Slashdot Mirror
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."
Steve, you're such a kidder!
PRINT "Signature line broken."
GOTO 1
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
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Bill Gates might turn into a dog.
Aliens might show up and kill everyone on Earth.
Slashdot might not ever dupe a story again.
Might is a powerful word.
Steve Ballmer will still look like Uncle Fester.
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.
You can interpret the Ballmer quote as: "we intend to buy it... and make it suck."
Ballmer said: 'The hottest company right now -- the one nobody thinks can do any wrong -- may just be a one-hit wonder.'
:-) Seriously though, this is classic Microsoft. "We are not in the market now with a competitive product, but once we are... boy you better look out because we are going to dominate! Granted, Microsoft's business model is to throw something out there that is usually half baked and then refine it until it works just good enough. They then leverage their monopoly and dominate the market. So, Google's dominance may not in fact, be everlasting but Google has shown the world how to make a search engine that works and is simple and elegant. If Microsoft wins the search engine market, our search engines will be cluttered with ad upon ad and suck up amazing amounts of bandwidth. In reality, given a level playing field, I believe the market will continue to speak and decide on the best browser, which right now judging from my logs appears to be Google.
Rather than post that as news, it and the iPod bit from Gates should be moddable. I am thinking Flamebait or Troll, and by Balmer's same logic, Microsoft may not be here in five years either.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
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.
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:
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"....
right...
-William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
Given that internet search/indexing is a commodity Google will have a hard time sustaining any profitability in the long term.
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.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
-1, Troll...
Microsoft might disappear in five years time.
Something is happening here but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones.
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!
Kyle
http://www.unlogikal.net/
may just be a one-hit wonder
Yeah, so Google only does searching (pretty much) - what is wrong with that? They do a damn good job of it and so far no-one has been able to beat them because they continue to come up with better and better techniques to stay on top. I wouldn't be surprised if Google starts shoring up its other services but as long as they keep their search engine the best people will continue to come back.
...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.
...in less than 5 years.
Many would like to "disappear" him even now.
Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
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.
If I am understanding the article correctly (which appears to be written in broken english) Ballmer is talking about every online information site supplying meta-information about its content so that search engines are unnecessary. To that I say, fat chance. Why bother if Google solves the problem on plain text?
Hmm... Seems this guy likes to get EXCITED at these confrences, maybe he just got a little bit over excited this time.
I backordered google.com; I should get it in 5 years when they're not around to renew it...
is that Ballmer is
50% Wrong : Google in 2010 will still be there.
50% Right : Google in 2010 will probably be something radically different from today.
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.
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.
Is it just me or has all Microsoft been doing lately is predicting doom for their competition?
Dateline 2009 Google buys Microsoft.
Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
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.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
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.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
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.
And they said zombies weren't real!
Google has shown, time and again, that it's good at things other than search.
... and they do it all without being oppressive or looking to create "brand lockin" like Microsoft does with their Passport system.
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...
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.
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.
http://www.watacrackaz.com
Is it just me or is MSFT starting to sound like the Iraqi Information Minister? There are no Linsuxes within a 100 miles of Redmond! We will drive the Googles into Puget Sound!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Just wait until Google releases GoogleOS, like next week, and we'll see who will be gone in 5 years.
--
http://unk1911.blogspot.com/
It sounds like Ballmer is afraid of Google when he makes statements like this. The whole article can be summed up as "Steve Ballmer wishes Google would just go away!".
I often wonder what goes on in CEOs minds when that make stupid comments like this. Are there really people out there that believe what he says?
(somewhere in the wasteland of business)
"Ballmer said Google doesn't have a stable business.. must be true."
(pushes buzzer on desk)
"Mabel? Call my broker and tell him to sell all the Google shares pronto!".
AccountKiller
Company CEO says competitor will die. Film at 11.
Really, it's the job of PR to predict that the competition will go away.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
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]
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.
It used to be that Microsoft might be late, or misguided, but they didn't used to lean on fear as much. First Bill dissing the iPod, now Steve dissing Google's future.
Bill himself once told me that when Microsoft was taken out by a competitor -- something he always assumed will happen -- it wouldn't be a big company like IBM or Sun, but some little company you haven't ever heard of. Well, I hadn't heard of Google then (they didn't exist), but it seems odd for them to start pointing at market leaders like Apple and Google and talking about implosions. If they're worried about the big players now, Bill's vision has changed, or this is all just a marketing smokescreen.
