Is AOL The Key to Microsoft 'Killing' Google?

VK writes "When Steve Ballmer yelled at a departing Microsoft employee that he would "kill Google" we had no idea just how direct a method he had in mind. Buying all or part of AOL may be the first part of the master plan, as Google relies heavily on the advertising pages that come from AOL, since it now syndicates its search to Google." Update: 09/23 19:20 GMT by J : As our readers pointed out, the original and Reg reprint both typoed "Yahoo" for AOL. Fixed.

Comments

Let's try again.

[suso]

I think you could have made this article cheesier by saying:

"Is AOL the quantum link to Microsoft 'Killing' Google?"

Re:Let's try again.

[x3v0]

Or how about:
Is assimilating AOL the quantum link to 'p3ning' Google?

Re:Let's try again.

[linumax]

Does AOL produce chairs?!! maybe nuclear ones?

Re:Let's try again.

[networkBoy]

"Is assimilating AOL the quantum link to 'p3ning' Google?"

Actually, no.

While I have not read any major news on this I think this may be M$ killing AOL (by accident).
My wife still wants her AOL e-mail address. Why? I have no clue. What I do know is that for the past three days the web authentecation server has been down, thus preventing a user from checking their spam without using the AOL application. When I finally got tired of being blamed for her inability to get her spam I called the AOL HellDesk. The person on the other end admitted that they have some critical server issues (when I poked for a better answer than "use the AOL app"). I made the comment that based on M$ 20% share of AOL I predict that 20% of their servers are down. (apperantly it is most of their internet gateway), this was confirmed by the tech.

So my take:
M$ buys controlling interest in AOL, shoves W2003 server etc. down their throat, doesn't do a proper impact study and blindly forges ahead. Result? nothing. Why? cause the AOL users don't know any better. Ultimately they'll work it out and such, but in the meantime their incompetance is shining through.

-nB

Re:Let's try again.

[Anonymous Coward]

their incompetance is shining through

Is this what they call irony?

Re:Let's try again.

[networkBoy]

"Is this what they call irony?"

Nah, just a lack of spell check. And an excellent example. This is /., where I don't particularly care if I have a typo or anything else amiss in my post. Had this been a post to the company web page (or a global server deployment) I would have used spellcheck, re-read it, and then, depending on what it is, have another person read it. Had I been at M$ or AOL I would have not done a deployment without substantionally more testing.

BTW, How the hell was my previous post a troll? Sure wasn't meant that way.
-nB

Re:Let's try again.

[ultranova]

"Is AOL the quantum link to Microsoft 'Killing' Google?"

No, he should had said "Is AOL the missing link to Microsoft 'Killing' Google?". That way, it bear a vague link to evolution, which would cue some besserwisser into making some crack at creationism in some way that would show his own complete lack of understanding of science in general and evolution in particular, and acting as the opening salvo in an atheism-theism war on Slashdot, raising message numbers to thousands and giving the new Slashcode a real stress test.

Unfortunately, the editor missed this perfect opportunity, so now we'll have to wait until some troll gets creative - a rare occasion nowadays. Trolls aren't what they used to be :(.

Re:Let's try again.

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Brilliant! But I bet most Slashdotters don't realize that Quantum Link was the precursor to AOL as we know it today..

Re:Let's try again.

[The Lynxpro]

More like "Is AOL the key to Google killing Microsoft?"

Microsoft could not buy AOL without parting with AIM due to antitrust considerations. There's already the public record about Microsoft considering AIM a monopoly back before the AOL Time Warner merger and that would be thrown back in their face. Furthermore, if AOL Music's *partnership* with the iTunes Music Store was cancelled following a Microsoft acquisition, Steve Jobs would bring up the issue to the Feds.

Google could use AOL to chip away at Microsoft bit-by-bit. Just imagine them bundling OpenOffice with all AOL discs and having the AOL multitude use it instead of Microsoft Word. Google would also have the stomach to switch the default AOL browser from IE to FireFox, which would also hurt Microsoft.

Google could choose to continue development on WinAmp or directly open source it. Microsoft would kill it completely.

Google could leverage AOL to promote its Wifi plans. Unlimited access to wifi if you are a paying AOL member.

And that's just the stuff off the top of my head.

Re:Let's try again.

[Geekbot]

Looks like there are only 3 of us the remember Q-Link. I loved that on my C-64. I wish I had kept all the garbage I one by playing Trivia in their chat rooms. I was an addict before I could drive.

I thought it was pretty much dead when they added that graphic MUD type chat program where you ran around the island having drunk-on-power mods messing with everyone.

Re:Let's try again.

[Kadin2048]

I thought I'd point out that something like this was actually mentioned on NPR (yesterday morning I think, around 10:30 or 11am, on the station here in Washington DC). Some pundit or analyst they had hauled in was engaging in some wild speculation about Google buying AOL and what that could mean for Google/Microsoft relations and the computer-using world in general.

They were basically asking -- and I'm pretty sure he actually used the word 'kill' -- "Is AOL the key to Google Killing Microsoft?" As soon as I saw this article, I thought it was ironic that a day later, Slashdot asks "Is AOL the key to Microsoft Killing Google?"

Obviously it's a little farfetched to think that Google could "kill" Microsoft, with or without AOL (despite how wonderful that would be, ain't gonna happen). But they did have a pretty good point about how Google would be one of the few companies that could buy up AOL's userbase (which really is all AOL has to offer to a potential buyer) and actually do something interesting with it.

Basically the analyst's opinion seemed to be that AOL is currently dying -- it's losing some thousands of customers a month -- and there aren't too many companies that would want to have anything to do with them. Microsoft is one, Google is another. But while Google seems to have a lot of creative ideas and a (admittedly very short) record of success, Microsoft doesn't seem to be doing much new and different with the internet lately, and probably wouldn't be able to retain AOL's customers any better than they're currently doing.

Re:Let's try again.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is /., where I don't particularly care if I have a typo or anything else amiss in my post."

It's sucm like you who are sneding Slasdhot into the tiolet. If you can'r be bothrede to do a simple spell check, thenyou shopildn;t be posting here int eh first place. ASsholie.

That'll Never Work

[mfh]

The main reason this can't work, is that Google already owns the mindshare of the internet. You can't buy what Google has going for it, IMHO. Consider the mindshare that AOL has...

People who don't like computers or the internet buy AOL, because they think they have to. They think it's the internet.

So Microsoft is going to waste billions on AOL. *tries to contain glee*

Microsoft can certainly buy that client base. They can milk it for all it's worth for maybe even ten years.

As information becomes more and more readily available online, as people read blogs and learn the way of the force, they change. They learn to despise the despots and the weasels. They retaliate.

And this lesson is something that Balmer et al have never understood. They aren't evolved enough to get it. So they buy it, but they can't possibly buy what Google has, and that is what's driving them crazy.

Microsoft needs a whole new mindset if they want to compete in this market, and it's not going to happen.

And as a final note on this deal-based waterfront, FTA: AOL has been losing subscription customers rapidly, which is why it recently switched its business from purely subscription based to increasingly advertising-based.

Re:That'll Never Work

[garcia]

And this lesson is something that Balmer et al have never understood. They aren't evolved enough to get it. So they buy it, but they can't possibly buy what Google has, and that is what's driving them crazy.

Microsoft needs a whole new mindset if they want to compete in this market, and it's not going to happen.

Exactly. The rest of the computer industry needs to be less worried about why Google is buying up talent and needs to start being more concerned with how they are going to buy up their own talent and put those people to work doing something that's new and exciting.

Microsoft needs to stop playing catch up and dominate. They need to become successful innovators for the first time since the 1980s. Then they might have a chance at getting back in the game with Google.

Re:That'll Never Work

[hungrygrue]

People who don't like computers or the internet buy AOL, because they think they have to. They think it's the internet.

Then it would be a marriage made in heaven. These are the same people who run Windows because they have to, and they think that it is part of their computer. In fact most of them currently think that IE is "the internet".

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

The main reason this can't work, is that Google already owns the mindshare of the internet.

Sir, I have Netscape and Lotus 123 on a conference call. They said they wanted their excuse back.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Himring]

As information becomes more and more readily available online, as people read blogs and learn the way of the force, they change. They learn to despise the despots and the weasels. They retaliate.

I like everything you have to say except for that. To quote Bullet Tooth Tony, "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity." People are, and always will be, stupid. To quote Hitler, "It is fortunate for leadership that people are so stupid" (I think I got that right). It usually takes something really huge to make the masses understand. It has to be flagrant because, otherwise, people just don't get it and never will. Google is popular because it's useful to both the elite and the simple. I can use it as a hardcore geek and my mom can too who is the worst computer user ever born. Also, never underestimate Microsoft. I would say more, but I don't wanna sit in timeout again....

Re:That'll Never Work

[ChrisF79]

I really have to disagree with you. You're looking at what Google is now and what AOL is now. I'm sure the marketing teams at Microsoft have a plan for turning AOL into what they want it to be. That having been said, I think it would take a lot of time to completely change the image of an existing company, but it has been done in the past and could be done again. FYI, Black and Decker did this with their DeWalt brand. Construction guys wouldn't use Black and Decker products at all because they had this cheesy "at home" use to them and it was purely an image thing. So Black and Decker spun off the DeWalt brand and gave it more of a jobsite feel. Next thing you know, construction workers were using DeWalt power tools and loving them, even though they were Black and Decker products with a new name and painted yellow. Admittedly, every case is different, but Microsoft could surely change the image of AOL with the right marketing and new approaches to AOL's business.

Re:That'll Never Work

[rben]

While I don't particularly fear for Google, we should all be concerned about the fact that Microsoft, which has twice been convicted of anti-competitive practices, and barely flinched at it's 'punishment', is now gleefully declaring that it's going to destroy another competitor.

This latest goal of Balmer's shows that the company still isn't interested in competing through innovation, as they keep claiming, but through destroying any company that gets in their way.

Somehow, this smells like monopolistic behavior to me, though somehow, I doubt we'll see our government do anything about it.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup marriage made in heaven. Sheep prefer breeding with other sheep. So long as the sheep don't really understand that they are being kept solely for their annual wool production M$ will be ok.

Re:That'll Never Work

[SparafucileMan]

In fact most of them currently think that IE is "the internet".

Hahaha how true how true.

Microsoft is going to slowly but surely eat away at Google. Expect GOOG to fall to ~200 in next few months. $300 is a little high for a company that DOESN'T PAY DIVIDENDS and instead of giving financials tells reports about their chef. Google is great, but it is still a bubble.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Mr. Underbridge]

Except that probably won't kill google, because those people generally use MSN search since it's built into IE, or AOL's search. I don't figure that market knows what google is.

Re:That'll Never Work

[garcia]

I'm sure the marketing teams at Microsoft have a plan for turning AOL into what they want it to be.

That plan would include MSN and look what that did for WebTV!

Re:That'll Never Work

[ScentCone]

but through destroying any company that gets in their way

Was TimeWarner "in the way of" AOL? Other than because it reinforces your sinister portrait of MS to describe investing in a company (and probably saving it from itself) as "destroying" it, why not recognize it as the same thing companies do every day? Google buys companies. Are they "destroying" them? eBay just bought Skype. Did they "destroy" it?

Re:That'll Never Work

[FatRatBastard]

The main reason this can't work, is that Google already owns the mindshare of the internet. You can't buy what Google has going for it, IMHO. Consider the mindshare that AOL has...

Mindshare doesn't pay the bills, cold, hard cash does. MS is going after AOL's business (either through purchasing all or part of it, or giving them a sweet deal for switching their search engine to MS) mainly because it'll hurt Google's bottom line. I've seen numbers that indicate that 10% of Google's revenue comes from AOL. While losing it won't be fatal, it will hurt like hell.

I had mentioned this in a previous MS/Google thread. A lot of the posturing by both companies has more to do with "How do I disrupt my competitor's cashflow" than "how do I make more business for myself."

Re:That'll Never Work

[NicklessXed]

GP was talking about MS trying to destroy Google, not AOL.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Raistlin77]

In fact most of them currently think that IE is "the internet".

Oh how wrong you are... Most of them don't even know IE exists or what it is. There are only a few that know AOL is not the internet - IE is.

Re:That'll Never Work

[beforewisdom]

The main reason this can't work, is that Google already owns the mindshare of the internet. You can't buy what Google has going for it, IMHO. Consider the mindshare that AOL has... People who don't like computers or the internet buy AOL, because they think they have to. They think it's the internet. So Microsoft is going to waste billions on AOL. *tries to contain glee* Microsoft can certainly buy that client base. They can milk it for all it's worth for maybe even ten years.

In other words Microsoft just bought a leaky row boat

Re:That'll Never Work

[slimak]

Having used both B&D and DeWalt tools I can say that the difference is more than just the casing and color - DeWalt tools are built MUCH better than the cheaper B&D couterpart. If you're a only using the tools a few hours a year its not a big deal, all day long its a huge difference. The main reason Black and Decker tools are not used by professionals is because in the long run, its less expensive to have a quality tool that lasts and performs well.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Tony Hoyle]

Time warner didn't publicly vow to destroy AOL.
Ebay didn't publicly vow to destroy Skype.

Microsoft *did* publicly vow to destroy google.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, that's a fact -- my Mother used to call her webtv box "my web".

Re:That'll Never Work

[Fahrvergnuugen]

Aren't these the same people who click banner ads and generate revenue?

On a side note - I want to advertise a piece of software that I wrote on adsense - I wish there was a way to stop it from being displayed to AOL users. They're not going to do anything for me except waste my advertising budget.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

>marketing teams at Microsoft have a plan for turning AOL into what they want it to be.

Microsoft had plans for AOL !
I had plans for you !!
I had no WORKIG plans for me !!!

Re:That'll Never Work

[QuietLagoon]

Microsoft needs a whole new mindset if they want to compete in this market, and it's not going to happen.

And one of the big reasons why it will never happen is that Microsoft is too focused upon monopoly maintenance, and not upon the end users of their software. Plain and simple, Microsoft's business model will not work unless Microsoft holds a monopoly position in the marketspace. It is too late for Microsoft to gain the requisite monopoly in the web because, as other have mentioned, Google (and others) have all the current "buzz".

Re:That'll Never Work

[jav1231]

So what exactly are they gaining?
Ballmer: "MWAHHAHAHA! We'll buy AOL and make them all use Windows and IE!"
Sidekick: "Uh, Sir? They already use Windows and IE. AOL refused to port AOL to Linux and abandoned their own browser and signed agreements with us to use IE!"
Ballmer: "Oh."
Sidekick: (under his breath) "Ass..."

Re:That'll Never Work

[QuietLagoon]

Netscape and Lotus 123

Not really a valid comparison as both of those had to play inside of Microsoft's monopoly. Google does not.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

They learn to despise the despots and the weasels.

By that point, Google will be run by despots and weasels.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Thalagyrt]

I think the GP is referring to Microsoft buying AOL in order to attempt to destroy Google, not Microsoft buying AOL in order to destroy AOL.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your head out of your arse... mindshare means NOTHING.

Sony had mindhsare with BetaMax.
Netscape had mindshare with browsers.
AOL had mindshare with getting online.
VA Linux had mindhsare with Linux.

The fact is that mindshare is *THE* most tenuous way to conduct business... and Google is no different.

Re:That'll Never Work

[DJStealth]

Doesn't AOL own Netscape and ICQ still?

MS is also buying out a big chunk of their browser and IM competition.

BTW, is Mozilla still related to netscape in some way? Would MS have any leverage over Mozilla if they purchased AOL?

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

It all depends on Microsofts motivation. If they bought AOL just to kill Google this will fail. If they bought AOL to honestly give their customers a better web expierience this may work. My guess is the former.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Both Lotus 1-2-3 and Netscape virtually had a monopoly before MS decided to take it away from them.

Re:That'll Never Work

[schon]

Not really a valid comparison as both of those had to play inside of Microsoft's monopoly. Google does not.

Why not?

What's to stop MS from having IE add an invisible <BASE HREF="search.msn.com"> into the page every time you go to google? (And if you say "antitrust law", you've already lost your argument. Remember what happened last time MS was found guilty of violating anti-trust law?)

Re:That'll Never Work

[DigitumDei]

Despite the availability of other OS's and browsers to run Google searches with, this is a battle of percentages (that and Linux people seem to click on ads less than windows people). If MS can get enough of the stupid (AOL) market, then advertising on their ad network may look more enticing than advertising on Googles ad network. If that happens Google may suddenly find themselves struggling for cash, and no matter how "good" they are, they still have to pay bills.

