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.'"
Google vs ..the fight concluded.
Microsoft
I'm sorry, but really, what an asshole. Can't accept a little competition?
A wise man once said, "wtf h4x."
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! --
Of course Bill (and Microsoft) are going to hate Google; they are after all competitors in the search industry. What, do you really except them to sit down and play a game of checkers?
Well, if Microsoft hadn't built up an AOL-like overdone presence with their MSN web portal, maybe people wouldn't be sick of M$. I go to Google for the refreshing simple-ness.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
"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.
If Microsoft would innovate, instead of copy, then Gates would not have to be envious of Google's success and coolness.
Gates may have given him a pass during that initial presentation, but Payne has been at the receiving end of plenty of vicious tongue-lashings since then, during his monthly meetings with Gates and in the weekly e-mails he receives from his boss.
Ummm...can we possibly get an audio clip of one of these 'vicious tongue lashings'? I want to do a mashup complete with a Gates tirade.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
a million gazillian faffilian dollahs
...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.
When i fiRst stol DOs back in the day, peeple were schtupid... and I culd fewl them into thinkin I was an uber-Geek with my fancy pants cummand line stuff.
You would'nt beelive the a$$ i was gettin with the monay I was brinign in early on, chicks dig my big brain and fat pokets.
Anyhooo the point here is you guys are hip and cool and everythin I wanted to be.. and the azz train had definetly left this station.. so throw an old dawg a bone, stop comin out with all them new feetures every day so ole bIll can get some eh?
If you can kick some of them new fangled ideas over to ole bill every now and again, I promise to license a few of them copies of illegil windoze you have rollin round over there... we can all win!
Sincereleeley,
Mr. Gates (the kids call me 'money' for short)
Don't anthropomorphize computers: they hate that.
I hope Google expands into areas that generate revenue while competing directly against MS - that will put pressure on MS and hopefully bring down cost and maybe even improve quality.
BP http://www.card-central.com
The only reason MS has interest in Google's success is because of $$$$.
There is no "market share" or distributed software that comes from people searching through your website... the only problem is that since people are going to Google, MS is loosing money in advertising.
It's not even about software, it's about ad revenues.
Confidence ran high. A senior Microsoft executive said the top brass thought the fight against Google "was going to be Netscape all over again."
*Chuckle*
"I remember when [Payne's team] showed off their first prototype in early 2004--people laughed because it was so much like Google," says a former Microsoft executive. "We had copied them. That's not how you lead."
Hmm..isnt that how they led with XP, copying Aqua?
One reason Google has been rolling out so many new or improved products is that Schmidt understands that innovation is the only sure edge Google has. The moment Google allows itself to slow, Microsoft could overwhelm it.
This is the reason why Odds are stacked so high up against companies such as Google or Apple. All their success depends on their ability to innovate constantly and continuously, that any letup will cost them both users and provide enough leverage for competitors to one_up them.
"Microsoft can play its old game to compete with Linux and Apple. It has to play Google's game to compete with Google."
And that sums it all. Google has proven to Microsoft that they cant compete on the same level. Microsoft has bureaucratic issues that needs to be resolved in terms of its size and the products it push through, and in their direction. Google has its own such as growing pains, the push to constantly innovate and the drive to outlast a cash cow ten times bigger.
Rapid Nirvana
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
Surely Google can't be that much of a threat to Microsoft? MS' dominence is built mostly on the popularity (+ lack of competition) of Windows, Office and other expensive items of software. I would be much more worried about OSS like Openoffice and Firefox than someone offering better webmail! Besides, the MS search engine is always in with a chance of gaining popularity because of the fact that they integrate it into Windows. All they need is a product that is competitive. This has shown to be the case with MSN messenger (pretty much killed ICQ) and media player. People will just use whatever is there, as long as it works adequately. There's a limit to how much Google can actually grow, just as Microsoft have found. It's very rare that someone comes up with as innovative product as google's search. I would be surprised if they continued in this manner. Google is already scaring people with their new internet accelerator, soon most people will simply regard them as another annoying large company deperate to applease their shareholders...
No small thanks to our very own googledotdotorg :).
My photolog
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.
...or because Opera and Firefox have a Google search field in the toolbars already and don't need a third party to add the functionality?
Predictive text is shiv!
you could almot sat that about the "elitest mac heads" in regards to apple.....
Hi.
- commit.lock 0 8)d er.java:111)d er.java:101)r cher.java:60)n .java:107)v a:81)v a:71). java:63) e r(PageFilterChain.java:141)e r(WebAppFilterChain.java:163)i ce(ServletInvocation.java:207)H muxRequest.java:385)c tion.java:327)v a:450)4 )
I just tried mozdex.com (as per your sig) and the following error was returned.
I've never had an error on Google.
500 Servlet Exception
java.io.IOException: Lock obtain timed out: Lock@/tmp/lucene-0bac8a4f47f7b0b319fb59f35deb062e
at org.apache.lucene.store.Lock.obtain(Lock.java:58)
at org.apache.lucene.store.Lock$With.run(Lock.java:1
at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexReader.open(IndexRea
at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexReader.open(IndexRea
at org.apache.nutch.searcher.IndexSearcher.(IndexSea
at org.apache.nutch.searcher.NutchBean.init(NutchBea
at org.apache.nutch.searcher.NutchBean.(NutchBean.ja
at org.apache.nutch.searcher.NutchBean.(NutchBean.ja
at org.apache.nutch.searcher.NutchBean.get(NutchBean
at _jsp._search__jsp._jspService(/search.jsp:50)
at com.caucho.jsp.JavaPage.service(JavaPage.java:61)
at com.caucho.jsp.Page.pageservice(Page.java:557)
at com.caucho.server.dispatch.PageFilterChain.doFilt
at com.caucho.server.webapp.WebAppFilterChain.doFilt
at com.caucho.server.dispatch.ServletInvocation.serv
at com.caucho.server.hmux.HmuxRequest.handleRequest(
at com.caucho.server.port.TcpConnection.run(TcpConne
at com.caucho.util.ThreadPool.runTasks(ThreadPool.ja
at com.caucho.util.ThreadPool.run(ThreadPool.java:39
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:534)
Or maybe because they know the open source community will fill that gap, probably in better ways. I mean, how many ways do Firefox users have to use google - Googlbar/Googlebar lite, quick searches, "i feel lucky" via the address bar, the built-in search box of course, etc.
Oh no... it's the future.
This is Forbes remember - they probably meant you can use google.com with any browser. Not as ridiculous a statement as it sounds, if you consider things like the broken sylesheets MSN used to send to useragent:Opera...
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
I've never had an error on Google.
I have. They look like this
Gates says that when Microsoft is done integrating search into future versions of Windows and Office, the world will look back at the way we are now "Googling" for stuff on the Internet and laugh. "The idea that you type in these words [in the search box] that aren't sentences and you don't get any answers--you just get back all these things you have to click on--that is so antiquated," he says, later adding, "We need to take search way beyond how people think of it today and just have it be naturally available, based on the task they want to do." For example, if you wanted to look up a factoid while you were writing a document, you might search for it without ever leaving Word.
