Google Might Disappear in Five Years

An anonymous reader writes "Speaking to a packed auditorium at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., on May 12, Ballmer trumpeted the ripe opportunities around Microsoft's sprawling business and questioned the ability of Google to maintain its edge. Clearly alluding to Microsoft's key Internet search rival, Ballmer said: 'The hottest company right now -- the one nobody thinks can do any wrong -- may just be a one-hit wonder.' According to concept developed by Ballmer, the online search engines represent the key points of the future technology, and the leader in this domain, none other than Google, is destined to perish in less than five years. These predictions belong exclusively to Microsoft's CEO who sounds a little like Bill Gates announcing iPod's death."

Comments

We have heard it before from M$

[mgv]

Bill Gates predicting the demise of the ipod about a week ago?

This is typical microsoft FUD. They are so far behind they don't even have a creditable product to show an alternative to. But they will still tell you that there is a superior windows based solution available.

I guess they owe it to their shareholders to fly the flag. Hopefully nobody will actually believe them.

Michael

Re:We have heard it before from M$

[thparker]

And I won't. Just because you'd prefer to use your phone as a music player doesn't mean it's what a majority of people want, and it doesn't make Bill right. I suspect we'll see a substantial market for both kinds of devices for a very long time.

Re:We have heard it before from M$

[Tony]

I guess they owe it to their shareholders to fly the flag.

Nope. They owe it to their shareholders to do the best job possible to keep their company profitable; they can do that without being bastards. The only time they "owe" their shareholders something else is when they make promises; then they better deliver.

Case in point: when you say you are going to utterly destroy a competitor (ethics aside), you'd better have a real plan on how to do it. You had better not just have some pithy sayings to throw out at random and not-so-random gatherings. If you say Google is going down, you need a plan on bringing Google down. Even if the plan fails (at which point the board should judge your competence), you need a credible plan.

Lying to your stockholders by promising things you can't deliver is bad business. Yet it seems MS is on a rampage of deceipt. (That's not really news.) Personally, I think every time they make promises like this, the stockholders should hold them liable.

But maybe that's just me, being all bleeding-heart and wanting a little accountablity.

Re:We have heard it before from M$

[squiggleslash]

I think both of them are right, FWIW. I've never seen Google's long term strategy, if they exist in five years it'll either be as an also-ran or as something other than a search engine company. It's easy to see how some dotcoms are able to have a long term strategy - Amazon, for example, builds a brand but actually sells things on the basis of that brand, and does a lot of work to ensure they have a superior shopping experience compared to their competitors. Google's slowly working its way to becoming a portal, a business model proven over and over again to be a disaster for the vast majority of the companies that have tried it.

The PDA is dead, its functions supplanted by the cellphone. Today no cellphone exists that challenges the iPod, much as no cellphone - at least beyond a few concept phones like the Nokia 9000 - existed six or seven years ago that had the full calender, notes, et al, functionality we see in pretty much everything today. All we need is about $60 worth of additional hardware in a sizable amount of phones (and mobile phone manufacturers have successfully incorporated much more, often for trivial gains, in the past without problems) comprising of a small low-power hard disk and a 3.5" jack, and we're looking at something that can contain MP3s the same way an iPod can. Manufacturers are experimenting right now, but at this point they're just looking at competing with the flash MP3 player market. Given the benefits of a hard disk to the rest of the system, especially with multimedia and camera phones, expect this to become standard issue within the next two or three years.

Whether any Microsoft technology will be at the heart of any of the iPod and Google replacements remains to be seen. But even Google isn't Google any more. Why would anything resembling it exist in five years? And who the hell is going to buy an iPod if their phone already has all the capacity they need and can play MP3s?

Re:We have heard it before from M$

[bitchell]

I have both and I am quite happy to keep them apart. I don't want a dishwasher that makes me dinner any more than I want a phone thats battery is dead because I listened to some music.

Re:We have heard it before from M$

[squiggleslash]

Nobody's saying PDA functionality or MP3 playing or searching is going to die. Gates and Balmer are talking about specific entities. Gates said the iPod will die. Yes, it will. He didn't say MP3 playing functionality will disappear, and neither did I, both of us said the opposite. And yes, it's entirely correct for us to say PDAs and iPods are going to die: PDA functionality migrated to cellphones, but cellphones are not (for the most part), PDAs. PDAs - devices like the Palm Pilot - are no longer relevent to the market.

iPods of course haven't died, but with iPod we're being even more specific, in that we're not just talking about MP3 players but a specific MP3 player. Unless Apple releases an iPod Phone (highly unlikely), the device itself will eventually become obsolete. And if it becomes an iPod phone, it'll be a phone that plays MP3s, not an MP3 player that communicates.

A cellphone is to US companies is a portal to their service package, and as such, they will try hard to keep cellphones plain. A cheaper cellphone means people will be willing to pay higher contract prices.

But they're not. Cellphones contain PDA functionality and it's becoming increasingly difficult to find one without a camera. They're increasing in functionality, and the proposal here - adding a hard drive and MP3 playing - is logical and wouldn't add much to the cost of them. I suggested $60, but that's about the cost of a 2G, 1.8" hard drive from Cornice. In practice, that drive would be replacing expensive flash memory already built into the phone so it might not even increase the cost, and it would be the logical way to make a camera phone more useful.

Well, if you're going to build a hard drive into the phone, why not add a 3.5mm jack too?

Cellphone companies are showing no desire to sell cheap, simplified, phones, especially since you're less likely to want to switch if you invest in an expensive phone that works on one carrier only.

Re:We have heard it before from M$

[squiggleslash]

They are already more than just a search engine company...(on portals:) I disagree. I don't see the kind of business that Yahoo or Altavista had.

That's right, and I said they were. Why do people take random sentences and ignore the rest of them when responding to me, even quoting sentences later that point out their previous comment was, essentially, arguing against something I never implied? Geez.