I don't think this is likely, and MS is probably just going to have to learn to live with the fact that Google is succeeding. However, you can't just rule MS out. They have proven time and time again that they know how to do the brute force method in wearing their opponents down.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Crapshoot]

Uh, why would dividends make a stock worthwhile ? If anything, giving dividends out to reduce share price, given that's FCF a company has given back to its shareholders, and is not part of its valuation anymore. Moreover, a company with high growth prospects should not be giving dividends in the first place - it displays a belief that the company lacks an ability to put its capital to more productive use.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Both Lotus 1-2-3 and Netscape virtually had a monopoly before MS decided to take it away from them.

I was going to ignore this as just someone else who doesn't know the definition of a monopoly but then I saw it's been modded as insightful. Doe!

Re:That'll Never Work

[southpolesammy]

The other reason is that the grandparent assumes that the average person will become more informed about using computers smartly and correctly in the next 10 years or so. Given the first 10 years of widespread home computer usage, I have yet to see that occur.

Microsoft definitely thrives off a "let them let cake" attitude. They want average Joe to be in the dark with respect to computers because it allows them to maintain their monopoly.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Gruneun]

Lotus, Wordperfect, and dBase existed as the defacto standard long before most people knew who Microsoft was. If a new version of MS-DOS had broken those programs, the OS would have been rejected outright. Instead, Microsoft slowly built equivalent products, packaged them together, and stole the market share away. After they had the market share, they were free to shape the OS to better suit their programs. For a more recent example on a different OS, take a look at how the same mindset allowed Adobe to finally sell InDesign and effectively destroyed the substantial market share that QuarkXpress enjoyed.

The only way to stay on top is to keep raising the peak.

Re:That'll Never Work

[tenton]

IIRC Black and Decker tried to market professional quality tools. They didn't sell, under the B&D name. Hence, DeWalt was born.

We see it with cars, too; Toyota/Lexus, Honda/Acura, Nissan/Infiniti, etc.

Re:That'll Never Work

[rtb61]

Nah, it's more of a money to burn thing. Microsoft are just trying to convince the market that they are doing something, rather than their current slow but steady spiral down the bowl (it'll get faster just before the final woosh). They will do what all corporations have done in the past when they get to this stage (stagnant management with a brand name that reeks), keep buying companies until they run out of cash and then start selling everything to keep afloat, invariably at a loss (meanwhile management just keeps lining their own pockets).

Re:That'll Never Work

[Hosiah]

innovators for the first time since the 1980s.

OK, I give up. Refresh my memory. *What* did Microsoft innovate in the 1980's?

Re:That'll Never Work

[drsquare]

I'm sorry to break the 'feelgood' circle-jerk, but this 'mindshare' only exists on Slashdot. Come into the real world, and most people just use Google because it's force of habit. Like typing in 'slashdot.org' in the browser first thing in the morning even though you know there's going to be nothing of interest, it's just routine.

It is VERY easy to take a search-engine's market share, it's a simple as typing a different address in the browser or changing the homepage. It's nowhere near as entrenched as an operating system, and MS still buried OS/2. Imagine what they can do to a company which could disappear entirely with a click of a mouse. I'm afraid constant fellating from Slashdot won't keep a company successful.

Microsoft needs a whole new mindset if they want to compete in this market

No they don't, they just need a higher market share and more effective advertising. Once they get a high enough percentage of the market, all they need to do is bring in an advertising system that's more favourable to the advertisers, and they'll 'fucking kill' Google as all the advertisers jump ship. Remember that Google's entire business model relies on advertising, the search engine is just a way to show adverts.

Once Google's profits go down, the stock bubble bursts, and the rest of us who actually LEARNT from the dot-com era can stand back, put on the sunglasses, and watch as they crash and burn in a giant $80 billion inferno.

Re:That'll Never Work

[MightyMartian]

OK, I give up. Refresh my memory. *What* did Microsoft innovate in the 1980's?

Abusive market practices.

Re:That'll Never Work

[kamikazejay]

OK, I give up. Refresh my memory. *What* did Microsoft innovate in the 1980's?
Marketing then selling software. Worked well, too.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Delphiki]

So, what's wrong with trying to destroy another company? Isn't that the whole point of competition? To drive your opponent out of business so that you can make more money? Slashdotters like to complain when markets aren't competitive because firms are too cooperative like the music industry, and slashdotters like to complain when the competition isn't friendly enough for you.

Honestly, who cares if Ballmer said he wanted to destroy Google? If I were a shareholder I wouldn't want him to be CEO if he weren't at least thinking it.

Re:That'll Never Work

[ajs318]

eBay probably will destroy Skype.

Some people are spunking their pants over the idea that one day, there will be advertisements in telephone calls. Your conversation will be interrupted; each party will hear a targeted advertisement, and be unable to hear anything the other party is saying. After the advertisement is finished, the conversation can be resumed. If you hang up mid-advert, then you will have to listen to another advertisement all the way through before you get another chance to dial.

That's the reason why eBay bought Skype, but it might not actually destroy Skype -- Skype might not even last long enough to die that way.

Skype is using a closed, proprietary protocol and thus incompatible with industry standards such as Asterisk. And incompatible protocols simply don't work in telephony. I expect to be able to talk to people, and send and receive SMS messages, independent of what make of phone they are using, or to which telephone company's network it is connected. Hell, they could be using an old-fashioned tethered-to-the-wall phone with brass bells and a rotary dial for all I care. All I need to know is their number, and it's the business of the telcos to make it all work. But that model breaks down when the phone companies won't co-operate, and both un-co-operative parties suffer. If you couldn't call an NTL landline from an Orange mobile, nobody would want to go with NTL or Orange even if they did not have friends on the other network at the time, because you never know who you are going to want to call up.

And of course most people don't want to tie their phone to their computer ..... geeks might, but they aren't most people. I think the Skype bubble will burst pretty quickly. I can see a "broadband telephone" with a built in ADSL router {probably next-gen wireless}, which will just plug into a broadband-equipped phone line, pick up some configuration data from the net, and do auto-routing using POTS or VoIP as appropriate. The user experience is the same {pick up receiver, hear dial tone, punch in number, far end rings, far end answers, talk, hang up receiver} whichever system is being used ..... and most people aren't going to care what the little "network" and "padlock" icons in the display will mean, except that they're saving them money somehow and keeping things secure somehow respectively.

Re:That'll Never Work

[wuice]

In AOL world, the ones who know about IE are the smart ones.. To most of the AOL subscribers I know, "the internet" is the horrible built-in AOL web browser.

Re:That'll Never Work

[lightknight]

They innovated in the form of a new business paradigm, a market where a common operating system would run on multiple vendor's hardware. While there are other OSs that were capable of such, they were the first that broke IBM's stranglehold on the PC market, and as such, provided competition among hardware vendors. Like it or not, they really brought the PC to the home user.

Apple had a chance to do the same, but they didn't want to break their hardware/software monopoly. Which isn't to say that they don't make great software and hardware combinations, but they lost a chance to be MS.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

> They need to become successful innovators for the first time since the 1980s. Then they might have a chance at getting back in the game with Google.

If Microsoft has'n been innovative in all those (25!) years, what makes you think they will become sudently?

And, for the record, can you enumerate Microsoft's innovations predating 1980? Neither can I.

Re:That'll Never Work

[lawpoop]

Uh... did you happen to read the GP?

Anyway, Dewalt tools are more than just B&D painted yellow and given a new name. They are built tougher, and last much longer than their home-use counterparts.

Let's see how far we can recurse the topics in this thread.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox?

Re:That'll Never Work

[meadowsp]

Is that personal experience about the sheep breeding?

Re:That'll Never Work

[Hosiah]

construction workers were using DeWalt power tools and loving them

I worked construction jobs from 1995 to 2000 and the three most popular brands were Makita, Makita, and Makita. Black and Decker, disguised or not, was never seen. Not everybody who wears a hard hat is stupid, some of us are merely slow-witted engineers. Which "Seven Steps of Highly Effective Managers" did you get this story from?

Re:That'll Never Work

[Shaper_pmp]

Nope. Actually, Compaq (IIRC) "innovated" there... by reverse-engineering IBM's BIOS and producing compatible hardware.

Microsoft didn't innovate a thing - they just happened to be a mainstream OS which wasn't owned by anyone with a vested interest in pushing their own hardware. Right position, right time. Zero innovation involved.

And even if you believe they deliberately put themselves in that position, innovating a new business model is hardly what real geeks would consider important innovation, right?

Re:That'll Never Work

[Khyber]

What's to stop MS from having IE add an invisible into the page every time you go to google? (And if you say "antitrust law", you've already lost your argument. Remember what happened last time MS was found guilty of violating anti-trust law?)

Well, if I wish to go to google and the browser automatically redirects me to another site, that would count as compromising my control over my computer, which, by most 'definitions' of today constitutes hacking someone else's computer. IANAL. But I don't have to worry about that because I use FireFox. The only way MS would be able to redirect me to their search engine would be to usurp Google's page and that would most likely end up in a massive lawsuit that could very well put Microsoft bankrupt for (I'm assuming it's called) industrial/corporate espionage, Violation of DMCA, or something along those lines.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Hosiah]

I doubt we'll see our government do anything about it.

Don't worry, Europe will beat them up! This should be the new US National Anthem (particularly after Hurricane Katrina): "Thank God for Other Country's Governments".

Re:That'll Never Work

[SerpentMage]

I agree with you entirely here and was thinking the same thing. Microsoft likes to pride itself on innovation, etc, etc... We can argue about innovation all we want. However, with respect to buying AOL, it is blantely a way to cut off the air pipe from Google. AND this is a black and white example of Microsoft not innovating when competing, causing quite a doubt on their "innovation" argument.

On the other hand all that Google has done is attract talent that Microsoft is right now incapable of holding onto. Frankly, this is not Google's fault, but Microsoft's fault. If Microsoft truly does do this purchase to cut off the air pipe to Google, then I firmly predict Microsoft will go the way of the corporation Wang! Interesting company that when confronted with the next generation of computing had no idea what to do! Sad...

Re:That'll Never Work

[Wi-Fi-Guy]

The GP was correct. Around 1987 or '88, B&D brought out a line of tools intended to compete with Milwaukee, Porter-Cable, et. al., in the pro end of the market. The line was called "Black & Decker Industrial". It did not do well because of B&D's poor brand image, so B&D resurrected a brand they acquired some years before, DeWalt, and stuck it on re-colored versions of the B&D Industrial tools. They also experimented with another brand they owned, Elu. For a while around '89-'90, some tools, especially routers, could be had with any of the three names. The versions were identical other than colors and logos.

To bring this back on-topic, AOL still has a strong base of loyal users for whom the AOL experience is synonymous with the Internet. The biggest current problem is that they are not able to recruit new users, partly because of AOL's bed rep. Some judicious fixes to the user experience and a rebranding could work wonders. The techno-literates would still avoid a walled-garden Internet, of course.

Re:That'll Never Work

[flu1d]

They innovated in the form of a new business paradigm, a market where a common operating system would run on multiple vendor's hardware.

Actually MS didn't originally write MSDOS/PCDOS, it was originally written by Seattle Computer Products and later sold to IBM. Even Windows was a rip off of MAC OS (which was a rip off of the Xerox Alto. I would say so far they've only innovated great marketing techniques and a habbit of using other peoples ideas.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Just Some Guy]

my mom [...] is the worst computer user ever born. [...] I would say more, but I don't wanna sit in timeout again....

Exactly how old are you?

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you are one of these guys that bashes Microsoft using his "natural" keyboard, Windows XP Home edition and running Firefox to feel rebellious. Microsoft can afford to buy and sell your pathetic opinion. Discussing operating systems would be a tangent in this thread.. however Microsoft will not loose ground to a "company" like Google. As you are surely aware.. Google is now a public company and has shareholders to answer to.. the same people who turn companies into what you refer to as despots and weasels. Buying into Googles corporate philosophy is foolish.. the company is now concerned with the bottom line. Businesses need to make money.. Public companies need to show profits to keep investors happy and their stock from tanking. The only revenue generation.. sorry the main source of revenue for google is advertising.. which is about as flakey a business as any.. time will change Google and jade them. They will become corporate and will want to make money off of every monkey who uses their search engine.. you will hate them..

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

> They innovated in the form of a new business paradigm,
> a market where a common operating system would run on multiple vendor's hardware.

google "first portable operating system".

Re:That'll Never Work

[Himring]

I'm 37. Hehe, I just got your joke. I got several trolls on /. and couldn't post for a bit. /. admin told me I was in timeout for a bit. One just has to be careful about what one says about microsoft....

Re:That'll Never Work

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Gee, I dunno, pud, but some of us have this old-fashioned idea that you should make better products and have better support for them, and then customers will frequent YOUR business and not the other guy's. But no, fucking Republican freaks like yourself want to spend company resources on "driving the competition out of business".

Here's a clue for ya, pud: Customers eventually notice that your products suck and the competitor's are better, and they also notice that instead of improving things, you're just attacking said competitor. This environment of contempt leads to higher costs and vicious behavior all around. So eventually another competitor comes along and -- while you're too busy eating some other guy for breakfast -- underprices and overproduces in your market, and your customers go bye-bye in great heaving sighs of gusty relief.

Bother to run your business under the philosophy of respecting the customer, and you'll find that you just don't have time to "destroy the competition". Real businessmen are busy working on their business, and any time spent looking at competitors is for analysis only. The new class of Republican freaks are instead experts at looking busy ... while they kill off the long-term potential of their business.

Pud, you can now go back to your sad, pathetic little life of "business is war" thinking. The pain that that philosophy buys you is something that makes me smile. RETARD!

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Its true. You can trust google to make the internet better. Look at the innovation everyday, for free. No pop-ups...No adware. You know that google has never once advertised itself?(Ever seen a ad for google?)

NO, people know what it is, and we all love it. Burn in hell MS, and die!

Re:That'll Never Work

[s4ck]

Microsoft is going to slowly but surely eat away at Google. Expect GOOG to fall to ~200 in next few months. $300 is a little high for a company that DOESN'T PAY DIVIDENDS and instead of giving financials tells reports about their chef. Google is great, but it is still a bubble.

That has nothing to do with dividends. actually, paying dividend in the case of high growth(expected) tech stock is usualy followed by a correction because it dilute the capital available for development. Once a company is established, read reasonable PE ratio then the investors expect dividends. That's obviously not the case of GOOG.

Even then... Do i need to mention Berkshire-Hathaway? ... check how much it's going for. What? $80 000.00. they never paid any dividends... regardless, the they-don't-even-pay-dividend rule has nothing to do with the stock price of google. it's the expectations that drive the price... and lots of people have great expectation in this company.

i wouldn't bet on msft eating away goog...

Re:That'll Never Work

[lowrydr310]

What about popups that look like Windows dialog boxes?

I find it amusing that I'm running Windows 2000 and a bubbly popup appears that looks like a WinXP dialog telling me my computer is infected with viruses and asking me if I want to fix it. It's obviously an sneaky advertisement, but someone like my mother who doesn't use computers much will fall for it and immediately click it thinking it's a legitimate warning.

Re:That'll Never Work

[rossifer]

innovating a new business model is hardly what real geeks would consider important innovation, right?

I think that most geeks give Netflix full credit for their original business model.

I'd like to think that geeks are a little better at ignoring the marketdroid and a little more likely to be interested in what's going on behind the curtain. Most "new business practices" don't stand up to that kind of scrutiny very well, but those that do seem to get the respect they deserve...

In my experience anyway.

Regards,
Ross

Re:That'll Never Work

[ChocoBean]

in addition to the porcelain toilet analogy, that also sounds like a black hole. =) good one.

Re:That'll Never Work

[colinrichardday]

Why would dividends make a stock worthwhile?

Because people like getting money?

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

they were the first that broke IBM's stranglehold on the PC market

CP/M was a popular operating system that ran on many different machines before that new-fangled IBM PC came out. You could even get it to run on a C64 or Apple 2 if you added a Z80 processor. And with its 8.3 filenames it is the spiritual ancestor of QDOS/PCDOS/MSDOS anyway.

Re:That'll Never Work

[somersault]

"One estimate suggested that Google would lose as much as $380m of advertising revenue if AOL dropped its search engine and took on MSN's. That would cut Google's profit by something like 25 per cent, potentially giving its huge share price something of a tumble." read http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/22/microsoft_ google/ for a bit more of an explanation.. Microsoft arent doing it to gain users, they're just doing it to be bastards and reduce google's users. Which suggests that AOL users use google too.. does the default AOL search use google? *has no clue*

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Those other companies haven't been repeatedly found guilty of AT laws. It's not the same thing at all. MS continues to profit from illegal activities and to grow through the profits of prior illegal activities.

