Maybe I'm a sucker for doing it for free but I usually end up defending Google. It's not because I'm particularly fond of them but because the criticism is often unfair and sometimes downright ridiculous.
They developed an open source mobile operating system, yet get pummelled for adding a few proprietary bits in ways that MS and Apple, who develop completely closed systems, never are.
Whenever they make changes that are obviously beneficial for regular users (featuring the most likely result on top of SERP, sorting e-mail into categories, purging web spam), there's a torrent of articles usually critical of the change. And it would be completely understandable if those were power users who genuinely lose out on many of those changes but no. Those are completely unsubstantiated accusations about trying to boost their bottom line.
Microsoft bashing on the other hand is not some conspiracy against SV outsiders but rather a legacy of their fight against open source, including providing funds to SCO.
SCO - the historical one, first licensed and then purchased Xenix from Microsoft - remember that Microsoft sold Unix for many years. The historical SCO purchased Xenix in part with shares in their company giving Microsoft an ownership stake in the historical SCO.
With the historical SCO's asset sale came the asset of contractual relationships with Microsoft. In various lawsuits, Microsoft's actions are dictated by those contracts and the exposure various alternative courses would create.
Bashing Microsoft was the cornerstone of a long running multi-billion dollar ad campaign of a popular investor backed Silicon Valley based company. None of it was related to Open Source or SCO. The chief commercial proponent of Open Source was another investor backed Silicon Valley company now owned by Oracle. The company which drove the anti-trust case against Microsoft was an investor backed Silicon Valley company - sold to the tune of $10 billion to a company which mass mailed low quality drink coasters at the turn of the millennium. One of the thereby enriched founders is a leading Silicon Valley VC [a model SVVC so to speak].
Organic MicroSoft bashing looks like Richard Stallman. Done on principle, Google and Apple don't get to buy indulgences.
They developed an open source mobile operating system, yet get pummelled for adding a few proprietary bits in ways that MS and Apple, who develop completely closed systems, never are.
Whenever they make changes that are obviously beneficial for regular users (featuring the most likely result on top of SERP, sorting e-mail into categories, purging web spam), there's a torrent of articles usually critical of the change. And it would be completely understandable if those were power users who genuinely lose out on many of those changes but no. Those are completely unsubstantiated accusations about trying to boost their bottom line.
Microsoft bashing on the other hand is not some conspiracy against SV outsiders but rather a legacy of their fight against open source, including providing funds to SCO.