The point is that Google right now is doing what Yahoo!, Excite, et al, did before it, and what MSN, AOL, etc, started off doing and have reinvented almost as many times as the years they've operated. It's becoming a portal, a mismash of random web-based Internet services that get released when they look both different and cool from the competition. And believe me, that's a good thing. Yahoo's webmail is great and was revolutionary when released, but Google's is sufficiently different for the world to be a better place with it. Yahoo's news system is great and was revolutionary when released, Google's is... well, it's different, and a lot people like it. Yahoo's shopping system is great and was revolutionary when released, Google's is... well, actually I don't see a lot of point in Google's, but in time it'll improve. I find Amazon tends to be beat Yahoo Shopping and eBay anyway in terms of functionality, but that's my personal opinion.

Yahoo succeeded, just. It's not clear how viable Yahoo is in the long term. Google, when people stop talking about what a wonderful company it is and actually think about what it's doing, has no clear long term strategy either. It seems to be always "Let's do a bit more, only different!"

I wish them the best of luck, but I don't see a serious thing here that's tying people to Google other than name recognition and being the current leader in something. This isn't Microsoft where they're able to sell an operating system on the basis that everyone else has it, therefore you probably need it if you want to interoperate with the rest of the world. Google searches the same websites everyone else can access. Google's mail talks to the same email addresses the rest of the world does. Google gets their news from the same generic sources the rest of the world does. Only Google Groups comes close to being dependent on something other than technical superiority.

That's nice for us but it's relatively easy to suggest Google can easily become an also-ran. With patience and the right resources, it can be beaten. One 800lb gorilla is working on that.

Again, I disagree. You make the same mistake that most people make. The iPod is more than just a music player. It's a whole new way of making business.

No, the iPod's a music player. The iPod is a little white and silver unit with an LCD screen that can store several thousand "songs" (MP3 or AAC files of approximately 5Mb each) that can play then anywhere. Everything else is a support business that, in concept, doesn't care if it's going onto something with an Apple logo or a Dell or Motorola logo. Apple is trying to change that by controlling who gets to license FairPlay, but that's not enough ultimately to prevent mobile phones with built in HDs becoming the dominant portable music players. The fact that Apple's version is doing this is an implementation detail, and one that's an active handicap to end users.

To assume Apple will continue draconian control over FairPlay to protect sales of one bit of plastic and metal that, increasingly, will compete against commodity devices is to assume that no competition exists, and that if it does, it wouldn't potentially make Apple irrelevent. There are a wide variety of music stores with various different models, and if people start buying phones with, say, Windows Media DRM instead of FairPlay, then Apple will become irrelvent because people will buy music for those phones and gradually replace their collections.

So, no, I can't see iPods having a future. T

Re:We have heard it before from M$

[Minna Kirai]

so having that functionality in an mp3 player is really nice as you don't have to carry around two devices.

Having all functionality in one device can be really bad, too. Leave music playing and wear out the phone so you can't get calls anymore? Bad.

On 10-hour airplane flight where phone usage is prohibited, and you can't listen to music? Bad.

In a gym where cameras are prohibited, so you can't listen to music / take calls? Bad.

Unable to upgrade/replace any of your portable electronics without replacing ALL of them? Bad.

Already more than one-hit

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has been verbed, it isn't easy killing something that has been verbed. When you search for something you 'Google' for it, MSNing for something just seems wrong.

Re:Already more than one-hit

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with you. And I'm not sure about the one hit thing either.

Lets see, I used to have a hotmail account, I ditched that for my Gmail account (which I love BTW), so thats one product.

I ditched mapquest for maps.google (or whatever it is, I just google for it :) ), so that's two.

I ditched all other search engines for Google, so thats three.

Desktop search, I haven't gone there yet, but I think you know where I will go first. Thats four.

Steve, I think you are delusional, and wish you the best once reality sinks in.

Good Luck

[bradleycarpenter]

I use google because I like google. I wouldn't use microsoft even if their search engine were superior. I'm happy with what I have, and do not plan on changing for a good long while.

very un-classy

[yagu]

From the fine article: "I've lost track of the number of times people have said the personal computer has reached its limits," said Ballmer.

Well, I've lost track of the number of times Ballmer and/or Gates has predicted the next wave in technology and were wrong.... One I found most notable was in 1999, when Gates at a keynote speech said within a couple of years, everyone would be communicating with their computers via speech. And, unless you count shouting "@(*$&#@(*&$" at a recalcitrant PC as communicating via speech, he was dead wrong.

Notable about his wrongness wasn't the "missed" prediction, in my opinion, it was how off-the-mark his vision was -- a vision easily and with little intuition would have predicted no PC/speech interaction, even if the technology completely stepped up to it (it didn't).

It seems pretty clear to me Ballmer/Gates use the bully pulpit not to make clear and visionary statements about the future, but instead to state what they want the future to be as it relates to:

• future sales of Microsoft products
• squelching growth and/or success of real or potential competition.

Ballmer's bad-mouthing and demise-forecasting statements are more of the same. What is it with Microsoft and its leadership anyway? Nobody expects them to be patsies for the industry and its competition, but they'd earn a little more good will and respect themselves if they'd show a little for the others in the industry who have demonstrated real innovation and have contributed to the industry.

I'm probably risking troll karma with this post... but really think Ballmer, and Gates need to be called on this each time they make these public statements... Remember, Ballmer is the guy who, in reference to the DOJ investigation of their business practices said of the Attorney General (and I'll just paraphrase)..., "attorney general can go to Hell".... very rude in and of itself, and unforgivably, he used a "go to"....

Re:very un-classy

[justforaday]

What I find funny about all their missed predictions is that everyone expects Microsoft, with the ridiculously dominant position they're in, to be the ones leading the world to those predictions. I have yet to see Microsoft actually leading the way in anything...