It seems to me that the high-ups at MS are completely out of touch with the real world nowadays. This quote from Gates is just like all their recent releases comparing Longhorn to Tiger.. their perception of what MS's products offer is way inflated from what they actually do, and they seem to be persuading themselves that empty promises of what a future product will do is somehow better than a product which is available here and now, today.
Is there anyone outside of MS that thinks they have the slightest chance of beating Google at the search technology game? Google are far closer to natual language searching than any of MS's efforts, and comparing past trends of how MS promises stack up against reality, I think we can all be sure that by the time MS gets anywhere close to what they're promising here, the competition are going to be offering searching by telepathy from within Duke Nukem Forever.
Did you notice that Google appeared on Gates's radar screen when he read their job ads, and saw they were looking for the same sorts of folks as him? That told him they were looking to compete.
I first saw Paul Graham mention this -- he would read the job ads of his competitors. If he saw C++, Oracle, etc. then he knew the people didn't matter (and wouldn't matter).
If he saw Perl, Python, etc. he took notice. [He never saw Common Lisp, of course]
Graham's said that no matter what Mar-Com (marketing communications) bozos have to say, the job ads tell the real story.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
At no point has the Good Fairy That Lives In The Sky come down and announced that MS have to be the only corp on Earth that likes competition. Until that does happen, MS have a right to react to competition in the same way as every other company (ie primarily by saying nasty things about it, then by reluctantly spending money to try to get rid of it).
If the GFTLITS has in fact come down and delivered this announcement, then I stand corrected.
To those who doubt the existence of the GFTLITS, I have nothing to say. But you will learn.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Now, it's possible that google could pull things around, but in order to beat MS, it would have to become more diverse than it currently is (I mean, google would have to make and market an equivalent to Windows and every other MS product).
See, the way things are right now, all MS has to do is block attempts to reach *.google.com in Longhorn, and google will have been nothing but a fad (this won't happen, but something similar might).
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
My favourite quote from the article:
In fall 2003, Microsoft briefly considered buying Google, only to realize that even if Brin, Page, and their board could have been persuaded to sell--which seemed unlikely--Microsoft would have been left to explain to the world why it was now running a search engine built entirely on Linux instead of Windows.
LOL
"Mozilla/Firefox/Opera do not have the google toolbar."
i nfo.php?id=33
You are wrong, and I dub thee "fuckbeak" for the error...
Google Toolbar Firefox Extension: (there are actually multiple flavours)
https://addons.update.mozilla.org/extensions/more
There is nothing wrong with copying. Most of what Google, Microsoft, IBM, Apple, Sun, and other companies are doing is copied from somewhere. In fact, most innovation doesn't come from companies, it comes from universities and a few private research labs. Even the technology that Google was founded on was developed while the founders were at Stanford. And among computer companies, Microsoft is one of the best companies in terms of spending on research and innovation.
Microsoft's problems have nothing to do with innovation (or lack thereof), they have to do with business practices.
Microsoft is dying. Look between the lines and it's easy to see. Linux and OSS are everyday cutting a sizable chunk out of Windows and MS software as people get sick of crashes, slow loadup times, frequent security holes, badly written programs, and badly produced crap; all the things that make Microsoft Microsoft. Basically right now all of Microsft is hinging around Longhorn. Longhorn doesn't have to be a good OS. It has to be a GREAT OS. Microsoft has to satisfy everyone with Longhorn. They've gotta create a product that will revolutionize the market--again (don't tell me the original GUI windows wasn't a real revolutionizer), but computer OS design has got to take another big step forward and I don't think MS has what it takes to do that. This is just another attempt by Gates to make a company float, that is most assuredly siinnkkkiinnngg. Sorry Bill. Hope you like working at McDonald's.
Didn't they mean Google's software running on google's server?
I found this not too long ago, it's a google parody and any website you put into it gets converted into Snoop Dog website. Check it out. http://www.gizoogle.com/
The Technomancer
"Men of lofty genius when they are doing the least work are most active."-
This concentration of resources in a single company or product is stupid, you just take your eye off the ball. Do what you do best and let others get on with what they do best.
Deleted
There was a time when people blindly "trusted" MS products, assuming they were superior and perfectly trustworthy. Now MS is "evil" and Google is "do no evil". ... Google is a company, out to make money. They are part of corporate America. At the end of the day they care about how much revenue they made. No different than MS.
Linux Resources
Far be it from me to bash Microsoft (yes, even here), but in this case I can't resist...
What was running through the minds of Microsoft's Top Brass:
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
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.
It's quite scary to think about the complete reliance that many people place on two companies: Microsoft and Google. The allure of Google is now gone, as they have shown their allegiance to the almighty dollar. I feel like this is the beginning of Independence Day. Google is placing their ships over all strategic points (Search, Webmail, Browsers, Maps, etc.) There is some secret countdown and once all the pieces are in place BAM! We will face a corporate wrath the likes of which we have never seen.
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.
When criminals in this world appear
l yrics.html (#2 hit on Google "underdog theme song" search, #1 had a .wav link. Add "lyrics" as a search term and that link is still #2, and #1 is: http://www.wickedcoolnews.com/underdoglyrics.html which also has the lyrics.)
and break the laws that they should fear
and frighten all who see or hear
the cry goes up both far and near
for Underdog! Underdog! Underdog! Underdog!
Credits to: http://www.delorie.com/users/dj/tidbits/underdog_
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
...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
I think that this section says a lot:
But Microsoft isn't exactly in fighting trim. Its ambitious new operating system, code-named Longhorn, is more than a year late, even after having been scaled back. Linux, the free operating system that Gates once scoffed at, is fighting Microsoft for share in both the server and desktop markets, forcing the company to do the unthinkable: offer customer discounts. Last year it had to spend $1 billion to rewrite thousands of lines of code to make its programs less susceptible to viruses. Its Xbox gaming console is winning raves from players but has yet to make serious money. Meanwhile, Apple has stolen the show in online music with its hugely popular iPod and iTunes Music Store. Plus, the recently released Firefox browser, which can be downloaded free, has forced Gates to reconstitute an Internet Explorer development team. Indeed, four years have passed since Microsoft released a piece of software that generated the kind of buzz Google seems to generate every month.
So Microsoft is competing with Linux on the overall OS, with Sony and Nintendo in the gaming market, with Apple for music related things, with Mozilla for browsers, and with Google (and Yahoo) for search. The battle is being fought on too many fronts. All of these companies that are succeeding in competing with Microsoft are succeeding because they're trying to do one thing well. They may have other projects they work on, but they devote themselves full out to that one arena in most cases. Apple isn't trying to write search engines. The Moz folks aren't getting into digital music. Too many fronts...
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.
why do they need a google search bar? firefox have a tool bar that as google.. plus anthing else (UPS,FEDEX Amazon, ebay ect.) .. It's not that IE is king.. its that the Mozilla people already work with google. what do you think that little "G" is in the right hand corner on the pull down in firefox.. and we don't need the pop up blocker.. we have a desktop search tool.. what do they offer..
You're so hilariously wrong. Why don't you, I don't know, use another browser besides IE for a minute before you start spouting out about what they don't have.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.
it is not even worth trying to beat it.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
>"Microsoft can play its old game to compete with Linux and Apple. It has to play Google's game to compete with Google."
