Slashdot Mirror
Gates on Google
EnsignExtra writes " A long and interesting article in Fortune on the battle between Gates and Google. 'Forced to watch Google's stock soar the way Microsoft's used to, and Brin and Page enjoy their roles as tech's new rock stars, Gates brings to the fight a ferocity that nobody has seen since the Netscape war a decade ago. Their popularity gets under his skin. "There's companies that are just so cool that you just can't even deal with it," he says sarcastically, suggesting that Google is nothing more than the latest fad, adding, "At least they know to wear black."...Trying to build a Google killer, however, has turned out to be truly humbling for Microsoft.'"
The interesting thing is that supposedly Google is interested in the power of OpenOffice. This could maybe lead to online creation of office documents, emailing them through GMail, and storing them in Google webspace. It starts to kill the use of Windows apps.
Next, they'll come out with a GBrowser and add extra functionality for their new line of star studded packages in your Google account if you use their browser. Maybe that's why they've taken a bunch of Firefox developers...but who knows?
Ubuntu, the way linux should be.
Try Ubuntu FREE! --
"There's companies that are just so cool that you just can't even deal with it," - Bill Gates, about Google
Dyslexics have more fnu.
...that Gates actually allowed an article like this to be posted. Normally, the big machine in Redmond shows no fear, even in the face of major competition from Linux and FOSS.
I have neither class nor rank. I am unique.
Don't get me wrong, they do a good job overall, but Yahoo! is making GREAT strides and slips under the radar for press coverage when every /.'er ooohs and aaaahs over every move Google makes.
Besides, Google is returning results for pages that are OVER A YEAR OLD when I Yahoo! regularly picking up changes no more than two weeks old.
Rasmus (PHP) pointed out at linux.conf.au that while google does some really great things, they are a child compared to yahoo or MS. Yahoo has some 50 subsites that must support same sign on in seconds etc and millions of users worldwhite. "Talk to me when google has some 50 million email users and we'll see how well they do it" - Rasmus
This isn't really anything new. Gates embodies a blend of arrogance, ignorance, and intelligence fairly common in the tech community (and really no different from Jobs or McNealy): he thinks he can do everything better, he doesn't know or care what other people have done as long as they aren't on his radar screen as competitors, and he is smart enough to pull it off some time.
Of course, a great deal of luck and a huge war chest is also part of it: Microsoft got away with that sort of behavior for about a decade because they set the standards and because they could pump money into failing projects for as long as it took. It didn't matter whether Windows reinvented the wheel, because Microsoft made all the cars and because Microsoft could outspend everybody else until they got it right.
Will it work again? Perhaps, perhaps not. Microsoft can try to push their search product to market late in the game, with enormous effort and an enormous investment. But that alone isn't enough to unseat Google; they would have to leverage their Windows near-monopoly, but in a way that doesn't attract the attention of regulatory agencies around the world. Good luck.
Personally, I don't really have a problem with Microsoft (or any other company) copying as long as they do it well and add a few new features or a bit of additional polish to the mix.
There seems to be this Slashdot-think that companies should always come up with radical innovations. Even Google hasn't, after all, plenty of companies were doing searching, web-mail and news browsing way before them. They just took an idea, added a few new features and a bit of polish.
As for Microsoft, without sounding like zealot either way, everything they've tried outside of Windows has been a humbling experience but they are persistant. Last time I looked their PDA/Smartphone line is looking strong and their media centre isn't bad at all. The problems they've had with the XBox come down to the radically different style of market - you can't just throw out incremental OS releases on a month by month basis.
As I wrote previously, having suffered the painful experience that is the Sony Ericsson P910, I am actually looking forward to going back to the HTC Magician. Thats not to say that WinCE is heaven, far from it, but it has come on in leaps and bounds.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Dont believe what you read and only half of what you hear ;)
The article is a load of shit and mis-portrays all relevent parties.