Developers!

[drewzhrodague]

Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!

Seriously. Just like our current government, just because you say something is one way, does not quite make it so.

Just like MSN was going to supplant the web

[shotgunefx]

right...

case in point

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that internet search/indexing is a commodity Google will have a hard time sustaining any profitability in the long term.

Re:case in point

[crmartin]

Its not like Google's revenue has anything to do with search, except as a way to pull people to their site. But they get revenue by presenting targeted ad content.

Now, whether ad=paid services are a feasible long-term model is another question, but the broadcast networks have managed for 50 years, and last I looked Yahoo was making money.

Re:case in point

[mr i want to go home]

The thing is, is that Google is becoming much more than "just a search engine". Have you seen the range of services they offer these days?

Microsoft have missed the boat again. Not only that, but they had really no idea where it was headed in the first place. Sure, search will be important but it has always been important, even in the days of library card indexes. Google's future is in a web 'platform'. They've got the tech and the brains to do it. And right now, it's obvious that the head honcho's and Microsoft have their heads up their arses so far that they just can't see the bigger picture.

Re:case in point

[Eric Giguere]

As others have already pointed out, Google makes the lion share of its money from ads, though they do sell their search technology itself via things like their search appliances, partnering with companies like Amazon, etc.

I think, though, that one of the keys to Google's success has been its ability to create simple, automated processes wrapped around its technology. Want to promote your stuff? A few screens to fill out and $50 lets you start an AdWords campaign. Want to make money? Cut-and-paste AdSense code onto your website to start displaying relevant ads automatically. Want to integrate search? Use the Google APIs to query Google's main index. Got products to sell? Submit a product feed to get listed in Froogle. Want to index specialized documents? Write a plugin for the Google Desktop tool. And so on... They seem to go to great lengths to make things simpler to do. That's the key part of their culture that has made them successful. IMHO.

Eric
(And yes, I have a new book on Google coming out mid-June so obviously I like what they do!)

Re:case in point

[ComputerSlicer23]

Read the whole article, and the quote in context makes a bit more sense.

Essentially, Google has the ability, and is starting to display the technology to enable full featured web applications. Once you get fully hooked in, the WPA would do all the heavy lifting of prefecting, high end compression. It would serve you up Web based spreadsheets, Word Processors, heck, even Image editing applications.

Somewhere in the article he talks about Google essentially deploying a cluster of ~2-20M machines. These machines would run those web based applications. You'd save your data on their storage. The WPA is the first step in this process. You start there. Then they have the ability to serve up more content, and take over more responsibilities from your computer.

So eventually, any computer you walk to, as long as it is hooked into Google's WPA, you have all of the standard functionality and data you need when you use your computer.

I'm not sure I believe it, but in context, that quote makes a lot more sense.

Finally, a lot of people don't precisely agree with you on what a thin client is. A thin client most definitly runs it's own OS. A lot of times, it's the same OS you would use on a desktop. My definition of a thin client is: You can throw it away, and replace it with a fresh machine, and modulo minor configuration, you didn't lose any data or functionality. So, by my definition, a fully functionally WPA that stores your data, and has web enabled applications is pretty close. You need something capable of getting onto the internet, and a web broswer that is compatible with WPA. That's pretty close.

I have thin clients that are essentially diskless work stations. They run a full Linux install, but they have no floppy, CD, or disk. They boot off of the network, and use network filesystems to store thing. You still use the local CPU to run all your applications. In terms of administration, you just have to maintain the boot image. Now, on some of those, I've got them setup so that only Mozilla runs on the local CPU, while all other applications run over X. Thus, I only have to maintain a very small boot image, and for web based work, the user gets pretty much the full capacity of the machine. It's cheaper to buy full desktops and strip them, then to buy honest to goodness terminals from what I've seen.

Kirby

This assumes that people are going to stop...

[XxtraLarGe]

Using Google. I know I won't. It's the default search engine in Safari and Firefox, I don't see that changing to Microsoft any time soon.

Google, iPod, PS2. It's great to see Microsoft in a distant 2nd place (if in any place at all) in many of the new technology areas.

Hehe...

[FuzzzyLogik]

I still use google exclusively. i never even try other search engines because google finds what i need right away. as long as it does that then i won't be switching. not to mention the stay outta your face ads and clutter of other search engines. google has a clean interface, finds the stuff i'm looking for, and stays out of your face. works great for me!

While the MS/Google sniping goes on...

[MtViewGuy]

...Good old Yahoo! is making a major comeback of sorts.

Anyone who's seen Yahoo! in the last two years note they have improved their searches (thanks to the acquisition of Overture), and started up a lot of new features that I find very useful.

More likely that Ballmer will disappear...

[BrentRJones]

...in less than 5 years.
Many would like to "disappear" him even now.

Trash Talking

[thenetbox]

Does trash talking really help CEOs of major companies? It sounds like a WWE soap opera almost.

Google has already proven that its not a one hit wonder. They've had hit upon hit upon hit.

Does Google talk trash? I don't recall them making any bold stupid statements and that alone makes me like them more.

Come on google release an operating system to really get things interesting.

Re:"Might"

[ShinSugoi]

Yeah, but might doesn't make it right!

I agree

[Momoru]

I agree in the sense that technology changes so quickly these days, its just as likely Microsoft will be considerably less powerful 5 years from now. 5 years ago would anyone predict Apple would be doing as well as it has? That Google would be as popular as it is? Currenly Google is expanding very quickly, I would argue too quickly, and still 98% of their profits are from one source...so yes if that one source changes or goes away, Google will too. Also although Gates predicting the iPods doom sounds like FUD, that is entirely possible too. If one perdicted the Walkman's doom in the 80's they would seem crazy too right? Tech changes fast. And its hard to say for sure if Google or the iPod are fads or here to stay.

More of the Usual

[ultimabaka]

It's amazing just how powerful Microsoft's marketing side really is in the grand scheme of their company. I always thought User Friendly joked around with that, but man I was wrong. It's obviously the role of the marketing department out there to say "oh the competition's shit" or "ooo Commies use Linux, see?!"

The idea that an online search company of all things could make 400m plus per quarter simply preplexes me, but even if Microsoft happens to be right this one time (Even a broken clock is right twice a day right?), Google has pretty much secured a place in history as a very strong company.

To say nothing of the massive expansion projects paid for through their IPO. They bought a satellite for Pete's sake.

They sound scared

[cabjf]

Is it just me or has all Microsoft been doing lately is predicting doom for their competition?

Is Google Diversifying? Enough?

[mekkab]

That seems like the Crux of Mr. Ballmer's argument. And frankly, thats so obvious, its MBA 101.

Google is taking strides; witness Gmail and Google Maps; when my DAD (the guy who self infected his PC with Spyware) is raving about how cool Google Maps is... you know that Google the company is heading in the right direction.

But Microsoft can fight wars on multiple fronts. Regardless of the wisdon of that, can Google say the same?

Additionally, this could me the Microsoft version of FUD; "Sure, google is tops now. But what about 5, 10 years? Investors, put your money in Microsoft, a proven leader!"

Perhaps that last point is a little too Sun-Tzu, but you have to question his motives.

Google loose it's edge?

[portwojc]

What is it called when you search for something?

I'll go google for the answer and get back to you.

MSN Search and Longhorn bundled?

[mario_grgic]

Does that mean MSN Search bars and all the crap that's currently being installed bundled with MSN Messenger will make it into next version of OS.

It just might make all clueless windows people start using MSN search, because it's there on their task bar all the time.

One hit?

[Sierpinski]

I don't see how they can be called a one-hit wonder. They have their search engine, then google maps, froogle, picasa photo sharing, labs, scholar (for research papers and such), google answers, language translation, newsgroups, local business information, and much much more. (see more at http://www.google.com/options/)

Its obvious that google is doing much to expand their capabilities. I wonder how often Mr. Ballmer uses google himself. That's a stat I'd like to see.

"One-hit wonder?"

[Entropius]

Google has shown, time and again, that it's good at things other than search.

Has he ever really checked out Google Maps, where you can see high-res maps and aerial images side by side? (I'm right now looking at high-res pictures of the building on the army base where I used to work. Score one for freedom of information!) Or gmail, which does webmail far, far better than anything anyone else can come up with?

They've got other services, too: Froogle, image search, usenet, a translator...

Google, as part of their business, has lots of smart people and an enormous amount of computer juice under one roof. Unlike Microsoft, they've shown again and again that they can come up with nifty ways to use those people and computers to get information into the people's hands... ... and they do it all without being oppressive or looking to create "brand lockin" like Microsoft does with their Passport system.

Microsoft competes with marketing tricks and coercive business practices: business model first, product second.

Google competes by creating a product that's better than anything anyone else has, and then figuring out a way to make money off of it. In the long run, this approach works better. If you make good stuff, you'll always have a market.

Google has a far way to go.

[CKnight]

As is often trumpeted by Google founders, search is FAR from solved. With only 15 percent of the internet's content indexed (That was a few years ago. Maybe it has grown, maybe it has shrunk), Google will still have many a year left in the fore without any need to diversify or innovate. Couple that with the fact that they ARE diversifying and innovating and what you have is a company with a whole lot of staying power.

One can only assume that Balmer made these statements because it's been almost a week since he's been in a headline and we all know he has a quota to fill.

Lessons from Lotus, Apple, Palm, Netscape, IBM

[G4from128k]

Many once dominant companies have slipped in the face of Microsoft's monopolistic control of the PC desktop. Did these companies make mistakes? Sure. But was Microsoft flawless in its products and execution? No! What enabled MS to dominate was not technological superiority in an innovation or performance sense, but control of a platform.

If a company controls a platform where compatibility with that platform is essential/valued, then that company has a massive advantage against any other potential competitor. Unless PC-compatibility becomes unnecessary, Google will join the ranks of companies such as Lotus, Apple, Palm, Netscape, and IBM.

Re:Lessons from Lotus, Apple, Palm, Netscape, IBM

[stevesliva]

Unless PC-compatibility becomes unnecessary, Google will join the ranks of companies such as Lotus, Apple, Palm, Netscape, and IBM.

Apple and IBM? Google will join the ranks of successful technology companies? No way!

Re:Lessons from Lotus, Apple, Palm, Netscape, IBM

[yagu]

Sure. But was Microsoft flawless in its products and execution? No! What enabled MS to dominate was not technological superiority in an innovation or performance sense, but control of a platform.

I think the big (and dangerous to Microsoft) difference here and now is that Microsoft feels that "control of a platform" slipping from their grasp. They've lost good will from almost everyone, they no longer dominate because the Web is way too distributed for them to control by old techniques. I really think they are showing more fear now, and they turn to saying bad things (unprovable things, untrue things) about the rest of the competitive world hoping to gain purchase on their stranglehold that way. The world will end up being a better place all around if they finally lose that dominance.

Ballmer using Chewbacca Defense?

[ttys00]

With Microsoft being in a dubious position at the moment (Longhorn delayed, Linux and OpenOffice becoming more of a threat to its cash cows etc), of course Ballmer is going to try and distract people by making them look for problems elsewhere.

Student: Why should I work for MS given the problems Microsoft is currently facing?
Ballmer: [pulling a monkey out of his pocket] Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey! [student's head explodes]

Smokin' in the Boardroom...

[BadElf]

This whole attitude of "winner take all" is why people are switching from Microsoft to other technologies. Who wants to be locked into a solution owned by a company with a take-no-prisoners attitude? Like the universe isn't big enough for Microsoft AND Google to co-exist? Ballmer is just full of shit.

And if he'd shut up long enough to listen to his customers and got his army of programmers and developers to focus on their CORE business -- OPERATING SYSTEMS -- maybe they'd have a decent product. But what the hell do I know?

I know that a big part of my job is to CHOOSE platforms for my clients' systems, and guess what? Haven't done a MS install in two years. Not because I'm a Linux fanatic, but because I weigh silly things like uptime, scalability, usability, compatability and a bunch of other "bilities".

If MS wants to go into the search business and has the balls to think they've got what it takes to be the Google-killer, more power to them. Have at it. Just give me a little of what they're smoking in the boardroom.

Re:Not again....

[Khomar]

The thing that impresses me with Google is that they are not a "one hit wonder". Yeah, their search engine is very impressive, but it could disappear within five years. Has anyone checked out Gmail lately? Or Google Maps? Or any of the other products they have been coming out with? Google is producing web software that is technically excellent and extremely usable.

In my mind, Gmail's biggest strengths are not in its massive size or even the searching capabilities. It is all of the little touches that make things easier: automatic popup of contacts as I start typing, tracking conversations by e-mail, keyboard shortcuts, saving e-mail sent from 3rd party software -- all of the little touches that make it a joy to use.

Why do I bring this up? This is not just the strengths of a single product, but it is indicative of the level of quality and eye for detail that defines the company of Google. They know how to make great software -- from a technological viewpoint as well as user experience. Microsoft may be able to kill parts of Google (ie. certain products), but they will have a difficult time keeping this great company down. If one app gets killed, they can always come out with a new one. The strength of a company is not in its products but in the quality of their people, and right now, it looks like Google has the very best.

No, Ballmer, I think Google will be around for quite a while.

Re:Microsoft's strategy.

[Jaseoldboss]

No they want to get rid of Google because they couldn't buy it.

They'll probably integrate MSN Search into *everything* including the XBox and then reserve a couple of million dollars for when they get sued for anti-competitive practices.

Much as I'd like an Insightful mod point I've only stated what M$ have done ever since they've had a dominant product to abuse.

So Typical!!

[kortex]

The spreading of fear, uncertainty and doubt -- an age old Microsoft tradition. This is what happens every single time Microsoft gets scared that things might not go their way, or whenever certain sectors of their business become threatened in some way. Between Google (+Gates paranoia that they are secretly building an operating system), FireFox, Apple - Microsoft is getting gently hammered at from all sides. Ballmer is Microsoft's propagandist "Elmer F.U.D"...and uh, yes, he is completely full of shit as usual.
Add that to the growing spectre of the decline of the x86 architecture in the next 5-8 years - IBM is behind CELL - and they are in a near panic.
They are like angry, petulant children when their ducks get knocked out of line - angry, petulant little children with billions and billions of dollars...

Re:We have seen it before from MS

[smittyoneeach]

Yes, but in those cases, MS controlled the platform.
See, "DOS isn't done until Google won't run" lacks a certain...reality...

The truth is obvious enough..

[FriedDylan]

For anyone who has any knowledge of the history of technology as we know it today that is.. Microsoft's true strength lies in its abilitiy to both remain so very deeply rooted in the technology most people are using (as an OS and also a vital application publisher for productivity) as well as the ability to throw oooglobs of money at problems until they go away- They've never necessarily been on top due to outstanding performance and quality product. Can Google remain on top of this game or will Microsoft prevail simply because they store enough water in its hump to live the longest in the desert without a drink, so to speak.. I'm thinking the latter is true but through atrition we may find different.. No empire is forever.

And Microsoft may also go away

[LWATCDR]

Anyone remember...
AMC
Eastern Airlines
Data General
Control Data
DEC
Cray
Digital Research
Douglas Aircraft
Wright Aircraft Engines
Atari
Commodore
Or even shrink like Zilog.

Frankly Microsoft is scared. Only one company in the microcomputer world has survived going to a new CPU. That is Apple. It is really looking like the X86 cpu is reaching the end of it's life. Intel is in big trouble since it really does have most of it's eggs in that basket. Look at what Microsoft choose for the XBox 360. Why have .net unless you are planing on leaving the X86 line? Even as far back as NT Microsoft was going multi platform.
When the X86 is no longer the common denominator and people NEED to buy new software to use the new systems to their full potential will Microsoft loose it's lock in?

"Don't Believe the Hype"

[Chaos_Thoery]

This is a classic tactic: Create a stir about an issue that is not really an issue and people will start making it an issue. This is analogous to the political tactic of "wedge issues" in elections.

Playing Google's Game

[SoupIsGood Food]

Google's business model is simple:

1)Create an enormous webserver cluster using cheap hardware and cheaper (free) software.

2) Then think of clever things to do with it.

Step 3, instead of being ???, is "sell non-annoying text ads aligned with the context of what the user is viewing."

4) Profit!

Parts one, three and four are easy. Part Two is hard... really, really hard. Unsurprisingly, it's where Google is throwing the lion's share of their money and manpower. They foster a spirit and culture of top-tier creativity.

This culture has been crushed into line-toeing, bootlicking mediocrity by Microsoft management. They're great for incremental updates in line with whatever upper-management mandate Bill has in mind this year and aping what smaller competitors are doing, but they suck at breaking new ground.

So, MSFT will always be a step behind in a game Google engineered to reward only those who can think new things first. Even if Microsoft manages to invent or buy a new idea, Google will come up with a way of making it faster, cheaper, safer and more powerful. It's what they did to Microsoft's Hotmail.

SoupIsGood Food

1-hit wonder.

[zwilliams07]

Hmmmm...

- a kick ass search engine
- a news service that offers alerts via email
- a request an answer service
- a mail-order catalog search
- a directory listing for all of its cataloged sites
- a cache service that keeps multiple stores of websites
- a shopping search engine
- a groups service for mailing lists and discussion groups
- an awesome image search engine
- a local business and service finder
- a better than average maps search engine
- mobility service
- a scholar paper search
- specialized searches for technology
- an university search
- a blogging system
- a code search engine for open source
- a desktop search engine
- an instant message service
- an explore function (keyhole)
- an image sharing system
- a translator system
- the largest free email service available

No wonder Windows is so awful, hell even the big boss can't count correctly.

Stages of Microsoft vs Google

[metoc]

1. Denial
They are a one hit wonder.

2. Bargaining
Buy them out, make partnerships, call the lawyers, do something!

3. Anger
This just isn't right. We are supposed to rule for ever. What's the point of buying politicians!

4. Despair
This can't be happening! Where's Bill!

5. Acceptance
I will sell my stock, get my severance and retire.

Company that can do no Wrong?

[eno2001]

Where is this kind of bullshit coming from? Sure Google has their little "Don't be evil" motto, but that's clearly tongue-in-cheek. To me, Ballme sounds more like a little bully who is trying to save face after losing one battle by making fun of his opponent. Or even more to the point, it's real easy to imagine Homer Simpson standing in for Ballmer saying that same exact thing in his mocking tone of voice.

The point is that Microsoft is late to the search engine game as they were late to the web browser game. They clearly have an edge with their OS monopoly and could use the same tactics they did with Netscape. But, this isn't just about search engines now. With Google expanding into mail, price comparisons, news aggregation, online book searches, maps and usenet news in searchable format, MS has a lot to catch up with. Of course, they are going to publicize their search tools the most since most people in the mainstream are only aware of Google as a search engine and are only now coming around to GMail.

Where Google needs to be careful is in how the average user percieves web seraches. Most mainstream users are not aware of the difference between a web page and an application. For example, I migrated my parents over from Windows to Linux two years ago and they haven't looked back. They are typical users with nearly no computer experience except for what they saw me do as I grew up. My dad was very surprised to see the Google search engine (their default home page in Firefox) on his Linux box when he first logged in. He said, "You mean Google can run on Linux"? Which illustrates my point perfectly.

It's apparent that Microsoft is going to package search capabilities into their next version of Windows. That search will be a local application with web searching abilities. I'm expecting it to actually be embedded into IE as a subset of the OS like many other IE components are This is going to mean that the performance and functionality is going to appear much faster when compared to a web tool like Google. Google should really make it clear to users that they are using a remote tool when searching the internet. But... if they built their own browser (maybe based on Firefox or in partnership with Firefox), they could build in search functionality in the same way the IE will likely have it. This could result in a more seamless experience with Google web vs. Google Desktop.

What color is Microsoft's sky?

[suitepotato]

I'll have some of whatever he's smoking!(obligatory Kung Pow reference)

First, who are these people that think Google can do no wrong, and what planet are they on? Net techies are a notoriously cyncial lot so these must be people who think AOL is the Internet. Doesn't sound like anyone I know who's familiar with the history of major corporation, software, and the Internet.

Second, does some of what has come out of Redmond strike anyone as the type of talk that goes along the same lines as someone who just majorly wiped out on a boogie board, slammed into the girl they've been trying to get on the good side of, and then tried to shrug it off by saying they meant to do that?

Google has essentially come out of nowhere with an end-run around the largest self-proclaimed netcentric corporation on Earth, which was caught asleep at the switch living in their own little world of deciding for others what they need rather than ascertaining their needs from those others and then pandering to those needs. That's the sort of disasterous arrogance that Steve Jobs has reeked of for years and where did it get Apple for the longest time? Remember when Apple decided for the users what apps should be availible by way of stonewalling developers whose work they didn't care about? (or didn't pay enough blood money to APDA)

We've heard from major companies before with prognostications about competition and upstarts. Netscape has all but bit the dust, AOL is irrellevant, SCO is a laughing stock, IBM is decrepit and moldy, Oracle is still bound to Lord Ellison and his mountainous ego, and so forth.

All in all, Microsoft has been doing pretty well fixing their stuff of late and Longhorn, other than the DRM obsessiveness, looks to be a big improvement over XP which was a massive improvement over the 95-ME strains of Windows. For them to be acting this way says they're in an internal panic, directionless, and they know it. They've long delusionally thought they knew better so even when they didn't, they didn't act like they were in deep cr*p. Looks to me like the delusion is breaking down, reality is intruding, and they finally realize they don't really know where the Internet is going and what people will glom onto and really worried about not knowing.

Microsoft, welcome to the world in real time. None of us know where anything is headed for sure and that's just life. You can't always set the trends and create the demand. Sometimes, you have to react to them and serve the people with them.

Re:But seriously, folks...

[LucBorg]

Explain to me please why "it's hard to justify wanting to work for MS". Being paid more money is a perfectly valid reason.

Google has purchased like 15 other smaller companies already, looks like they are following exactly in MS's footsteps. By purchasing them, GGL gets the money which those companies would otherwise have made from their products. No difference at all between Microsoft and Google.

I will end by saying I CAN SEE THE FUTURE!!! Because of my statement of fact about google, which is unpleasant to the eyes of the GGL fundamnetalists that populate this website, this post will go down to -1, flamebait. Fairness is what is required, and that means that criticising where criticism is due. Try not to let the anti-MS sentiment fog up your view before jumping on the "let's blame MS and ignore all other companies' faults" bandwaggon please.

Re:GoogleOS

[twohorse]

Browser + Internet connection = GoogleOS

Re:A company in distress

[symbolic]

It makes me wonder when a good part of Microsoft's communication with the general public entails deriding the success of others. What I find particularly funny about it is that in all these areas, Microsoft is following, not leading. Note to Steve: it doesn't matter how much lip service an organization is willing to pay to the idea of innvation, if you aren't first (with something that isn't painfully obvious), you're not innovating.

Ironic...

[Ghengis]

I wonder how much more life Ballemer has breathed into Google by simply making these statements. There are quite a few people out there who will now be eager for google to survive for no other reason than proving Ballmer wrong.

Revenue, not products

[zoombat]

What I hear you saying is that as long as Google continues to inovate, they will be a successful company. True.

But what makes Google a potential one-hit-wonder is their limited revenue streams, not their limited product offerings. With the VAST majority of their revenue coming from Adwords, they leave themselves vulnerable.

That's why things like their enterprise search appliances are important. Not only do they need to continue to inovate their products, but they have to develop more different ways to make money.

Name brand

[LukePieStalker]

Given that internet search/indexing is a commodity Google will have a hard time sustaining any profitability in the long term.

As technologists, we're inclined to believe that technology is always the primary determinant of market success, but don't underestimate the power of just getting there first. When a product category has been sufficiently covered by a "good enough" early entry, it can be virtually impossible to unseat. The tip-off comes when its name becomes a common word in the language. People don't ask for a "facial tissue", or serve their kids a "gelatin dessert". They ask for a kleenex and give the kids jello (lower case intentional), regardless of the actual brand name on the product they're using. Kleenex and Jello will be on supermarket shelves long after you and I are gone.

Best of all is when your name becomes a verb. When students are "googling" George Washington to get material for their papers, you can bet that the "product" from which that verb is derived ain't going away soon.

Re:But seriously, folks...

[The Wooden Badger]

If I'm one of the best software developers out there and I have an offer to work for Google and an offer to work for MS and MS will pay more, as your 2nd paragraph says, which one I choose will largely depend on my personal ambition. If I have ambition it's Google, no question. If I have no ambition, I pick MS. It pays more, and I can slide with producing buggy code. The downside is that anything I come up with belongs to MS. But I have no ambition, so who cares?

High Growth

[floorpie]

The real concern I have with Google's future is not technical, but social. They've grown to around 3000 employees in the past few years... a huge rate by any measure, and the thing is no company can survive that kind of growth without some extremely talented/clairvoyent management.

If you've read the Tipping Point by Malcom Blackwell, you'd know that there's a magic number of 150 people in any sort of group. It's the point where the human brain stops being able to remember the (150 choose 2) different individual relationships.

Google is probably superior technically, but no matter how many brainiacs they have, they're still human and the human brain is going to run up to these limitations. As much as slashdotters will hate to admit it, Google's future really does depend on how good the management is.

How many years has longhorn been delayed now?

[Paradox]

WinFS. Avalon. Longhorn. Windows Security. Good desktop search. A better IE. A SCCS that doesn't require blood rituals.

MS has promised a lot of stuff, and instead of saying, "Whoops, our bad!" they say, "Oh, it's delayed." Yeah, that's it. After a year or three of "delay," we catch on.

Apple and the Linux community are on a roll because they are delivering on their promises for software and features. Sometimes they're late, sometimes they're early, but they do what they say they're going to do. They make it happen.

Unless MS shapes up and catches up, they're the ones who are going to go extinct.

Re:I'm not the one

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Agreed on most points, but I'll have to make a comment here about the Mod System:

I've either been smushed down into the 'obsessive refreshers' or metamoderated into oblivion for being off-color in my moderations. While I can see 'obsessive refresher' as being the problem, uh... yeah. Hope not, but I'm BORED here at work. I like to think that because I called the fifteenth 'gee, the iPod is cool' post in a string redundant and didn't have everyone on my side, I've been metamodded to oblivion. As the /. community changes to include more idiots / late adopters (like me, but I tried to keep my mouth shut until it was pretty obvious I was paying more attention than many of those posting) the moderation system will begin to become more mainstream and less well constructed for a quality standpoint. Taco, I think, was looking at revamping it last year, if you look at his journal, but he's become ensconced in WoW and I don't expect him to come back for a while. Patience, young skywalker, I guess. As 'hard' tech people become outnumbered on this site they'll either move or become more powerful, depending on how well it's managed. I've begun to see the movement - which is hard to do without actual traffic numbers, etc.... Paying attention to the comments and journals of people with the really low numbers leads me to believe that the overall community has changed drastically over the course of the last three years or so.

Just my off-topic two bits. I'm now pondering sending this commentary to Taco, but he's probably a lvl 40 orc now to my immense envy.

Re:But seriously, folks...

[cirisme]

Do you really think the gripe about "business practices" has anything remotely to do with buying other businesses? No, the complaint made is about what they see as anti-competitive moves, not buying companies. Whether that's correct or incorrect, that's the perception that they have, a perception that didn't come because of business buyouts.

What is he smoking?

[Vulturo]

Seriously, what is Steve Ballmer smoking?

Okay, leave aside speculation to that affect. Steve Ballmer must definately note that as of now Google is the best search engine out there, and that MSN Search has a long way to go. No matter how much it piggybacks on Windows with Microsoft's support.

As a matter of fact *every* new service by Google has been appreciated (though quite a few of them are in beta) - GMail, GoogleNews, GDS, GoogleMaps, Froogle, etc... ad infinitum. These services will take time to come out of beta, true (Google is not giving *any* indication of when Gmail will be public, even after one successful year in operation) but hopefully they will remain free with minimal ad-support.

Google's text ads are unobstrusive, and people are making money with Adsense. In stark contrast, Microsoft's heavily-ad-ridden services (except search) are getting paid everyday (more useful everyday, ha!). Just compare using Hotmail with Gmail

US/Canada users wouldnt enjoy 250 MB space if it wasn't for Gmail.