How many fronts can Microsoft take on, at once? They're used to competing in "steamroller mode" where they mobilize the company against a smaller (or larger but less focused, like IBM) competitor, and run them over. But now Linux and Google are recognized as major threats, Firefox and Apple are chipping away at market share, and OpenOffice is sitting in the wings, especially considering IBM's embedding it, and other such efforts. They can't mobilize the company against any one of these things without taking the finger off of the others.
If I were Microsoft, I'd have a small focus group figuring out how the company can survive and thrive as "just another highly successful company" rather than as "The Industry Dominator," because it just doesn't look to me as if they're going to be able to keep that position in the long run.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
BZZZZTT!
No BINGO for you!
If Gates wants to put himself software center stage, he needs to understand that there's no coon in the google tree.
Give me the pick of 6 of programmers, 2 technical writers, 4 researchers, 4 hardware engineers, two machinists, atrio of HOT manageresses, access to the shop and access to a VLSI fab facility and I could put M$ back on center stage in less than 36 months.
I suspect there are thousands of people who could do the same, some of them already working at Microsoft!
My point is that he's got no serious new product development/emergent technology lab going. Set one up and MS could be cranking out stuff as fast and as profitably as Edison ever did. Hell, the appeal of googles offerings has been staring him in the face since gopher and usenet were kings of the hill.
fight back, build your own local personal search engine?
riiight.... good thing we already have people stealing the.. ahem
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Google's strengh lies in that it hires so many smart people and allows them time to work on whatever they feel like. That essentially gives them their own research lab. Combine that with the fact that many smart people who don't work for Google very much want to work for Google, and I think I can see why they're having so much success.
That's why Google is a threat to Microsoft. Sun et al keep on about thin clients and try to sell them to corporates. Google is building up the capability to be the ultimate thick server/thin client system. Of course Google wants to assess the possibilities of making Firefox the basis of their service delivery. They must have one in case Microsoft discovers a way to lock Google services out of IE (not security checked....)
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
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 ?
This reminds me of a quote by Steve Jobs from Triumph of the Nerds: "The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste, they have absolutely no taste...I don't mean that in a small way I mean that in a big way."
Microsoft, once it owned the bulk of the market, has been a second-mover.
Gates aims for the fat cash hump in the middle of the market distribution.
The real question is, will Google turn this second-mover strategy into a giant suppository?
Yep. The Google-branded Apple MacIntosh, coming soon to a nightmare near you...
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Mozilla/Firefox/Opera do not have the google toolbar
Don't be so ignorant, each of the above, and also Konqueror has built-in search boxes for searching on Google for example. Kewl stuff. In my Firefox I have now 18 search options, man of them hand-made, very nice.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Google's core business is now selling advertisement space, (search, googlemaps, gmail are all advertisement space) Microsofts are more or less a pure software company. The core business dont really compete.
Google did it right first on the Web and Apple did right first on an OS. As with 99.999% of the significant software innovations Microsoft will implement it last and probably with the poorest implementation. I would guess that it will take Microsoft 5 - 10 years to get within 10% of the quality of search functionality of the other players at that point in time. At that point the overall quality will start to decline because Microsoft will have removed all financial incentive for anyone else to keep improving it and Microsoft only improves their stuff as long as Microsoft thinks that someone else might get credit or money for it. After all the competition is effectively dead Microsoft software moves into the bug-pit feature-rich functionality-decline stage. Features are added to compete with the only remaining competitor and the only remaining competitor is Microsoft's last version of the same thing. This competition between the new version and the old version drives the need to dismantle compatibility between versions so that people are forced to pay for something. By that stage of the process almost no one (less than 5%) will notice that Microsoft has the most incompatible, geekiest, most user hostile, malware friendly, pocket pickinest, idiosycratic, unreliable, proprietary implementation. At this point some users will actually refer to it as more "open" than the competitors products because Microsoft has effectively limited the functionality of competing products on the Windows platform. In cases where IT departments don't turn off Microsoft's brave new technology because it is too insecure and unmaintainable users will be grateful for the limited and abusive technology that they still get to use.
Let's think about this -- we have a massive company who is deciding to branch out into new fields. They can't focus their best talent on the really important projects (like Longhorn, which they keep stripping features from), and so they have to spread themselves thin (MSN, MSNBC, XBox, Office, Windows, WebTV, monopoly problems, Google competition, etc.)
They've lost sight of where their company's real core business is. In some ways, a forced seperation might have helped Microsoft to keep this from happening.
Yes, there's a need to branch out into new fields so that you can bring in new revenue streams and diversify in case something bad happens, but you need smart growth -- sometimes, projects need to be killed. One of the worst things for a company can be a higher up exec's pet project, because they'll keep directing funding to it even when it's overly risky.
If they were just looking for interference in other areas, you'd think they could just act as a VC (directly or indirectly) for lots of other competitors to whatever companies they think might be a 'problem'. [and if those companies did well, buy them outright]
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
would have to say that this statement is a little bit rediculous
I would say: it's quite a bit true.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
just to be clear, you mean O'Reilly the 'fuck^h^h^hox-wit' not O'Reilly the publisher right?
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
I think Microsoft is upset for they're own bad luck. Another company has made something that is simple and easy to use and you know works and it works well.
Search is search and as long you find what your looking for, it doesnt matter which company you use. If you've actually looked at Microsoft's search site you will see it pretty much is Google's site with a few quirks and a different color scheme (to the user, not much is presented that shows Microsoft's search is better than Google's). I mean its not working out for Microsoft because they havent really shown anything better (to me at least) that would make me choose to use they're search against Google's. So far Google does what I need it to do. Maybe in the future when theres something I need to search for and Google cant do it for me I will find someone who can. I think Microsoft should know that having 2 of the same thing doesnt make one better then the other, its by offering better reliability and advancements on whats already been done that get you noticed, not hostility and public bashing.
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.
On the other hand it makes little sense to have a team of highly creative, highly paid engineers bug-fixing, if you have thousands of lower-paid code monkeys willing to do it for less and let the creative guys work on "the next big thing".
Bundle search with the operating system, and Google fails as did Netscape.
They don't need to compete with the product. They have a captive market - and it's 99% of the desktops out there.
Except in Munich. And Brazil.
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
I the only one smiling from ear to ear?
I'd be willing to wager that Microsoft's customers are pretty darned happy - everytime M$FT gets angry at the competition, their customers are rewarded with a vast new generation of ably-crafted products [often given away for free].
Plus, the recently released Firefox browser, which can be downloaded free, has forced Gates to reconstitute an Internet Explorer development team.
Now there is a telling quote...no competition, no development? Someone needs to send this to Congress...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
He's so friggin' arrogant that he can't pay a sincere compliment? Guess he's too busy trying to figure out how big of a yacht he can park at his place.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
I would be careful of the way the article presents Microsoft's situation -- they have to build up the danger, or else there's no drama and no story. If it was like, "Microsoft competes in search arena, other business areas still wildly profitable" then none of us would read it ...
Microsoft, once it owned the bulk of the market, has been a second-mover.