The claim that Microsoft cannot produce good, innovative software is completely bogus, in my opinion - the fact is, that they usually don't bother as it is more cost-effective to just coast along (as people will lap up whatever crud they turn out). When they start losing face to companies producing better products(google, Firefox, etc), they let loose an army of very skilled engineers to tackle the problem: remember, there is no shortage of technical talent at Microsoft - they hire only the best. It's just the management that seems to stifle them.
So I suspect that in a year or so's time, when MSN Search has been strengthened unrecognisably and IE7 is released, we will remember google and Firefox warmly, but only as temporary heroes who for a short period challenged the hated tyrant (to the cheers of the townsfolk) before being mercilessly swatted down.
You can use Google software with any Internet browser to search the web and your desktop for just about anything; send and store up to two gigabytes of e-mail via Gmail (Hotmail, Microsoft's rival free e-mail service, offers 250 megabytes, a fraction of that); manage, edit, and send digital photographs using Google's Picasa software, easily the best PC photo software out there; and, through Google's Blogger, create, post online, and print formatted documents--all without applications from Microsoft.
Emphasis mine. Nice notion, but rather inaccurate. Google Toolbar is for Internet Explorer only. Google Desktop Search is available only for Windows XP and Windows 2000. Picasa Photo Organizer requires Internet Explorer and Windows XP or Windows 2000. Same for Google Deskbar and GMail Notifier. You can use Google's sites without applications from Microsoft, but you sure can't use any of their downloadable software without a good dose of fairly recent Microsoft product.
Making the world a better place, one psychotic episode at a time.
Whether Bill Gates admits it or not, it is a matter of fact that the bureaucracy that comes with size slows down innovation to a grinding halt.
I have heard (via a friend's friend whose friend has a friend...) that product groups within certain Slashdotters' Favorite Software companies (SFSCs) boast about a new product or feature being beta in August and being shipped next February while the same feature is up and running in Google. And took them 2 months or something to complete.
Unless these SFSCs change their culture they will always be outsmarted by Google. Money can go a long way, but against brains... I have my doubts.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Google-fundamentalist, but I use what's the best search engine - for now.
...basically, his whole argument in this article is "we're worried about Google because they're so much like us"
:)
That is exactly the weasily, me too type of argument that shows exactly why (IMNSHO) Microsoft is often perceived as a drain on progress in the tech industry and why they aren't at all like Goggle
There's a big difference between inventing something and using something.
I have my own personal theory that very few ideas are original. I wouldn't be surprised if collectively people all over the Earth has had every idea Google has manifested.
The importance of innovation vs invention is moot, as one is totally useless without the other.
My favourite definition of innovation (from the results returned by Google's define: operator) is "the process of adopting a new thing, idea, or behavior pattern into a culture." from the Tel el-Far-ah dictionary.
I'm waiting for Procter & Gamble's search engine, though. It's going to completely destroy both Google and MSN.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
It took me a while to find uninstall instructions. I knew I could have used control panel, but I was wondering how the home user with no knowledge of computers could get rid of it.
I don't know if users of XP (I use 2000) have had the same problem, but if MSSearch is automatically installed on users' computers, it may get used more by the unsuspecting and those that don't care what they use. If MS can put MSSearch on all XP computers without the users' permission, it will gain market share. This would be another similar case to the IE-Bundled to give it market share, but this time MS would be able to say the users have choices.
Have to post anon for the obvious reasons. I have a close friend who's been on the the core team for the search engine at M$ for nearly 2 years now.
;)
Though he's in complete denial about his position he projet is nop nearer to rollout then a year ago. Why? Because M$ has turned from a team of highly skilled engineers to a mass of bumbleing corporate sycopnts.
The tales he tells about the project are astounding. Engineers are suin the company and being transferred about like cattle. Far, far more time is spent on interoffice politics and CYA then ever is done on engineering. Teams get reshuffled and project specs get redone. My friend had to get a lawyer just to threaten the company enough to keep his own job there and the weird thing is....the significance all this seems to be completely lost on him.
