Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

faria24 writes "For the past decade, Microsoft has largely ignored the Web as an emerging platform for application development with fears that it could render Windows obsolete. But that will all change next week, as Microsoft unveils a new strategy for transforming its Web properties into an open platform for developers. As part of its new 'Web 2.0 Platform' strategy, Microsoft will expose application programming interfaces, or APIs, for MSN Search using SOAP. MSN Virtual Earth, Desktop Search and MSN Messenger will all be opened up for outside developers to extend." Coverage on CNet as well. From the article: "Microsoft's online rivals, notably Google and Yahoo, already provide the hooks that let third-party Web developers write applications that tap into their Web services, such as search and mapping. Because these Web applications rely on a Web browser, they can, in theory, run on any operating system. Microsoft, meanwhile, has always drawn third-party developers to Windows. But even with its commitment to Windows, analysts said, Microsoft needs to more fully address the growing popularity of online Web development. Having a healthy ecosystem of third-party add-on products helps drive traffic to Web properties. "

Comments

Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Next question.

"Can Google Out-Microsoft Microsoft?"

Re:Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can Marklar out-Marklar Marklar?

Re:Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

No

Agreed. I worked for several years in MSN, starting from the beginning. I have to say that during the entire time I was there, I didn't see much strategic thinking going on. That's not to say that we didn't have some really good people, but Microsoft isn't a service organization. Microsoft is a product organization, and you just can't "productize" the Internet no matter how hard you try.

The biggest reason that Microsoft can't compete with Google is that it has become a big, bloated bureaucracy. Why do you think that all the top-flight talent is leaving? Sure, money has something to do with it, but it also has a lot to do with the fact that Google is a hot-bed for new ideas and actively fosters innovation. Microsoft, on the other hand, has become very risk adverse, so it's not willing to stake its future on new ideas. That's why we're seeing incremental changes in Vista. It's why Microsoft is reluctant to use open schemas in its Office products. The problem is that when you adopt this kind of thinking, you slowly rot from the inside out.

So I guess what I'm saying is that Microsoft is not a real threat to Google. The biggest threat to Google is its own hiring practices. As long as they hire people whose job it is to contribute then they'll be ok. The second that they start hiring "strategic thinkers" and "efficiency experts" then they're in trouble.

Re:Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a big bloated bureaucracy. That's just Ballmer's paunch. Throwing chairs and making death threats always gives him an appetite.

Re:Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

[McDutchie]

The biggest threat to Google is its own hiring practices. As long as they hire people whose job it is to contribute then they'll be ok. The second that they start hiring "strategic thinkers" and "efficiency experts" then they're in trouble.

Uh oh. Too late.

Re:Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

[hritcu]

The biggest reason that Microsoft can't compete with Google is that it has become a big, bloated bureaucracy.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has become very risk adverse, so it's not willing to stake its future on new ideas.

You sound like there was a time when Microsoft was really innovating. Was it?

Re:Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like there was a time when Microsoft was really innovating. Was it?

Microsoft has never been very good at innovating from the ground-up, but what it has been exceptionally good at is collecting other people's good ideas and packaging them for the masses. Take TCP/IP for example. I first saw this in the mid-80's, and by that time the technology was already 15 years old. Netscape helped put it to the forefront as part of the whole Internet experience, but you have to give Microsoft credit for building it into Windows and making it a defacto standard. They sure helped clean up the mess of protocols that existed at the time.

I think what I miss about the old Microsoft is its willingness to bet the farm on new ideas. There are many reasons why this is so, but I think that the one that most people will understand is that BillG and SteveB don't want to lose their billions. Give me one good reason that either one of these guys would want to risk their personal fortunes? They can say all they want that they'd like the stock price to continue rising, but at the end of the day a $25/share price doesn't hurt either one of them. Personally, I think Microsoft investors would do well to fire Bill and Steve and put in some new management. Since I knew that that was never going to happen, I took all my money out of the company and put in elsewhere. It's a good thing, since Microsoft has had only 50% of the gain that the DOW has had since the end of the .com boom.

Re:Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

[jeduthun]

It's why Microsoft is reluctant to use open schemas in its Office products. The problem is that when you adopt this kind of thinking, you slowly rot from the inside out.

It's no secret that Microsoft is moving toward a much more open, accessible schema for Office files. Have you heard of Metro, perchance?

Re:Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

[SCVirus]

I knew Anonymous Coward worked for Microsoft!

Re:Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

[killjoe]

I tried to open up the powerpoint files that come with office 2003 in open office. I could not because they are protected by DRM.

I am afraid the only conclusion I can arrive from that is that you are a typical lying MS shill.

Re:Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

[Forbman]

from the Metro URL: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/Device/print/metro.m spx

All other rights are retained by Microsoft; this Agreement does not give You rights under any Microsoft patents.

Hmm... nice and open, yeah.

Re:Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

[nastro]

Aw, don't blame Ballmer. He can't control himself. Why, remember back 10 years ago?

--flashback to Microsoft boardroom circa 1995--

Gates: You see, their young enter through the ears and wrap themselves around the cerebral cortex. This has the effect of rendering the victim extremely susceptible to suggestion. Later as they grow follows madness and death.
Ballmer: Bill, listen to me...
Gates: These are pets, of course. Not quite domesticated.

--end flashback--

I'll leave the rest up to the reader.

Re:Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

[SoBeIcedT]

If Microsoft wants to be like google, then they need to exile all of CNET.

competition

[42Penguins]

As much as I love Google, and as schweet as it is, I'm sure it could be even sweeter if M$ put up some real competition.

Whether that will happen or not, however, is another question.

Re:competition

[Lifewish]

Just as long as Microsoft doesn't end up actually managing to kill Google. Microsoft can afford to throw far more cash at the situation than Google ever could.

Re:competition

[guildsolutions]

But do you really want Microsoft in charge of this? Just as MSNBC requires you to use IE to view there video, which leaves Mac and Linux users out to pasture. What will happen if MS uses the same for there services in the future? Microsoft has a long, long colorful history of requiring people to use there software, and outright flatly refusing to make it compatible across the boards. Google on the other hand has done a marvelous job of doing just that, cross compatibility to every browser. Even my mobile phones browser!

Re:competition

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

I guess it's possible, but so many people who are great coders who kinda help Google out on the fringes of its business (and possibly even the center) absolutely hate Microsoft and won't contribute that it may be harder than Msoft thinks to accomplish this kind of facelift.

Re:competition

[w3weasel]

Be very wary of it being a real 'fair and open' kind of competition thogh... in the same way that MS tried to taint and skew Java, Javascript, CSS and other web technologies, you can be pretty sure that this 'open' web 2.0 scheme will ensure that you develop for use only on IE (which still doesnt fullort support a multitude of W3C standards), with a long term aim of steering you off of a dangerously open platform standard such as a browser, and back into the Windows OS proper (where you can be safely contained and gradually bled of your cash).

Re:competition

[SScorpio]

But Microsoft has their hands in so many things right now, it might be difficult to justify spending so much money on something that isn't going to make them any money

They will and have. Just look at the Xbox.

Re:competition

[ciroknight]

And you think with the rapid adoption of Firefox (which may be supported in the future with a "Google Browser"; a Firefox dressed in Google's clothing) that people will stand for these Microsoft moves?

Most of the time, an API is platform-locked; once you learn an API on one platform, there's just about no way to use it on another. Unix tried to deal away with this in a lot of ways (POSIX..), but the truth still holds true today that when you move platforms, you'd better be prepared to relearn everything; be a master at one, or a geek of all.

That said, people will probably have to choose between either using the Google API (which works fine on Firefox and IE, not to mention Linux and Safari), or the Microsoft API which only works with IE, only on Windows. With Apple coming through as a serious computer distributor these days (its marketshare is exploding), this cross-platform play will be a more important battle than it was when Netscape squared off with Microsoft.

Plus, I'd like to mention Microsoft's acquiesence; instead of trying to force their way of things down users necks, they are slowly morphing their way to looking like their competitors. They're slowly starting to change things around to make them look less like Windows, less like Internet Explorer, and more like any other utility already available. Don't think the public doesn't look at these things and notice.

Re:competition

[Danger Stevens]

Traditionally this has been the case, but MS seems to be showing different colors now.

They've endeavored to make IE7 standards-compliant, they hired a guy to work with Linux, they've finally started addressing the security concerns, etc.

It wouldn't be too hard for me to believe that they're also changing their company policy to be less harsh on open standards and open source. Well, with the exception of the Balmer monkey I could believe it.

Re:competition

[hritcu]

Yes, Microsoft could afford to throw far more cash at the situation than Google. But will they actually do it? And how will this actually help?

In my opinion there is nothing that Microsoft can do in order to stop Google. Absolutely anything. (If we were living in the Starcraft World they could try to rush the Googleplex though)

Re:competition

[nametaken]

I love to take jabs at MS as much as the next guy, but this:
"As part of its new 'Web 2.0 Platform' strategy, Microsoft will expose application programming interfaces, or APIs, for MSN Search using SOAP" ...is a good thing. Its really hard to lock someone into proprietary technology if you're talking about SOAP (which is a beautiful thing, really).