Don't like that? Tough. It's fact.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Osrin]

It is only 3 or 4 years since AOL owned the mindshare of the internet... nothing is set in stone.

Re:That'll Never Work

[sgt_doom]

WOW, are you ever right on target with that super-intelligent post!!

In the annals of M$ mythology people conveniently forget all the losers companies they have bought in the past, along with billions they've lost on both the internet and the China market. AOL is sooooo uber loser and losing its customer base - leave it to McSoftware to buy such a dog. [Ballmer - the 13th monkey]

Re:That'll Never Work

[SparafucileMan]

Warren Buffet is the greatest investor on the planet with a 30 year track record. and the companies that he buys, and that run under Berkshire, ALL pay dividends. (also, Berkshire is non-inflation adjusted non-split price for their premium shares)

Google is a 3 or 5 year startup that has just gone public. They have no serious track record and their market is based on one thing: advertising revenue.

Microsoft has a 20 year track record. Buffet regularly says Gates is the best businessman he knows.

GOOG is at, what, infinity P/E? or, to be fair, its about 83 times. 83 is insane. nothing keeps at 83 for long. the only way to keep the stock up that high would be for share price to double again in the next year. $600 share price? you gotta be kidding me.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

"As information becomes more and more readily available online"

How could information on the web possibly get any more readily available? The issue isn't whether or not information is *available* on the web, the issue is whether or not people are *looking* for that information, and what they do with it when they find it.

Re:That'll Never Work

[sgt_doom]

My memory is lagging on this: was it Black and Decker or Stanley Tools that royally screwed the pooch in China and is now a Chinese company with an American name???? Thanks....

Re:That'll Never Work

[operagost]

OS/2. Ok, IBM was also involved.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Crapshoot]

and that's stupid- any money they are getting is essentialy the drop in the stock price- all they are doing, in essence, is cashing out some of their equity. They aren't getting "free money".

Re:That'll Never Work

[Sux2BU]

You're thinking the 90's.

Re:That'll Never Work

[CharlesDonHall]

Slashdotters like to complain when markets aren't competitive because firms are too cooperative like the music industry, and slashdotters like to complain when the competition isn't friendly enough for you.

There are some exceptions, but I think most Slashdotters like free markets, so they complain about things that destroy the free market by creating monopoly effects.

The music industry is a special kind of monopoly called a "cartel", where all the major players in a market work together at the expense of their suppliers and customers.

Meanwhile, like the article says, Microsoft is trying to leverage their operating system monopoly in order to destroy Google and obtain a monopoly on internet searching.

I think that's everything...oh, and remember that a monopoly doesn't necessarily control 100% of the market. They need to control the "mass market", but not the related "niche markets". (In the examples above, the independent record labels and Linux would be considered niche markets.)

Re:That'll Never Work

[operagost]

Giving away your browser (Netscape was not free at the time) will do that.

Re:That'll Never Work

[nelsonal]

Corportations have lifecycles, and dividends are the only method a corporation has of producing net benefits. From public company to the eventual bankruptcy, all other transactions enrich one side while impoverishing the other. Purchasing a non-dividend paying company is a statement of faith that the company is investing its capital in a manner that will produce larger dividends in the future. One of the main failings of investors in capital markets has been grossly overestimating the eventual value of those future cash flows.
The best example of this is from an old paper by Dr. Fama(which I will simplify) imagine two investments a forest and a mine. The mine will be exhausted in 7 years but produces $2,000 per year. The forest will take 5 years to mature and will produce $500 per year after it reaches maturity. It would take a very low discount rate for the forest to be worth more than the mine. Google Arness curves if you want the full story.
However, if you replace internet search company (or biotech or software company or radio company or any of a number of then new industries) for forest and building or shipping company for the mine people have generally paid far more for the forest than the mine.
Not to long ago someone did a study that found Altria [Phillip Morris] was the best performing stock in the Dow or S&P 500 over the last 30 or 40 years, even though it has struggled greatly with government regulation, massive lawsuits, and was never considered a "sexy growth" company during any of those time periods. While most companies had considerably better months, years, and even decades than Altria they were unable to string together consistant performance. All too often in the corporate world the forest never reaches the harvest stage due to unforeseen circumstances, which only improves the performance of the mines of the investment world. This isn't intended to be a reccomendation of any company or sector, just an example of why dividend payments are important.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Tuffsnake]

Microsoft is a company.

They are in business to make money and grow their business.

Buying up other companies and eliminating competitors (generally) brings extra money and business.

These actions are not that of some evil dark force but rather they are the actions of a company doing what it feels is best to survive and grow. From a company's standpoint a monopoly is not an evil thing, that is society's idea (Laws being society's representation of its ideas/beliefs).

Don't get angry at a company for doing what it does naturally. Get angry with a government that is too weak to enforce laws that are supposed to hinder actions that are natural to business but wrong in the eyes of society

Re:That'll Never Work

[poot_rootbeer]

I'm sure the marketing teams at Microsoft have a plan for turning AOL into what they want it to be. ...MSN?

Re:That'll Never Work

[BrainSurgeon]

Ok, while all you anti-Micosofts stroke each other on why Microsoft sucks so bad and how this won't work let me tell you why it will:

By taking a nice piece of the advertising pie away from Google, it cuts into revenue. Cutting into their revenue means less $$ for R&D, new services and hiring thus slowing down the machine just a bit. This literally buys time for MSFT to play catch-up in the search field and change course to more of an advertising model within MSN.

Also, with lower revenue Google's stock will not look as attractive as it has in the past. Thus, cutting back on some capital they may have counted on to do some more "googleing".

Remember, Microsoft is at least ten times bigger than Google with more cash. On the other side of the coin, Google is more nimble (as a company)and ahead in the web race. However, Microsoft's individual divisions, i.e. Search, are like companies about the same size as Google. So, once Microsoft buys the time and catches up in the race then it becomes a horse race. Except, Google will be racing against a horse that has really deep pockets.

Re:That'll Never Work

[rhendershot]

Also it's far more likely that the 'computer' will change at a rate far surpassing Jan and Joe Homebody to ever conceptually see beyond the screen right in front of them. Cell, laptop and PDA's are allowing them to become more and more mobile with respect to the Internet infrastructure. They'll continually return to what they know, and if that's AOL as proxy for the internet, they'll stick with it no matter what access device they use (we are, afterall, talking in terms of a decade here).

As much as I wish it weren't true, I can't keep my 3 most close relationships at all knowledgable with current tech. As geeks we all try to help close friends and family do things better and safer. That changes drastically as the access device changes. They just won't spend the time/effort.

Re:That'll Never Work

[MikeFM]

It's not rocket science. Basic economics.

It depends on how they destroy competition. If they do it by making better products that everyone would rather use then great. If they do it by using their power and money to strangle the smaller companies then that is bad for customers and the economy.

It's also typically good to cooperate but it's not good to form a cartel which becomes much like a single big company. In this condition quality drops, prices climb, and it becomes difficult for new competition to form. This is essentially what the music industry has done and is why they've recently been charged with illegal price fixing.

Shareholders and CEOs with an eye on nothing but the almighty buck are idiots. Money is not the end-all of existence. Having a healthy society, healthy government, healthy economy, etc is important if they want anywhere to spend their money. Jacking these things up to make a profit is a game that can only be played so long before the system crashes.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Locke2005]

You're confusing Google's users with it's customers. Google's customers (the people from whom it derives it's revenue stream) are all advertisers. If Microsoft can successfully cut off the flow of ad revenue to Google, then it can kill Google even despite the fact that everybody on the planet uses their free search engine. No, I don't think Microsoft can cut off all ad revenue, but they can certainly make a dent in Google's profits.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Decaff]

They innovated in the form of a new business paradigm, a market where a common operating system would run on multiple vendor's hardware.

Like Unix?

While there are other OSs that were capable of such,

Contradicting your first statement...

they were the first that broke IBM's stranglehold on the PC market, and as such, provided competition among hardware vendors. Like it or not, they really brought the PC to the home user.

This was nothing at all to do with Microsoft. It was the PC makers themselves that did this. One of the most popular IBM PC-clones in the UK was shipped with no Microsoft software it at all: The Amstrad PC had DR-DOS and GEM.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Shotgun]

Yes. They were declared a monopoly which opened the doors to a whole lot of civil lawsuits. The Feds didn't do much, but the civil lawsuits just keep coming. A move like this would cost them dearly.

Re:That'll Never Work

[kenobi_wan_obi]

First, one company destroying another is not competition. We don't allow football players to knowingly break their opponents' legs. Likewise the anti-trust laws are supposed to prevent companies from unfairly destroying their competitors. (Key word: *supposed*)

Second, the point of competition is innovation. Not just technical, but also business innovation. As a counter-example to MSFT, look at Apple. You can clearly see the innovation in their move to x86 as well as their iPod/iTunes music store products. You may not like 'em, but you gotta agree that they've succeeded on an unprecedented scale with an entirely new technical/business model. You can also say the same thing about the open-source projects even though their goals are rather different.

Re:That'll Never Work

[mysticgoat]

Both Lotus 1-2-3 and Netscape virtually had a monopoly before MS decided to take it away from them.

The fall of Lotus 1-2-3 was due to internal reasons; it would have crashed and burned even if there had been no Microsoft. Too much internal power had gone to its Legal Department. Too much of its resources went into "look and feel" lawsuits and not enough resources and strategizing was given to further product development.

If Microsoft's Excel hadn't been around, Borland's Quattro Pro would have done in Lotus 1-2-3. Lotus got all its priorities mixed up in a very unhealthy way.

Re:That'll Never Work

[megarich]

So, what's wrong with trying to destroy another company?

There are many a books written on the subject. All I'm going to say just look back at early 1900's history to see the evils of monoploly. I will add no one likes to feel powerless or helpless. The fact so many livelyhoods depends upon MS and there is not a damn thing you can do without the threat of outside competition(i.e. linux,google,non bush controlled government) to change the product's quality/pricing, etc. skeeves some of us off.

For the record I don't care if Ballmer wants to destory Google but I will start caring if he begins to succeed. My lack of caring is from the fact I don't think he'll even come close nor do I really fully understand why ms consdiers google a threat. I mean yahoo offers most of the some functions as google(web search, e-mail, instant messaging) and then some(free fantasy football, news pages) but ms doesnt seem to care about them.

Isn't that the whole point of competition?

Once again depends which side of the fence you are. If you are big business sure. Since most of us isn't, competition means 2 or more businesses legally and legitly competing with each other which in turn brings cheaper, higher quality goods and an alternative in case one place of business doesn't satisfy your needs.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Dun Malg]

I worked construction jobs from 1995 to 2000 and the three most popular brands were Makita, Makita, and Makita.

I've worked construction jobs continuously since 1994. While Makita may be the dominant player, they aren't the whole market. The very fact you saw nothing but Makita demonstrates only that your sampling was limited. I've seen all sorts of brands. It also depends heavily on the type of tool you're dealing with. Skil circular saws, Porter-Cable hand-held band saws, Bosch jackhammers, Hitachi chop saws. How about Milwaukee sawzalls-- if you saw nothing but Makita, I'd be willing to bet money you never regularly used a sawzall. Makita is very strong in cordless tools, but they were the only game in town for a long time so now they have a sizeable installed basee of people locked in due to battery/charger compatibility. My current employer is split about evenly between Makita and DeWalt now after years of being all-Makita.

Re:That'll Never Work

[spitzak]

I guess you never heard of CP/M, huh?

Believe me, it was WELL established that the way to make a powerful home computer was to use a portable operating sytem bought from an operating system vendor.

Sigh. It's probably a hopeless cause to get history right. Way too many people seem to think the computer and software and operating systems were invented about 1986 by Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

The main reason this can't work, is that Google already owns the mindshare of the internet.

Yes, but I think the new ownwers would be practitioners the Richard M. Nixon doctrine. To paraphrase: "when you've got them by the b*lls, their hearts and mindshare will follow."

Re:That'll Never Work

[Darth_Burrito]

The main reason this can't work, is that Google already owns the mindshare of the internet.

AOL was once king. They had a huge portion of the marketshare. The management no doubt thought they were doing everything right and they rested in their dominant market position. The problem then and now is that the internet is a rapid growth industry. New customers are pouring in all the time. Less than 1/6 of the world is on the internet today, which means there are about 5 billion more potential new customers than there are existing customers. In some places, like Africa, the ratio is even worse with only 2% of the population having net access. stats

Google's mindshare is important, but it is not by any means a magical protective shield. ICQ and AIM went from being the only chat networks to a fairly competitive market in only a few years because new users poured in and other companies got to them before AOL.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Rikkochet]

I don't see how you can claim that Google has a mindshare - they dominate because Google is a default search for enough bundled software. Millions of ignorant (not in a bad way) PC users aren't Slashdotters - and most of 'em never will be. Like it or not, we're a minority and MS is a bigger threat than most people in the thread seem to think. I do (well, did, I stopped answering the phone) a lot of tech support for friends, neighbours, family, friends-of-whomever, and I can't recall a single "mundane" user that didn't have this mental model: "The Internet" = the Internet Explorer icon on the desktop or quick launch. I finally duped my mom by installing Firefox, configuring enough settings and extensions to make it as quietly helpful as possible, and then replaced the icon with the ie icon, and removed all ie shortcuts. She thinks I just added a weather toolbar (god bless ye ForecastFox) to ie. Now "the internet tells you the weather" "Search" = type keywords into the first text box on the home page, or into the location bar (ack) On one occasion I said "click on My Computer" when we were at the Windows desktop and the guy actually started to stand up and said "ok, let's go". The geeks might stay with Google for life, but if Microsoft manages to force end users into using their own technologies simply because it's convenient, they could put a lot of pressure on Google.

Re:That'll Never Work

['nother poster]

Isn't that what stock splits are for? Take the $600 share do a 3-1 split, and the price will adjust to somewhere around $200 a share. The holders of the stock don't make or lose any significant value, and people can now buy in to a piece of the company at a more reasonable price. Several of the stocks I own have done this ove the years.

Re:That'll Never Work

[outZider]

Innovated in the 80's, refined in the 90's. Microsoft: The Power To Crush. :D

Re:That'll Never Work

[talapiaking]

"but this 'mindshare' only exists on Slashdot. Come into the real world, and most people just use Google because it's force of habit" The 'mindshare' isn't just on Slashdot. That proves how much you know. Look how many TV shows and movies now feature Google. Google has gone mainstream and become part of pop culture. Part of what you said is right people use Google out of habit because there is no real alternative. Microsoft can't create this alternative beacause a lot of their best people now work for Google.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Elranzer]

You know, for a company that doesn't have any ads on its own dot-com site, Google has billions and billions of dollars of its own.

Just cuz it is a little behind Microsoft doesn't mean they can't compete. Micrsoft doesn't always win you know. Their Xbox, MSN service, MSN search and PocketPC OS products are not, nor have ever been, the #1 product in their respective marketplaces. Ballmer is a nut, and Google is never going to be "killed" except by their own hand, if they choose too.

Ballmer can throw as much money at AOL as he can but he's not going to buy the brainwaves whioch cause most people to use Google when they need to do a search.

Re:That'll Never Work

[SparafucileMan]

right. but theres still that much money floating around. you're not changing anything by spliting the stock, just changing the accounting. in any case, the stock is still overvalued.

Re:That'll Never Work

[tfoss]

The GGP was partly correct. The act of bringing out a line of tools intending to compete with high-end professional tools, means they created a new, professional level line of tools. The GP suggests that the B&D you buy and the DeWalt you buy were the same, save for packaging. That is not true. That B&D Industrial failed as B&D Industrial is a testament to the poor image B&D has amongst professionals specifically, and the importance of image generally.

-Ted

Re:That'll Never Work

[toddbu]

And this lesson is something that Balmer et al have never understood. They aren't evolved enough to get it. So they buy it, but they can't possibly buy what Google has, and that is what's driving them crazy.

Oh, I don't know about that. All they have to do is look at the NY Yankees to see that spending a whole lot of cash will get you a great team. :-)

Re:That'll Never Work

[bryceco]

The Hitler quote is: "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."

Re:That'll Never Work

[jav1231]

I have no idea. My wife uses AOL but I never touch the stuff. Here's the interesting thing. Microsoft's MSN site is shunned by the majority of users. Most people who are tech savy at all replace their home page with something other than MSN. So Microsoft is once again looking to hijack users, as opposed to lure them. Is this really what you want? We've said for years that Microsoft couldn't compete one-on-one with their competition. It would appear that perhaps they realize that. Why else would you want your users to use your service with either a) no choice or b) no idea that they really are?

