Google is dropping its case against the US Department of the Interior over that organization’s refusal to consider any cloud-applications provider apart from Microsoft. Google brought the case after it was excluded from bidding for the contract to provide cloud-app services to the DoI, which determined that only Microsoft’s …
The Inertia of Big Government and Big Corporations
Too often, when a contract comes up for renewal, large organisations opt for the old route with the same supplier.
Look at OpenOffice - only the cash-strapped or more adventurous even considered it. I was in a meeting once where the MS sales rep even suggested that open source software was written by 'amateurs' which was why it was either free or low-cost.
I suggested 'amateurs' were at the forefront of technology, such as the radio amateurs.
Likely the government purchasing agent for the DOI was buddy-buddy with his supplier rep who might have even prepared a draft sales order, which frequently happens, ensuring that only one company - his - can fulfil the order.
Google did well in having the order re-opened. May the best product win.
I just don't know...
...who to root for.
Unfortunately there isn't a Linux solution, but that would be another flame war!
Why can't we just get along ?
Maybe my response is too simplistic, I dunno, but so far all I see from US companies is "sue here", "sue there", "protest against $model here", "try to get $model banned there".
And all under "perfect" US law and patent rulings of course. Oh MY, the competition managed to come up with a product which looks like ours BUT their activation button sits around12mm too close to fall outside of our patent. That can't be; you're violating our rights; WE'LL SUE!
Why can't you knuckleheads let the public decide what they like best and instead of trying to take it out on the competition reflect on your (possible) customers choices and let it reflect back onto you? Gee, maybe the customers doesn't WANT to use your stuff because of reasons you never bothered paying attention to.
And instead of listening and learning we'll just cry like the baby we are (note: this is /not/ solely aimed at Google here) and as a true US company we'll SUE. No, we're not going to reflect on what we've learned and try to make our products or services better; what idiot would care about that stuff? No, we'll sue!
Wake up call you idiots: your customers apparently care about your services and products. And if you'd try to adjust your stuff to what the public wants you might actually gain more money than by trying to legally swindle your competition out of the market.
because, at least in the short term, there is a crap load of money in it, in many cases companies actually make more money doing other things then selling the product they made, it seems to be the direction we are moving which is a very very short sighted way of looking at things. Unfortunately that seems to be the way most of the world is going at the moment
Ordinarily I'd agree with your rant,
but this article is specifically referring to government contracts, and the only way to get them to change policy is to sue.
What surprises me in this instance is that the judge didn't immediately issue a restraining order against the DoI - their policy was flatly anti-competitive and absent a compelling reason for the sole source, in violation of US law. Can't say I'm surprised with the final decision. One of the truisms of the tech world is that the technology advances faster than the law can keep up with.
How does Microsoft have a monopoly for cloud computing? Very misleading title. Also, isn't it bizarre how "in light of new developments in technology" Google can now be reconsidered? Is this how things are going to work now? If you don't have a product to meet the requirements, file a suit, work to improve your product and hope to be reconsidered. Government is slow enough as it is without vendors playing games to keep every bid up for grabs.
The RFP required Microsoft Office instead of (as an RFP is suppose to) stating the functional requirements.
Kind of hard to have a fair bidding process when only one vendor is allowed to bid.
Google avoids the oppourtunity...
.. to refute in a court of a law the assertion that the Google Apps service was not properly secure.
'Oh, sorry. Of COURSE we will look at your products as well!'
*turns product over in hands with thoughtful expression before tossing it over their shoulder*
'OK, back to what we were doing...'
what I was thinking.
Nothing says that they have to go with it. No matter if it *is* better/faster/cheaper/stronger.
Microsoft has a lot of companies locked in with all the crap they have and make it had for them to look at FOSS solutions. Or any other solution.
Hopefully my Lintard isn't showing.
I knew government officials were mad, but...
...surely we aren't expect to believe they chose Microsoft as the most SECURE option?????
When compared to the oh-so-secure Android, Chrome and Google services?!
Any monopoly is evil
Yeah, Android is secure ifyou do not install the malware by YOUR OWN very-knowledgeable-windie-hands. As far as the stuxnet/conficker/you-name-it virus loving system from Redmond is concerned, malware installs onto the OS BY ITSELF.
Whereas Android comes with a ready-made, built-in system for it.
Rubbish - load of crap...
"In the court ruling, Judge Susan Braden states that in light of advances in technology, the DoI has now agreed to consider new bids for the contract to supply cloudy office apps from Microsoft, Google, and others." - what a load of bull-crap. The DoI was obviously scared into submission by the potential billion dollar suit...
- +Comment Anti-Facebook Ello: Here's why we're still in beta. SPAMGASM!
- NASA rover Curiosity drills HOLE in MARS 'GOLF COURSE'
- WHY did Sunday Mirror stoop to slurping selfies for smut sting?
- Business is back, baby! Hasta la VISTA, Win 8... Oh, yeah, Windows 9
- George Clooney, WikiLeaks' lawyer wife hand out burner phones to wedding guests