I'm betting on smokescreen, but it portends a level of fear within Microsoft that's higher than I'd thought.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
Altavista was not the Google of 1999. It was simply the best-known of a number of search engines which used much the same algorithm and differed only in the contents of their databases.
All those search engines died because Google's algorithm was so much better that it was a waste of time to use anything else - not because of some mysterious search engine life cycle.
Until someone else comes up with the new Most Brilliant Search Algorithm Ever, Google is going to stay right where it is. If they're smart, they will continue research into making their search better and better, so that *they* are likely to come up with the Next Big Thing.
Yes, but in those cases, MS controlled the platform.
See, "DOS isn't done until Google won't run" lacks a certain...reality...
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
...And completely wrong about the outcome. Google has one product: data. They are more akin to something like Lexis/Nexis or Westlaw than Microsoft, I think. The thing that makes Google so much cooler is that they also provide good tools to help your data in different ways, like desktop search. Even gmail is just "data"...that you use it to send and receive data is really of no consequence to them, and it's added convience (and value) to you.
Add to it that they sell appliances that can sift and find info on your network, and you've got a winning business strategy for taming the data beast, which as we all know, is growing faster than anything else.
Microsoft is freaked because they're part of the problem, and not the solution: it's their Excel/Word/Outlook files that are being searched (as well as every other type of file supported), and they "just-don't-think-that's-right(tm)", because they can't do it themselves and also. To add to the list of sins committed against microsoft by google, they treat all data pretty much equally...a pdf, word document, html file is just the repository of the data being searched.
"How dare you, google, equate our big fat word docs with a simple html page or *gasp* pdfs!"
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.
Anyone remember...
.net unless you are planing on leaving the X86 line? Even as far back as NT Microsoft was going multi platform.
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
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?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
- Google Seach: hit
- gMail: hit
- Desktop Search: hit
- Google News: hit
And thats just the stuff thats out of beta. I'm already using Google Mobile and Maps. They're trusted by geeks and Joe Six Pack alike and look like their about to have another hit with they're caching system. 5 years? One hit wonders? FUD FUD FUD FUD FUDScared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
I happen to think that given the two very different philosophies of these companies that Google is probably dominating the marketshare of talented developers. Google quite simply appeals more to the geek aesthetic of innovation and using technology to enhance people's lives. MS is all about hampering innovation and using devious business tactics to ensure that inferior technology always prospers. At least that's the general perception.
If you're one of the best software developers out there, who would you rather work for? Even if MS offers more money, it's hard to justify wanting to work for MS.
Gates has admitted in many interviews that the key to the success of Microsoft has always been in attracting the best minds to come work for them. Something tells me that is no longer the case and that is why the writing is on the wall for Microsoft.
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
It doesn't surprise me that Steve and Bill feel compelled to lash out at anyone who is doing better then they every did. And it must really piss them off that Google's and Apples iPOD successes sprang from originality and real innovation... the not extend, embrace and buyout method M$ has relied on for it's "innovation" for last few decades.
o pic=381
XBox360 Smoke and Mirrors!
Ballmer obviously didn't get the memo from the XBox360 boys about the problems they were having getting those Apple G5s to fit into that tiny little XBox360 case. Here a couple of photos that proof what's really powering those XBox360 videos and more importantly game demos... and it ain't in the case M$ has been showing everyone. Hell the damn thing isn't even plugged in!
http://www.talksudbury.com/forums/index.php?showt
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.
Google's kept their search page simple while continuing to add features. They simply put those features on other pages, and if people happen to find them, great! They don't put up 10 different search boxes on google.com for every single search -- they simply let you change the search on the results page if you want to use froogle instead, or a GIS.
That's one of the big reasons I started using google. And that's one of the big reasons that I keep using them.
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.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Not easy, but possible, and TiVo will be next. Of course, it's easy for MS to say, having developed so many successful products. I don't think they've had a new profitable division in 15 years since MS Office - yes, last I checked their gaming division wasn't making them money.
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.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Now that Pinky and I have been hired by Microsoft will finally take over the world!
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.