Re:That'll Never Work

[vandon]

Sony had mindhsare with BetaMax.

No they didn't. They had better quality, but I wanted VHS because that's what was at the rental store.

Netscape had mindshare with browsers.

For a short time they did, but it started getting "buggy" and crashed a lot once MS came out with IE.

AOL had mindshare with getting online.

Nope. All the people I knew wanted on CompuServe. It was da'shit because you had real newsgroups and better games.

VA Linux had mindhsare with Linux.

Can't really say much about this, but all the people I asked when I got started on Linux(2.0.x kernel) said Slackware.

Re:That'll Never Work

[The Lynxpro]

"Microsoft didn't innovate a thing - they just happened to be a mainstream OS which wasn't owned by anyone with a vested interest in pushing their own hardware. Right position, right time. Zero innovation involved."

Partially right. Microsoft didn't own a "mainstream OS," they *pwned* CP/M away from Digital Research by means of QDOS. Again, not innovation, but good ol' fashioned theft.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean good ol' fashioned buying the rights from morons that didn't know what to do with their product?

Re:That'll Never Work

[d34thm0nk3y]

(And if you say "antitrust law", you've already lost your argument. Remember what happened last time MS was found guilty of violating anti-trust law?)

This would not be the spineless DOJ prosecuting, this would be Google's army of lawyers on the march. A VERY different situation.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Daytona955i]

Ummm what do you base the fact that DeWalt tools are just B&D tools with new paint? I've used both and I can assure you, B&D tools are still crap. Just because they are the same company, doesn't mean they are the same tool. The way I look at it, B&D tools are for the home user who doesn't want to spend a lot of money and never really uses the tool. The DeWalt tools are the upgraded, beefier professional tools.

I mean really, have you ever actually seen a B&D tool vs a DeWalt tool?

Re:That'll Never Work

[fupeg]

The main reason this can't work, is that Google already owns the mindshare of the internet.

Umm, what year is it? This sounds like the kind of meaningless statements commonly made during the dot com boom. Hopefully we've learned something from the bursting of that bubble. It's not mindshare that mattters, it's money. Microsoft might lose lots of money from buying AOL, but maybe what they care about is making Google lose money. If the article is right (big if btw) then taking a 25% chunk out of Google's income would be the goal. Microsoft has certainly shown a willingness to lose money just so that a compettitor would lose money as well, even if they lost more money than the compettitor. Look at Netscape vs. IE or Playstation 3 vs. X-Box 2 for a more modern example. They have the resources (giant pile 'o cash plus massive continuous Windows/Office revenue) to do this.

Re:That'll Never Work

[fupeg]

Get angry with a government that is too weak to enforce laws that are supposed to hinder actions that are natural to business but wrong in the eyes of society

Better yet, get angry when the government hinders business just because what the business is doing is "wrong" in the eyes of society.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

actually if you look the at the practices of standard oil in the 1800's the similarities are amazing.

Nothing new here. Use mone to grab market share, then use market share to abuse your clients and drive your competitors out of business. Agressively under price, use restrictive agreements to insure that the hardware manaufactures do not ship competing products (in the case of standard oil, there were restrictive oil shipping agreements) and so on.

So no innovation here, just the same old abusive business practices.

Re:That'll Never Work

[R3d M3rcury]

That's actually an entertaining way to look at it.

The key in many cases in Microsoft's victory over the three was Windows. Lotus, WordPerfect, and Ashton-Tate (dBase) essentially ignored Windows on the theory that no one would adopt Windows unless it ran their programs. Microsoft, knowing what the future would portend, sunk it's dollars into developing Windows application. Thus, when Microsoft made Windows 3.0 the default boot environment, Microsoft was also ready with Excel and Word (and Access?). Since people either (a) liked this new Windows thing and wanted real Windows apps, (b) didn't know how to shut it off, and/or (c) didn't like going into "DOS Mode" to run Lotus, WordPerfect, or dBase, Microsoft benefitted.

There's also the entertaining fact that Microsoft opened various APIs in Windows only to Microsoft's Windows applications. I remember when Lotus came out with Lotus 1-2-3/G for Windows, it was slower than Excel. It came to light that Microsoft was using a bunch of undocumented API calls for drawing which made the application faster. Microsoft loudly insisted that there was no collaboration between the OS people and the Apps people--that there was a "Chinese Wall" between the two--and that Microsoft's application developers were on a level playing field with 3rd parties. Everybody knew this was bullshit, but nobody really took them to task.

Quark entered a similar situation, at least on the Mac. When Apple came out with Mac OS X, Quark pretty much said "Screw Apple" and went on with their Mac OS 9 development. So if you wanted to use a new Mac and do desktop publishing, you had one choice: InDesign. That's what got people to get to know, use, and like InDesign. Well, that and Quark's abysmal purchase and support policies.

Re:That'll Never Work

['nother poster]

Oh, no argument there. Google stock is like a majority of the stocks listed today, overvalued. Actually, it is one of the MOST over valued, but it's in great company.

Re:That'll Never Work

[killjoe]

So? Even if MS hacked your computer what would be the consequences? Nothing. They have proven themselves to be above the law and their users wouldn't even notice.

Re:That'll Never Work

[killjoe]

"hey have proven time and time again that they know how to do the brute force method in wearing their opponents down."

Although they have this reputation it's based on old data. Sure they killed lotus 123 but they have failed miserably at almost every other attempt to kill somebody. Let's take a look at their intended kill targets and see what happened.

Netscape: bought by sun
Java: Still thriving
Novell: Still going
Sony: Nope not dead yet
Unix: better then ever
Apple; better then ever
Mainframes: better then ever
Tivo: Nope still going strong
AOL: Still going strong
Orbitz: Still going strong
Borland: Still alive and kicking.
Oracle: better then ever
SAP: Better then ever.
Nokia: Better then ever
yahoo: Better then ever

In the last decade MS has entered into dozens of market with the old "we are going to kill xxxx" FUD and failed misesably over and over again. Remember MSN-TV? remember MSN? microsoft at work? sidewalk? great plains? remember how xbox was going to kill sony and nintendo? remember when sql server was going to bankrupt oracle? remember when .NET was going to kill java? remember when NT was a "better unix then unix"? Remember when MS clustering was going to obselete mainframes?

I do.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Hosiah]

Skil circular saws, Porter-Cable hand-held band saws, Bosch jackhammers, Hitachi chop saws. How about Milwaukee sawzalls-- if you saw nothing but Makita, I'd be willing to bet money you never regularly used a sawzall.

Granted, memories *do* fade after five years. Yes, the rest of those names ring a bell. Also Caterpillar (!?) busted out with the occasional light equipment.

Man, it's been five years, and I do *not* miss that field a bit! You're welcome to it!

Re:That'll Never Work

[Hosiah]

I doubt we'll see our government do anything about it. Don't worry, Europe will beat them up! This should be the new US National Anthem (particularly after Hurricane Katrina): "Thank God for Other Country's Governments".

And we look to other countries/nationalities for protection of our freedom of speech, too, such as when we're passing around an honest, matter-of-fact opinion about the state of services in this Republic which we are charged with running democraticly, and get modded down "Troll" about it. You can bet the finger that clicked *that* button was white as a dildo!

Re:That'll Never Work

[KefabiMe]

Sidekick: (under his breath) "Ass..."

Chair: *Hits Sidekick in the head.*

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

The mere fact that you include netscape in the list of times MS fail miserably means there is no point in arguing with you...

Re:That'll Never Work

[budgenator]

I think he meant for the first time ever since they were founded in the 80's

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

A) What is a real geek? What is an unreal geek?
B) Why would any nongeek care?
C) Why would any geek (real or unreal) care?

Somebody please answer with definitions and NO examples.

Thanks,
Identity Crisis Guy

Re:That'll Never Work

[coffeefrog]

Hardware independence has little to do with it. Before MSDOS (bought from Seattle Computer and substantially rewritten for version 2) there was CPM, which was also hardware agnostic, and S100 machines which provided a degree of bus compatibility. What vendors wanted was to be IBM compatible and MS sold them the OS that was in use on the IBM hardware.

Re:That'll Never Work

[tenton]

Uh... did you happen to read the GP?

Anyway, Dewalt tools are more than just B&D painted yellow and given a new name. They are built tougher, and last much longer than their home-use counterparts.

Let's see how far we can recurse the topics in this thread.

Uhh...yeah, I did. The parent post I was replying to was that there is a substantial difference in between B&D and DeWalt; I'm not disputing this. What I am pointing out is that when B&D sold the same tools that DeWalt is selling now (the higher quality, more rugged tools), they didn't sell, because of the perception of B&D as a brand. DeWalt was born, because no one was buying and using the professional quality B&D stuff. From the GP, perhaps "jobsite feel" is a bit understated, but it is true that DeWalt is in existance, because no one would buy B&D tools for professional use, even though they had made such a product line, just because of the name/brand/image.

Re:That'll Never Work

[MyHair]

Novell dropped off. See if you can reconnect them.

Re:That'll Never Work

[GroovyTrucker]

Bzzt...wrong. I worked at Black and Decker for 9 years. Built and repaired the DeWalt and B&D Industrial line of tools. Except for the newer tools like the jobsite table saw and the right angle sanders the tools were made from the same parts, by the same people, and went through the same quality controls. Only real difference was the power cords: Industrial line had separate ground wires and DeWalt had only polarized plug (may have changed since then - haven't worked there for 7 years).

Oh and BTW, for those who care, B&D is moving quite a bit of their production lines overseas (the process began while I was there); so aside from the lines moving to Jackson, TN, quite a bit will be made in China and Mexico from now on. Don't know if the DeWalt line will go over there, but because of a deal (fairly underhanded, IMO) with a company they bought, they are closing down a plant here in Fayetteville, NC at end of 2006 to move these lines. Glad I left when I did.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Grishnakh]

Also, image isn't important for no good reason. It's about reputation. Brands are important because they carry a reputation, and reputation is earned. Google for "black and decker sucks" or something like that, and you'll find countless people complaining about B&D tools. Usually, it's because they've bought some in the past, when they didn't know better, and got burned. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." So they don't buy any more B&D tools, and badmouth them to everyone who will listen, and now B&D has a very poor reputation among anyone who cares about their tools.

Brands like Porter-Cable earned their reputations, and the value of their brands, by producing high-quality products over a very long time. I've bought several P-C tools and have been greatly satisfied by every one, even though they usually cost more than their competition. I can't say the same for other brands. Some brands have thrown away their reputations, such as Sears/Craftsman and Skil. Craftsman used to be a fairly respected brand, back in the 50's and 60's, but in the 80's and 90's everything they made was total crap, both lousy quality and overpriced, and now no one who knows anything about tools wants anything to do with them. There's a rumor that they're trying to turn this around, but good luck; once you've earned a bad reputation, it's very hard to shed it. If I'm in the market for a tool, why would I waste time looking at Crapsman tools when P-C tools have an excellent reputation, and I can buy one of those without a second thought? There's too many players in the market to bother with one that isn't smart enough to maintain their reputation by consistently producing good products.

Re:That'll Never Work

[NotBorg]

If I could I would subscribe to Google. Perhaps a /. style subscription?

Re:That'll Never Work

[jelle]

Well, yahoo financial tells us that MSFT has a quarterly revenue growth of 9.4%, and GOOG has it at 97.7%. That is why GOOG gets 4-5 times higher P/E than MSF _right_ _now_. In fast growing companies, investors tend to look at the forward P/E more than the current P/E.

Look at it this way, part or all of the expected earnings growth for next year is already prices in into the stock price of both MSFT and GOOG. And since GOOG is expected to grow much faster than MSFT, it has a higher _current_ P/E.

Now, if GOOG doesn't show the earnings growth analysts are expecting, then you are correct, GOOG is overvalued, but if it does show that, the 'P' of GOOG will not go down, because the 'E' part of the P/E will go up.

Now, GOOG is young and 'expected' to grow fast, so much of this _is_ speculation, but it's not based on hot air money-losing companies like in the dotcom boom, but based on real earnings today with expected growth of their fledgeling business.

Remember, when thinking about where MSFT stock will go in the future, that results achieved in the past are no guarantee for the future. The world where MSFT operates is not the same as the last 20 years, it's continuously changing, and GOOG is part of the change.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, seriously. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, chump.

Re:That'll Never Work

[somersault]

I didnt say that I wanted Microsoft to get anything o_0 apart from a sound asswhuppin *shrug* I realised after I pointed out the link to the Reg story that it was already in the article though, hehe, but your joke made it seem like you hadnt realised why Microsoft were doing this.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Shaper_pmp]

Actually, they bought QDOS ("Quick 'n' Dirty Operating System", as the legend has it) - a (knowingly) cheap, shitty knock-off of CP/M.

They then minimally rewrote it, convinced IBM to bundle it with their hardware, and started coining it in. For MS-DOS version 2 they re-wrote practically the whole thing because, apart from the FAT filesystem, it was basically crap.

It's debatable whether QDOS was in fact much good, but with some good luck, fortuitous timing and a following wind Microsoft managed to convince IBM to use it anyway.

So, less "buying the rights from morons that didn't know what to do with their product" and more "licensing a shitty OS (while deliberately concealing their relationship with IBM to get it cheaper), convincing IBM to make it the standard with clever salesmanship, then re-writing the whole damn thing as soon as possible to make it any good at all".

Either way, it demonstrates absolutely no "innovation" whatsoever.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Busy]

I was going to respond with relevant quote, but then I realized it's already my sig.

Re:That'll Never Work

[budgenator]

Stock splits can and often do increse an investor's net value, because the reduced per stock price allows others to buy in, I'm sure that a lot of people find Google's stock price out of reach, but their stock desirable, I couldn't buy a block of google at 311.37, but at 45.00 I'd be very tempted and a 10:1 split would probably stablize about there.

Re:That'll Never Work

[Khyber]

So if they can make themselves above the law by hacking my computer (I disagree, they *BUY* themselves out of the law) then technically I should be able to hack them right back without fear of prosecution, because they usurped control of my system and all I'm doing is usurping that very control back.

Not gonna happen, not in this lifetime. The only thing we can (feasibly, maybe not legally) do is to figure out a way to knock microsoft out altogether.

I'm betting a very close-by EMP would work nicely, for starters. Or start figuring out loads of exploits, never post proof of concept, and make a little collaboration of some top hackers/crackers/code-debuggers to sniff out every potential flaw, then exploit it across the entire world, disabling every M$ operated system. People would most likely wake up, then, leaving room for Linux to start up with the easy-to-install discs, and more. All it takes is a little dent in Microsoft's armor to get people to switch to Linux. I've done it many times, and while I still use windows (I'm a gamer, bite me) I'm about |_| close to going Linux. Once a few more of my fave games are ported to Linux, that's it, No more Windows. All my other programs are Linux-ready, now. It's just my games that hold me back, and I'm too lazy to do a dual-boot. (Well, that and my HD is slightly FUBAR, so I can't easily go on and partition out some other space on it. *sigh*)

Re:That'll Never Work

[colinrichardday]

It may not be completely "free", but people may prefer receiving dividends to having to sell the the stock for capital gains.

Go directly to Hell. Do not collect £100

[HugePedlar]

Isn't there some kind of Monopoly law that prevents these things?

Re:Go directly to Hell. Do not collect £100

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, there definitely is, but unfortunately the company they're trying to buy is called AOL, and not EOL.

Re:Go directly to Hell. Do not collect £100

[Alranor]

Isn't there some kind of Monopoly law that prevents these things?

Yes, unless you happen to be Microsoft.

Re:Go directly to Hell. Do not collect £100

[Rosyna]

Isn't there some kind of Monopoly law that prevents these things?

That's why the FTC can review large mergers like this and reject them. Although with the recent mergers of Sprint/Nextel and AT&T Wireless/Cingular and the Oracle/Little Fish you have to wonder what the hell is going on in their minds. Oh yeah, and Kmart/Sears.

Re:Go directly to Hell. Do not collect £100

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. But, money trumps laws. So, no Hell and he's your $HUGE_SUM_OF_MONEY. Thanks for playing. You (the one posting), on the other hand have the pleasure of shelling out $SOME_SMALLER_AMOUNT_OF_MONEY for the rest of you life.

Re:Go directly to Hell. Do not collect £100

[LordKazan]

Kmart/Sears should have been approved - both companies were floundering under the all-owning force of Wal-mart and it's cheap chinese products and it's even cheaper treatment of it's workers.

The very reasons why Wal-mart needs to die and is harmful to the US economy are the same reasons that make them successful (by keeping their prices low). The american consumer cannot have it both ways.