Oh, and Firefox has its own standards compliance issues (as much as I love it).

Re:competition

[toddbu]

Google has something that Microsoft doesn't - a brand name that's used as a verb. I don't care how much money you have, nothing beats having Jessica Simpson say "I googled for it" on national TV. Having a brand like this means that you have all the free advertising that you want.

Re:competition

[BewireNomali]

Microsoft has the installed user base to take a loss for a really long time.

I faintly remember when everyone thought that Barnes and Noble would kill Amazon in online booksales. Amazon diversified quickly and started selling kitchen sinks and massagers in order to stay in business and have consequently thrived.

Tivo hasn't diversified, and they're probably gonna die because of the installed base.

Google still only makes money one way, and microsoft is one hell of a machine to take on.

microsoft can apply slow pressure and squeeze and they'd have the advantage unless google figures out another way to make money - something with barriers to entry (like search - msn.search still sux) so it gives them time to build up more cash.

time will tell.

Re: the XBox. It's really interesting, because as far as the console wars go, the XBox is the superior product. It looks like XBox360 is going to be better than the Playstation 3 as well.

Because Google hasn't unveiled another way of making cash, right now all the smart money would be on MS.

Re:competition

[smidget2k4]

Microsoft would first need to do some R&D on the best build order for a 'ling rush though...

Re:competition

[gumbi west]

I'm not sure sure. Google's market capet (or "mkt cap", defined here) is only 3 1/2 times smaller and they just got all the money recently. On the otherhand, Microsoft got it's money a long time ago and has spent quite a bit of it.

Re:competition

[gumbi west]

How can they do this? If IE7 is standards-compliant, it won't load most of the pages out there! What are they going to do about that? Also, will it be standards compliant just like how Word's format is XML and accessable?

Re:competition

[hritcu]

R&D takes time, a lot of time. And there is no guarantee that the results would be worth the money they would spend. And even if they are, they might simply be to late. If Microsoft wanted innovative products now, they should have invested in research in this domain five years ago, but they probably have not, and this is going to cost them.

Re:competition

[madprof]

You have to be JOKING!
Excuse the capitals but that's a hilarious suggestion.
Their company policy is to benefit Microsoft shareholders. Open source and open standards are not directly conducive to growing Microsoft's bottom line.
They make their big money on Windows and Office. These are the archetypal definitions of closed, proprietary platforms that become de facto "standards" through their sheer dominance.
Microsoft is not going to risk its bottom line so do not expect much to change in future.

They endeavoured to make IE7 standards-compliant because it helps steal marketshare and mindshare away from Firefox. They hired a guy to work with Linux so they can better understand how to crush it or at best absorb its best parts and take the spoils. They finally started addressing security concerns because they risked losing marketshare over it.

Sure they're doing a few things differently (thank goodness) but this is all with the aim of making greater profit. The moment they do not need to have an open platform they will NOT push one.

Re:competition

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Microsoft You!

Re:competition

[Really Wannabe Geek]

Having Jessica Simpson say "google" on national TV might be a big thing for google but with Windows and Office being synonymous with operating system and word proc/spreadsheet etc for a vast majority of the customer base, I don't think Microsoft is worried about brand name recognition. They no longer need celebrities to say "Microsoft" on TV - everyone who matters knows about them already.

"Google" becoming a verb might actually be a bad thing for the company when they try to diversify into areas other than search, if the masses associate them only with web search.

Re:competition

[Anonymous Coward]

That begs the obvious question: what would it mean to say "I Microsofted it"?

Hmmm... new poll:

If "Microsoft" was a verb, what would it mean?

Re:competition

[0WaitState]

Google has something that Microsoft doesn't - a brand name that's used as a verb.

Oh, I don't know that Microsoft doesn't have a brand name used as a verb... tell me, what comes to mind when i say "FUD"?

Re:competition

[corsec67]

To Microsoft:

To imitate something, until your product or service is commonly used. Then you change that product or service until it is no longer compatable with the original, thereby creating a monopoly from a previously established product or service.

Something like that?

Re:competition

[killjoe]

wow the shillboys are out in force today aren't they.

Meanwhile on planet eath (the universe I am living in) Steve ballmer said... I'm going to f---ing bury that guy (Google CEO Eric Schmidt), I have done it before, and I will do it again,". "I'm going to f---ing kill Google."

If I was Eric Schmidt I would hire a bodyguard. I have no doubt Ballmer has already hired a hitman.

Re:competition

[killjoe]

Microsoft is desparate. Since achieving a monopoly in Office they have failed miserably in achieving a monopoly in any other industry despite dumping billions into things like "microsoft at work" (for office machines), expedia, webtv, xbox, sql server, iis, etc.

The company stock price is stagnant/dropping, they need to be able establish other monopolies or their pyramid scheme of stock manipulation will collapse like a house of cards. Add to that a serious brain drain to google and you can see why they are acting the way they are.

They have lots of cash, there is a reason they don't give that cash back to the shareholders (it's their money after all), they NEED other monopolies to keep going.

Re:competition

[BoysDontCry]

What comes to mind is that I've never heard "FUD" used as a verb.

Re:competition

[The Original Yama]

" Google has something that Microsoft doesn't - a brand name that's used as a verb. "

That might be a bad thing in the long run. If "google" becomes too much of a common word it could lose its trademark protection.

Re:competition

[crashelite]

not everyone uses MS IE the fact that it is installed automatically is a pain in the @$$ but the #'s of people getting away from IE is growing....i only use IE if i absolutly have to (windows update) what is almost never because i dont use windows... heck the last version of IE for mac was 5.2 or something (there was no 1 or 2.0 that i remember... i thing there was 3 and know there was 4 for mac)... and 0.0 for unix and linux

Re:competition

[dangitman]

Yeah, I once bought a copy of Windows ME, but they made a mistake and shipped Microsoft YOU in the box.

Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[bigtallmofo]

MSN Virtual Earth, Desktop Search and MSN Messenger will all be opened up for outside developers to extend...Google and Yahoo, already provide the hooks

Exactly how is introducing web services months after Google has introduced them a possibility of out-Googling Google?

Wouldn't Microsoft have to actually come out with a web tool that people use that Google didn't already have to even have the possibility of that description?

Re:Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[FatRatBastard]

Wouldn't Microsoft have to actually come out with a web tool that people use that Google didn't already have to even have the possibility of that description?

Nope. Its a matter of trying to cut off each other's revenue stream. If MS takes eyeballs from Google products then Google receives less advertising revenue (which is their bread and butter revenue stream). If Google can produce pivotal applications that don't require MS OS or applications to run then MS (in theory) would receive less revenue from selling operating systems and applications (which is their bread and butter revenue stream).

This looks less like a battle of "what can I build to make more money" than "what can I build to fark my competition."

Re:Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[QuietLagoon]

Wait for us, we're the leader!

Re:Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[dioscaido]

You misunderstand the game. It's not who gets there first, but who grabs the largest market/amount of traffic. Google has been coming out with some sweet services, but at the same time MSN, as it stands now, has many times more users and traffic than Google in those same applications (except for search of course). # of users: hotmail >>> gmail, msn messenger >>> google's chat, my spaces >>> blogger.com.

I'm glad Google is around because it woke up MSN, who was pretty lame and coplacent. And it definitely looks like they are gunning for Google, and have tons of resources all focused on that.

As long as both google and msn keep improving their services, we win, so god speed to both companies.

Re:Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[fossa]

As long as both google and msn keep improving their services, we win, so god speed to both companies.

As long as no one puts the other out of business. (which seems unlikely at this point, but still...)

Re:Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[Overly Critical Guy]

For the past decade, Microsoft has largely ignored the Web as an emerging platform for application development with fears that it could render Windows obsolete.

The summary is wrong anyway. Microsoft hasn't ignored the Web as an emerging platform. They've specifically targetted it, controlling standards with a non-standards compliant browser, breaking Java to keep people dependent on Windows, and now introducing the Avalon/.NET APIs to attempt to deliver applications through Internet Explorer. All to keep their platform dominant.

Re:Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[ciroknight]

Number of users doesn't matter when it comes to amount of money made per user. Google's business grows faster because though they may have a smaller number of users, those users are generating a much larger part of their revenue (in fact, virtually all of it).

That being said, Microsoft's revenue stream is entirely Windows and Office, thus the need now to diversify, and quickly, as their upcoming offering is about to be outclassed in every way by the competition.

The game isn't "who gets there first", nor is it "who has the most traffic". The game is entirely "who makes the most money off people". MSN's artificial lead could be strapped from Windows all together with an anti-trust lawsuit ("Microsoft is competing unfairly by strapping MSN to the operating system" "But we can't remove it!!!!1 It provides core functionality!!"...) As for hotmail, you heard it here first: hotmail has been dying for a long time, and as for my "proof", every hotmail user I know shy of one has moved to Gmail (and she stays with hotmail because it's tied to MSN).