He maintains that the new search engine peoject will knock the socks off Google even and he's been maintaining this for almost a year now....with nothing real to show. Looks like the reality distortion field isn't just restricted to Jobs.
My prediction...M$ will drop this project after another year after spending dozens (hundreds) of millions on it and the let the finger pointing and firings begin! M$ no longer has what it takes to carry an innovative project to completion. They're too fat, too decadent, too full of disloyal temp workers and too busy trying to cover their own asses.
Mark my words...the M$ search engine project and it's (imho) inevitable failure will be the death knell for M$.
Tiger anyone ?
Excuse me.....when has Microsoft ever really gotten there first? Their signature business method is to buy some small or unknown software company in a given market and then use their monopoly influence, price undercutting, and FUD to drive out or hinder competitors while they hurry to catch up with whatever software they bought. Years later, they have little competition and a product that is "good enough" (read: Marketing has convinced enough people to buy it and put up with all the bugs that remain).
They've already bought their search technology but apparently it's harder than it looks. Of course, they would have preferred to eliminate the competition outright.
The real problem here is that Microsoft can't cut their price below free and Google has at least one software generation or so head start (that, coupled with the other Microsoft bug-a-boo -- FOSS). Billy boy is never so pissed than when a company points out just how uninnovative Microsoft really is...
Their next slogan? "Microsoft -- following the leader like usual."
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Microsoft innovate all the time. Just not particularly in writing software programs. But then not many companies do - the history of software is the history of incremental improvements - no one innovates that much. Google is merely grep version 9082.1 , and even the clever bits of Google were done 'first' in research instituations around the world.
MS's only big software innovation has been integration. They realised that people don't want programs. They want a computer. One thing that does everything in a consistent joined up manner. That _WAS_ innovation. Everyone else at the time still thought it was a _good_ thing to have lots of little programs each with it's own purpose, UI, etc tailored to a specific job.
MS realised that this was crap, and to the annoyance of software people everywhere, MS was right. Most people want to buy a word processor and a spreedsheet from different companise in the same way they want to buy their hob and their oven from different companies. Not at all.
I would also say that ASP pages were innovative - not so much the idea of templates, but the idea of creating a proper web SDK, with a cohesive set of classes. It's not rocket science, but no-one else had thought of offering a complete solution to what was _still_ being viewed as a set of separate problems - a web server, a programming language, a database API, etc. etc.
However, where MS is _really_ innovative is in marketing. They have found ways to promote and market software that no-one else has ever thought of. Now, those ways may not be 'nice' but they are certainly innovative.
-----
if you type "chip," they can't tell whether you are looking for a snack food or high-tech equipment..."
/.ers care to comment on possible directions for Wikipedia that would make it a threat to google?
Was mentioned in the article as a shortcoming of search engines.
Take a look at:
chip results on Wikipedia.
Any
And as Microsoft is getting attacked on all fronts, am I the only one smiling from ear to ear?
Or, put another way, Microsoft is competing on all fronts. You can bet your bottom dollar that's the way Bill Gates sees it and that he likes it that way too.
Lest we forget, Microsoft is still making money hand over fist, and its profits continue to rise. It might have missed its last profits forecast by some fraction of a percentage point but the Microsoft vs Everyone Else battle is still pretty firmly tipped in its favour.
The company is a behemoth. Apple isn't really a threat in the short or medium term because so many computer users (especially large corporates) are tied into x86-compatible architectures. iPods might and switching might help Apple erode some of the home market, but the business market isn't going to jump onto that bandwagon so easily. Besides, we all know that Microsoft will do whatever it takes to get the deal done when faced with the possibility of losing serious business to a competitor.
Firefox isn't really much more than an annoyance, because it will never have the marketing muscle to compete with MSIE - the reason why MSIE destroyed Netscape's dominance wasn't its superiority, it was because MSIE was just there, an easy mouse click away on every new Windows 95 PC, whereas Navigator wasn't, and needed to be installed from scratch.