I've worked for both Sears and Wal-mart at various times in his highschool/early college age period (Sears >>>>>> Wal-mart to work at)

Yahoo threw in the towel??

[Fahrvergnuugen]

TFA:
...Google relies heavily on the advertising pages that come from Yahoo, since it now syndicates its search to Google.

I think they meant:
Google relies heavily on the advertising pages that come from AOL, since it now syndicates its search to Google.

Re:Yahoo threw in the towel??

[dindi]

yep, that clears it up a bit ... I am in kind of a little into the search engine biz and for a second it really confused me about yahoo...

Besides that yahoo relied on google with search results together with AOL, Netscape and a bunch of others ....

those good old days, you were in google you were everywhere .... nowadays people pull automatic results from yahoo, display your site's pages HTML stripped, then have you delisted from all the engines ...

dog eats dog world ... there should be a completely manually rated engine where a spam result or a shit page could be reported with the click of a button integrated into all browsers

Re:Yahoo threw in the towel??

[Anonymous Coward]

[blockquote]I guess they have not fixed it yet due to the expense of editing HTML.[/blockquote] LOL!

This is a classic example

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a classic example of a company that is running low on the innovation batteries so it has to rely on buying out competitors to try and crush their opposition rather than working on new an innovative ways of moving the industry or product line forward.

At the end of the day ill pay all my advertising money to anyone BUT a microsoft or timewarner.

Re:This is a classic example

[Anonymous Coward]

any exactly how many advertising dollars do you have to spend annually. There are a lot of folks who do give AOL/Time Warner their adverising dollars. Why?

YOU may not like AOL, but my father in law loves it. He's stayed at my house. I had him hooked up to my home LAN where he coul duse the cable modem to get out on his laptop, want to know what he did? Connected to AOL. Why? Because he's an idiot or uneducated? No. Its because AOL works for him. Its easy for him to find what he need on AOL. Yes, there are search engines on the internet at large, but what is the S/N ratio? Its a lot lower than on AOL, and there are a lot of folks who like that. THe under 25 set may not get that, and some of us in the over 25 set may think its a bit strange too, but that is because we are geeks. Ask mom and dad, or grandma what they think of AOL and they probably have the same issues we all have with out ISP, but in general they like it. This is also mindshare, not among the same set as Google, but AOL has a large userbase and they reach a lot of eyes, and probably will for a long time. Their market will decrease, but I don't see them going away any time soon. They serve a market, not a niche, a market, and they will continue to

Re:This is a classic example

[ryanov]

My grandmother seems to be doing just fine with her mom-and-pop ISP, and she made that choice on her own.

I don't think everyone (thankfully) suffers from the same. AOL really has no business charging $24.95 for dialup and annoying bloatware.

Re:This is a classic example

[ScentCone]

AOL really has no business charging $24.95 for dialup and annoying bloatware.

No business? Maybe you mean "not as much business," but millions of people are paying them every month for exactly that business. People like it. I even know professional road warriors that keep an AOL account (in the cheap, bring-your-own-access mode for under $10/month) so that when they're in towns with few choices, they can still hit one of those countless local AOL dial-up numbers, or their toll-free access if needed. Plenty of people don't need or want it, but plenty of people still use it happily. For most, it's a portal - just like the others. But for some, it's also their bundled anti-virus, dial-from-anywhere, portable profile, same-as-my-AIM-account platform. Don't dismiss it quite so readily.

Re:This is a classic example

[grahamlee]

My grandmother seems to be doing just fine with her mom-and-pop ISP

They must be some really old people.

Re:This is a classic example

[jeffvoigt]

While Microsoft may now be too bulbous a company to be true innovators right now, it doesn't mean they don't have the resources to become one. Large companies in near monopoly situations rarely attempt to push the forefront of innovation if no one is competing with them. Google represents the first true and worthy competitor Microsoft has seen in ages, and it seems short-sighted to think that it will roll over and die simply because Google got the jump on them.

Google has demonstrated it is a direct threat to Microsoft. So it seems rediculously foolish to think that the slumbering giant known as Microsoft won't be able to compete with Google, or even put up a decent fight. Microsoft had no impetus to offer people a better solution than what they currently have. Things have changed. Microsoft is awake, and is starting to move again. The real question is whether Google will be able to handle the eventual Microsoft counterstrike.

While Microsoft has a decidedly bad karma about it, people often flip-flop buying decisions over the most flippant of reasons. "Evil" is just a company with a bad PR division.

Re:This is a classic example

[simba22]

or they are in korea....

Re:This is a classic example

[catprog]

$24.95 for dialup? That sounds like every ISP for unlimited downloads. Unless your talking US dollars and I am talking about AUS dollars.

Microsoft and AOL's REAL plan to "bury" Google

[xmas2003]

Microsoft buys AOL
Sends all "free AOL CD's" to Google.
After a few months, Google is buried in CD's.

P.S. Remember the days when AOL floppies were actually useful since you never had to buy any? I actually had a useful purpose for an AOL CD cover recently as a free viewport on an outdoor webcam box.

Re:Microsoft and AOL's REAL plan to "bury" Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. AOL should send out their CDs on CD-RWs. Then they'd have something worthwhile.

Re:Microsoft and AOL's REAL plan to "bury" Google

[Anonymous Coward]

They still are useful. The CDs make nice coasters and the boxes can be used
for transporting CDs. However, maybe we could ask AOL to start sending out
there promo on CD-RWs as a way to help the environment.

Re:Microsoft and AOL's REAL plan to "bury" Google

[DaPoulpe]

I, for one, used to keep their cds stacked up near my desks.
In case of any upcoming "CD In Your Face" War with my flatmate/workmates.
Saved my live many times *sigh*

Re:Microsoft and AOL's REAL plan to "bury" Google

[cnmill]

We use AOL CD's for coasters. Very useful for preventing rings on furniture.

"Hey careful man, I've got a beverage here."

Re:Microsoft and AOL's REAL plan to "bury" Google

[Hosiah]

Heck, I'm saving up eight different colors of AOL CDs to use as a mobile, myself. Break them in half, melt them to strings, tie the strings to dowels, and you have a hanging porch ornament that catches the sun in flashing half-arc rainbows. I tried the coaster bit, but the hole in the middle lets the moisture leak through.

Re:Microsoft and AOL's REAL plan to "bury" Google

[salimma]

If AOL does send out CD-RWs, those actually will perform better as advertising tools. The next time you burn something for a friend, and pass that AOL CD-RW around, you're effectively advertising for AOL.

Kind of like those free T-shirts companies give away.

Re:Microsoft and AOL's REAL plan to "bury" Google

[Hosiah]

LOL! OK, now that it got modded up "interresting", let's spread the fad! I want to drive down the street next spring seeing AOL-biles on at least half the porches!

Re:Microsoft and AOL's REAL plan to "bury" Google

[Absentminded-Artist]

Now see? THAT'S thinking! AOL could turn mindshare around by simply sending out reusable CD-RWs. Instead of chucking their discs into the bin, people would actually be inserting them into computers. Sure, those who know how would have those things wiped faster than you can say "Thanks!", but everybody else would still get the autorun AOL pitches playing on their monitor. But wouldn't that be irritating, you ask? Yes, but people would forget about that because every time a new AOL CD-RW shows up in the mail people would be saying "Cool!". They'd get warm fuzzies instead of shivers of revulsion when they open their mailbox. Free CD-RWs! Weee!

The point is that people are already chucking their daily AOLs CDs. Instead of chucking the CDs, if AOL shipped CD-RWs people would have AOL branded CD-RWs kicking around. Why not think outside the box instead? Yeah, I suppose that's too much to ask of a big corporation.

Original Submissions would be nice

[tpgp]

When Steve Ballmer yelled at a departing Microsoft employee that he would "kill Google" we had no idea just how direct a method he had in mind. Buying all or part of AOL may be the first part of the master plan, as Google relies heavily on the advertising pages that come from Yahoo, since it now syndicates its search to Google.

Copied verbatim from the first paragraph of the linked article.

Just a little originality would be nice...

Re:Original Submissions would be nice

[hcob$]

Gratuitus comment:

Hello tpgp, this slashdot. Slashdot, this is tpgp.... (where the hell have you been?)

Re:Original Submissions would be nice

[DeepHurtn!]

It's not just that originality would be nice -- copying the first paragraph of the article like that is plagarism. It's just dishonest. VK is taking credit for someone else's work. I can't stand it when submitters do that, and I can't stand it that the "editors" don't seem to care!

Cool!

[gowen]

It looks like the new CSS-driven slashdot has got a Random Slashdot Headline generator built into it!

Look out tomorrow for "Is <$NOUN> the Key to Microsoft Killing <$RIVAL>?"
Of course, in actuality, tomorrow's headline is likely to be "Is AOL the Key to Microsoft Killing Google?" again

Re:Cool!

[gclef]

I think they've got that tied into a Microsoft story-generating bot...seriously, we've had at least one MS story per day for the past few weeks.

Note to editors: stop. Please. I don't care about every little step MS takes. There have been a few interesting stories, but most of the recent MS stories have been pointless junk. I'd remove the MS category, but there are occasionally useful stories in there...I just wish most of it weren't flamebait.

Re:Cool!

[Otter]

I don't care about every little step MS takes.

This "story" isn't even that -- it's pure fantasy pulled straight out the Register's ass. There's no actual news behind it.

The key is Ballmer

[jkrise]

In true Mohammed Saees Al Sahaf style "Google is no more with us"..

Fonts

[Ligur]

Is larger fonts the key to getting attention to another "Google killer"-story?

Lamers

[Donny Smith]

>Buying all or part of AOL may be the first part of the master plan, as Google relies heavily on the advertising pages (sic!) that come from Yahoo (sic!), since it now syndicates its search to Google."

You mean, Google relies heavily on advertising revenue from AOL?
Gezuz, people, read your own shit before posting.
And the editors, before approving someone's shit.

(BTW, Google doesn't rely "heavily" on AOL revenue - in 2004 it was about 10% of its revenue.)

Re:Lamers

[Tacommander]

Dude, this is /. You'd expect any conspiracy theory to arrive here, including crazy explanations, like "Microsoft aims for one of the biggest user of Linux: Google". And this being slashdot, here's the obligatory netcraft post: "Netcraft confirms. Google is dying."

Re:Lamers

[carmaggedon]

(BTW, Google doesn't rely "heavily" on AOL revenue - in 2004 it was about 10% of its revenue.)

are you kidding? 10% might not sound like much if it's in the form of a coupon for 10% off a gallon of milk. but 10% of your revenue from one customer? that's substantial, and not something a company just shrugs off if it happens to dry up. no, losing aol ca$h money wouldn't kill google in one fell swoop, but it wouldn't be trivial, either.

Re:Lamers

[rAiNsT0rm]

I've lost most of my Karma stating this to over the past few weeks, and don't really care. This site is on the fastest downward spiral I've ever seen for a well established, hugely popular website.

If these people were being managed in ANY way half of the recent crap could never go on. Between Zonk's opinion only takeover of the games section, it is useless, and the lack of direction and focus on NEWS FOR NERDS anymore what purpose is there to visit /.?

Remember back when the day was filled with really cool hacks people thought up, and neat gadgets (not just slashvertisements for Apple), great science news, etc?

Now we get Lawsuit, Lawsuit, This blah blah blah, 1UP.com link of the day, dupe, dupe of dupe, Apple, Microsoft, Firefox, lawsuit, opinion piece, and some random legal matter to round out the day.

Slashdot everything BUT news, for lawyers and non-geeks!

Worked so well for Time-Warner

[Fastball]

Oh, wait...

You can't polish a turd

[Junior J. Junior III]

AOL has a huge customer base, but has been steadily eroded as telecoms roll out broadband to the sticks, and this is not really going to change. AOL has a reputation for sucking, and google has a reputation for being both smart and effective. Microsoft buying AOL just combines the strengths of two successful, or should I say "suckcessful" companies who have more or less reached their apex and do not have the same potential for rapid, sustainable growth as they did when they were rising stars in the industry. They're now bloated, hulking monstrosities desperately clinging to their marketshare and experiencing problems trying to remain relevant.

If this is google's biggest threat, they have little to fear.

Re:You can't polish a turd

[Locke2005]

AOL's future can be predicted very easily by examining two simple curves. The first is AOL's incremental revenue per customer; note how it has been trending downward for several years now. The second is AOL's marginal cost to aquire each new customer; note how it has been steadily increasing ever since AOL started. Now note have the two curves cross in 2005. That's right, AOL now spends more to aquire each new customer than it gets in revenue from each new customer (on average). Any questions?

not that serious

[garat]

A merging of AOL with MSN will surely not "kill" Google. Yes, as the article states, Google earns roughly 25% of its profit from advertising on AOL but another article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/15/aol_msn/) also states what's most important: "AOL - which has seen net users leave the service in their millions over recent years..." Yes, AOL is constantly losing customers and will likely continue to do so. While this move might put a dent in Google's current profit, it's certainly nothing as serious as made to seem.

Re:not that serious

[Walrus99]

Yes, AOL has become the white elephant of the IT industry. When AOL merged with Time-Warner at the height of the internet bubble it was big news. Now Time-Warner would be happy to unload it. I have several friends who have given up on AOL and realized that there is a whole internet beyond AOL's cached pages. The drop in AOL's subscribers numbers show that more people are becoming wise to this. AOL will be left with a subscription base of grandmothers and people still using Windows 95 on a pentium 66 Mhz who are afraid to switch. MS buying AOL (if that is their plan) would be great for Google, Linux and Apple. I hope they go ahead with it.

Re:not that serious

[Anonymous Coward]

Only on slashdot would a poster say that losing 25% of current profits isn't too serious. I love slashdot...reading it is like watching chimps try to drive a car.

But still...

[Pichu0102]

This is sure to put quite a dent in Google's profits if it goes through. I doubt it'll be a killing blow, but it won't be good for Google either way. And on another note, I never thought I'd see Google, AOL, and Microsoft in the same sentence. What the hell is this, the apocolypse?

Huh?

[MrP-(at work)]

Huh? I suppose i could read the article but i'm just going to comment on the actual slashdot description..

What does MS buying part of AOL have to do with Google having advertising pages on Yahoo?

Is that like how like the AOL/TimeWarner merge caused my grilled cheese to burn?

p.s. slashdot with css is freaky, but i like it!

Re:Huh?

[Knome_fan]

You might be surprised, but even RTFA doesn't help this time around, as /. just copy and pasted the blurb from the register.

But you are right, it doesn't make sense at all of course. I think one can assume that they wanted to talk about google advertising on aol, not on yahoo.

...AOL floppies were actually useful

[infonography]

Still true today!

The cases they send CDs in are sometimes clever being made of wood or metal and sometimes even having magnets in them to keep them closed. I naturally discard the paper ones unopened but the metal ones are great for sending DVDs you make to friends and family. Just make sure it's clearly marked as NOT FROM AOL. I also carry live linux dvds in case I need a quick boot. You can't be sure that a system will support booting from a USB fob, but DVD is universal and cheap.

As a company I still have no use for AOL, but they can send me their clever little boxes all day long.

Aol...

[stevemm81]

Is there some reason why large companies can't resist the temptation to acquire AOL? First Time Warner's notoriously ill-fated merger, right as broadband was emerging... Now Microsoft? I realize AOL has a large number of subscribers, still the most of any ISP, but according to Business Week, they lost 900,000 subscribers just in the second quarter! As broadband becomes cheaper and cheaper, why would anyone stay with AOL? Are they even getting any new subscribers? That article also mentions AOL's goal to become a web portal, with AIM, AOL Music and MapQuest drawing users in. AIM I imagine is growing, as new preteens start using it all the time, but does this really make them any money? There's advertising on the client, I've never heard of anyone actually clicking it, or even really noticing it. MapQuest is okay, but I imagine people will gradually switch to Google Maps. I've never even heard of AOL Music, but it doesn't look like anything spectacular. And who would ever use AOL for search or free email? I think anyone under 35 wouldn't even think to look there. Perhaps that's what these companies don't understand: AOL, and really MSN as well, make most of their money off of customers' cluelessness. As customers get clued in by friends and relatives, they'll move to better services. The customers you have left will use one hour of Internet time a month and will probably eat up any profit AOL could make with their tech support calls alone.

Re:Aol...

[MadEE]

"...but according to Business Week, they lost 900,000 subscribers just in the second quarter!"

Yeah but they are still billing their credit cards so it's not as bad as it sounds.

Re:Aol...

[swb]

I wonder if it's a cultural phenomenon of the clueless executives -- since "everyone" they know uses AOL it must be a big enough phenomenon to be worth buying, even though they really are losing business and their other web tools lag, outside of the captive IM space.