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.
Now you could say that Sun was the "first mover" with Java, and M$FT was the "second mover" with .NET, but my point is that just because M$FT has been working quietly behind the scenes on something like .NET doesn't mean they aren't innovating. It's just that they're innovating [and grabbing market share] in an arena that isn't quite as sexy as Google, iTunes, or Playstation.
I thought the most interesting part of the Fortune article was about Google's [ stealth ] business model. They are delivering many of apps that MicroSoft has been working on recently like email and photo organizers. However Google has been shipping them mostly for free and via the web [ browsers ]. You cut a lot of cost by not having to cut and ship a CD, then forcing the customer to load it and with subsequent patches. A real killer app, besides search, would be to offer something the Office suite via the web.
.NET. However, MicroSoft has made much of this proprietary and excepts to "sell" this software.
This business model is not a new idea. People been talking about this since browsers appeared. And things like news, music and e-commerce are pretty much all-web already. However, it appears that Google has taken this a step further.
Irronically MicroSoft has been pursuing this strategy from a different dirrection. Its been converting many of its apps into web-enable xml. Apps were to be distributed via
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
I am surprised with many things the article says.
First of all, I am surpised by Bill Gate's suprise that Google shares value increases while Microsoft remains at the same level. Google is an information company, i.e. it helps find information. Information is the most valuable asset today. Doesn't Microsoft get it?
Secondly, I am surprised by the statement that "Microsoft always hired the smartest engineers". For me, Win32 is piece of crap. Who the hell designed that? Whoever did, is worthy of public humilation and torture.
Thirdly, I am suprised by the fact that Microsoft thoughts of themselves as 'innovators' (as the article says). Come on guys at MS! what innovation? aren't you the guys that dismissed the internet until you saw how much demand there was for Netscape?
Finally, I am surprised that each time I say on Slashdot that 'an distributed information management operating system' is needed, everybody dismisses that...but now Google is about to become the next Microsoft, with products that do just that: they manage information for us.
Microsoft fails to recognize the 4 primary operations for a computer:
a) creation of new information
b) deletion of information
c) display for information (including search)
d) update of information
If Microsoft was the innovator they thing they are, their operating system should be a giant model-view-controller process, where each 'application' could register itself to any kind of information available to the system (either local or distributed).
Who ever can produce a product that can seamlessly intergrate the above 4 operations with a programming language and an operating system over a distributed environment will win both the desktop war and the computing platform war. Google seems to be ahead, simply out of the process of evolution. It's not too late for others to jump on the bandwagon, but I doubt Microsoft can be one of them, since they are like a big slow-moving dinosaur right now compared to Google.
I beg to differ, Sherlock rules!
.4
But I have yet to put a tiger in my tank, and early reports are that the desktop search tool is greatly improved in
I would agree in principal, tho. Apple does one thing and does it well, building cool gizmos. There is some compitition with Microsoft in that M$ has made some forays into the gizmo market - I'm not sure that they will ever get that cool part right tho. Maybe I would feel different if I liked FPS games - I'd rather play paint ball or shoot trap.
Google, like Apple, seems to have tuned in to the complete birth of cool.
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.
These guys have a great model, they seem to hire the best people and empower them. They probably have the best moral of just about any development company out there. The pace of innovation is fantastic.
Think what a Google Linux Disto could provide as a boost to FOSS. Go GooNux. The Same for open office or Goofice.
Data warehousing (goohousing)is probably inevitable. Let me use that 2 Gig email space for storing my important docs, online pic galleries etc. I would be there in a second.
It will then be much easier to get Bill G's scaly hand out of my pants pocket...
Way to set up a project for failure...
Well, I'm not even entirely through the article, but when you read something like: manage, edit, and send digital photographs using Google's Picasa software, easily the best PC photo software out there;..., the author does much to discredit him(her)self. First, there aren't many products that qualify for the descriptors "easily the best" in anything, and second Picasa isn't, (and third Google didn't even write Picasa, they purchased it). It's a great piece of software, but it ain't the best, and it ain't even close.
Google is doing some great stuff, but let's not genuflect when they sneeze.
I've been amused that Google, Yahoo, and MicroSoft (and sometimes Apple) introduce the same feature within days or weeks of each other. More often than not, Google does so first, then Yahoo and finally the other too laggards. MicroSoft has gotten a little more savy in pre-announcing their capabality the same day Google ships, even if they take weeks tp deliver.
Yes, innovation strictly speaking, means the introduction of new ideas or technologies to a culture. Traditionally, that refers to when traders brought new technologies and ideas with them from another culture, in addition to invention.
But when a company takes a previously published idea, often with some small players in the market, builds a product around it, and markets the hell out of it without giving credit, that's not innovation; the idea was already in the culture.
They have the money, which buys them time.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
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.
Exactly how many hits they get from IE's default setting of taking you to MSN search if you mis-type a URL.
That always seemed kind of sleazy to me, since the results were never, ever useful.
Ha! That's beyond them! And even if they had the technology to build something like that, their corrupt corporate ethos would spoil things anyway -- few would trust the results of their search engine. Generally, they're just not a company that inspires trust.
Similarly, I think it will only become increasingly apparent that the technology used in Linux and other leading OSS projects is beyond M$'s technical capabilities. As I see it, it's the underlying philosophy and architecture of Windows, which shuns modularity, that will always hold them back. This will become obvious once again when their much-hyped 'Long Time' OS is launched and it turns out to be just as disappointing as everything else they've produced.
Desktop search is part of a search engine. Jumping from desktop search to Excel is a pretty good stretch of the imagination. I'm not really sure if that's the way the MSFT exec meant it.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
Let me be the first to say it so that 5000 other people don't feel the need. I know it's not Baldwin. I guess I was just equating Steve's horrible acting in that little vid with one of those terrible interchangeable actors.
Imagine if Google did indeed do this, but took it a step further and made their on WM (GWindow Manager?) so that Google's services were integrated into the distro. Clicking the mail link on the desktop would lead you to GMail (possibly read through their GBrowser). You could do google searches directly from a taskbar widget. You would use Picassa for your pics. A future "GOffice" to word proccessing, spreadsheets, etc. Maybe the future would see a Gplayer?
Oh shit, this is starting to sound like Windows...except it would be free...but you would probably have an AdWords pane in your file manager...I think my head is going to explode now
Free MacMini
Methinks Microsoft has totally lost focus. One of the cover articles in this weeks Computerworld is an article on Microsoft adding virtualization to Longhorn.
What's up with that? The rate they're going they will never get a release of Longhorn out. At some point, you've got to draw a line in the sand and say this is what we're going to release. Then DO it! Save the virtualization for a follow-on release!
I'm so glad I bailed on Wintel a couple of months ago for my personal machine. I've got a 15" PowerBook with Tiger on it (blow me TigerDirect!). I know I have a predictable product release cycle ahead of me. You can't say the same with Windows.
If you have ever used the google toolbar, you know that a google search field is probably the least helpful part of the google toolbar. The really useful stuff is search highlighting (and the ability to find your search text on the webpage just by clicking on the word), the ability to translate page into your native language, etc.
To quote Nelson Muntz, "HA HA!"