By the way, Myspace is owned by News Corp, who also recently bought GameSpy; they're trying to move these services out of the way of the oncoming Google/Microsoft war, as if either got into those positions, it is likely the surrounding businesses like Myspace would be absolutely slaughtered by the competition (anyone using myspace can tell you why).

This is war, the way that the web has been from the beginning. Just because Microsoft won some early battles doesn't mean that this war is over by a long shot; it's been brewing in the back alleys and corners all over the internet. And now (in the eyes of the Geek) the benevolent Google verses the evil Microsoft battle is going to be dominated by a player who's eye is more on helping the community than destroying it.

Can't wait for Google's reaction come next week.

Re:Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[hritcu]

Well, I think that it is more likely that Google will out-Microsoft Microsoft than Microsoft Out-Googling Google. However this would mean that Google will turn evil, which is also very unlikely (at least at this time).

Re:Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[everphilski]

TerraServer predated Google Earth by years. MSN Messenger predated Google's offering by years. And depending on how you look at search, Microsoft's search offerings were there first. Google is making them think about opening up the services to third party applications. The services were there before Google became a player.

-everphilski-

Re:Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[WilliamSChips]

3) Hotmail's pretty darn popular, whether your friends use it or not.

Hotmail's popularity is falling pretty darn fast. I doubt very many people use Hotmail for actual mail rather than just a throwaway for MSN Messenger anymore.

Re:Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[hritcu]

hotmail >>> gmail, msn messenger >>> google's chat, my spaces >>> blogger.com

Do you have any tangible data to back this up? If not ... don't just STFU, this is /.

Re:Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[killjoe]

Actually Google needs to start making apps that work better in Firfox and work in crippled mode in IE. IT's the only way they are going to encourage people to move away from MS products.

Needless to say they need to actively encourage people not to use MS products. Ballmer is quoted in a recent court case as saying "I'm going to fucking bury that guy" (Google CEO), "I'm going to fucking kill google".

MS is out to kill google and is even willing to resort to personal threats against the CEO. Google can't afford to pull any punches at this time. They will die if they do. Google is fighting against the richest and most unethical company on the planet, time to take off the kid gloves.

Re:Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[silverhalide]

MSN cheats a lot -- every time you type a wrong URL into an IE browser, it brings up an error page served from MSN by default. Not sure what percentage of traffic this accounts for, but I bet it overinflates the figures by at least 100% from users actually wanting to go to MSN.

Re:Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Hotmail has, unfortunately, my money for life because I got in early and want to keep my name@hotmail.com address until the day I exhume with finality. I use google more, but will always have the hotmail address too.

My only consolation and excuse is that I was using it before M$ bought it.

Re:Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[Bert64]

There are also a lot of people using yahoo or aol, i believe aol still has a larger marketshare than msn and they've been around a lot longer.

Re:Too Little Too Late != Out-Googling Google

[Bert64]

And msn messenger was predated by both aol (with aim and icq) and yahoo by many years

The question should be

[FidelCatsro]

"Can Microsoft Out-Google Google"
Can Microsoft imitate google properly ?
So can Microsoft muscle into this market .

Re:The question should be

[ScrewMaster]

Well, most of Microsoft's forays into areas that weren't operating systems or office suites haven't done so well.

And, if Microsoft is successful in out-Googling Google will they be able to do that running Windows on the server side? Or will they have to come up with some other solution?

Marketing bullshit

[RootsLINUX]

I like how they call it "Web 2.0", as if Microsoft were the ones that originally invented the web. Gotta love that marketing department!

Re:Marketing bullshit

[bluesoul88]

As far as the average end user is concerned, Microsoft may very well have made the internet. This only stands to exacerbate that view. It's kind of like AOL. AOL is not, in fact, it's own internet, but shame on should you try and explain this to someone that uses it.

Re:Marketing bullshit

[Lisandro]

On their defense, AOL kinda used to be it's own internet, back to the 8-bit computers days...

Re:Marketing bullshit

[bluesoul88]

This is true I suppose. I do have one of the old AOL diskettes that say "Join the hundreds of people on the internet!". Ah, it makes me smile. :)

Re:Marketing bullshit

[Manchot]

Actually, he never said that, though the GOP managed to convince many people that he did.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Re:Marketing bullshit

[bluesoul88]

Honestly that movie looked iffy to me when I was working at the local Cinemark, I'd have to watch the trailer between 15 and 20 times a day (all the trailers really). But I can assure you that, if I had decided to watch it, I'd have been far too busy staring at Scarlett Johannson to notice this.

Re:Marketing bullshit

[Bogtha]

Actually, "Web 2.0" is a buzzword that originated outside of Microsoft and typically refers to "next gen" web technologies, like web services, AJAX, etc. Google it for more information.

Still stupid, vague to the point of meaningless marketing, but in this case, it's not Microsoft's fault, they are just using the same terminology as a lot of other people.

Re:Marketing bullshit

[Eil]

Not only that, but didn't they steal the Web 2.0 moniker from something else, like W3C?

Re:Marketing bullshit

[Jeremi]

1. 
   Intelligent, forward-looking politician works for years to fund and shepherd through a new technology before anyone else has ever even heard of it
2. New technology comes to fruition and pays off big-time, leads to economic boom and years of prosperity
3. In the next election, said politician rightfully claims credit for his work
4. Opposition strategists successfully run smear campaign again politician, twisting his words to paint him as a liar
5. Smear campaign works, politician is discredited, loses election to folksy but brain-dead ideologue opponent with little experience and no capacity for critical thinking
6. Brain-dead opponent spectacularly mismanages the country into one avoidable debacle after the next (ignoring 9/11 threats, exploding the deficit, invading the wrong country, advocating torture of prisoners, eviscerating FEMA and other gov't agencies, abandoning environmental laws, etc)
7. Nation begins long, slow decline into penury and ignomy

I don't know who to blame -- the character assassins who managed to get an incompetent leader elected over a competent one, or the American public who fell for it, twice. But either way, our nation is a poorer place for it.

Re:Marketing bullshit

[MP3Chuck]

"Web 2.0" isn't an MS term. It's a general reference to the proliferation of things like feeds, web services, AJAX, etc... and the transformation of the Web to more of an an app platform rather than a static "read-only" platform. It's easy to blow it off as a buzzword, but the transition is happening and it's pretty neat.

Re:Marketing bullshit

[Mr. Underbridge]

1. Technology wasn't new when he got involved with it. Role is completely overrated

2-3. Politician claims credit for things he didn't do and rightfully gets nailed.

4. Words require little to no twisting because while he's not a liar, he's self-deluded and incompetent.

6-7. Fantastic strawman.

Wait - since when was Gore a competent leader, and of what?

Re:Marketing bullshit

[killjoe]

Bah, it's easy to convince a republitard of anything. Just get Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to say it and voila! it's true.

Re:Marketing bullshit

[killjoe]

So let me get this straight. Your entire argument can be summed up as....

"is not!".

I am sure that works great in the Rush Limbaugh amen corner at your local diner but I am afraid you will need better arguments here where people know how to read and have access to information that does not originate from Fox News or talk radio.

Re:Marketing bullshit

[emandres]

Sorry to rain on your little bush-hating parade here, but the president never found out about the 9/11 threats until after they happened. If you remember the whole 9/11 report thing, they identified the FBI as where the threats were ignored. And, IMHO, having a dead brain is better than being a robot with none.

Re:Marketing bullshit

[Jeremi]

the president never found out about the 9/11 threats until after they happened.

Here is the briefing that Mr. Bush was given on August 6th, 2001. Mr. Bush was enjoying a month-long vacation at the time, though, and didn't take the threat seriously. I realize that hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but you can't say he wasn't warned.

And, IMHO, having a dead brain is better than being a robot with none.

Ooh, good one! I bet you won every playground debate in elementary school.

Re:Marketing bullshit

[pipingguy]

2. New technology comes to fruition and pays off big-time, leads to economic boom and years of prosperity.

Except for all the highly-paid wannabe dupes who lost jobs in the overinflated tech bust and now are qualified for burger-flipping, err, I mean, alimentary service positions.

Let's face it, the business hype and resulting inevitable bust served one real purpose: to make everyone aware of the internet.

The future employment opportunities for young people are in any (non-degreed) job that requires one's physical presence: plumber, nurse, street cleaner, snow removal, police, etc.

"But wait!", you say, "won't all the robots, automated systems and computers need designers, engineers and maintenance people?"

Re:Marketing bullshit

[dangitman]

Still stupid, vague to the point of meaningless marketing, but in this case, it's not Microsoft's fault, they are just using the same terminology as a lot of other people.

And, no doubt, they will attempt to trademark the term to manipulate the common usage of it.

Microsoft IS out googling Google

[13bPower]

Microsoft has 2 storys on the front page of /. while Google has 0. I no understand.

I wonder when

[saskboy]

When will Gates finally just buy out Google?

Then we'll have Googlesoft or Microogle to complain about.