Re:Aol...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see a lot of reasons this would make sence, and a lot of places where the combind products can make a major dent in Google's market.

AIM + MSMessenger = MSAIM
AOL's Mapquest + MSN map products = MS MSMapquest
Hotmail + free AOL mail = bigger hotmail
MSN + AOL = MSN-AOL

The above is the easy part. Now for the hard part. Take all of these products and merge them into a cohesive product. MSAIM displaying ads for these services all day, every day to the emerging preteen market. Search having google like tabs for searching the various services. One UID/PW to access all of these services.

The point is that they have the content and the products to attract huge numbers of viewers (they are doing it now). If they can retain these users so that they don't need to use google to find the mainstream information, then MSSearch might turn out to be "good enough" for most of what people need, and thats what will ultamitly hurt google.

Re:Aol...

[Bastian]

MapQuest is okay, but I imagine people will gradually switch to Google Maps.

I doubt it'll take very long. Everyone I know has had an experience where MapQuest has given them incredibly bad driving directions. Examples from my experience include getting from Memphis (toward the east of Illinois) to Chicago (east edge of Illinois) via St. Louis (west edge of Illinois), and a trip from Galesburg, IL to Jacksonville, IL - about 100 miles straight south - by getting on the interstate and going straight north about 45 minutes and then making a large curve to the east and back.

I'm sure Google Maps directions aren't perfect either, but I haven't had any stinkers like those yet.

Besides, their maps are about 1,000,000,000 times easier to read and use, and combined with Google Local you can do a heck of a lot more with them.

Re:Aol...

[Doctor Faustus]

Is there some reason why large companies can't resist the temptation to acquire AOL? First Time Warner's notoriously ill-fated merger

AOL bought Time Warner. AOL has just become a steadily smaller part of the merged company as its subscribers have left.

As others have pointed out, this was a brilliant move on AOL's part, as they got something of real value for their stockholders right before they went into an inevitible decline themselves.

Re:Aol...

[steelfood]

The AOL/TW merger wasn't so simple. At the time, AOL had a larger market cap than TW, and essentially, it was AOL who bought out TW, though because their market cap was close, it wasn't a full buy-out and turned into an unequal merger of sorts. The thing is, AOL knew it was eventually going to die even then. They had no broadband services, and they knew that was the future of the internet. So they bought out a company who had (RoadRunner came before AOLTW), thinking they could milk their dial-up cash cow for as long as possible and slowly switch to broadband afterwards. Unfortunately, that model didn't work. Everybody wanted RR for the speed, but no one wanted AOL (which became essentially a cheezy, crappy portal), especially when AOL was $10 on top of broadband. Google had a lot to do with this actually. So TW spits the dying AOL back out.

Microsoft isn't merging with AOL. They're buying AOL out. AOL isn't worth too much nowadays, so for M$, this probably isn't a very risky investment. M$ used to compete with AOL (MSN, remember?), and pretty much lost. It would be relatively easy to integrate AOL's business into their own. This is a tactical maneuver by M$ to lower Google's share prices. Actually, they're hoping for Google's share price to plummet with the loss of 10% of revenue. If share prices go low enough, it could be a fatal blow, as Google won't have the capital to continue its growth. M$ is hoping for that outcome. However, if this doesn't pan out, and Google's share prices remain the same at the end of the day, M$ probably won't be able to do much else with AOL. Dial-up is losing subscribers every day to broadband, especially as broadband prices go below AOL's prices (right now, most DSL packages still require a landline). M$ might be able to salvage the AOL brand, but other than Aim and Mapquest, AOL has nothing going for it. And the behemoth that is Google looks ready to gobble up marketshare in these areas too. M$ could prop AIM up for a little while, or use it to reinforce their Messenger userbase, but with Google entering the market and products like GAIM and Trillian, I predict it'll turn out like AOL's buyout of ICQ. As for the brand itself, it's going sour too, and if AOL continues to swarm their users with ads, it'll only get worse.

So yeah, if this move doesn't bring down Google's share prices, M$ will be stuck with another dying brand. My prediction is that it probably won't move the stock price any, as investors are getting more and more tech savvy by the day. They'll know that AOL's losing subscribers, and the 10% of customers that Google might lose to this move will easily be recovered in the next few years. If M$ wants to kill Google, they'll have to win back the userbase. And that won't happen until M$ starts changing its business practices. We might as well be waiting for the first Martian colony.

AOLMicrosoft or MicrosoftAOL?

[Coimhad fearg fhear]

2005: New organisation named MicrosoftAOL
2006: MS realised what a terrible mistake they have made and are renamed Microsoft
2007:????
2008: Profit!!! (at least for the investment bankers who arrange the merger and who are no doubt pushing it like crazy at the moment)

Re:AOLMicrosoft or MicrosoftAOL?

[glen604]

It's actually going to be MicroSOL, which, of course, is what it has been all along.

Re:AOLMicrosoft or MicrosoftAOL?

[xactuary]

2005: New organisation named MicrosoftAOL

How about MicrosoftAhOLe? That works for me.

Anti-Competitive tactic?

[bernywork]

MSN for search, buying AOL...

Would that be "Cutting off their air supply?"

God I can't wait till Bush gets the arse, then you can get a DOJ with some teeth and you can chase Microsoft with pitchforks again :P

Re:Anti-Competitive tactic?

[Anonymous Coward]

God I can't wait till Bush gets the arse, then you can get a DOJ with some teeth and you can chase Microsoft with pitchforks again :P

LOL! You think Bush is the reason the DOJ case was dropped? You don't get it. Microsoft wasn't sending enough money to Washington in the form of lobbyists. Eventually, the politicians noticed that oversight and decided it was time to put the squeeze on Microsoft so that Microsoft would get with the program and share some of its money with the politicians. That is all the DOJ case was about.

Microsoft isn't entirely stupid. They learner their lesson. They now have legions of lobby-droids roaming the halls of Capital Hill. They give away hundreds of millions of dollars a year in campaign contributions, free trips to exotic places, anything you can think of. So, now that they are playing by the unwritten rules, there's no more reason for the mob (that is, politicians) to shake them down. Why would a senator or a congressperson or a president want to break up microsoft?? That would put all those millions of freebees in jeopardy. No way! Leave Microsoft alone and keep the money comming (under the table).

It doesn't matter if we have a democrat or a republican president. Bill Gates could stand out on the front lawn of the Redmond campus and chuck babies into a giant woodchipper. The government wont touch him now, because now he's playing by the rules - he's paying his protection money.

Re:Anti-Competitive tactic?

[bernywork]

I was under the impression that it was the opposite way around, that they paid off enough people that when the government changed (and therefore the DOJ) that they got what they did.

The previous comment was a tongue in cheek comment too. I think they will eventually sink under their own weight and that splitting them up would have done them some good.

Mmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Anti-Trust!

Google doesn't bother...

[knopf]

During their A.M. Turing award lecture, Vint and Bob discussed and mentioned several times that it is virtually impossible to change parts of the Internet's underlying structures (e.g., the IP protocols), because the industry and standards are too strong. They mentioned that their luck was at the beginning to be left alone and be able to do anything they want. The standards came afterwards.

Now guess what:

Vinton Cerf works for Google now. Google wants to become a provider and they buy their own communication cables for an alternate internet. Ergo, Google will allow Vint to create a new Inernet protocol, which will have a number of features, which will make AOL/Microsoft cannot provide.

Of course, AOL/Microsoft can buy the market share, but if Google's protocols and Internet is the next generation, then Google will get its market share. And there is nothing that AOL/Microsoft can do about that.

Re:Google doesn't bother...

[aussersterne]

Um, what? Do you know what TCP/IP is? Google can feel free to do whatever it wants, including launch its own "next generation" Internet (??!) but TCP/IP is not going anywhere, no matter whether it's Internet2 or GoogleNet or whatever. (Anyway, "GoogleNet" is just a fancy name for a really large IP block. So what?)

Replacing TCP/IP would break far too many applications, operating systems, and elements of infrastructure for it to be worth anyone's time to transition, unless a compatibility layer were put in place, which is a) likely to be nearly trivial anyway so it would be done b) in which case it wouldn't hurt Microsoft to have had it replaced.

Give me some better evidence or reasoning and I'll look at it, but otherwise, I don't see TCP/IP going anywhere. Google will use TCP/IP like everyone else because it's there, it works, and it is capable of doing things like helping them to create their own massive network that is still an integrated part of the Internet at large.

Re:Google doesn't bother...

[knopf]

Yes, because TCP/IP is an 'add-on' to IP (Internet protocol). So what? IP is transport layer agnostic. You can use token ring or anything else. And applications are IP agnostic, or did you ever pack your Ethernet frame and your IP header in it yourself? It is no more and no less than a driver in the OS.

Of course, it will break some applications, but that's not what you get. You get a web-terminal running firefox and all the other nice Google products, which hooks up to the local Google WLAN spot. You have mail, instant messaging, VoIP, web, and a lot of other applications, which use a standard IP library. It's for the masses and not the industry.

Btw. a nice benefit, you shut out all the competitors, because the terminals are yours.

junk article

[js3]

nothing but silly speculation

Antitrust

[C0deJunkie]

Yes,it's called Antitrust. Named law is meant to avoid the creation of such a giant entity that could potentially, based on it's "dominant position", alter the market.

Re:Antitrust

[hcob$]

It's actually intended more to prevent monopolistic "abuses" and encourage fair play. You can have a monopoly.... just as long as you're not using that power to prevent people from entering the market. Think Netscape v. IE. IE was REQUIRED to be installed by M$oft. Eventually they even made it a "part" of the OS. Effectively FORCING people to use IE. Now, you could use Netscape, but the barrier of entry for Netscape to be used was outrageous because there already was a web browser on the system, so no one installed it.

The bottom line: The law is to prevent abuses, not bar people from making a monopoly.

Man, if the answer is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... "buy AOL", what the %@(&#!@% was the question??

Re:Man, if the answer is ...

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Maybe Microsoft wants to buy the only usefull IP AOL has: Where to get really good deals on getting your CDs made.

Re:Man, if the answer is ...

[Just Some Guy]

what the %@(&#!@% was the question?

Q: How can I use up this palette of red ink pens we bought at auction?

Re:Man, if the answer is ...

[c4ffeine]

"What is the worst possible decision we could make", maybe.
"How could we make slashdot hate us even more", possibly
"How could we best find more clueless people", possibly

See, there are plenty of possibilities.

Predatory. Microsoft must be split.

[SamSeaborn]

Once again, evidence that Microsoft needs to be broken into a bunch of smaller companies.

Windows Inc. would be afraid that Google threatens it's dominance of the world's computing platform, but would not be able to use MSN Inc. to battle Google. Windows Inc would be forced to make Windows better.

Office Inc. would want their software running on all computers everywhere, it would make Office for Linux, maybe even Office for the internet -- Office Inc would have no interest in ensuring Windows was the dominant computing platform.

Internet Explorer Inc. would embrace technologies like Java and Flash ensuring seemless compatibility with their browser. They would ship a top notch version of IE for all platforms including Mac and Linux. They would not worry about these technologies threatening Windows' dominance of the world's computing platform.

And, MSN Inc. would have to compete fairly with its competition from Yahoo and Google, and would not have the resources to perform its *illegal* predatory business tactics.

Sam

"Killing"

[Red Flayer]

"Is AOL the Key to Microsoft Killing Google?"

"Killing Google"? I think you misspelled "not competing effectively with Google, by purchasing a struggling enterprise with massive consumer illwill that adds to Microsoft's bloat and lack of focused direction."

Re:"Killing"

[porkThreeWays]

It's a common mistake

The keys are like right next to each other

Re:"Killing"

[op12]

"Killing Google"? I think you misspelled "not competing effectively with Google, by purchasing a struggling enterprise with massive consumer illwill that adds to Microsoft's bloat and lack of focused direction."

Yeah, it's really quite surprising that spellcheck didn't catch that.

Re:Predatory. Microsoft must be split.

[fireboy1919]

And, MSN Inc. would have to compete fairly with its competition from Yahoo and Google

You misspelled "go bankrupt within a month of it not being the default homepage."

"Kill" Google?

[canfirman]

When Steve Ballmer yelled at a departing Microsoft employee that he would "kill Google"...

Yeah, like they said they would kill Linux? Great, now I'll be seeing a new "Get the Facts" campaign about Microsoft's search engine. Then, there will be the different "Total Cost of Ownership" reports either way, and somebody, somewhere will claim that their code was illegally copied into Google and Microsoft will offer "search engine" indemnification.

Re:"Kill" Google?

[shis-ka-bob]

How is Microsoft going to determine the TCO of Google? Perhaps it will be something like ...

"Sure Google searches are are fast and free, but Google is free in the same way that a puppy is free. One you have Google, it will be peeing all over your carpet, so we need to add the cost of carpet cleaning to the TCO of google. Besides, do you really want a fast search? Just think how much easier it is to catch a slow puppy than a fast one. Do you really want to be running down the road catching that free puppy? Think how much money you can save by simply eiminating this task from your task list. As your workforce ages, you simply cannot expect them to catch a fast, free puppy. Add in the cost of a few slippers, andy you would actually have saved money by paying for Microsoft searches."

Remember, all software is like a puppy. But Linux is free as in 'mutt', Microsoft is expensive as in 'highly inbred purebreed'. The cost savings only begin with the purchase cost. Open source is like genetic diversity, it improves robustness and tends to reduce the likelihood and severity of infections.

Who would have thought...

[Anita Coney]

....that a turd like AOL would have become the key to the internet's fate?! I can't help but think I've been transported to a world where Monty Pythonian logic rules.

Re:Who would have thought...

[theFool]

She's a witch!

Why "Kill" Google?

[Halo-]

Okay, this isn't a Microsoft bashing outright, but why the fsck does MS want to "kill" Google? Google makes a great product that has arguably is one of the most important and useful tools on the web. On top of this, they don't charge anything to use it.

Yes, Google makes money. Sure, money is good, and everyone want more. But for crying out loud, just because someone else has success in an area of business doesn't mean you have to squash them. Microsoft should focus on making Windows better. The reason Google is good is because they spend their effort trying to be the best search engine, not the only search engine.

I'm not saying companies shouldn't aggressively pursue their competitors, but this just reeks of jealousy. I know that Google has a lot of new services (and likely more on the way) which compete with Microsoft (GMail vs. Hotmail, Google Search vs. MSN Search, GTalk vs. Messenger, Google Earth vs. Terraserver) but still...

It would be different if I thought MS was going to build a product which would "kill" Google by simply being better, but I suspect the plan is more to cripple Google as much as possible, and bring everyone down to a "well, it could be better but this is good enough" level.

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[codepunk]

They are just pissed because google has the nerve to run their data center
on a better platform...that and they cannot sell them any windows license's.

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[Lord Haha]

Why does MS want to kill google? It is very simple actually - one because they are there, and two everyone needs a rival to go up against.

We all know Microsoft is starting to lack focus and vision. As it stands they are more of a copy-cat then innovator, so what they are trying to do is get their employees focused on someone as the "other side of the force" persay so that there slowly becomes a new objective out there - even if it is "Kill Google" its still better then "be the best in abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwyz, and at the same time kill, Google, Yahoo, Apple, AOL, Linux, Current flavour of the month"

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[Wylfing]

Okay, this isn't a Microsoft bashing outright, but why the fsck does MS want to "kill" Google?

Microsoft is not in the business of making products, it's in the business of protecting its monopoly position. Anything that even remotely appears to be a way for customers to exit the MS monopoly needs to be crushed. Google is potentially a way for operating systems to become irrelevant, as the human-computer interface layer moves to a different territory (i.e., Windows Explorer gives way to Google Desktop).

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[tbannist]

Microsoft wants to kill google for a number of reasions:

1. Google is getting more positive attention than Microsoft
2. Google is a poster-child for the successful deployment of Linux
3. Google doesn't buy (many) Microsoft Products
4. Microsoft can't buy Google
5. Microsoft fears anything that has to do with computers that they can't buy
6. Smart people who rather work for Google than Microsoft

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[marcosdumay]

Microsof always feared the internet and tried to control it. The reasons are quite simple: The internet is a Unix based system, where MS couldn't dominate yet. It is also an universal interface, that separate engine from presentation and make it possible to migrate one to another system while the other is stuk with a MS one. And, for last, the internet is a huge "application" that is (mostly) plattaform independent.

Probably based on this, MS is trying to stop internet evolution (by eliminating competitiors and dominating with crap products) near since the creation of the WWW. Google is the new killer application (at first, it was Netscape), so MS needs to stop it.