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
"...Trying to build a Google killer, however, has turned out to be truly humbling for Microsoft."
try humiliating!
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.
A targeted ad may be sold to the consumer on the premise of "an ad for a product that you'll want to watch and are interested in", but I think the reality is a bit darker. To me, targeted ads are a step away from using psychological profiling to sell everyone exactly the same things. They'll still be selling viagra, but they'll be doing in such a way as to directly appeal to your individual demographic. Don't think of it as "I can see you're interested in this product, shall I show you who sells these things", but instead think of it as "His personality shows a preference towards the colour blue, green eyed women, long words and Star Trek references."
Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
Interesting. This mouse has lasted me forever. No problems with it at all. I don't know what revision it is, as it doesn't have a revision number on it though I know it is at least from 2000. I do have a 3.0 at work and it is ok, but I don't like the new button locations on it.
:)
And what I meant about minimum programming was that there is a minimum of Microsoft code involved in the mouse itself. That's why it doesn't suck as bad [for me] as so many of their products.
As for the MS Natural keyboard, I can't stand it. I'll stick with my 15 year old PS/2 IBM/Lexmark keyboards.
Nothing to see here
I'm pretty sure Sun Tzu would advise against fighting a war on two fronts, much less three. Right now Microsoft is faced with the threat of Linux, they're picking this fight with Google and Apple's putting an awful lot of pressure on them as well. I don't care how many resources you have, trying to take on all 3 at one time will simply mean that you end up fighting none of those battles particularly well.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I have proof!
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.
Using XP and OS X side by side simply confirms moment by moment that XP is at least a generation behind (which isn't surprising, since most of the unsolved issues with Windows were solved elsewhere more than 20-30 years ago).
you had me at #!
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=%22love+Google%22&word2=%22love+Microsoft%22
Its obvious Bill Gates made all of his money off of the Vegas version of Windows Solitaire.
The guy who runs google-watch.org is a crank who set up web sites with information about various celebrities and got angry with Google because they didn't give his sites first listing for searches on those celebrities' names.
I hope Bill had to use Google to look up info on Google. Tee Hee!
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I'm not sure if this makes any sense, but:
We've got NeoOffice/J, now. This is an interesting port of OpenOffice.org, in that its got a whole bunch of java internals.
See where I'm going with this? Yes, there would be a lot of barriers. And a lot of work.
But I believe that the Office suite delivered by DHTML/Java/other net stuff is on the horizon.
And although they probably won't be there first (when was the last time you saw the lead horse win the race?) Google has got the technological know how to get there.
It's a frightening picture for Microsoft, I'm sure. If Google created such a product (which I doubt they will), and did as good as a job as they have with their lastest offerings (Gmail, google maps, desktop search) (Yes, I know an Office suite would be much bigger), Migration from MS would be easy.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Did anyone catch Bill Gates on NPR this week, complaining that he has to go to India to find qualified engineers and programmers, because the Unites States has such a shoddy educational system? They read off a few furious emails from listeners pointing out that Bill Gates really wished the United States would produce more dirt-cheap engineers and programmers.
This is the same bullshit he and everyone else in the tech industry was spitting ten years ago, and still no one's learned.
And he's gotta know he's being disingenuous, and inspiring hordes of kids to take up engineering and programming, jobs in which they'll have a lovely time getting employed.
Yecch. How does he sleep at night?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Gates is like, "WTF? Google isn't open source! Why does the future generation of computing flock to it!?"
Because Google doesn't have animated paperclips and a Dennis-the-Menace approach to its software.
"It looks like you're trying to use your computer! Would you like me to help? PLEASE? I just want to help. PLEASE! PLEASE LET ME HELP YOU!"
NO. FSCK. OFF.
Google also doesn't hijack and break standards and implicitely force everybody to do things their way or, to date, abuse its position as the de facto leader in its particular sector of the industry to make more money at the expense of the user in terms of both financial cost and overall computing experience.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. Mix in a few more metaphors and it might just make sense.
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.
The problem here is simple. What is wrong with another company existing in a space that has nothing to do with your core products. "Your Honor, I think we're up to Exhibit R: MS is Evil, but to be honest I'd have to start counting again." MS is the beast outside the village that we keep feeding in hopes it will not eat our children.
The education "market" can be leveraged to get the business market. Put your product in enough high schools and colleges, and get an entire cohort to come to business knowing your product inside-out, and then the world changes.
This is what IBM did with the 360 line of mainframes way back in the 60's. Gave a bunch to colleges. The grads came out of college ready to rock on the IBM hardware.
Yep. And the funny thing is that Google has a real chance to do what MS has been trying to ram down people's throats for years - namely, "sell" web-based applications. Difference is google would rather just put inobtrusive ads on your workspace, while MS wants you to subscribe. Easier and cheaper always win.
The other thing is the potential to integrate all your communication and work tools. Imagine better collaboration, documentation, and email sofware seamlessly integrated. Guarantee you Google's already working on it. How MS has avoided making Outlook better I have no idea. Guess it's that whole monopoly thing, they don't have to.
The question is how and when they roll out GMail. It has to be close - I use it all the time and love it. I imagine they're still refining the business model? When the public at large starts using that and realizes that it beats the crap out of everything else, and starts having their mail forwarded to their gmail accounts because it's better...google wins.
I this way, Google can jump OSS as the biggest threat to MS. Imagine people running all their apps as java apps (or similar) served by google. It's hardware-agnostic. It's OS-agnostic. Watch MS try making a TCO argument there:
This has the potential to do in a *non-evil* way everything MS tried to do between the combined nebulous efforts of Passport and the failed part of its .Net initiative. And people will love it.
Wasn't this "innovation" copied from the Macintosh?
(who copied it from Xerox, who copied it from Doug Englebart...)
To my knowledge, MS has only tried major innovation once. The result was Microsoft BOB.
No argument there. Of course, many of those marketing innovations were eventually found illegal...
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
But Sony doesn't see many of those fronts as a battle. Their movies compete with other movies, but they can pretty much expect that they'll get their share of the movie-going pie (unless they make crap nobody wants to see, unlike the crap that a lot of people want to see they make now). Same with the home electronics-- they get their share without it being a "war." A CD player will play CDs. You can go to a Sony movie one day and a Pixar movie the next.
The console market is a war because each one fights for marketshare. A PS2 game only works on a PS2. Same with Xbox. Most gamers purchase one and only one console, and so will purchase only that flavor of game. That's why it's a "war." They are fighting for turf, because they can't share the market.
Problem is, Microsoft is fighting too many of those sorts of turf wars. The other companies are not. Google does many things, yes; but those things are done in a single way, as web applications. Google is fulfilling the promise given us by Netscape many years ago-- the platform is irrelevant if you provide the applications via the web. And that's scary for Microsoft.
Sony, at least, is trying to do a great many things all at once, and is succeeding at most, if not all, of them.
*That* is the proper definition of success. Sony doesn't own any single one of the areas in which it competes (with the possible exception of the PS2, which is still dominant). But it's still successful.
Unfortunately, the Microsoft culture doesn't see things that way. It seems that for them, success is being the only one left standing.