Re:I wonder when

[Seydlitz]

A Microogle, you say?

Well thats easy. A googol is 10^100, so a micro google is simply (10^100)^-3, or 10^97.

Easy when you know how!

Re:I wonder when

[Kirkoff]

Actually, they'll change their name to NURV. Then they'll launch Synapse to connect the global village. When they can't meet the launch date, they'll Kill for Code!!!

Re:I wonder when

[ScrewMaster]

Too many syllables. Try Moogle. Or Goosoft.

Re:I wonder when

[ciroknight]

One word: anti-trust.

Re:I wonder when

[alienfluid]

You're wrong.

It should be (10^100)^-6. So 10^94.

Micro is ^-6 . ^-3 is milli.

Seems kind of odd...

[bluesoul88]

This is talking about a new web platform for developers. So why couldn't Google utilize this as well and remain on top of the heap?

Personally, I'm a big fan of Google for their honesty.

"How do you get listed on top, Google?"
"Pay up, bitch."

Fine with me, and the amount of revenue it pulls in gives us end users a LOT of cool stuff to play with (Virtual Earth, anyone?)

Re:Seems kind of odd...

[Thornkin]

Umm, Virtual Earth is not a Google product. It is a pretty cool product though.

Re:Seems kind of odd...

[bluesoul88]

It was rather poorly worded on second viewing, I was implying the kind of product Google can come out with to rival it in a fairly short time. Google Talk isn't much to look at yet, but you can be sure it's going to improve. Hell, even Gmail forced all the competing websites to "put up or shut up".

you linux sycophants don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

MSFT will kill google.

Vint Cerf is an MSFT hater. At MCI he led the investment into Netscape.

John Doerr (http://investor.google.com/board.html) is on google's board and was on netscapes.

There is a struggling conspiracy that believes MSFT's capitalist successes are unfair and they must be killed.

Or, there is a natural balance to the world in which MSFT forces innovation through challenges, but overcomes those challenges through its own innovation.

MSFT's brainpower and cash reserves dwarf google's resources.

I used to be a linux fiend and use FVWM all day long. Now I make money for a living.

Google will die, MSFT will triumph in the end.

I sound like flame bait but that's not how I mean to be. I just think this zealous jingoism for anti-MSFT stuff is silly.

Re:you linux sycophants don't get it

[Morganth]

You make money for a living? Tell me, what kind of technical background is required to work at the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing?

Re:you linux sycophants don't get it

[killjoe]

You got it down my friend. That's right out of the MS astro turfing school.

You could have thrown in the old "I am no MS fan but..." thing but really that's just a nitpick.

Wow!

[spiritraveller]

--- VERY IMPORTANT NEWS - VERY IMPORTANT NEWS ---

Microsoft, the most innovative company in history is about to embark on a bold new way of doing things. They are going to open up the APIs for their search engine (that noone uses), their messenger service (that noone uses), and their Desktop search service (which surprisingly, nobody uses).

Oh wait a sec, this just in... they're going to open up the APIs for Windows users only.

Of course, Google and Yahoo, whose services people do use, opened up their APIs sometime around 1997.

--- VERY IMPORTANT NEWS - VERY IMPORTANT NEWS ---

Re:Wow!

[supertoad]

no one uses their messenger service? since when? i think in the states maybe a lot more people use aim and stuff, but in canada msn messenger is really the only im service anybody uses

Re:Wow!

[cnettel]

MSN Messenger is highly popular in some regions/demographics (although I don't use it).

BTW, Google hadn't received that name yet and I know of no "public API" back for Backrub or Yahoo in 1997. Those were the days when a Javascript controllable HTML DOM was part of everyone's wet dreams.

Furthermore, it's quite hard to make SOAP Windows-only.

So, nice trolling, I was stupid enough to get hit.

Re:Wow!

[shmlco]

--- ALSO VERY IMPORTANT NEWS ---

"noone" is not a word. No one should be writing it.

--- ALSO VERY IMPORTANT NEWS ---

Re:Wow!

[drsquare]

What are you talking about? Loads of people use microsoft's search engine and MSN messenger.

Oh wait a sec, this just in... they're going to open up the APIs for Windows users only.

As opposed to who? The Linux/Mac users who probably total 1% of the market?

Re:Wow!

[Linegod]

I think you meant 'the people I know in Canada', not all of Canada, since 'the people I know in Canada' use ICQ, AIM and a tonne of interconnected Jabber servers.

Re:Wow!

[drsquare]

Well, based on the last figures, Linux has 0.24% of the desktop, and Mac has about 0.5%, so that's 0.74%, I was being generous by rounding to 1%.

The Mac has been forced into releasing lower-priced computers just to compete, now they're out of the OS game and have run away to MP3 players to try and hide from Microsoft.

Meanwhile Linux's stock price just goes down and down.

Re:Wow!

[adpowers]

You might want to check that again. Google didn't even become a company until late 1997.

Re:Wow!

[adpowers]

Fuck, I mean 1998.

Re:Wow!

[PFAK]

Most people in the Vancouver area (anyone under the age of 30 years) primarly uses MSN Messenger as their instant messenger.

Try to find a cluebie that uses anything BUT MSN Messenger is challenging, some people use Yahoo. Nobody I know uses Jabber (besides me).

FYI: I work in the tech sector.

Re:Wow!

[Bullet-Dodger]

Well, based on the last figures, Linux has 0.24% of the desktop, and Mac has about 0.5%, so that's 0.74%, I was being generous by rounding to 1%.

I'm going to assume you made those figures up unless you have a reference.

The Mac has been forced into releasing lower-priced computers just to compete...

First Apple gets flamed for not providing a low cost computer, now that it does it's a sign of its impending doom.

...now they're out of the OS game...

What is that even supposed to mean?

...and have run away to MP3 players to try and hide from Microsoft.

The fact that Apple has the most popular MP3 player is another sign of its impending doom.

Meanwhile Linux's stock price just goes down and down.

Linux doesn't have a stock price.

Re:Wow!

[RollingThunder]

*waves*

Vancouverite, ICQ devotee. Could have something to do with first using it with a miniscule ICQ UIN though. All my friends use ICQ as well.

The kids in the area seem to all use MSN, so I agree with you there.

Re:Wow!

[drsquare]

I'm going to assume you made those figures up unless you have a reference.

I must admit that the 0.7% is an approximation based on evidence, but the 0.24% is widely-known official statistic. That means 1 in 400 desktops have Linux on. I think that's pretty accurate, especially considering the billions of people in Indo-China using pirated Windows.

Linux doesn't have a stock price.

Things are that bad.

Re:Wow!

[spiritraveller]

So, nice trolling, I was stupid enough to get hit.

Thanks. It's hard work you know...

I was going more for a +5 funny than a +3 Insightful, but I'll take what I can get.

Re:Wow!

[Bullet-Dodger]

Ok, you got me. I should really learn not to feed the trolls.

PR from the Redmond chair throwing contest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft can't out-anybody-anything without being unethical, unless it involves office furniture.

To confirm you're not a script, please type the word in this image: lawyers

In a word: No

[Elrac]

Google is about making information available. Microsoft is about selling Windows. They're not in the same business.

Microsoft is unlikely to make a REALLY significant dent in, what so far has been rather foreign territory, breathless news blurbs notwithstanding.

Re:In a word: No

[arethuza]

I thought Google was in the business of selling ads!

Re:Question Translated:

[DAldredge]

"Can you imagine a world where MS supports third party access to their precious code or APIs?"

Yes - most of the Windows API is open which is how most write programs for that platform.

Who every thought that Google would ban CNET because CNET used Google to do research on Google Execs?

Things Change.

The Google Iceberg

[Anonymous Cowdog]

They can certainly copy the visible parts of Google, the products that are out (heh, mostly in beta) now.

But what about all the other stuff that's still hidden, that's in the Google pipeline? You could call it the Google Iceberg. The cool stuff that is yet to come. It looks like Google is pretty good at staying ahead by innovating.

As always, Microsoft is claiming to innovate, while actually just copying what they find out there in the marketplace already. They don't move the ball forward, they just keep the pressure on.

Re:The Google Iceberg

[hritcu]

They can certainly copy the visible parts of Google, the products that are out (heh, mostly in beta) now.

You mean, like this?

Re:The Google Iceberg

[DerekLyons]

But what about all the other stuff that's still hidden, that's in the Google pipeline? You could call it the Google Iceberg. The cool stuff that is yet to come. It looks like Google is pretty good at staying ahead by innovating.

Google? Innovate? Don't make me laugh.

The last real innovation Google made was Adsense/Adwords. Ever since then they've been racing to provide services that other folks have been providing for years (mail, maps, chat). They been accomplishing that the same time honored way Microsoft did - by buying the products they need, or coming out with a slightly better (or at least almost-as-good) product as their competitors. (Gmails interface is still somewhat deficient compared to Yahoo!s for example.)

Re:The Google Iceberg

[Anonymous Cowdog]

Your reply really looks like a troll, though it's too late for anyone else to be paying attention to this conversation by now.

Gmail is -way- better than Yahoo! mail, and the reason is exactly innovation. Any deficiency you may see in the UI is more than compensated for by the far superior UI speed.

Re:The Google Iceberg

[DerekLyons]

Your reply really looks like a troll, though it's too late for anyone else to be paying attention to this conversation by now.

Why? Because I don't agree with the Google worshipping majority? Because I introduce facts into the discussion rather than fanboy enthusiasm?

Gmail is -way- better than Yahoo! mail, and the reason is exactly innovation.

See... Here's an example of exactly what I'm talking about - a claim with no supporting facts, just a buzzword and enthusiasm.

Any deficiency you may see in the UI is more than compensated for by the far superior UI speed.

The fact that I cannot sort my mail (for example, by sender) is in no way made up for by the speed of the interface. Instead, I have to search for one sender, then search for another, then search for another. During each search I cannot see the other senders without undoing my search.

The fact that I cannot open more than one mail by simply right clicking is in no way made up for by the speed of the interface.

The fact that to delete mail requires scrolling through a drop down menu rather than simply clicking a button is in no way made up for by the speed of the interface.

etc... etc...

Shor answer

[AnonymousYellowBelly]

No. MS cannot/will not outsmart Google. MS will not even outsmart the succesful MS of the past.

Great Question, Here's the Answer

[Ieshan]

For all relevant details and discussion, see "Netscape".

Re:Great Question, Here's the Answer

[ciroknight]

Netscape was different; netscape, though being the leading competitor, was also the far less powerful competitor. They had virtually no finances to fight the battle, and their development teams seemed to keep starting over, or getting pissed and spinning their wheels.

Google, on the other hand, has the lead, and the money, to fight Microsoft in this market. Their recent IPO has freed up billions of dollars to throw around as they see fit, and I'm fairly certain they are going to be expanding their bases of operations quickly. Alliances in SIP (VoIP), quick competition with Google Talk, and Gmail, and Google Earth's rapid media acceptance (see Hurricane Katrina for details) are all ways Google hopes to stay superior.

This won't be a battle like Netscape vs Microsoft. This time, the software isn't tied to Microsoft's infrastructure in any way (see the prevalance of cross platform tools from Google; they haven't completely full compatibility, but I insure you that they are working on it feverishly). Pair this with extreme competition from Microsoft in market dominance (Apple's catching up fast with the recent iPod successes), and you start seeing a really pissed off Microsoft.

It seems at this point, Microsoft, as well as News Corp, along with EBay, are all feeling the on-coming war, and are sweeping the playing field clear, buying up their places on the battlefield so that Google and Microsoft won't destroy them. See the recent purchase/intent to purchase GameSpy, Skype, etc.

This is war, and a war that Google can fight. Don't expect them to roll over and die like Netscape did.

Does anyone over at MS know what they're doing?

[locust]

Last week it was a new line of retail outlets. This week, they're openning up thier apis. Tommorrow they're going to learn that web commics are big, and so we'll see a commic dedicated to the adentures of 'Microsoft Bob and Clippy'. After that who knows?

Re:Does anyone over at MS know what they're doing?

[i.of.the.storm]

There is a M$ comic for developers, it's really stupid and called "Script Guy" or something, who teaches you to use VBScript to automate useful tasks. Really lame, I used to get it with Technet Flash newsletters.

Out-google Google? Unless the following happens

[bogaboga]

Out googling google will not be easy unless M$ creates the following environment:

Here it is:

M$ MUST make sure that the services Google and Yahoo provide at present do not work very well with IE. So in this situation if one wants to use Google's virtual Earth, it becomes impossible making this individual resort to Microsoft's offerings.

On the other hand, Google could fight back this way: It could create a utility that makes the dependence on IE for most of Microsoft's services irrelevant. I am still looking for a way to remove IE from my Windows box in a sane and neat way.

If Google can create such a utility, I can see most users removing IE. The trouble at present is even after making Firefox the default browser for example, looking at some link in some applications would still "call" IE. I guess this young man called "DVD Jon" can help here.

Re:Out-google Google? Unless the following happens

[gatzke]

You can't remove IE, it is tied to the OS. Except for the OSX version. And the unix version.

And you need IE for little things like windows update and braindead websites that only work in IE.

Can you even just delete the IE icon off the desktop in XP? They used to lock a few icons on the desktop requiring reg hacks.

Re:Out-google Google? Unless the following happens

[cnettel]

What might help is the work to emulate the MSHTML COM interfaces through Gecko to actually get useful. That doesn't require any genius. It just requires lots of tedious work. It should be somewhat similar to ripping out COMCTL32.dll in a Win32 system; more or less user mode only, no extremely strange dependencies, but it's quite a lot of functionality to duplicate with a very specific interface to get everything working. It should be no surprise that, last I heard, the ones pursuing any such addon to Gecko was the WINE guys.

Re:Out-google Google? Unless the following happens

[gQuigs]

You can remove IE, as well as Windows Media Player and half of the other junk included with Windows.
Check out nLite
http://www.nliteos.com/

Re:Out-google Google? Unless the following happens

[bogaboga]

I've just heard of IE Eradicator...I guess this can do the job. Have a look: http://www.litepc.com/ieradicator.html

Re:Out-google Google? Unless the following happens

[Shaper_pmp]

"M$ MUST make sure that the services Google and Yahoo provide at present do not work very well with IE. So in this situation if one wants to use Google's virtual Earth, it becomes impossible making this individual resort to Microsoft's offerings."

Virtual Earth is owned by Microsoft. You mean "Google Earth". And Google Earth is a separate application, so it has nothing to do with IE or Firefox. Did you mean Google Maps?

Even then, Google just releases a new version of Google maps that sniffs the new version of IE and offers one which works with it. Google Maps is a web-application, IE is a client-side app. Google can upgrade their end instantly, and all users are upgraded. Microsoft has to produce the "upgrade" for IE, then wait for (or convince) their users to install it - a much slower process.

Basically, you'll never reliably break a web app by changing the browser, since changing the web-app is faster, cheaper and instantly upgrades all users.

"On the other hand, Google could fight back this way: It could create a utility that makes the dependence on IE for most of Microsoft's services irrelevant. I am still looking for a way to remove IE from my Windows box in a sane and neat way."

Not this is an interesting idea. However, it's such a blatantly anti-Microsoft move (with no clear benefit Google could publically admit to) that I don't think Google would get away with releasing it any time in the near future - certainly not until they're convinced they'd win in a gloves-off, no-holds-barred fight with MS.

There are also formidable technical problems to overcome - you're talking about replacing one or more low-level Windows DLLs with some sort of wrapper around Gecko. And *then* rewriting Gecko to support the additional functionality (like ActiveX) which they've often chosen not to support for very good reasons (like the fact that it's insecure or poorly-designed). Not only that, but you'll have to contend with unpublished quirks of the MS code (and we all know what bastards they are for unpublished API calls), and finally reproducing all the bugs in the DLL code, just in case any of the third-party developers have code which relies on the (incorrect) behaviour.

"If Google can create such a utility, I can see most users removing IE. The trouble at present is even after making Firefox the default browser for example, looking at some link in some applications would still "call" IE. I guess this young man called "DVD Jon" can help here."

TBH, this would probably be the easiest part. You'd likely have ot produce a distinct patch for each version of each application (and there are likely many, but patching a few apps to run one browser instead of another is child's play compared to emulating the other browser with 100% accuracy. It's a lot of work, but technically far less demanding.

Re:Out-google Google? Unless the following happens

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Except it doesn't work.

I used to use their 98Lite on an old Fujitsu box, set it as win95 look and feel, no IE, super slimmed down, and used Opera.

1st time it connected to the internet, I clicked on a link (turned out to be a video file) and bang, IE popped up trying to install something.

I was most displeased to see their product didn't function as claimed, especially since I had paid for it.

Re:Out-google Google? Unless the following happens

[bergeron76]

Heres how they can do it:

eBay + Paypal + Amazon + MSN == trouble for non-IE browsers

I'm sure Vista isn't just about introducing a new OS. I'm sure it's about all the strategic partnerships that are happening RIGHT NOW, that we won't know about until Vista ships. If Paypal+eBay and Amazon and MSN stopped answering requests for non-IE browsers, everyone non-IE/MSFT would be fscked - period.

1) utilize existing monopoly powers to yield power and force partnerships
2) exploit partnerships (Paypal, Amazon)
3) profit!

If paypal/ebay/amazon/etc. stopped accepting payments from Firefox browsers, it would all but destroy any non-IE/MS options. Look at the pages that are served up when you browse, all of the important ones are becoming .ASP, etc...

Re:Out-google Google? Unless the following happens

[dangitman]

I am still looking for a way to remove IE from my Windows box in a sane and neat way.

1. Remove computer's hard drive

2. Place hard drive in blast furnace

3. Destroy blast furnace

4. Salt the Earth so IE will never grow there again

Goodbye Google!