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the bitter irony of it all. MS is one of the most wildly successful companies of all time. They actually have done some good, a lot more people use PCs thanks to windows, it's hard to deny that. They've been good to shareholders. Why on earth they want to "kill" anyone is beyond me.

It's high time we as a world society start pushing for a code of ethics for business officers. The FTC got all huffy about "accounting practices" after a few CEOs lied to the world about billions of dollars, bankrupted major companies and then tried to skate off in to the sunset and their multimillion dollar properties. There are generally accepted accounting practices but it's time to step it up a notch.

Business roundtable is kind of a start. I'd be willing to go as far as to put a letter on the end of a publicly traded company's ticker that symbolizes their lack of committment to the 21st century business code of ethics. Basically, you shouldn't knowingly or unknowingly use slave labor, not knowing isn't an excuse, you should make some reasonable effort to know. You shouldn't "try kill other companies" or put them out of business, competition is actually good and I think fierce competition is what makes this industry great but actively trying to hurt the comptetition is completely unethical and it shouldn't even be joked about; (jokes from CEOs turn into work orders in the trenches, leadership starts at the top, including ethical leadership) There should be some kind of political portion also which would be much harder to come up with in a clean way that would appeal to everyone, basically don't bribe, contributions are one thing but bribes (particularly in developing nations) are something else. Some percentage of profits should be given to employees and the community as a basic standard, clearly some companies need help in this department. etc.. perhaps some stuff regarding gifts.. if your profits to employess on public service ratio is too high (cough, walmart, cough) then maybe you should put more money in to them and a little less in to share holder's pockets.

I'm not advocating some kind of big machine to enforce this or anything like that. It's a basic code of conduct that publicly traded businesses should agree to. If they don't then they are marked for it. It won't hurt startups, they'll have to plan for it but it doesn't cost them anything. If you're "good" then it won't hurt you at all. If you're found breaking the code of conduct, then you're ticker is branded with a letter that signifies as much. There could be some sort of time limit to get out of the dog house and some kind of appeals process, when a huge mega corp acts, they often don't know what all of their pieces are doing but they should and there should be some reasonable attempt to know that they are acting in an ethical manner. You're company agrees to follow it or you get a Z on the end of your ticker. If you're found not following it then you get a Z until you comply or 6 months, which ever is longer.

Then the ethical mutuals out there (enviro. and shit like that) they can have another benchmark, no "Z" companies. I'm not particularly bleeding heart or anything like that, I'm not anti-corporation, but I'm just sick of all this kind of bullshit. Planning to build a monopoly or end your competition is just as bad as being a rober-baron; now some companies will kill themselves and they don't deserve to live but actively trying to cause that in the competition is wrong, I don't want to do business with those companies.

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[robklaus]

Okay, this isn't a Microsoft bashing outright, but why the fsck does MS want to "kill" Google?

Think about the future Jack! At the current time it does not look like MS and Google's businesses intersect, but consider the future. All traditional advertising models are setup around a principle of scarcity. There are only so many allotments of radio frequencies, or tv frequencies, or newspaper pages, so advertising on them is very expensive. With internet based distribution of ads there is no physical scarcity, its simply a matter of delivering the right ad to the right person at the right time.

Consider podcasts, now being touted as a killer of traditional media. Once everyone and their mother has a podcast, how do you find the podcast for you? How does an advertiser know which podcast in which to spend ad dollars?

How about the death of physical media? Music is at this point, and I suggest the books will be next (once an appropriate hardware device is constructed). All of the businesses that exist to bring you this media are being challenged, because the real cost WILL BE in marketing to you (i.e. helping you find the music YOU like), and not in distribution. The costs of this are based around scarcity --> there are only so many 'Today' shows on which an author or musician can be displayed to market themselves.

Google or a company like them is poised to be that solution. Gmail, Talk, Wifi or whatever all give them insight into how to market digital media to you in a highly targeted manner. This represents a huge amount of money and potential revenue growth. MS revenue growth has slowed. One could suggest that this is because the OS has become a commodity and everyone has it already. So for a company to keep growing, new business models are needed. MS could be that company and that is how they are trying to position themselves.

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[.killedkenny]

but this just reeks of jealousy

You nailed it. Gates and Ballmer like to talk about Google's "honeymoon", as if the buzz about Google is more about the hype of something new and not about providing great tools and a positive user experience.

Bill Gates said, "They have this slogan that they are going to organize the world's information. Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organize the world's information."

Notice how Bill said "we are going to GIVE people tools"? That is a lie. Microsoft wants to SELL people tools. Google is the one GIVING tools.

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[oliderid]

Well I guess even Microsoft fears for its future. I mean could you predict exactly how the computer world will look like in 10 or 15 years? Does the OS will be so important or will it be just like another commodity.

Or their cash cow...Ms Office...Will it be still that profitable in 10 years? Will open office become the de facto standard?

Some says for years (hello Sun) that your computer will soon be just like a plain old terminal (well I still doesn't believe it but if I was a running a big company like Ms, I would certainly leave that door open)

Even Microsoft must move forward. AOL is a huge database of customers. their value is purely commercial. This database will serve Microsoft for upcoming services. Such as: video on demand, music and so on.

I don't like Microsoft nor do I hate it. But they move looks quite logical to me...The problem for other companies is that they are damned good at business logic.

Olivier

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[Tony]

That's the bitter irony of it all. MS is one of the most wildly successful companies of all time. They actually have done some good, a lot more people use PCs thanks to windows, it's hard to deny that. They've been good to shareholders. Why on earth they want to "kill" anyone is beyond me.

They've done very little good. MS-Windows was successful because Microsoft was in the right place at the right time; the success of the PC made MS-Windows successful, not the other way around.

Microsoft has a history of destroying competition. That's why they are top dog at the moment. People talk about the free market as if it is truly free; unfortunately, it isn't. A big company can exert control over smaller companies. As long as they are bigger, and are able to influence the market in which they operate, they do not have to build a better mousetrap; they just have to make sure citizens have little to no knowledge that there *are* other mousetraps.

That is the way Microsoft has typically operated. By various methods they learned from their mentor IBM (FUD, exclusionary market deals, astroturfing, etc), Microsoft has been able to control any other company, including Apple, that could potentially prove to be a threat.

Well, except IBM, with OS/2. IBM fucked that one up themselves.

Why would Microsoft destroy another company? Because they can. Like a medieval lord viciously guarding their turf, they destroy anyone who looks like they may challange their power. Right now, Google is challanging Microsoft's planned dominance of the internet.

I'm not particularly bleeding heart or anything like that, I'm not anti-corporation, but I'm just sick of all this kind of bullshit. Planning to build a monopoly or end your competition is just as bad as being a rober-baron; now some companies will kill themselves and they don't deserve to live but actively trying to cause that in the competition is wrong, I don't want to do business with those companies.

I've been sick of it for years, since Microsoft started dirty-dealing against DR-DOS. That event opened my eyes to the sheer evilness of Microsoft; since then, I've seen that same evil in other companies.

(Many of you will say that a corporation can't be evil. Others will say, "What is 'evil,' anyway? Evil is the willingness to fuck over another person for your own gain. And by that metric, corporations can be evil. If the people that make up the corporation continually demonstrate evil, the corporation itself is evil, and should be dissolved.)

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Google is a poster-child for the successful deployment of Linux

I hardly see why Google specifically boosts Linux deployment. I'm sure Mac OSX, Solaris, and other *nixes are benefiting from this as well. In fact, in the case of OSX I'd say Apple is benefiting more than Linux.

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is a poster-child for the successful deployment of Linux

Little known fact:

AOL actually runs on a crapload (thousands) of Linux boxes as well. The AOL corporate marketing just isn't at good a hyping this to the tech-savvy crowd.

Re:Why "Kill" Google?

[JahToasted]

I remember watching a documentary on Microsofts rise a number of years ago (long before google). One thing that stuck out was one of the (maybe it was Paul Allen?) said that at first Microsoft had to settle for "riding the bear" that was IBM. But eventually they were able to render IBM irrelevent to their business. And then Microsoft was the bear that everyone else had to ride. It didn't matter whether you had an IBM, a Compaq or a Dell, as long as it ran Windows.

The thing I found interesting was that he said that he expected some other company to come along and do to Microsoft what they did to IBM. Ever since I've been watching for this to happen. I'm sure there are many execs at MS watching for it to.

Netscape had the potential, but we all know how that ended up. It seemed like MS was safe. But then google comes along and takes up where Netscape left off.

Now when I'm looking for information on something I go to google. When I check my email, its gmail, not Outlook. I need directions? want to find a nice restaurant? Price on RAM? IM? Google. Google. Google.

So now we have the potential that in a few years it may not matter if what OS or browser I have, as long as it can run google web apps. Right now I'm using Firefox on Linux to write this post. I can also access all of google's services with absolutely no MS Software. Google is rendering MS irrevelent.

See why MS wants to destroy Google?

Re:OT: AHHH What happened to Slashdot?!?!

[WWWWolf]

Welcome to the bold new era of CSS! Slashdot is moving away from the ancient "Kind of like HTML3.2 + shitload of <FONT> tags" design, and going for CSS-based layout.

This has really been one of the things many web designers whine about Slashdot. The other is invalid markup (Slashdot's supposed HTML3.2 is so bad it makes people gouge their eyes out, and it's so broken that they have specifically had to block validator.w3.org!) - supposedly that needs a lot more tuning in Slashcode to get it done. At this pace, we can expect Slashdot to do XHTML 1.0 + CSS 2 some time in 2010! Or maybe earlier.

haha - AOL a money sewer

[iggymanz]

AOL has been circling the drain for years now, losing customers and money. Let them suck life and money out of Microsoft, and let the AOL aura of low quality and pandering to the technological morons bleed onto microsoft

Re:haha - AOL a money sewer

[slamdunkfan]

AOL losing subscribers? Yes. AOL losing money? Not in your dream. It is a cash cow, contributing a large sum of free cash flow to TWX(Time Warner). Go check the SEC filing.

Re:haha - AOL a money sewer

[iggymanz]

Careful how you read that stuff, they made $8B last year but have $22B in debt, and are losing customers in a HUGE way to broadband. Which is why the sale....

lol

[everphilski]

*sigh*

Windows Inc. would be afraid that Google threatens it's dominance of the world's computing platform, but would not be able to use MSN Inc. to battle Google. Windows Inc would be forced to make Windows better.

They aren't afraid of Google as a computing platform. They are afraid of Google as a search interface. See Bill's interview posted recently on /.

Office Inc. ... Internet Explorer Inc.

...still wouldnt give a flying f*ck about linux because the market share isn't there.

And, MSN Inc. would have to compete fairly with its competition from Yahoo and Google

MSN is not only a web portal but an ISP. MSN merging with AOL is 2 full service **internet providers** merging. Last I checked (5 minutes ago) neigher Google nor Yahoo advertized internet access. Although I could have sworn Yahoo used to.

So to conclude, your wrong on premise #1, draw bad conclusions on premises #2 and #3, and are comparing apples to oranges on #4.

-everphilski-

Re:lol

[SamSeaborn]

They aren't afraid of Google as a computing platform. They are afraid of Google as a search interface. See Bill's interview posted recently on /.

If Bill said that, Bill's lying. Microsoft owes its existance to the fact it can leverage its dominance of the computing platform to make successes in other areas. He who owns the platform wins; in the DOS days Microsoft leveraged it's ownership of the OS to make sure Excel beat Lotus -- Microsoft employees used to chant "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run" (I know this first hand).

In the Windows days, Microsoft was scared to death of Netscape, because Netscape gave the world easy access to a new computing platform -- the internet -- and if everyone used Netscape and internet-based applications, then no one cares what OS Netscape is running on. The Microsoft predator killed Netscape to protect the computing platform.

Then came Java. Java is a platform, everyone got excited about the concept of a ubiquitous internet-friendly platform where applications could run anywhere; Java was the new computing platform that threatened Windows' dominance -- Microsoft did everything they could to kill it (although it's still breathing).

Now comes Google. IE beat Netscape in the browser wars, but now everyone is using their browser to access Google. Google is much more than a search engine, it is "the internet" to many people; they've begun providing some great applications (GMail, Google Maps), and are working towards many more -- are Google Office and Google Net far off?

If Google is permitted to succeed, Google will become the new computing platform. This is why Microsoft attempted a hostle take-over of Google before they went IPO, and that is why Microsoft must kill Google now. To protect their dominance of the computing platform.

He who owns the platform wins.

...still wouldnt give a flying f*ck about linux because the market share isn't there

Office Inc would have to find ways to grow their market; they'd have to continually innovate to make their product better, and would have to grow into new areas -- there is no Office for Linux now because in the minds of the pointy-haired bosses, it would "legitimize" Linux as a desktop computing platform (ie., threatening Windows platform dominance). Office Inc would most assuredly release an Office for Linux (it'd probably even just require a rebuild of Office for OS X). And Office Inc would probably do Office for the Internet too (which Microsoft will fight tooth and nail against unless someone like Google does Google Office first).

MSN is not only a web portal but an ISP. MSN merging with AOL is 2 full service **internet providers** merging. Last I checked (5 minutes ago) neigher Google nor Yahoo advertized internet access. Although I could have sworn Yahoo used to.

MSN is a huge money loosing operation, just like IE before it. In a fair non-predatory market, MSN would have to compete against Google and AOL by innovating and offering better products and services. Instead Microsoft uses MSN as a predatory weapon against its current fierce competitor for the world's computing platform.

So to conclude, your wrong on premise #1, draw bad conclusions on premises #2 and #3, and are comparing apples to oranges on #4.

And I conclude that you're being very short-sighted and don't appreciate the subtleties and long-term thinking that goes into running the world's biggest software company.

Sam

Re:lol

[YU Nicks NE Way]

MSN is a huge money loosing [sic] operation

Uhhh...no. MSN has been revenue positive for about a year now. It makes money the same way the Google does -- by selling targeted ads. In fact, as it has moved away from supporting Overture, MSN has become more profitable, not less.

Acquiring AOL actually does two things: hurt Google, but, more importantly, help MSN. I realize the fanbois here and on Wall Street want to think of everything being about killing GOOG, but there are other, better, reasons to buy AOL. Those eyeballs would be worth cash money to MS.

Re:lol

[steveness]

Office Inc would have to find ways to grow their market; they'd have to continually innovate to make their product better, and would have to grow into new areas -- there is no Office for Linux now because in the minds of the pointy-haired bosses, it would "legitimize" Linux as a desktop computing platform (ie., threatening Windows platform dominance). Office Inc would most assuredly release an Office for Linux (it'd probably even just require a rebuild of Office for OS X). And Office Inc would probably do Office for the Internet too (which Microsoft will fight tooth and nail against unless someone like Google does Google Office first).

Bill G has repeatedly pushed for Office on the internet. This part of the whole "ie is integrated into the OS" thing. He wants IE to be the OS. This gives MS full control over the licensing of Windows apps, especially Office. MS could then rent office and other apps to users on a subscription basis, instead of selling a semi-permanent license. Talk about your captive users and forced upgrades! Why on earth would MS fight this?

Re:lol

[SamSeaborn]

>And Office Inc would probably do Office for the Internet too
> (which Microsoft will fight tooth and nail against unless
> someone like Google does Google Office first).

Bill G has repeatedly pushed for Office on the internet. This part of the whole "ie is integrated into the OS" thing. He wants IE to be the OS. This gives MS full control over the licensing of Windows apps, especially Office. MS could then rent office and other apps to users on a subscription basis, instead of selling a semi-permanent license. Talk about your captive users and forced upgrades! Why on earth would MS fight this?

Sounds like what Bill wants to do is "Office for IE on Windows" and his motivation is better control over licensing. That's not "Office for Internet" which, theoretically, would not be dependant on IE or Windows, and would be about innovating a new way for people to work.

I can already access all my GMail with any browser, and I have 250G storage. Soon I expect I'll be able to access all my GDocuments and wordprocess and speadsheet them with any browser. (Or maybe with a GBrowser on any computer. Then, who needs Windows?

Bill openly says that he runs Microsoft under the assumption that they can be irrelevant in 5 years -- right now Google is the most likely candidate to dethrone him.

Sam

Re:lol

[SamSeaborn]

Uhhh...no. MSN has been revenue positive for about a year now.

Okay, so maybe they are marginally profitable this year -- but they've been hemorrhaging cash since their inception. The only reason MSN exists is because they wanted to kill AOL (predatory!) -- in Steve Case's book he writes about how Bill invited him to the Gates mansion and said, "Sell me AOL or I'll put you out of business."

Ironically Bill is now able to use the AOL acquisition to cut off 25% of Google's revenue.