Sounds kinda lonely to me.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
FTA: Google has even had the nerve to set up an office five miles down the road from Microsoft's Redmond, Wash., headquarters. Its opening last November was supposed to be an invitation-only affair, but word spread and by 7 p.m. the place was swarming with dozens of uninvited Microsofties--casually, and sometimes not so casually, looking for work. The Google migration has gotten so bad, says a former Microsoft employee, that when he told his bosses and colleagues he was leaving earlier this year, "the first question out of their mouths was 'You're not going to Google, are you?' "
THIS is the real battle, not software, not market share, but people. I can't see any other reason why Google setup an office just down the road from Microsoft other than to siphon off their talent. When the industry believes the smartest and brightest are at Google and not Microsoft, confidence in products, market share and ultimately the future will follow.
Make no mistake, Bill is livid because Google is stealing sheep from his cherished flock of programmers.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
It's an obvious take on Jobs' style.
But anyone can reply, "at least they don't look like the morons that used to sing that 500 miles song".
Go hug some trees.
i have an MS internet pro keyboard too, with about 20 extra media and browser buttons, which all work with no driver and are very useful. not for browsing, but i rebound them all to winamp commands (shuffle on/off, show playlist and so on) and that is really very useful. i cant find another keyboard with as many buttons on it, which makes me anxious for the day this one dies and i have to replace it.
Windows OS
Office
Macintosh business unit (which is really mostly the Office port)
Nothing else at MS makes money. The OS and Office are such money fountains that nothing else has to.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
maybe I am just slow, but I don't really understand WHY Microsoft would even give a shit about google.
Google has no OS, no Office Suite, no database, they are a website. what's the fucking competition? MS already lost the cool website wars about 8 years ago.
is this really over a searching? And why would Bill Gates give a damn about google as long as the people using google are doing it on windows? Is google leading the migration from windows? if so, I missed that headline. Are they working on google OS? Google Office? GoogSQL?
Can someone explain again why it is that google "threatens" microsoft? only use english, not "industry-speak" (aka nonsense)
I will say this, however...if using Google means that I'm being tracked or profiled, and my "habits" become a source of revenue, there are other search services just a mouseclick or two away. Google would do well to remember this...the internet makes service vendors very interchangeable.
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.
I don't think it's important why he set up the site; what matters to me is that he did so, and he exposes views I can check with other sources.
He could have done like everyone else who wants a better pagerank, creating tons of bogus sites pointing to his main site.
Instead, he collected a lot of interesting information on the pagerank algorithm, and then on other Google issues.
To me, this is positive. Just remember to read everything with a grain of salt, as I already wrote.
[by the way, he doesn't have a "celebrity" site, but a conspiracy site called www.namebase.org, which indeed lists more than one hundred thousand powerful people - anyway, another good reason to read everything with a grain of salt]
How about... "It just BARELY works"?
FTA: For six months the team even bought its own servers. Gaining clearance to run and monitor the project on the corporate server farm would have been too time-consuming, Payne's team felt--not to mention the strain an ambitious search offering would put on the systems. (Google is widely estimated to run 250,000 servers to support its search.) The technology they eventually unveiled used a heavily modified version of the Windows server operating system. All its other components were of their own design, run with a lot of software they had written themselves.
I know Microsoft can have all the free copies of Windows it wants, but wouldn't it make more sense for them to switch to Linux instead of Windows? Google has over a 1/4 million servers - A Quarter Million! - and anyone of those cheap machines can die and be replaced quickly. Why? Because they've developed their own specialized database, their own file system and ultimately their own clustering system. Windows is just too big of a pig to be be made lean enough to run and develop software fast enough. There are enough Linux developers now who know the OS backwards and forwards to follow in Google's footsteps then there are Windows OS experts (they're too busy trying to get Longtooth out the door).
The chickens are coming home to roost: Microsoft's big problem in competing with Google is their blind devotion to using their own products.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
That saying should be tatooed in reverse on the forehead of every CEO of every company that competes against Microsoft, so that every morning they look in the mirror and see that message in bold black ink.
The aggressiveness and will to succeed that you find in the CEOs of so many technology companies tends to go hand in hand with the sort of hubris that becomes an iron anchor. They succeed temporarily against Microsoft, get happy about it and crow to whomever will listen, and a few years later they get solidly trounced by the Beast of Redmond.
It has been proven over and over again that Microsoft succeeds against opponents who become complacent. Those that don't (Intuit is a good example) can fend off Microsoft's attacks. But I'm seeing signs that Google is already getting too full of themselves. If they're not paranoid of Microsoft, they're screwed.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
No so much written of course, as copied from successful Java projects...
I see you've bought into the marketing as to the size of the C# space.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
FTA: "In fall 2003, Microsoft briefly considered buying Google, only to realize that even if Brin, Page, and their board could have been persuaded to sell--which seemed unlikely--Microsoft would have been left to explain to the world why it was now running a search engine built entirely on Linux instead of Windows."
Wow, Gates hates Linux so much he won't touch a company that's using it. Microsoft didn't get into the search game because it was a money-loser. So Google grew into one of the most recognized brand names in the world, built the market into THE money maker for the future, and Superman(Microsoft) can touch Google because they're wearing Kryptonite(Linux).
Microsoft needs to pull out all the stops to win this one. It really seems too little too late, but maybe they'll use the patent system to stop them.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Not a googleplex then?
From arcticle:
It's still about writing software that is easier to use, and the easiest-to-use software is always the kind that's integrated with what people already have--like Windows or MSN. Gates says that when Microsoft is done integrating search into future versions of Windows and Office, the world will look back at the way we are now "Googling" for stuff on the Internet and laugh.
Th ereal problem has is that right now, it's already about as easy to use google as possible - you open a browser, and type Google. Even easier of course if you install Goggle toolbar or desktop search...
And this is why Microsoft cannot defeat them using the strategy outlined above. Because they have to make it easy for users to do things that they want - a big part of that is browsing, and customization of programs. And the easier they make browsing or the more powerful they make customization of programs like IE, the easier it is for people to get to Google!
That is the genius of Google, they they have latched onto every opportunity to make it easier to use Google no matter what they had to leverage. I'm not so sure the article is right about Google secretly viewing Microsoft as a real competitor, because the more Microsoft builds into the system the more hooks Google has to get closer to the user as well.
The only thing that can hurt Google is if people loose the desire to seek google out. People will go to the trouble of typing "google" in a browser or installing a toolbar as long as the expereince they get is superior, or at least the most familiar. At the front the article gave the real reason why the fight is so hard, because is this space Microsoft has to be MUCH better than Google to swing loyal customers. And they have NEVER made software that really was better than a competitors... they have always made it almost as good and then marketed the hell out of it. I don't really think that works with search though, certainly not with the ads they have now whcih might as well be for GE or a drug company.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Okay, here's my first cut at a new ad. View cautiously!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
MS didn't get into the game until the third inning. WfWG was a mess. UNI* had been doing networked communications for years before MS decided that "sneaker-net" was not the most productive data exchange methodology. Kludging networking onto the side of DOS is what sent it into the toilet (IMHO). It's an OS that wasn't conceived in an interconnected age. It was designed to be an island unto itself. They eventually got workgroup networking semi-functional, but then they didn't forsee how an infrastructure built for wide-open everyone-is-my-friend access would become a liability when connected to the entire planet, where not everyone is a warm-and-fuzzy smoochy-pal. At every step Gates has considered Windows to be the Gibralter, the impervious center of the universe, to which other, lesser products would gladly tie their boats. He hasn't realized what McNeely saw long ago: "the network is the computer".
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
The more the digital world integrates, the more competitors Microsoft gains. Their position is weakening every year. It's not just that they don't compete like they used to, other companies don't view them favorably. Sony makes Windows PCs- with the Xbox, M$ alienates them. The cell phones companies don't want to turn into Dell. Oracle doesn't want to turn into Netscape. MSN, Yahoo and Google coexist in a media space- like CBS, NBC, and ABC used to, and networks know it. That's why MSNBC hasn't gone very far. Cable companies want no part of M$. Yes, they needed to diversify and they still don't spend enough cash. But they're creating more enemies than they are slaying, and that can't continue for long.
With IE firmly embedded into the MS operating system, I doubt there was any development aimed at improving the web browser. If IE changes too much, MS may have to rework the whole operating system.
Of course, it's the first result for microsoft search.
Oddly enough, the second result is Google's Microsoft Search, which I also didn't know about...
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
it's not just for Google... if you click on the little down arrow you'll be surprised at the number of entries there... the one that isn't on there I'd delete anyway...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
it will be gated again
I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
In my opinion, nothing Microsoft can/will do is going to kill Google. Google has become a household name. Even my Grandmother, who has never used a computer in her life knows "Google." When the name of your company has reached the point where it is used as a verb in a sentence (i.e. "Just google it"), it is going to take something seriously wrong on Google's part for them to die, not something MS is going to counter them with.
I hear you all saying that google will be able to generate surfing habbits and sell this data but, this principle will be based on users installing a plugin. In my experience business models requiring a browser plugin never last. So how could google look to create a long term viable business model out of this?
From TFA: " But Gates rallied Microsoft to develop its own browser, which it then bundled free with Windows." The reality is that IE was built on an older browser called Spyglass http://software.ericsink.com/Browser_Wars.html Upto IE 4.0, vestiges of Spyglass have lingered. Only an insider can tell us whether this is still the case with IE 6.0
All views my own. Anyone else with the same views needs to have his/her head examined.
pun inteded I'm guessing...
If I wrote a search engine, and someone new (no cookies etc etc) just types "chip". From that search it's likely the person is not very smart or just very lazy ;). I would tag the person with the relevant "not so smart" cookie, and give results similar to what these bunch like at the top, and a list of top matches of other alternative meanings of chip (with "More results like this"/"Smilar pages" options for each area).
And, as much as I loathe Gates and his bullying monopolistic tactics, I'm not willing to count Microsoft out just yet.
:-)
Microsoft is definitely getting its head handed to it on every non-x86 platform (I LOVE my new G5 iMac [it screams with 2GB of RAM] and my friend loves his Linux and Sun boxes,) but the market share isn't there yet.
X-Box is costing them with every sale but they are making some money with the software. We'll see what happend with the introduction of Sony/IBM's CELL PS3 processor.
Mainframes are safe from Windows. No mainframe manufacturer or user will let him within a mile of their data centres. We'er talking real money invested in real processing power and real DASD space. It absolutely dwarfs anything Microsoft has ever even dreamed of.
The next big thing (NBT) will come from the realization that interning references (FKEYs) IN objects means a lot of inneficiency and expense.
Its not that the objects being stored change so much as the relationships that these objects participate in change.
I don't see Microsoft growing up from Access and realizing that keeping these participations in external tables, filled with Connection instances, which only point(refer) to the object instances on both sides of he N:M relationships, and instead 'upgrading' SQL to handle Relationships, and Connections, eliminates all of the vaguaries and costs associated with changing object models whenever the reality that business find themselves in changes.
I don't thing that they 'get it'.
If adopted universally, it would also mean the end of 404s and the other symptoms of 'dead links' that currently bedevil Google. But that's for another time.
Let My Pointers Go!
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
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.
1. Wait for a winning product.
2. Duplicate its functionality
3. Integrate product into monopoly OS.
4. Hire lawyer's to argue that using its OS monopoly to crush competition in other business sectors somehow isn't breaking antitrust laws.
5. Payoff politicians so that they turn a blind eye.
6. Wait for the competition to run out of money.
7. Go to step one.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Smart companies do their strategic hiring under the radar... they don't post for them.
Thats an important thing that engineers and architect type people need to understand as they move up the ranks in a company -- you reach a point where the best companies to work don't advertise the positions you want.
What that means is you better be focusing on networking and getting the right contacts, because you won't find the job you want listed in a corporate website or on Monster.
...since I just reloaded this page and got asked if I wanted to accept a DoubleClick cookie. Bleah.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
if he misakenly typed that into a System V machine he'd instead kill all his processes or, if uid 0, the entire box. While in that particular case it'd be amusing, let's remember to use `pkill' instead shall we?
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.
What may be giving Gates so much heartburn is that Microsoft announced their version of the future as centralized computing with Microsoft as the "central". Everything, including your data, housed off site, on Microsoft servers and accessed through leased versions of their software.
If Google does develop Goffice and gives you, say, 10 gig. All your documents, spreadsheets, presentations on Google servers, they will have accomplished what Microsoft has wanted to do but can't. And, all without the cost of leased software, Microsoft's vision of their future revenue. No wonder he's scared. Like Linux, how can he compete with free.
I'm not sure Gates is scared that Google will take over Microsoft as it is now but that Google will take over what Microsoft plans to do in the future.
people with hobs and ovens that have no particular connection. I don't even know if ours are from teh same maker, but there is no reason whyc they should be.
Before we had google we had the Internet Yellow Pages. Every reasonable starting URL was listed, along with Gopher servers and so on.
once longhorn is released and MSN will get integrated in every little corner of it... MSN will start bringing in some serious searches, soon the advertisers will follow...
Google seems to know this and they seem to take steps into diversifying their revenue streams.
I just hope they have enought time.
Superb Hosting
okay so we're back to using a google widget to manage our entire computing experience.
bullshit
when google produces applications, then lets talk about fear and loathing at microsoft.
with os, no os, any os. fuck, we have that now. am I unable to use google with my mac box? no. how about my bsd box. no. how about my solaris box. no. google works there too. simply fucking amazing my browser loads google from anywhere.
gee maybe MS needs to get one of those "works anywhere" web sites too.
So true :)
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
They'll end up with another one of those cutsey icons that pops up and winks at you when you tell it to get the fuck out of your face.
Seastead this.
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.
As a lapsed physicist searching for stuff to wonder about, I've considered doing a back of the envelope argument for why Google's use of Linux and their streamlined clustering system will (all other things begin equal - hey, I'm a physicist!) allow them to always be ahead of Microsoft. The amount of energy needed to run a MS Windows server farm is a sizable percentage higher because of the MS tax that each server pays per computing cycle.
In the long run you can make an argument that this waste of energy will always give Google a competitive edge - especially when the server farms reach into the tens of millions.