[qualico]

Ballmer is going to f***ing kill Google. Remember. :->

Re:Goodbye Google!

[hritcu]

I was wondering what "to Out-google" means. Thank you.

Awww, another new strategy?

[serutan]

Haven't read the article yet, so maybe I should hold off, but as a web programmer working mostly with IE-dependant internal corporate apps, my first reaction is, "Oh great! What Microsoft skills that I mastered 2 years ago do I have to throw away now?" I used to be a hot shot ASP/VBScript developer. Now I'm finally up to speed on C# and ASP.Net. I'm getting tired of switching to the newest Microsoft thing du-jour that everybody wants to use because it's new.

Re:Awww, another new strategy?

[cnettel]

It's not like seamless interaction with remoting, including SOAP web services, was one of the selling points of C#, although that's not a main use in practice.

Re:Awww, another new strategy?

[TheSpoom]

This is another reason why you should use standards. I've been programming in PHP for years and the fundamentals haven't changed. Granted, being in the IT field means you have to learn things quickly, but if you get away from Microsoft you find things tend to be a LOT more interoperable.

Of course, if your job forces you to use Microsoft APIs... I pity you.

Two references to Google...

[urdine]

...in the title of an article about Microsoft. A /. classic!

Re:Two references to Google...

[woah]

The aritcle is as much about Google as it is about Microsoft.

Whew

[Overly Critical Guy]

Whew, I was getting worried we weren't going to have YAGS (Yet Another Google Story) today. And this one has Microsoft in it. Bonus!

Your grammar - ouch!

[bogaboga]

While I understood what you were trying to put across, and I believe other slashdotters did, I'd beg you to learn when to use "there" and "their". In your post, you should have replaced every occurrence of "there" with "their".

That's my piece. Thanx

Headline

[R.Mo_Robert]

I'm not trying to rant, but...

Normally, BetaNews rips stuff right off the front page of Slashdot, but this time it looks like it went the other way around. I mean, was it really necessary to copy the exact headline, word for word, from the linked BetaNews article?

Microsoft cost me months of lost life.

[Helpadingoatemybaby]

I'm a developer and look at Microsoft's actions from my point of view.

I just spent the last two weeks building a replacement Microsoft's ADO/DAO in our product using sqlite. Why? Because on rolling out we discovered that ADO would fault on half the machines, and DAO would fault on the other half of the machines. Weird error messages. Strange unrelated machine problems. Both implementations ran fine in the lab, but in the real world they would fail. Who has time for that?

So we ripped out both and replaced them with a brand spanking new sqlite version. Wasted a lot of programming and testing time, but it was the only way to make sure that our program would work in the real world. In a similar vein, we had to remove all the Microsoft calendar controls from our product because some of the machines in the real world would fault. Working around Microsoft's problems is not what programmers should be paid for.

Now, given a choice between Google's products, which are generally stable and just work, and Microsoft's API which will potentially lead to a lot of uncomfortable surprises on rollout, which would I choose? It's a no brainer.

No thanks, Microsoft, but you had your chance. When we got to the point that we had to set a policy to minimize the use of Microsoft controls as much as possible you lost any chance of ever getting us back in the fold.

Re:Microsoft cost me months of lost life.

[MemoryDragon]

Working around the myriads of problems imposed by shoddy or non standard compliant microsoft software is what programmers are paid for 90% of the time, the bosses or customers simply do not see that directly. If Microsoft would comply to web standards for instance around 50% of all web programmers probably would lose their job because the worktime could be cut by half... Usually if you do html programming it is like that, make a page, which works on every browser, spend the rest of the time (which is somewhere between 50 and 90%) to get it up and running in IE as well...

Re:Microsoft cost me months of lost life.

[hritcu]

This is just PURE speculation, and seems quite far from the truth to me. But ... well, this it's /.

Re:Microsoft cost me months of lost life.

[hritcu]

Maybe I should explain why your numbers seem wrong to me. First because you think that all software development is web-centric. Well, it is not. Second, even for web-centric applications there are always (many) programmers that do the server-side bussiness logic and data binding. They don't have to worry about Internet Explorer at all.

Finally, your frustrations are justified, only for those developing web interfaces. I know there are a lot of you guyz out there, and I really understand your problems. And you are right here, that you waste most of the time working around IE bugs. However, you are not the only type of developers out there.

Re:Microsoft cost me months of lost life.

[MemoryDragon]

Naturally, but even on the backend side of things you run into the occasional microsoft problems, I will give you an example, reporting, CSV... there is some breakage in the format between european and us versions, the euro symbol comin in into the backen from Microsoft browsers non standards compliant etc, you have to do something which hooks into the word format, good luck, customers demand that you can get (into fill any microsoft product there), because Microsoft can do it also, but you run into specs straight from the brothers Grimm...

And I agree, there is lots of software development which is not that problematic, but that is one where you can exclude the factor Microsoft entirely, as soon as you even run into the name Microsoft all these problems, no matter at which stage of development you are in, arise. And good luck having to deal with a company which tries to make things as hard as possible for anyone else...

That is the reason why I said, without the problems Microsoft constantly causes around 50% of all programmers probably would be jobless. Same goes for system administration btw...

Re:Microsoft cost me months of lost life.

[JohnnyLocust]

You think that's bad? Support for Compact Framework in Windows Mobile 2003 SE has more holes in it than a box of cheerios.

Not quite true

[hritcu]

For the past decade, Microsoft has largely ignored the Web as an emerging platform for application development with fears that it could render Windows obsolete.

What about ASP.NET or IIS?

Web services for MSN Search ... who cares?

[hritcu]

As part of its new "Web platform" strategy, Microsoft will expose application programming interfaces, or APIs, for MSN Search using SOAP. Third party applications will be able to access up to 10,000 search results per day.

As long as Google offers the most relevant search results, for free, what would be the incentive to use MSN Search? Unless Microsoft pays developers to use their crappy search engine, there is no incentive.

Re:Web services for MSN Search ... who cares?

[Shaper_pmp]

Nothing, apart from the next version of IE will default to MSN Search. As will the next version of Windows. And Office, and every other program MS produces where it's remotely applicable.

And 90% of Microsoft users won't/don't know how to/won't be able to change it.

Microsoft's desktop monopoly means they don't have to be the best - they only have to be just barely good enough, and they win the war with the next round of upgrades to their existing products.

Re:Web services for MSN Search ... who cares?

[hritcu]

Of course that Microsoft's products will default to MSN, with all the consequences you stated. However, Microsoft didn't need open APIs in order to do this anyway. The article was about Microsoft opening up their APIs to third-party developers. And these developers should be somehow motivated to use the Microsoft services, instead of the ones provided by Google or Yahoo! The problem (for Microsoft) is that their services SUCK (especially the search). So, I'm very curious on how will Microsoft lure developers into using it's APIs. Maybe by including them into VS.NET?

Re:Web services for MSN Search ... who cares?

[Thanatopsis]

Every version of IE since 5.0 has defaulted to the MS search engine. Has it helped MSN Search's market search? No. Office? Why do I need my word processor or spreadsheet to go to a search engine. Changing your default search engine will always be easy - largely because the anti-trust settlement requires it.

The constant refrain of (IE will default to it) doesn't change the fact that this strategy has already failed.

Re:Web services for MSN Search ... who cares?

[hritcu]

The constant refrain of (IE will default to it) doesn't change the fact that this strategy has already failed.

Well ... MSN Search still exist and has enough users, even if it is crappy as hell. So this move was not exactly a failure. Think what would have happened if Microsoft had had a comparable search engine. Would Google still exist? Fortunately Microsoft never had a comparable search engine (comparable to Google or even Yahoo!).

Re:Web services for MSN Search ... who cares?

[Thanatopsis]

Well it's still losing money my friend. Look at Microsoft's financials - MSN search is a BIG money loser. Google isn't trying to "kill" MSN search, just make irrelevant.

Re:Your grammar - ouch! - I agree

[roman_mir]

same hier.

Removing IE icon from Desktop?

[Tezkah]

Yes you can remove it from the desktop, either by deleting or simply unchecking it from "Show These Icons on the Desktop" when you Right Click your Desktop -> Properties -> Desktop.

It still shows up in my Taskbar Toolbar for "Desktop". I haven't been able to find a way to remove it, but since I need IE sometimes (hell, sometimes I even LIKE the damn thing amazingly, IE7 gets on my nerves after a few hours though), its nice to have a hidden shortcut two clicks away.

You can remove all access to IE using Program Access and Defaults, and unchecking the box next to IE. You can still open it, obviously, by going into My Computer or another Explorer window and typing in a URL. On my system though, it opens up Opera since its the default browser and IE6 is not installed (only IE7).

Web circa 1996

[mybecq]

... SOAP. MSN Virtual Earth, ...

Great! Now I can combine cutting edge technology with free 1996 data! I've been waiting nearly 10 years for something like this to come along -- this web thing is gonna be BIG!!