It makes money the same way the Google does -- by selling targeted ads.

MSN makes money by being the default home page for every IE installation -- Google makes money by providing a great, innovative product.

Acquiring AOL actually does two things: hurt Google, but, more importantly, help MSN.

MSN can't compete with Google, so they're buying the entity that provides 25% of of Google's revenue. Predatory! Illegal! And make no bones about it, MS is afraid of Google because Google threatens MS's ownership of the world's computing platform -- just like Netscape and Java before them (Re: other posts in this thread).

Sam

Re:lol

[Donny Smith]

It's more like 10% of Google revenue and it's not predatory - if Google doesn't like it, they can buy AOL themselves.

Re:lol

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Seeing as how the Gates mansion didn't exist when MSN was formed, I kind of think that story's...what does one say...oh, yes: aprocyphal. As in made up.

As to "maringally profitable" -- MSN actually earned $250M last year.

Sorry, bumpkin -- the facts don't support your claims.

Re:lol

[SamSeaborn]

It's more like 10% of Google revenue

Re-read the article: "That would cut Google's profit by something like 25 per cent"

and it's not predatory

Er ... yeah, it's practically the very *definition* of predatory business tactics.

Sam

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh*

Yes, yes

They aren't afraid of Google as a computing platform. They are afraid of Google as a search interface. See Bill's interview posted recently on /.

You actually believe anything that billy bathgates says in an interview? Be serious! A better gauge of the pulse of bgInc. (Yes, I know, vampires don't have a pulse, it's a metaphor dammit) is the vein-popping eyeball-bulging pants-shitting chair-breaking shirt-armpit-defiling behavior of the moneyboy witch king of angmar.

Really?

[beforewisdom]

I realize that there are probably more subtle points to consider in this argument but saying that AOL will be used as a tool to kill google is a bit like threatening to use a clumsy old dinosaur to kill a young, quick cheetah.

If Microsoft really wants to be an industry leader again Steve Ballmer should focus on finding ways for Microsoft to solve problems for IT consumers that other companies have not already found ways to solve rather than threatening to destroy other companies

HA HA HA AH AH AHAH AHAHAHAHHA!!!!!

[Philip K Dickhead]

Your killing ME !!!!!

MSFT+AOL? Ouch! This is not "two great tastes that are better together".

MSFT might have a lot of 'bread', but not enough to swallow that sh*t sandwich. Ballmer just re-orged. He can't keep things together between OS, Apps and Online (MSN) as it stands today. MSN is held back from 'innovating' in the Application space (no 'online Office').

AOL will get them another org headache coupled with a dwindling customer base, most of whom would leave if they could stop getting their card charged.

I weep I weep and thrice I weep

[kahei]

WTF is this, what happened to the Microsoft I knew that delivered products and listened to feedback and invented little things like reusable components and even kinda sorta slew the mighty ogre of IBM? How did it get infected with the belief that manipulating the market and brand is it's core business? How did it forget how to create software and listen to users, and learn to focus on strategic acquisition and shit?

Oh, wait, it was Ballmer. And being big. But mainly Ballmer.

Hey, in 10 year's time, when MS is in recievership, I wonder who the Ballmer of Google will be?

Re:I weep I weep and thrice I weep

[Anonymous Coward]

"what happened to the Microsoft I knew that delivered products and listened to feedback and invented little things like reusable components"

They became a monopoly.

Re:I weep I weep and thrice I weep

[tcampb01]

Was there ever a time when Microsoft invented useful things? I must have fallen asleep on that day. As far as I can remember, manipulating markets has ALWAYS been Microsoft's core business. Remember guys -- this is the company that didn't even write MS-DOS.

Re:I weep I weep and thrice I weep

[Anonymous Coward]

"what happened to [the good microsoft who] slew the mighty ogre of IBM?"

"it was Ballmer."

Actually no. What happened was that IBM - like the One Ring - seduced the acolite, who thereafter simply followed his masters example and never learned a thing.

You see once, back in the mythical ages of the 1980's Microsoft and IBM had a "Joint Development Agreement" under which they developed a "wonderful and magical new operating system for the ages" called OS/2. However, the master (IBM) and the student (Microsoft) had a falling out because they had different ideas about the outcome. [parentheses: IBM saw Windows on home PC's, OS2 on office desktops, AS400 or Unix(aka AIX) on midrange, while Microsoft saw DOS on home PC's, Windows on office desktops, OS2 on midrange. Hmmm. Zen moment, who was right?]

As a result of the falling out, MS decided to strike out on their own and filch all the code from OS/2 and rename it NT (which they could do under the "Joint Development Agreement').

Having got to the point where they could say to themselves "hey shit, that worked", MS then started to look at IBM's other business practices (of the time) and decided to steal them as well.

Cheif amongst these were "FUD", a term originated by IBM as an internal sales and marketing code word, which substituted "meets your requirements" in the customers mind for "you don't get fired for buying IBM [Microsoft]"

That was the point at which Microsoft died. They might have been a truly evil bunch of monopilistic mother#$%#
beforehand, but that was when they forgot to "meet the customers need" and became the undead. A dead company walking, just now one that couldn't stand to be around during daylight.

Unfortunately, both Balmer and Gates thought of themselves as "smart guys" and didn't realize that the devil's fine print got their souls at that point (of course they'd actually signed the contracts long before)

So sorry, all of the current MS problems are simply a repeat of 1970/80's IBM problems, which IBM brought on themselves, and which IBM ultimately fixed and now IBM is a great company (again) that is focussed on its customers needs ..... .... whereas Microsoft is a once great company that used to focus on its customers needs but is now headed for that great ChryslerLand in the sky.

Bye bye.

Re:OT: AHHH What happened to Slashdot?!?!

[hsoft]

I think they are finally switching to their CSS code, which is a GOOD THING. Give them some time to adjust (And there is not much to adjust IMO, everything is great here. Yeah, the link underline go away, but I dont care.)

Google does not need AOL (at all)

[drhazmat]

Basically this is not true. AOL accounts for something like 2%-3% of Google's operating profit. See article at Forbes. Google will be fine with or without AOL. In fact, it may be better off in a world where Microsoft has to deal with all the problems that AOL has faced over the past few years.

Man, this kind of sucks

[elhondo]

Not because I like AOL so much, but because SPF and AOL IM. I wonder if that's what MS is really after. Buying AOL would remove three thorns in their side by limiting google, trumping SPF with their proprietary crap, and making huge inroads into the IM space.

Re:Man, this kind of sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your on target here. IM is definitly the growing market today, look at the news and see talks of providing searching on text messages. Text messaging is integrated into IM. AOL IM is definitly the big leader for the younger personal IM crowd, and MSN IM is the big player in the corporate messaging crowd. Search is going to be more localized, video/voice conferencing (Skype anyone?), there are major moves being done in this area. Look at eBay / Skype. I think M$ big focus here is IM, and Google's offering here isn't up to par.

Headline is backwards, anyway

[smose]

Perhaps it should read: Is AOL the Key to Microsoft 'Killing' Microsoft?

Parent is on the right track: Google has forward momentum, a positive Karma of the internet. Google does what you want it to do (find stuff) and stays out of the way. That's a big plus when you just want to get things done. Outside of search, Google seems to be one place where fresh ideas originate in rapid succession, even if a lot of those ideas never materialize. These new ideas, good or bad, still don't get in the way of their core product, which is still fast and stays out of the way.

Microsoft is in the opposite situtation. They've stalled and in many ways, are slipping backwards. They are widely seen as the behemoth, to the point that you don't have to even read the latest security warning to know that it's from another "Buffer Overflow" problem. Office hasn't done anything inventive in years, except for Clippy. Business users (the ones who actually pay for it) are getting the idea that new versions of Office don't do anything new but do screw up the UI enough that it's not worth the trouble to upgrade. These paying users are steadfastly not paying anymore by sticking with the 2k generation of products. New sales of MS Windows and Office are driven mostly by new computer sales, but some businesses are just moving the software and licenses over from retired systems.

XBox has done well, but it has a different appeal and is becoming its own division, anyway.

AOL is another old behemoth, and if AOL and Microsoft want to hold on for dear life together, so be it. It won't help either one.

Re:Headline is backwards, anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

"XBox has done well, but it has a different appeal and is becoming its own division, anyway."

Huh?

It was a five billion dollar marketplace disaster. Its losses are now being hidden in amongst a larger group of projects with MS talking about the fiasco becoming profitable maybe, maybe, in 2007.

With how bad things are going with the 360, 2007 or 2017 MS is still going to be bleeding massive cash if they don't pull the plug before then.

Re:Headline is backwards, anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't say it's exactly hidden since the larger group of prodcuts with the Xbox were also failures... of which the xbox is probably the only one which may bare fruit.

Re:Headline is backwards, anyway

[sobachatina]

XBox has done well

I suppose you could look at it that way as it has gained in popularity recently.

Lets not forget that it has still lost Microsoft $7 billion over the last four years. It hasn't done well for them and probably won't for a few years.

I'm considering buying one to put Linux on and never buying any games. Its a good deal for the hardware and I'd like to do my little part in costing MS $75 or whatever it is.

Re:OT: AHHH What happened to Slashdot?!?!

[LordKazan]

it's called

a.hover { text-decoration: none }

Buy everything

[AShuvalov]

The MS corporate mindset is to buy. Exactly, everything they ever had they acquired from other companies, including DOS, Windows and IE.

They wrote Win2k, at least with the help of Digital team...

Re:anyone else not following here?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, I just don't see the logic to Microsoft buying AOL. What would make more sense is for Microsoft to try to sell MSN. These expensive dial-up services will continue to bleed as customers defect to less expensive dial-up and high-speed options. In fact, it is now possible in some areas for one to get high-speed for less than the cost of either AOL or MSN. Buying AOL now is like trying to buy a passenger rail service in the jet age.

Egos of fat headed bald men

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no limit to the egos of fat headed bald men

Portal Wars

[RAMMS EIN]

``That article also mentions AOL's goal to become a web portal, with AIM, AOL Music and MapQuest drawing users in. AIM I imagine is growing, as new preteens start using it all the time, but does this really make them any money?''

I think that's what you're looking for, and you said it yourself. By acquiring AOL, Microsoft gains a huge customer base, with many people accessing AOLs portal and services. Microsoft runs similar services and a portal themselves. So they buy out one competitor, consolidate the services with their own, and become stronger to crush two other competitors; Yahoo! and Google.

And yes, advertising does make you money. At least, it seems it does for Google.

More likely to kill AOL

[Peter_JS_Blue]

Google will suffer a bit but I think the real casualty will be AOL. This is how I think it will play out :-

1. MS buys AOL
2. MS forces AOL to use its search engine, not Googles. AOL starts to suck a bit more than usual.
3. MS starts milking AOL for all its worth. AOL starts to suck big time.
4. Google loses a bit of revenue, but finds other, innovative ways to make it up.
5. AOL starts to suck so much that TimeWarner has to step in to prevent the remaining 47 subscribers from leaving.
6. In the end AOL either gets taken over completely by MS or TW or simply left to rot.

why do dying companies cling to each other?

[walterbyrd]

It reminds me of HP and Compaq.

I know msft isn't anywhere near dead, but msft isn't going anywhere these days.

AOL must be losing customers. As more people move to broadband, AOL is practically begging people to stay with AOL for spam protection etc.

Frankly, I'm fine with msft buying AOL, they deserve each other.

well...AOL is probably not for sale

[buddhahat]

According to today's NYT, Time Warner says that AOL is their future. So the MS buying AOL scenario seems less likely. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/business/media/2 2warner.html

Re:well...AOL is probably not for sale

[ewe2]

If this is true, then the Microsoft-AOL deal is probably focussed on the IM partnership alone and not infrastructure. This is about advertising, so MS might be paying AOL to spruik its products through the IM channel and align the IM protocols to lock users away from Google. One IM channel, 3 different brands chasing different market segments perhaps. MS wants to get into the Internet service business, this might be a way of grabbing mindshare without large up-front costs. In any case, expect big changes to IM in the coming year.

Re:well...AOL is probably not for sale

[The Lynxpro]

"According to today's NYT, Time Warner says that AOL is their future. So the MS buying AOL scenario seems less likely."

(Time)Warner has a history of seeking partnerships with their divisions if it will profit them more, and then hopefully sucker their partner into selling out cheaply later down the road.

It happened with Warner-Amex, which is now known as Time Warner Cable. Comcast spent years trying to get an IPO of their stake in Time Warner Cable since Time Warner corporate kept lowballing them on the share price to buy back the interest.

Back in 1980, Warner sought IBM to buy a 50% stake in Atari, Inc. long before the troubles that befell the company. Chairman Steve Ross thought IBM's technological leadership could keep Atari on top of all of their videogame and home computer rivals. And supposedly, IBM was impressed with the power of the 8-bit Atari line since the custom chips made the system stronger than its other 8-bit rivals. But ultimately, IBM created their own PC division instead of acquiring an existing player and the rest is history.

Following the Time Warner merger, Time Warner sought partnerships for the Time Warner Entertainment division.

And so on... Moral of the story is don't trust a Time Warner press release or an announcement of interest in a profitable division of theirs.

The Beginning of the End for Google

[DesScorp]

You guys can think what you want, but when Microsoft marks another company for death, usually they win. Google might not go away, but MS will find a way to beat it in the marketplace. MS's stuff won't be as good, and they won't win by fair play....but they'll win. Gates and Balmer have their minds set on it and that's that. Game over. If you're a Google employee, enjoy it while you're on top, because you're going to be polishing your resume in a couple of years. Balmer especially is one very vengeful fucker.

"Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google." - Steve Ballmer

This isn't Linux, where an open source project can't be killed. Google is a busniness, subject to business pressures. I don't rule out the possibility that Microsoft may actually find a way to buy Google one day. At the very least, Google will end up like Lotus, Apple, Wordperfect; profitable, with a dedicated fanbase, but small and irrelavent compared to the MS juggernaut. Worse, they could end up like Netscape. There was a lot of brainpower in that company too. It didn't save them.

Re:The Beginning of the End for Google

[Pecisk]

Show me their frags list for last five, seven years. Netscape was mererly success because well, Netscape sucked that time (be honest, Netscape 4.x series was big disaster). Lotus 1-2-3 - too historical event to be compared to this.

See, in those times, not everyone expected Microsoft to act THAT bad. Now industry and competitiors are much more educated about whereabouts of Microsoft.

What will happen to Google? I don't see ANY weapon Microsoft can lay against it now. Monopoly power? Get over it, it WON'T work, because they abused it last years SO much that no company or entity of business or govemerment ANY kind is bound to believe them. So they will buy AOL and try to revert search to MSN? So what, it is somehow makes MSN Search superior? People aren't THAT stupid anymore, at least majority - sure, they don't know precisely what is this all internet thingy is, but they want 'to google'. MSN can't beat that - and with their attitude I'm sure they won't.

Re:The Beginning of the End for Google

[hobo sapiens]

That may be a bit hasty.

Google does have one thing going for it, a recognizable name and a product that is just better than anything M$ has ever come up with, and as a previous poster said, it's free!

What will kill Google in the end (and it's a matter of time, like you alluded to) is what is killing M$ now: brain drain. Google has the best and the brightest. It's only a matter of time until Google becomes a company with an unmanagable suite of applications to support, and then the only innovations we will see are things like a new module on that stoopid customizable portal page they made (cannot remember the uri). The real hackers will of course get bored supporting existing work and move on to the next big thing. It's just the nature of our industry. IMHO, Google will stave off this scenario by sticking to what they do best and staying away from CRAP like AOL.

I actually wonder if M$ is trying to bait Google into buying AOL. Anytime you get away from your core business (aka what you do well) then you are in trouble (musical instrument analogy: Yamaha makes good keyboards. Nobody wants their crappy guitars though). Imagine if M$ had stuck to doing OS...they might (and I say might) have a decent product. Google ought to learn from that and keep doing what they do well.

Re:The Beginning of the End for Google

[Just Some Guy]

You guys can think what you want, but when Microsoft marks another company for death, usually they win.

Like Oracle?

MS has shown proficiency at crushing their small competitors. They don't seem to have had as much luck with the big guys, though.

Re:The Beginning of the End for Google

[FreshFunk510]

The way Microsoft has been performing, even if they could somehow find the money to buy out Google I doubt the shareholders would agree to it. Google is a growing stock; there is much money to be made their. Microsoft has been stagnant for 2 years.

Re:The Beginning of the End for Google

[sgt_doom]

You are completely ignoring Microsoft's eminently losing "China strategy" whereby they hope to make future billions off that market - meanwhile China is doing to them what China has so successfully done to other companies (see Volvo, