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?

[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?

[SCVirus]

I knew Anonymous Coward worked for Microsoft!

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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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 ---

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: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.

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.

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: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!!!

Goodbye Google!

[qualico]

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

Two references to Google...

[urdine]

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

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...

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:Your grammar - ouch! - I agree

[roman_mir]

same hier.

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.

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?

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

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: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.

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.