A case in point - I read a recent application for an AmEx card thru Costco. You had to agree that all shopping information could be shared with AmEx and, IIRC, undisclosed third party suppliers or something like that. The thing that got me was that this had no limitation on acceptance. That is, even if you were rejected, you had already agreed for Costco to share your information.
Maybe that is what the incentive prize is for - whether you are accepted or not, AmEx and Costco get something valuable and so do you, so you can't claim no contract if later you want to stop the information sharing.
A word of note - for contracts such as this, you can line out that which you don't like and initial it. So long as the store accepts it, the contract is modified (I guess that the store could argue that the recruiter did not have authorization). With the education level of those doing the recruiting, it is not likely they know the significance of what you are doing. I have never had any such modification rejected yet.
Sad but true. Time and time again, Microsoft proved to the world that if it's really afraid of something, it will fight this "something" and win, no matter the cost.
The only thing they can't really win against is Linux, because it's free and it doesn't depend on influx of money to sustain itself.
will be when Google comes up with a Quicken/Money program called GMoney.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
It only takes, 1 cookie that does not expire until 2038. Do you want to know more? - Its all a matter of trust #14.
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
I ran around to a box entrance and grabbed a seat within, literally, spitting distance of the stage.You mean, you had the chance to actually spit on Bill Gates, and didn't? ;-)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Yeah, I'd use that, but when I try to install it, Mozilla tells me it's an unsigned app and I shouldn't trust it...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Firefox isn't really much more than an annoyance, because it will never have the marketing muscle to compete with MSIE
Funny, I don't remember ever seeing or hearing about full page ads in national newspapers or even a formal campaign for the "spread IE" movement. MS' strategy with IE seems to be extreme stealth marketing--it amounts basically to putting a blue 'E' on the screen of its much more hyped, flagship product.
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.
I agree with you on the superiority point; IE was a cruddy re-badge of Spyglass Mosaic when I saw it. However, if memory serves me, the very first time I saw Windows 95 (the VERY FIRST release--the one I saw was installed from genuine 3.5" FLOPPIES) did NOT come with IE at all (it wasn't even hidden in there anywhere). I think the very first IE was included in a "Plus! Pack". I think it was a few months after the Win95 debut that IE was bundled in, and I don't believe it was never on the floppy disk ditribution of Win95.
There is also a difference between now and then--it is not all that inconvenient to try out new browsers in the age of broadband connections, so the threshold of tolerance is lower for bugs/quirks/security holes/stagnation in IE5. Even so, despite slow dial-up and spending extra for a boxed version being the only options for people to get Netscape, IE sucked so badly that the only thing they used it for was to get to netscapes download page. It wasn't until IE hit version 4 that it was close to par, and by version 4 Netscape was getting crufty. Although bundling IE for free propped it up considerably, ultimately Netscape did themselves in
Why won't those smart people at Google headquarters make Google Desktop for Linux and Mac OS X? I'm not rippin' on Google - I use it for everything, a bigtime fanboy - but it's apps really aren't as cross-platform/platform independent as people say.
Linux seems to be revitalized as of late (I suspect it was the insurgence of Firefox) and it gave me a reason to go back to Linux after so many years. Wouldn't it be nice for Google to support open source as much as people say it does?
Comon Google! We want Google Desktop for Linux!
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
AFA the WTO is concerned only dumping in international trade is illegal. A American business dumping American made products in the US market does not fall within it's brief & thus quite legal.
"There are fewer uses for the start button in Windows now that Google's desktop search can locate any program, document, photo, music file, or e-mail on a computer."
- as-start-menu-of-web.html
I have written up how to use the Foxylicious Firefox extension to create a Start button for the Web OS: http://jonaquino.blogspot.com/2005/04/foxylicious
I could give you a link, but I'd rather not pass this chance at a feeble meta-joke, and must, therefore, humbly implore you to google the site up. :-)
More than mere navel gazing.
If their investors don't like it they can sell their shares to other investors, with the Windows & OS cash cows churning a total of billion a month in profit combined, there will always be someone willing to buy MS shares no matter how they fall.
Just as no matter how the price of some mint postage stamp goes up 'n down as philatelists buy & sell it, it's totally irrilivent to it's economic productivity/potential, IE it's ability to transport a letter a certain distance, well it's the same with Stock investors. The productive output of a company is determined by it's output, in regards Ford that's the cars & trucks running off it's lines, & the value of it's stock is as irrilivent here as the value our philatelists put on our mint postage stamp.
Really once money is raised via a prospectus & a company is floated on a exchange the value of it's shares become meaningless to a company. Each time the shares are then bought & sold is just a exchange of part ownership with no net investment gain or loss to the company. IOW investors don't matter, all that matters are potential investors if a company plans to raise more funds by a future share issue.
So please tell me why investor confidence matters to MS? With their Windows & Office cash cows they never need to ever think about raising new funds with another issue, & if MS investors don't like the way things are going they can sell their shares, it makes no difference to MS. Ontop of which MS's CEO could hypothetically divest all it's non liquid assets in a free lottery & there would still be billions for the major shareholders to retire on & live off the interest.
Why MS keeps wasting billions doing things like buying up companies & software & developing new products for no net return is beyond me. You know spending a obcene amount of money on things like the Xbox as the've done over the years. Each new field or product being a billion dollar gamble in the hope of striking lucky the way they did with Windows & Office (like the way Hitler kept gambling on new campiaigns after the winter of 41 in the hope of emulating the successes of the Spring of 1940 & the summer of 41). Especially when they can just rake in a billion a month on just their Windows & Office markets & simply invest the profits in property, the banking, arms & pharmacuetical industries (all can be very profitable relative to the average earnings/asset ratio in business) for the inivitable day when there isn't enough of a market for Windows & Office to be worth while sustaining. Whether that happens in a year or a decade it makes no differance to MS sustainability in regards filthy profits.
Gez instead of wasting a fortune on the numerous things over the years like the XBox 'n Underdog & buying up other companies 'n IP, they could simple burn a million or 2 a year & the net result would be the same - the losses totally eclipsed by the Profits from Windows & Office.
Corporations should consider themselves lucky if they fluke one cash cow, but MS fluked 2 cash cows, meaning the odds are a million to one that they'd ever fluke 3 times lucky. Better to just invest in the companies/sectors/industries with the top earning to asset ratios. That will set them up much better for the inivitable day whenever when the Windows & Office cashcows splutter down.
"If you're interested, there's a website called google-watch-watch which tracks this google-watch guy."
:-)"
;-)
Isn't this Internet thing Wonderful? Anyone can refute anyone else's views, and the reader can make up his mind (if he has one).
"I could give you a link, but I'd rather not pass this chance at a feeble meta-joke, and must, therefore, humbly implore you to google the site up.
No way. I looked for it on Altavista
Many Googlers bike to work.
____________________________________
-- I beleve you'll like this -->
Are you being intentionally dense? Currently, there's loads of stuff that you need (word processor,...) that is not OS-agnostic. That might change. Not with today's browser, but in the future. Already, Google's UIs are classes better that standard web apps.
Think about "Mozilla, the platform".