There is a fine and long history of predicting the demise of rivals and this prediction by Microsoft has less credibility than Khrushchev's prediction. Khrushchev had nukes, Ballmer has Windows. Credibility point goes to the man with the nukes. Although it should be noted that the Soviet Union is no more. It has ceased to be. It has gone to join the Choir eternal. The point being that the prediction business is really best left to the fortune cookies and not to envious shoe pounding despots with ipod envy.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
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.
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
When the CEO starts publicly trash-talking rivals it's not a good sign.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
And Open Source is dead, and iTunes is dead, and the Mac is dead, and PlayStation is dead, and RealPlayer is dead, and Netscape is dead, and Firefox is dead, and QuickTime is dead, and Linux is dead, and Apache is dead, and OpenOffice is dead, and Java is dead, and World of Warcraft is dead, and mp3 is dead, and Sun is dead (er, well, maybe), and Novell is dead, and WINE is dead, and RedHat is dead, and Adobe is dead, and Oracle is dead, and MySQL is dead ...
yadda yadda yadda.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
They might very soon sue Google, because Google is a Monopoly in the search engine world or at least on its way to become one.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
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.
WISENutbot 1866 20.45 MB
Googlebot 1797 124.28 MB
MSNBot 923 14.41 MB
Inktomi Slurp 658 15.96 MB
The first number is the number of pages for the month, the second is the bandwidth used for the month. WISENutbot indexed more pages than Google but used 1/6th the bandwidth.
Google indexed twice as many pages but used 9 times the bandwidth as MSN
Your numbers assume
a) all the bots indexed the same pages
b) all the bots indexed the same number of pages
There's nothing unusual about bots not using the same amount of bandwidth. They're rarely indexing the same pages or the same amount of pages. They're on their own schedules.
Talk about Grade A FUD you're throwing around there.
Work Safe Porn
Microsoft only missed one main boat called the Internet, and they caught up pretty quick because it was focused. It was a single task called the Internet. Now there is not a single target, but multiple. There is search, maps, gaming boxes, cell phones, etc. And they (Microsoft) are trying to become master of all. It ain't gonna happen!
As an example of how Microsoft missed the boat, consider GMail. Hotmail could have been improved and made better, yet GMail cleaned decked with something as trivial as Web Mail...
As an example look of how the software market of the future will look like consider Java and Linux. Both of these markets are incredibly diverse where some people make money and some not. Yet there is no single company that can claim to be the "single" company. Microsoft has to learn that software in the 21'th century has changed dramatically.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
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.
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.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
While I'm not a fan of the X86 architecture in general, or any of the chips in particular, it is important to keep in mind that what modern X86es have with earlier X86 chips is mainly the instruction stream.
AMD has shown how you can add new registers to an X86 chip while preserving execution compatibility for classic IA32 code. They also added 64-bit registers and instructions while preserving the 32-bit environment (much like SPARC, POWER and PowerPC did their 64-bit versions).
So, is it all that much of a stretch to imagine a mode flag that can be set by supervisor code that drops the IA32 instruction translator out of the pipeline, and starts pulling lower-level instructions for a particular process? All the other ideas are already there in AMD64: 32-bit classic, 32-bit updated with new registers and opcodes, and 64-bit, all timesliced onto the same CPU.
So, while I really don't care for the X86 family, I think it is far from dead.
And maybe removing the CISC decoder isn't that important anyway. Keep in mind the Xeons cache the decoded instruction for a given address, not the raw IA32 opcodes. So when you have an I-cache hit, you can skip 2-3 pipeline stages.
But I do think it would be amazing to see what the brainpower involved in keeping X86 alive could do if they started from scratch. As long as they weren't allowed to think of anything like the Itanium.
Agreed on most points, but I'll have to make a comment here about the Mod System:
/. 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.
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
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.
My little site.
It will be dirty... but with a tame DOJ, they can hold off Google's lawyers long enough for Google to go under.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
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
Vulturo, Prince Of Darkness
Before you mark me as a troll, go read my previous comments where I stick up for Microsoft dozens of times.
1.) Classic example of FUD.
2.) Ballmer and Alchin are absolutely morons with little clue of what customers actually want and where technology is heading.
3.) Google succeeds in the market because they innovate and provide tools users really want to use.
4.) Microsoft (mainly) succeeds mainly because they're business-savvy and good at FUD. Not for their tools. Not for their "innovations".
5.) BTW, did anyone catch that MS guy discussing tabs in IE7 and subtely trying to intimate that they got the browser tab idea from their previous Office products and that they thought it'd be cool in web browsers, too?
Typical MS corporate bullshit, which hurts their engineering and hurts their engineering customers.
Unfortunately, this masks the significant capabilities and tools put out by some of their remarkable engineering teams.
"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!"
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I don't know. Steve Ballmer is not a young man anymore. It doesn't look like he takes care of his health much either.
In 5 years he might not be around either.
Hmmm...
l e.aspx?head=3&page=3108
Longhorn will be great (allegedly) but Apple are already winning that my-OS-has-cooler-features-that-yours battle...href=http://www.trustedreviews.com/artic
I have read that Microsoft have enough money to keep going (paying wages etc) for three years. But there is no sense that they have anything new to offer, just more of the same. Google have grabbed the mind share of the ubergeek squad...weblogging, AJAX etc etc...all the exciting new toys for the nerds.
MS seems to own a greatest amount of mindshare in the upper reaches of business management, mostly non-technical, go with what you know best types. In the server rooms and development departments all the geeks love Linux/Apple/BSD etc etc.
In five years time many of these geeks, who have grown up with MS XP spyware problems, MS in court again on one side and the sleek minimalism of Google on the other, many of these people will be in management. Will they still embrace MS as quickly as their older peers do now?
I doubt it. MS will not disappear, but turn into another IBM...fingers in about 500 pies. I doubt that any non-technical person could tell you what IBM do, just something vague 'with computers'.
Will that day come for MS?
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.
In 2027, Google buys Microsoft. That is, the Google *AI* buys Microsoft
Whoa. Does John Titor know about this? Better go get an IBM 5100.
-Valiss
...while driving down the highway. I'm going to get rid of my browser now, since it has google search built in. All hail MicroSoft!
I drank what? -- Socrates
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.
But Officer, I DID read the f**king article!
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I would add, and it does not seem to be widely recognized here for some reason, that Microsoft is saying these things in order to make them happen.
It's a bit like self-fulfilling prophecy. If a person or entity of some publicly-accepted authority says that the something will fail or company X will go out of business, it plants a seed in the minds of the people that hear it. When said twice, it re-enforces the prediction, making it acceptable. Repeated often enough it becomes believable. Once believeable, it is close to becoming fact. The whole process takes a long time, but the effects can last even longer.
Politicians are famous for doing this. There are a couple examples in recent history:
People and companies in positions of public authority know that their rhetoric has this slow, creeping power to influence attitudes and perceptions, and it gets used because it works. Most people don't even realize that their thoughts are being shaped. It can be very blunt, like what Mssrs. Ballmer and Gates are doing, or it can be achieved with simple word choice. I recently re-read 1984. The devices of newspeak are now much more starkly evident for me in contemporary efforts to shape public opinion around things like the changing of senate rules for confirmation of judicial nominees and the reformation of the Social Security system, for example.
I'm actually surprised that very few slashdotters make mention of these devices, or appreciate their strength.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
In the year 2525 v2.0
In the year 2525
If Bill is still alive
If Linus still can hack they may find
In the year 3535
Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies
Everything you think do and say
Is stored on the RAID you took today
In the year 4545
You ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes
You won't find a thing to chew
Google's gonna do that for you
In the year 5555
Your mouse hangin' limp at your sides
Your legs got nothin' to do
Windows 55's doing that for you
In the year 6565
You won't need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
Who'd have thought, Windows would do that for you?
In the year 7510
If DOS is a comin' He oughta make it by then
Maybe He'll look around Himself and say
Guess it's time for the judgement day
In the year 8510
Linux is gonna shake His mighty head
He'll either say I'm pleased where man has been
Or tear it down and start again woh oh
In the year 9595
I'm kinda wonderin' if Google is gonna be alive
He's indexed everything this old Earth can give
But He won't retrieve nothin more woh oh
Now it's been ten thousand years
Google has filled its googleplex
For what we never knew
Now Windows reign is through
But through eternal night
The twinkling of Windows-lite
So very far away
Maybe it's only yesterday
In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If woman can survive, they may find......
With apologies to Zager and Evans.
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?
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
ummm, IBM is MUCH larger then Microsoft is....
if i remmebe rright in the fortune 500, IBM is in the top 20 while microsoft is 75th or something/ worth a 50+ billion a year rev diffrence.