa 1935: IBM was already providing data handling equipment to the German government, and then they decided to get IBM to build a system for recording the nation's .Jews. IBM could see what was going on, but decided to take the contract anyway, since it was good money.

     

    It's an extreme example, and I apologize for godwinning the thread already, but all companies have a point at which they disagree with what they're doing and decide to back out, Microsoft is clearly more amoral than Google, but probably a lot more than 1930's IBM.

     

    Point is, Microsoft is being complicit with political censorship if they continue operating in China. The argument that they might be able to exert "positive" influence over the Government or are somehow "helping" the population by providing a censured service is bunk.

     

    Morality, is not a term easily used as a label, as it generally requires conditions and is often uniquely individual.

     

    I suspect a better term for what you are describing is: Commercially Expedient.

     

    Focussing on the immediate commercial benefits, while disregarding the ethics and principles which may be compromised and/or the negative impact to the community.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    elmer said:
    W3bbo said:
    *snip*

    Morality, is not a term easily used as a label, as it generally requires conditions and is often uniquely individual.

     

    I suspect a better term for what you are describing is: Commercially Expedient.

     

    Focussing on the immediate commercial benefits, while disregarding the ethics and principles which may be compromised and/or the negative impact to the community.

    And let's face it Google's decision to leave is not because of moraility but because it's "Commercially Expedient". Given the amount of state sponsored (allegedely) hacking directed against them it makes commercial sense to get out before it gets worse.

  • User profile image
    tfraser

    Google is shooting themselves in the foot if they leave. Eventually the censorship will be toned down (ask any Chinese adolescent for their opinion), and when this happens and Google decides to return they will be in a situation even worse than what Microsoft is facing now in the West. At least Microsoft has had some position in the marketplace, even if it has mostly been a failure. Google will have to start from scratch (again) though, and history suggests that the underdog search engines don't do very well.

     

    Also, the overall trend appears to be towards more censorship and regulation on the Internet, not less. So Google will probably find in the future that the size of the market that it deems morally acceptable is increasingly limited.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    W3bbo said:

    I salute Google for making a principled stand (even if the evidence shows that there are other reasons for leaving), but the issue of censorship remains important, especially as it's so close to Sergey Brin's heart (he used to live in the Soviet Union).

     

    If Microsoft wants to maintain the status-quo of its operations in China, that's fine. But if they make any announcement or anything that glorifies the opportunity then I'm going to be annoyed with them.

     

    I won't deny it is an opportunity for Bing, but celebrating this is like throwing a party after being promoted at work, but only because the person you're replacing died in an unfortunate accident.

     

    If Bing wants my respect I'd like to see them make a similar moral stand. Their marketshare in China is substantially less than Google's so I imagine they're also operating at a net loss. It might be wise to leave too.

    So you're saluting google for passing off their financial reasons for leaving (as you say, there's evidence to suggest that) as a 'principled descision'? Huh.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    W3bbo said:
    JeremyJ said:
    *snip*

    Microsoft's job isn't the "moral police", no, China already has a police for that.

     

    You cannot say that companies are totally amoral: for example, what if Microsoft were in IBM's situation circa 1935: IBM was already providing data handling equipment to the German government, and then they decided to get IBM to build a system for recording the nation's .Jews. IBM could see what was going on, but decided to take the contract anyway, since it was good money.

     

    It's an extreme example, and I apologize for godwinning the thread already, but all companies have a point at which they disagree with what they're doing and decide to back out, Microsoft is clearly more amoral than Google, but probably a lot more than 1930's IBM.

     

    Point is, Microsoft is being complicit with political censorship if they continue operating in China. The argument that they might be able to exert "positive" influence over the Government or are somehow "helping" the population by providing a censured service is bunk.

     

    Microsoft is clearly more amoral than Google

    Really? I remember Schmidt clearly saying that user have effectively no privacy while using Google's services... that's a lot more "amoral" to ma than anything Microsoft ever did.

  • User profile image
    Matthew van Eerde

    JeremyJ said:
    W3bbo said:
    *snip*

    As was said many times... it is not Microsoft's job to be the moral police.  It is their job to make money.

    It is the job of the Chinese people to change their laws and not the job of Microsoft.

    Microsft = Business

    Microsoft != Government

     

    Could it be any simpler?