Steve should know when to keep his mouth shut, Consumers know better

PS: The author is no vociferous Linux zealot. In fact the author *likes* Microsoft in certain aspects

Ballmer then continued...

[metamatic]

Ballmer said: "The hottest company right now -- the one nobody thinks can do any wrong -- may just be a one-hit wonder."

"As opposed to us--we're a two-hit wonder. Sure, Xbox is a distant third in the worldwide console market, SQL server is way behind DB2 and Oracle, WinCE hasn't been a hit, Windows Server is just a small fragment of the Internet server market, Exchange can't even fight off Lotus Notes successfully, WebTV crashed and burned, nobody used Passport, Bob was a laughing stock, Windows for Pen Computing died, Tablet PC is struggling to survive, everyone uses MP3 instead of WMA, iPod still rules the MP3 player market, and our popular mouse design was just a rebadged HP mouse... but back in the 90s we created Microsoft Office and put DOS/Windows on the desktop! That's two hits! Which gives us 100% more wonder than Google!"

Re:But seriously, folks...

[Jasin Natael]

I would second that thought. Microsoft claims they have the 'best minds' working for them, but I would posit that their measurement comes from easily quantifiable metrics, and has nothing to do with innovative or intuitive people.

From what I've seen in school, Microsoft attracts all the students (especially international ones) who have gotten a 4.0 in all their classes and can handle the stress of working 16-hour days. And, sadly, the ones who have no ideological stake in the computer industry, but who got their degree solely to make money.

The people Microsoft doesn't pay attention to (or can't get) are the Linux nerds who'll try to compile a kernel for anything that runs on electrical current, the creative Mac geeks who are just as handy with Photoshop as CodeWarrior, or the true computer scientists who are completely platform-agnostic as long as they can use a computer to learn something or solve a problem. There are other stereotypes out there, but (for the most part) they all tend to evoke this idea of being principled about their use of technology.

My guess is that Microsoft's patent policies, legal strong-arming, and monopolistic practices made it clear to this crowd long ago that they didn't give a flying crap where the industry, technology in general or even society (to the extent that it is steered by developments in their areas of operation) was going, as long as it put some money in their pockets. And there ARE a lot of PhD's and Masters Degree Holders that this tactic appeals to. At least in my experience, the really innovative and involved computer scientists don't tend to maintain a 4.0, attend every class, or participate in all the computer-related clubs on campus. But they are the ones with a personal stake in this industry, and for some reason, they tend to care enough about the computer community and the well-being of society at large to tell MSoft to screw off.

I don't know why I just wasted 10 minutes preaching to the crowd...

Jasin Natael

blah, blah, blah...

[Ogman]

It sure would be nice if Ballmer and Gates would stop applying for psychic work and instead start working on a little innovation of their own. Microsoft is beginning to smell like the rotting company that these two want to envision everyone else becoming. Google works because they listen to what people want, and Apple does the same. Microsoft tells their customers what to want, and that model is doomed to fail long before the others.

I really don't see how...

[jcr]

MS had a way to kill Netscape by breaking the law. What illegal trick can MS do that kills Google? Block google.com in their TCP/IP stack?

Maybe Ballmer is more imaginative than I am.

-jcr

Re:But seriously, folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, as someone who as WORKED at MS, I have to say that's about the most incorrect statement I've heard in a long time. In fact I can't believe you would actually be so inept as to post something like this.

Microsoft does not care about grades AT ALL! I've seen people at MS who have flunked out of college, people who have low GPAs, people who never got a formal education. Even the interview process places extremely low importance on grades.

MS cares about:
1.) Can you show intelligence during your interview? As proven by your ability to solve puzzles, work out coding questions on a whiteboard, etc
2.) What are your previous accomplishments? What programs have you written, what projects have you participated in, what papers have you published. They don't care about what languages you know because anyone can learn a programming language; they care about your innovative ability.

But I wouldn't expect most Slashdotters to understand or believe that. You would rather believe Microsoft stifles innovation and hires idiots.

Re:MS Missing the Boat and Myths

[frank_adrian314159]

What evidence do you have that Gmail has "cleaned deck" vs Hotmail?

aaa@yahoo.com: A yahoo.
bbb@msn.com: A spam-eating loser.
ccc@hotmail.com: A spam-eating, but somewhat more cluefull loser.
ddd@aol.com: Let's not go here, shall we?
eee@gmail.com: Slightly less loserfull than any of the above, but still having the scent of loserness upon him/her.

As gmail has less of a smell of loserness about their losers, they have won. Real people have real ISPs (and the ones worth talking to usually have their own domains).

Re:Microsoft in five years

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

bullshit
I mean, I like to bash on M$ as much as the next slashdotter, but give me a fucking break.

M$ is far to entrenched in the majority of the general populace's computing for it to become another IBM any time soon.

Nobody's going to go about ditching M$ as long as it still has a 80 or whatever % share of the market.

As long as Linux remains seemingly abscure to the general populace, and top of the line macs remain expensive, (and yes, I know all the arguments about cost of ownership vs price tag, whatever, sticker shock has more impact and we ALL know it) people will continue to buy PCs and they will continue to put windows on them.

WE know longhorn sucks, but we also knew that XP sucked...

All this competing with Google is simply desired expansion into evolving new business areas. M$ could sit on its hands, update those products it already makes and be just fine.

Google OS? are you kidding? what exactly makes you think they're taking that route? Has yahoo? Is ask.com going to join forces with MapQuest and FAndango and try to challenge OS X?

Re:Microsoft in five years

[NCraig]

Microsoft, they are a computer company, aren't they? They had that weird software for those big clunky old desktop machines...Nothing like the Google OS running on my digital phone/mp6 player/dvd/game machine/tablet PC.

Of course! Because, you know, Microsoft doesn't make an OS for phones and tablet PCs. And they certainly do not have a game machine. And Google does! Good call.