Xbox might not have made any money but I doubt that Microsoft was expecting to get into the console gaming market and have made a profit by now. It's not in it for the short-term, it wants to be a long-term player, and the console gaming market, just like most things, is one in which you have to speculate to accumalate. The market was Nintendo/Sega, then Sony/Nintendo/Sega, now it's Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft (or maybe Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo): who's to say in five years time that it won't be Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo?
Never write off or underestimate what lies in Redmond. Too many companies have made that mistake - even mighty IBM - and learnt not to do it the hard way.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
But that is not the same thing as winning, at least as far as Bill is concerned. MS has only two major wins, OS and Office. Their DB offering is behind Oracle. Their online services are marginal. Media player is battling Quicktime and Real. They have not won any of those areas, though they are trying very hard. Simply having money does not guarentee a win.
In the case of Google, Google is very intrenched across the internet. They have search, they have adds, they have mindshare all over the place. That is more than product. That is content and it is wide networked support. MS can't easily overcome that even by levereging their monopoly. And most things that they might try to leverage would probably land them in anti-trust court.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
I saw ol' Bill give a little rah-rah speech a number of years ago. I dropped my can of tuna fish in the box at the door, thus feeding the MS PR machine (that was, at the time, making hay about how MS was helping feed the hungry) and gaining free entry to Jones Hall in downtown Houston. Most of the attendees had obviously never been to the symphony so they didn't know the layout of the place. Since there was no reserved seating, I ran around to a box entrance and grabbed a seat within, literally, spitting distance of the stage. I mean, the guy was right there in front of me, close enough for me to hear him breathe off-mike. Close enough for me to feel what he was feeling instead of just listen to his words. We were treated to the Gates/Baldwin parody of that silly SNL-inspired movie, A Night at the Roxbury. I guess that would make this about 5 years ago.
The PR garbage flowed from him, everyone made nice, and then questions were taken from the floor. Someone asked about Linux. That was when things got surreal.
Gates made a point of screwing up the pronunciation of the name, trying to give the impression that this OS was from a foreign planet or something. Then he set about ridiculing the available apps, the ease of use, etc. He threw a handful of ill-considered (to anyone who knew anything about Linux) criticisms against the wall, hoping something would stick. He tried to make fun of the whole thing.
And he sweated bullets. Literally and figuratively.
It dawned on me at that moment that the guy was flat-out scared. He saw this THING bearing down on him and he clearly didn't have a clue how to respond. "Barely-concealed panic" is how I would characterize it. I get the feeling this Gates character really hates to not be in control and this Linux thing was giving him ulcers.
That was the ridiculing stage. The fighting stage came soon after. But that was also the moment that I realized Linux was here to stay.
What they're actually referring to is Google's practice of using their AdWords system for recruiting. If you search Google for obscure, advanced topics in computer science, a Google employment ad may appear.
We all have some reason to despise Microsoft, so I won't repeat all of them.
Thats' why many people are ready to follow anyone who tries to put up some competition to them.
In some cases, the competition has a much better product (go, Firefox!)
In some others, the competition might even be worse... or at least trying to use the same heavy handed tactics M$ has used for decades.
I'm afraid Google might fall into this second class. They have lots of very sensitive data on us: our searches, our emails, maybe we are even handling them the documents on our desktop.
All this data can be easily correlated through an immortal cookie (with an expiration date in 2038, it will definitely outlast my PC).
There is a web site keeping an eye on Google:
http://www.google-watch.org/
While I would take anything in this site with a grain of salt, it still paints a very disturbing of Google; anyone can verify their claims, afterwards... but first of all read it!
The test is simple. Drive through the parking lots at Microsoft at, say, 9PM on Tuesday evening. Count the cars. Now do the same at Google. The difference is the competitive edge.
It used to be, back in the early-to-mid 90's, that the Microsoft parking lots were full well into the early morning. It wasn't unusual to see full lots at 3AM. Now days the lots only begin to fill at 9am, and by 5:30 they are half-empty again. By 9pm, the janitors are parking in front of the building. There is not a car in site. I suspect the Google parking lots resemble the early-90's lots at Microsoft.
