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
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.
Competition is all well and good...when you're winning!
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
If Microsoft would innovate, instead of copy, then Gates would not have to be envious of Google's success and coolness.
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.
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!
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.
McDonalds?
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_
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
>"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.
"the big machine in Redmond shows no fear, even in the face of major competition from Linux and FOSS"
They show no fear because there is no "major" competition for them. At least not in Linux and FOSS, the competition they're worried about is in the online portals, like Gooogle.
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$.
Tiger anyone ?
Microsoft, once it owned the bulk of the market, has been a second-mover.
Gates aims for the fat cash hump in the middle of the market distribution.
The real question is, will Google turn this second-mover strategy into a giant suppository?
Yep. The Google-branded Apple MacIntosh, coming soon to a nightmare near you...
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Excuse me.....when has Microsoft ever really gotten there first? Their signature business method is to buy some small or unknown software company in a given market and then use their monopoly influence, price undercutting, and FUD to drive out or hinder competitors while they hurry to catch up with whatever software they bought. Years later, they have little competition and a product that is "good enough" (read: Marketing has convinced enough people to buy it and put up with all the bugs that remain).
They've already bought their search technology but apparently it's harder than it looks. Of course, they would have preferred to eliminate the competition outright.
The real problem here is that Microsoft can't cut their price below free and Google has at least one software generation or so head start (that, coupled with the other Microsoft bug-a-boo -- FOSS). Billy boy is never so pissed than when a company points out just how uninnovative Microsoft really is...
Their next slogan? "Microsoft -- following the leader like usual."
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
if you type "chip," they can't tell whether you are looking for a snack food or high-tech equipment..."
/.ers care to comment on possible directions for Wikipedia that would make it a threat to google?
Was mentioned in the article as a shortcoming of search engines.
Take a look at:
chip results on Wikipedia.
Any
I the only one smiling from ear to ear?
I'd be willing to wager that Microsoft's customers are pretty darned happy - everytime M$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.
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.
The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste; they have absolutely no taste. And what that means is -- I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way -- in the sense that they don't think of original ideas, and they don't bring much culture into their products... And so I guess I am saddened, not by Microsoft's success; I have no problem with their success, they've earned their success, in the most part; I have a problem with the fact they make really third rate products. -- Steve Jobs
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like the headline of the next John C. Dvorak article.
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.
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.
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.
What they're actually referring to is Google's practice of using their AdWords system for recruiting. If you search Google for obscure, advanced topics in computer science, a Google employment ad may appear.
We all have some reason to despise Microsoft, so I won't repeat all of them.
Thats' why many people are ready to follow anyone who tries to put up some competition to them.
In some cases, the competition has a much better product (go, Firefox!)
In some others, the competition might even be worse... or at least trying to use the same heavy handed tactics M$ has used for decades.
I'm afraid Google might fall into this second class. They have lots of very sensitive data on us: our searches, our emails, maybe we are even handling them the documents on our desktop.
All this data can be easily correlated through an immortal cookie (with an expiration date in 2038, it will definitely outlast my PC).
There is a web site keeping an eye on Google:
http://www.google-watch.org/
While I would take anything in this site with a grain of salt, it still paints a very disturbing of Google; anyone can verify their claims, afterwards... but first of all read it!
The test is simple. Drive through the parking lots at Microsoft at, say, 9PM on Tuesday evening. Count the cars. Now do the same at Google. The difference is the competitive edge.
It used to be, back in the early-to-mid 90's, that the Microsoft parking lots were full well into the early morning. It wasn't unusual to see full lots at 3AM. Now days the lots only begin to fill at 9am, and by 5:30 they are half-empty again. By 9pm, the janitors are parking in front of the building. There is not a car in site. I suspect the Google parking lots resemble the early-90's lots at Microsoft.
The typical Microsoft rank-and-file employee simply doesn't care any more. It's a job. The employee morale at Microsoft is at an all-time low. One of the major concerns the HR-driven corporation has these days is the attrition ratio. The fear is that the new surge of startups in the Washington area will pull the best people out, leaving Microsoft with the dregs.
A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
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.
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.
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
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.