Re:Question Translated:

[Antique Geekmeister]

I'm afraid the API's really are not open. They're open only under very restrictive licensing that very specifically prevents the developers from releasing an updated version of the Microsoft tool with the developer's desired features added.

Microsoft has also been caught, repeatedly, including unpublished operations in its kernels and its software that do specific functions much faster than the published API for those functions. It's fraudulent and deceitful and monopolistic to do so, since it's like having a secret back door for your airline that lets your customers skip going through customs, thus making your overall trip time much shorter.

to Google:

[YesIAmAScript]

v. To introduce a knock-off of someone else's web service months after they introduce it. Often used in relation to Yahoo, or even AOL.

So, to out-Google Google would probably be just to introduce a knockoff of a Google service months after even Google got around to doing it.

It seems like Microsoft is heading down this track. So the description of out-Googling Google makes sense to me.

Re:to Google:

[gumbi west]

and who was the one that had a websearch that got pages worth something before google?

Re:to Google:

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Googles search is pretty worthless now. They were the best until they got the popularity they have now, now people get paid specificly to break the google crawler in order to inflate pagerank. Far too many top N results are obvious spider-trap pages and domain squatters.

New stuff from MS more cross-browser compliant

[dantheman82]

OK, so I'm a huge fan of tech in general, so I've gobbled up every single one of Google's offerings because they were quite simple and technically amazing. I got myself an invite on Gmail when they were going for $10/apiece on eBay, etc. etc.

However, I've noticed what seems to be some young (and new) blood on the MS campus that is definitely very interested in putting up a valiant fight within blogging and maps and other stuff. Virtual Earth, while coming second and with slightly older maps in some area than Google Maps, actually allows click zooming and scroll wheel zooming in FIREFOX! I heard Scoble during an interview specifically mention stuff like that and there is a much greater openness among their developers about the competition and increasing a userbase no matter what. BTW, Google Maps still don't zoom in Firefox using the scroll wheel, a real pain...and printing from Google Maps only seems to work if I use print screen.

Also, MS is saying "bring on the hackers" by offering $1000 in a contest to build the best plugin on top of Virtual Earth. Furthermore, MS is offering the Virtual Earth maps for free for commercial use. Furthermore, the virtual earth is integrated with the MySpace bloggin. Meanwhile, Google has tried to squash some commercial ideas built on their mapping, and there is no integration between their gmail, virtual earth, and blogging capabilities.

However, what I find cool is that there are some devs who are creating a bridge so that plugins can work on Google Maps AND Virtual Earth, which is awesome for increasing compatability between mapping services. Check out the video here (warning...requires WMP). Or you can read up about how to code it up here.

New slogan:

[hemabe]

Microsoft ... always one step behind.

Re:Question Translated:

[hritcu]

Who every thought that Google would ban CNET because CNET used Google to do research on Google Execs?

They did't ban anyone, you can still search CNET on google and it will work. They will just not make press announcements to them. This is a very different thing.

Why would we want to lock-in to Microsoft again?

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Microsoft isn't the sweetheart of the developer universe anymore. Anything they offer now is too little, too late. Nobody trusts Microsoft anymore. And besides, would you want your "Web 2.0" apps to depend on Microsoft products and services? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you use Microsoft tools and API's, you're not going to end up with "web applications" -- you're going to end up with "Windows applications that are delivered via the web."

Around the turn of the century, the phrase everyone was spewing was "whoever controls the browser, controls the Web." Microsoft proved that this isn't true. They had a near-monopoly on browsers for years, and they blew it. They just let the browser stagnate while they went back to focusing Bill Gates' pet projects, like tablet computing and putting a database in the filesystem. Now Google is finally realizing the Netscape dream of turning the web into a pervasive computing platform, and suddenly Microsoft has to go into react mode again. Microsoft does not innovate. Microsoft reacts. And Microsoft gets pissy whenever someone other than them starts succeeding in the technology world. They're a bunch of spoiled brats. Is it any surprise that those of us who are building the next generation of applications are hesitant to go anywhere near Microsoft?

Doubtful

[Darth Daver]

Microsoft is one of the least innovative corporations. To be fair, large corporations with cash cow products typically don't risk innovation. Innovation comes from small, nimble startups, which are then sometimes purchased by large companies.

It is unlikely Microsoft will "out-Google" anyone. Microsoft is better at using dirty tricks like well poisoning, and they do have a lot of monopoly power to abuse. Never underestimate the ignorance and ambivalence of their customers either.

Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?

[ScrewMaster]

If that means "producing lots of way-cool, innovative Web-based products that are so marvelously designed and implemented that nobody uses Google anymore" then I would have to say the answer is, no, they can't.

But that doesn't mean that they won't eventually manage to "f**kin' kill Google" (hey, Ballmer's alleged words not mine.)

Mod Parent +5 Funny

[WilliamSChips]

No, seriously, do it!

obligatory

[ImaLamer]

But he gets some credit from Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn. "Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development."

http://tinyurl.com/65ssc

or Coralized:

http://tinyurl.com/as4k8

Re:Can Microsoft be open?

[WilliamSChips]

Who are you and what did you do to Haiku 4 U?

Same idiots that brought you DOT NET?

[objekt]

Every bit as stupid as dot net or .net whatever the heck it was.

Re:.NET

[objekt]

The problem was, people thought .net was a web address.

Such confusion will never happen with Web 2.0!

obvious

[Madd Scientist]

"Can Microsoft Out-Google Google?" well, no, not if they want to continue out microsofting anyone else. the business models just don't interoperate, and are mostly conflicting... all exept the google search appliance, so maybe microsoft can get that business away from them, but thats about it.

altavista

[YesIAmAScript]

Your question is pretty strange. As if people didn't search before google?

I know Google when they came on the scene were far better than everyone else, they really did a much better job.

But that doesn't mean that worthwhile search tools didn't exist before Google.

I really should have put something after my knock-off comment in my post. Google has done some great sites. Few original ones, but a couple great ones. But still, that doesn't mean MS can't come in even later and out-do Google. And before you spout about how that's impossible, think of Orkut. It sucks. Think of MSN Earth, which has much higher res sat pics than Google maps.

Okay, so anyway, MS is going to try to compete with Google. I'm glad of that. I can pick and choose whichever ones I want, so competition is a good thing.

Finally, Google came onto the scene with a great search tool. Remember when every time you would search on Google, the best result was #1? How long has it been since that was the rule? It's not their fault, it's because so many people are trying to skew Google's results for profit, and it's working. But by the same token, it means that any competitor who comes into the marketplace with a new scheme stands some chance of beating Google on results quality simply because they aren't the ones the bozos are optimizing to beat.

Re:altavista

[gumbi west]

my question, restated without vernacular, is "who had a search that got me the pages I wanted before google." The (rhetorical) answer was, "nobody." It was intended to be a counterfactual to your definition.

The point is that google's core product was an inovation, searches that worked. Put it this way. my last altavista search was in 199? and was, "high performance liquid chromatography" this turned up nothing I wanted and lots of garbage. Google gave me what I wanted, I switched. BTW, the first result for that search was just fine, so just a few seconds ago is the last time my best result was first. It still is the rule (for me), but we probably search for different stuff, and it is true that I now start with longer searches than I used to.

Re:it's a joke

[chris_mahan]

Amen.

Not the question.

[jav1231]

The question is: Can Microsoft 'Microsoft' Google. See Google is content with the notion that there are other applications out there and that the Web works without Google being in every piece of code on every web server. Google can live and let live. While they want to have a successful business and huge chunk of market share, they aren't looking to dominate the OS, browser, music, media, office software, accounting, and messaging (though they have the audacity to be releasing a messaging client!). The real question is will Microsoft assimilate Google. This seems carefully worded to make M$ the underdog!

Yep

[JoeCommodore]

Looking at previous MS attempts, they start out with a lot of big talk of how great they are going to be and how easy it is and that veveryone is welcome. Then marketing gets wind and starts adding things in there to ensure windows lock-in and such as well as obfusticating any competiton information. As long as they feel they have the right to meddle with the user's experience they are messed up.

Re:I can't wait..

[unixbugs]

you are so wise! you sure told me!

listen ass hole:

i dont give a shit if microsoft makes 'the right tool for the job'. let's get that straight ok?

my 'narrow minded viewset' is about kicking the shit out of microsoft until they give in and give the world back everything they have taken from us: all our code, time, money, efforts and anguish spent dealing with their ILLEGAL MONOPOLY.

now, if you don't like that, then you can go on buying 'the right tool for the job', but don't come crying to me when you need someone strong because all those tools are too pricey for you to afford anymore. get with the program.

read up on here about how taking away our rights is supposed to ensure our safety. this has alot more to do with the open source vs closed source issue than your NARROW MIND can obviously comprehend.

by giving in to big pressure from big companies and laying down your responsibility to CONTRIBUTE to the world around you, you endanger yours and everyone else's rights to ever have an open society where people aren't trying kill each other and the planet constantly. WAKE UP!!!!!!

corporations.org

scorecard.org

malfeasance.50megs.com

go on, take a look, that is, if your 'right tool for the job' internet censoring software will let you. when you get back tell me how you feel about giving huge companies your blood, sweat, and tears, ok? tell me. i'll be waiting, but you won't be back will you?

i know though, you just want 'the right tool for the job' because it is the solution 'smart people' use.

i have a feeling that if you are considered one of those 'smart people' that we have alot more to worry about than human rights and pollution - because of people like you we have question if the human race as a whole are even worthy of living in a better world.