The typical Microsoft rank-and-file employee simply doesn't care any more. It's a job. The employee morale at Microsoft is at an all-time low. One of the major concerns the HR-driven corporation has these days is the attrition ratio. The fear is that the new surge of startups in the Washington area will pull the best people out, leaving Microsoft with the dregs.
A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
changing out of windows ... would require a wholesale hardware change
Well, not necessarily. The BSDs and Linux - and more - run extremely well on the same hardware that runs Windows - modulo the odd driver, winmodems and stuff like that. And about the ladies, well, those aren't ladies in my book.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win. - Gandhi
It looks like Billy's in the stage between "laughing" and "fighting."
- Bachelorhood is the father of necessity.
Because so much computer functionality can be enhanced through intelligent search and because intelligent search and interfacing to intelligent search offer endless opportunity for innovation this issue has the potential to become a real problem for Microsoft. If the pace of innovation is fast and sustained then Microsoft's only option for maintaining control will be litigation. Apparently Google and Apple have decided that relentless innovation is the route to survival. If all of the other non-Microsoft players adopt that posture then its going to be a fun time for computing enthusiasts.
Windows and Office are not subsidizing everything at MS. Exchange Server and SQL Server are certainly cash cows for Microsoft. They probably make more money with those two products than all revenues from all commercial Linux companies combined.
MySQL and PostgreSQL don't really compete with MS SQL (or Oracle or DB2) on features, ease-of-maintenance, scalability, or mind-share yet. And there's nothing in the open-source world that compares with Exchange (or Notes/Domino/WebSphere Portal) in terms of functionality and integration.
When/if the open-source world produces real competitors to Exchange and SQL Server, MS will really start to get scared. Ceeding a small portion of the file/print/web server space to Linux hasn't really made and impact in teh Redmond bottom line. But an "install and go" open-source alternative to MS SQL or Exchange would really hurt, since it would eliminate not only Exchange/SQL revenues, but a bunch of Windows Server revenues as well.
Finally, an open-source alternative with a robust desktop-management solution like Active Directory's Group Policy would make Linux servers a real choice for organizations. Right now, we control so much of our network through group policy (configuration, software installation, etc.) that switching to Linux servers without that functionality is a complete non-starter. Hacking a bunch of scripts together to configure machines and applications is not a cost-effective desktop managment strategy when compared to managing Windows Servers and desktops with Group Policy.
Sometimes I fantasize about what I would do if I had a lot of money.
I look around at guys who are making a lot more dough, and I think to myself, they aren't any smarter than me; usually they're less smart. I'm just not willing to do what they did: primarily spend a lot of their time and energy thinking about how to make more money. I'd rather do something beautiful, or fascinating, and to work with people I really like being around. The rich aren't like you and me -- and the difference isn't just money.
Bill Gates is a the example of this in the extreme. I deeply respect his philanthropic work. But there is something to his outsized competitiveness that I find disturbing. It's almost as if somebody else's success amounts to a personal failure to him, and that positive attention to others is a personal affront to him. Of course, it's this competitiveness that enables him to do the fantastic philanthropic work he does, but it strikes me as almost, well, insecure and a little sad.
As an ordinary person when I look at Sergei and Larry of Google fame being successful, I'm delighted that a couple of nice guys are getting positive attention for being smart and decent. I'm not sure this is a feeling Mr. Gates can ever share.
