You are twisting the argument. Their "extensions" to the web, each and everyone of them, is open source. Find me one of web projects that is not open source. They are giving their platforms away for free and are mostly open source. They compete for use of services.
Microsoft used embrace, extend, extinguish. All of their platforms cost money. They compete(d) for use of platform.
This is exactly why they are different. Maybe equally evil, but different. That is why I say "Google is the next Microsoft" is wrong. Could you please respond to that instead of twisting the argument?
Firstly - to be the next something, you don't have to be exactly the same. If you are exactly the same, you are not the next one - you are the previous one, but late.
Secondly - as far as Google is concerned - their services ARE their platform. The browser/device used to be a "thin client", but once you start doing shit like putting remote desktop functionality into a browser, there is nothing "thin" about it. So now they have a server-side platform, and a client side beluga whale browser that makes their platform "work best".
Google's tactics in general terms are similar to Microsofts. They use their position in the market to (attempt to) introduce technologies that they control. Their continued (ab)use of the term "open source" is fairly standard for them now:
create/buy <something>. announce/change it as "open source". nerds rejoice. release actual closed source product "based on" the open source version, with no way for user to verify the differences between the two.
Remind me when Internet Explorer or Hotmail or MSN/Bing was sold for money?
> All of this "non-standard stuff" is open sourced.
Show me where Chrome or Chrome OS are open source.
Explain to me how Android can be considered open source when companies are forced to ship it with Google's services?
> this "Google is the next Microsoft" meme is demonstrably wrong and should die
and yet you haven't really demonstrated that?