Re:Moogle

[duguk]

LOL! ROTFL!!

I got this even if no-one else did!

Bloody genius ;)

DugUK

Impossible...

[_bernie]

...Microsoft won't ever be able to gather enough Pigeons.

Re:I can't wait..

[alienfluid]

And you, my friend, are such a perfect example of an evolved and a "right" human being; so eloquently putting your thoughts across. Yes, peace is the way to go. Of course, the world is wrong - you're right. There's nothing to worry about any more.

BS

[Jesus IS the Devil]

The problem is that Microsoft gets to compete by cheating. Cheating by bundling and forcing their products onto the Windows desktop. As a result you never see them innovate. They just sit and wait. When someone/something comes along that threatens them, they just copy like monkeys, then extend and attempt to break their competitor's systems.

I can see it already. In the next version of IE, MS will try to break some of Google's tools.

With these things in mind, which developer in their right mind would want to work with the MS API?

One more thing.

[killjoe]

Here is the license you need to agree just to read the spec. Imagine what you need to sign to implement it.

wake me up when MS thows away DRM and immunizes people against their own patent portfolio.

-------------Begin License---------------

Microsoft Corporation Technical Documentation License Agreement for the specification code named "Metro"

READ THIS! THIS IS A LEGAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MICROSOFT CORPORATION ("MICROSOFT") AND THE RECIPIENT OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED MATERIALS, WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL OR AN ENTITY ("YOU"). IF YOU HAVE ACCESSED THIS AGREEMENT IN THE PROCESS OF DOWNLOADING THESE MATERIALS ("MATERIALS") FROM A MICROSOFT WEB SITE, BY CLICKING "I ACCEPT", DOWNLOADING, USING OR PROVIDING FEEDBACK ON THE MATERIALS, YOU AGREE TO THESE TERMS. IF THIS AGREEMENT IS ATTACHED TO MATERIALS, BY ACCESSING, USING OR PROVIDING FEEDBACK ON THE ATTACHED MATERIALS, YOU AGREE TO THESE TERMS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS, YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCESS, DOWNLOAD, USE OR REVIEW THE MATERIALS.

For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, You and Microsoft agree as follows:

1. You may review these Materials only (a) as a reference to assist You in planning and designing Your product, service or technology ("Product") to interface with a Microsoft product, specification, service or technology ("Microsoft Product") as described in these Materials; and (b) to provide feedback on these Materials to Microsoft. All other rights are retained by Microsoft; this Agreement does not give You rights under any Microsoft patents. You may not (i) duplicate any part of these Materials, (ii) remove this Agreement or any notices from these Materials, or (iii) give any part of these Materials, or assign or otherwise provide Your rights under this Agreement, to anyone else.

2. These Materials may contain preliminary information or inaccuracies, and may not correctly represent any associated Microsoft Product as commercially released. All Materials are provided entirely "AS IS." To the extent permitted by law, MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, DISCLAIMS ALL EXPRESS, IMPLIED AND STATUTORY WARRANTIES, AND ASSUMES NO LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ANY DAMAGES OF ANY TYPE IN CONNECTION WITH THESE MATERIALS OR ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THEM.

3. If You are an entity and (a) merge into another entity or (b) a controlling ownership interest in You changes, Your right to use these Materials automatically terminates and You must destroy them.

4. You have no obligation to give Microsoft any suggestions, comments or other feedback ("Feedback") relating to these Materials. However, any Feedback you voluntarily provide may be used in Microsoft Products and related specifications or other documentation (collectively, "Microsoft Offerings") which in turn may be relied upon by other third parties to develop their own products, services or technology ("Third Party Products"). Accordingly, if You do give Microsoft Feedback on any version of these Materials or the Microsoft Offerings to which they apply, You agree: (a) Microsoft may freely use, reproduce, license, distribute, and otherwise commercialize Your Feedback in any Microsoft Offering; (b) You also grant third parties, without charge, only those patent rights necessary to enable Third Party Products to use, implement or interface with any specific parts of a Microsoft Product that incorporate Your Feedback; and (c) You will not give Microsoft any Feedback (i) that You have reason to believe is subject to any patent, copyright or other intellectual property claim or right of any third party; or (ii) subject to license terms which seek to require any Microsoft Offering incorporating or derived from such Feedback, or other Microsoft intellectual property, to be licensed to or otherwise shared with any third party.

5. Microsoft has no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any Microsoft Offering, or the confidentiality of Your Feedback, including Your identity as the source of such Feedback

Re:Can Microsoft be open?

[emandres]

I think that's probably open much like .Net was "open". The whole thing stinks of the .Net strategy anyway. It's just Microsoft trying to gain a bigger market share by creating easier development, but limiting it to the win32 platform. .Net wasn't a bad idea, it's just that it was Microsoft creating it.

What absolute nonsense ...

[Numair]

I think you're mistaken ... BetaNews tends to be the ones who get ripped off. In fact, BetaNews and C|Net had a very bitter fight a while back over C|Net lifting stories off their site without credit. It's a small group of dedicated guys who run BetaNews; as such, it's almost offensive that you would accuse them of stealing from - of all the places you could have accused - Slashdot. Hate to break it to you, but by the time something hits Slashdot, it has already made several laps around the world of "those in the know."

Re:What absolute nonsense ...

[R.Mo_Robert]

I've been a BetaNews reader for years, but the last few months I've noticed that they seem to be copying not only stories from Slashdot (which is somewhat understandable--and, by the way, I gave up on C|Net long ago, so I'm not referring to them as they may pertain to this at all) but also *errors* in the Slashdot story found nowhere else, not even in TFA.

Stories, I can understand, because they have a way of getting around. Unique headlines and errors, however, I cannot. That is my only basis for my accusation, which I concede might be a bit hasty ... but, in any case, here we're dealing with the opposite issue: Slashdot stole from *them*.

You want the truth?!?

[nastro]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Nooooooooooooo.

Open API means nothing

[dougwhitehead]

So... they will publish their API. But if I recall correctly they said they would copyright their schema. So anyone can use and become dependent on their services, and then they can choose to enforce copyright and thereby pull the rug out of anyone whenever they see fit. You have to open the door and let people through before you lock them in.

API's

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Now who is surprised that Microsoft's solution to a problem is a new fucking API?

good news..

[Lord Flipper]

"Microsoft will expose application programming interfaces, or APIs, for MSN Search using SOAP. MSN Virtual Earth, Desktop Search and MSN Messenger will all be opened up for outside developers to extend."

Good now maybe a 12-yr old can write in some lines of code to bring video to Messenger on the Apple..., it's about time.

Re:I can't wait..

[Hydroksyde]

Looks like your shift key is broken too...

Re:Why would we want to lock-in to Microsoft again

[DerekLyons]

Microsoft isn't the sweetheart of the developer universe anymore. Anything they offer now is too little, too late. Nobody trusts Microsoft anymore.

Right. Which is why nobody is developing any applications on Microsoft platforms.

MSN Messenger

[Trejkaz]

Still, if they open up the ability to extend MSN Messenger, maybe someone can go and add support for a better protocol.

anything microsoft can do, google does better

[unlabeledchick]

yep... no operating system is better than windows lol

I said it in the last Microsoft story

[tod_miller]

Every time they get told to do something, it ends u being better for them - offer mulitple windows versions, oooh that sounds markettable. Seems out governments legal funds are basically brainstorming sessions...

In this case, many people want MSN opened up, and now they are doing it to take a piece out of google if they can.

The dumb stupid ass microsoft thing is, it would have been beneficial for them to do it ANYWAY.

asshats.

Altavista worked for me

[YesIAmAScript]

If Altavista didn't get me the pages I wanted, I wouldn't hve used it. But I did use it. You didn't?

I'm not saying Google doesn't improve upon altavista, they clearly did. And improvement is a legitimate business. But Google didn't "invent" search, and they didn't revolutionize search results in my book (their speed was revolutionary though).

I don't think search was so poor before Google that it failed to be useful. Plenty of companies agreed with my, getting into the search busines (including Google). If the business was really so poorly served, it would seem like it would have had fewer customers and thus not so much of a rush of companies jumping into that market.

Re:Altavista worked for me

[gumbi west]

I guess we just don't see eye to eye on this one. Before google, I didn't use the web much for pages I didn't alreay know the address of.

For a search, it was a sort of last resort. Altavista was the only search I knew and it worked from time to time too. A library was far superior.

Now, I start with google and I rarely end up at the library or bookstore (granted, I have online access to just about all journals and many other resources through my university).