    > it is not Microsoft's job to be the moral police.  It is their job to make money.

     

    I sort of disagree on this.  Yes, it is not Microsoft's job to dictate moral behavior to others, but we do have a duty to be moral ourselves.

     

    It all works out, though.  In a transparent society, immoral behavior carries a stiff penalty.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    Matthew van Eerde said:
    JeremyJ said:
    *snip*

    > it is not Microsoft's job to be the moral police.  It is their job to make money.

     

    I sort of disagree on this.  Yes, it is not Microsoft's job to dictate moral behavior to others, but we do have a duty to be moral ourselves.

     

    It all works out, though.  In a transparent society, immoral behavior carries a stiff penalty.

    Problem is there's also a responsibilty to shareholders. Which is one of the problems google has as well.

  • User profile image
    itsnotabug

    tfraser said:

    Google is shooting themselves in the foot if they leave. Eventually the censorship will be toned down (ask any Chinese adolescent for their opinion), and when this happens and Google decides to return they will be in a situation even worse than what Microsoft is facing now in the West. At least Microsoft has had some position in the marketplace, even if it has mostly been a failure. Google will have to start from scratch (again) though, and history suggests that the underdog search engines don't do very well.

     

    Also, the overall trend appears to be towards more censorship and regulation on the Internet, not less. So Google will probably find in the future that the size of the market that it deems morally acceptable is increasingly limited.

    "...and history suggests that the underdog search engines don't do very well."

     

    ever heard of a little startup called google? Big Smile

     

    in a perfect world corporations != goverment but we don't live in a perfect world. we live in a gray world where another culture's set of values could possibly deem at&t's handover of personal data to the u.s. government as corporate complicity in something they didn't believe was just.

     

    but yeah, the smart money is investing in china + india. they like 3 billion people.

  • User profile image
    elmer

    Matthew van Eerde said:
    JeremyJ said:
    *snip*

    > it is not Microsoft's job to be the moral police.  It is their job to make money.

     

    I sort of disagree on this.  Yes, it is not Microsoft's job to dictate moral behavior to others, but we do have a duty to be moral ourselves.

     

    It all works out, though.  In a transparent society, immoral behavior carries a stiff penalty.

    In a transparent society, immoral behavior carries a stiff penalty.

     

    Really? In which transparent society is morality legislated ??

    Morality is a personal code of conduct, that can be adopted/taught by like-minded groups, but in a transparent society, is not something that can be unilaterally imposed.

    In most transparent societies, we recognise that there is often a huge rift in the moral codes of people/groups, and that it's not necessarily a problem for that situation to exist... provided the law is not breached by either side.

    I know full well that many people in my community would consider me highly immoral, because of my total rejection of all religions and all of the ridiculous moral codes attached to them... but I don't recall ever being penalised for that.

    There are stiff penalties for breaking the law, but morality is highly flexible, and we often reward behaviour that many would find immoral and/or repugnant.

    Personally, I have a real problem with the financial, legal, real-estate, energy, etc, sectors of business, and consider most of them to be immoral... but they sure get well rewarded for their work.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    elmer said:
    Matthew van Eerde said:
    *snip*

    In a transparent society, immoral behavior carries a stiff penalty.

     

    Really? In which transparent society is morality legislated ??

    Morality is a personal code of conduct, that can be adopted/taught by like-minded groups, but in a transparent society, is not something that can be unilaterally imposed.

    In most transparent societies, we recognise that there is often a huge rift in the moral codes of people/groups, and that it's not necessarily a problem for that situation to exist... provided the law is not breached by either side.

    I know full well that many people in my community would consider me highly immoral, because of my total rejection of all religions and all of the ridiculous moral codes attached to them... but I don't recall ever being penalised for that.

    There are stiff penalties for breaking the law, but morality is highly flexible, and we often reward behaviour that many would find immoral and/or repugnant.

    Personally, I have a real problem with the financial, legal, real-estate, energy, etc, sectors of business, and consider most of them to be immoral... but they sure get well rewarded for their work.

    I think he's refering to immorality on the government's part: in a transparent societ transgressions by the nation's management can be more easily investigated, made public, and so corrected through due-process. When there isn't transparency it's easy for corruption and power abuse to breed.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.