Some psychologists are now suggesting that people have a kind of "set-point" for happiness; a level they happen to gravitate towards despite things that happen in their lives. Success can make them more happy briefly, but they tend to return to their baseline. So, I suppose if I ever do decide to put my mind to making serious money, I'll still be as happy as I am today. But I doubt I ever will get a chance to put this to the test.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yea, it's called dumping. Supposedly it's illegal but the only companies who ever get changed with it are foreign. Although in a new twist the FSF is being sued civilly for it.
evil is as evil does
I don't buy this, a browser on a machine with no OS
No, not without an OS, but the browser and the OS would stop mattering - as long as it can do Google, it can do anything you want. MS would have a hard time charging as much as they do for Windows if all it is used for is launching a browser.The problem isn't too many fronts, it's a lack of surprise and innovation. Microsoft is what it is today by making smart business decisions and capitalizing on the arrogance of others (and, as we know, quite a few illegal monopolistic practices). Steve Jobs isn't going to let Microsoft just take the iPod market. Sony and Nintendo know that Microsoft *is* a competitor and need to hold onto their game devs to compete. Google realizes that MS can develop a search engine too, and has begun to make its site the be-all end-all of information gathering on the net. The way google maps works with its yellow pages search is brilliant.
The problem isn't too many fronts. The problem is that other businesses have caught onto Microsoft's previously deceptively brilliant business strategy. Microsoft has never innovated products, they've always been a business strategest company. When they can't outthink their competitors at a higher, business level, their products lag behind. The only thing new here is that Microsoft hasn't figured out a way to kill its competition through non-competitive means. That doesn't mean they won't, however.
success at comoditizing the PC.
There are almost no designers of PC chassis left. The differentiation comes with 'plastic panels' on the same box. Regardless of which panels you might buy, you're still stuck with the box underneath it all.
The Mac design team __designed__ the new iBook, PowerBook, PowerMac, eMac, MacMini and iMac to look, feel, work and be disctinctive.
In the case of the last two, the MacMini is arguably the smallest form factor white the latest iMac has suceeed in making the computer disappear entirely.
Gates will never be able to do that because of his success. There's NOBODY left who can do that kind of innovative design. He stuck with the same chassis with different coloured plastic panels stuck to them.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I don't know whether you do any business programming, but the momentum behind C# and .NET is just massive. There are on the order of terabytes and terabytes of code that have been [or are being] written for that platform.
.Net is still pretty miniscule compared to what is going on in the Java world. Sure, C# is a good language (despite the stupid stupid decision to not have nullable value types which will be corrected in .Net 2.0). Sure, it is easy to port Java apps to C# and that is the thing that is making C#/.Net more viable. But its happening slowly. Java is already there with all the amazing or just plain useful tools for it such as Eclipse, Spring, Hibernate, JUnit, log4j, Ant, numerous web MVC frameworks, app servers, etc. The C#/.Net world is playing catch-up, essentially porting all the good stuff from Java and not doing very much which is new and exciting. Meanwhile, Java is taking some of the few good "new"(*) ideas C#/.Net has and leveling the playing field again. Basically just proving the point of the parent poster, who was saying Microsoft has always been a "second-mover". This is yet another case. No innovation here on Microsoft's part.
(*) I quoted new because none of this stuff is really all the new when you look at what LISP has been capable of all this time.
C# will be much more interesting once Mono takes off. An equivalent of Eclipse for Mono will be what makes the difference. It will be the open source tools that will make it a powerful and productivity environment to work in (kinda like what happened with Java), and not Microsoft's half-assed offerings.
(I am speaking here from the perspective of someone who develops in both Java and C#)
The answer is simple, I believe.
.NET versus Java
The real Microsoft hackers, in their hearts, really like Sergey and his attitude much better than they like Gates and Ballmer.
Before Google, I guess they sold out to the Dark Side because they thought 'OK, in order to pay for my hard core hacking, I guess the sales part of the company has to be Evil. Since it pays for my check and stock options, I'll deal with it."
But Google isn't. They're not Doing Evil: they're Doing Cool. Getting a job at google must feel like cleanliness and liberation.
The MS hackers are tired of expending all their energy making non-innovative products merely to Protect The Empire:
Xbox versus PS2
Longhorn versus OSX
MS Search versus Google
They don't want to be the last ones protecting a giant EDS.
For all Bill's BS about Research and Innovation, they really haven't done squat, and the employees are sick of it.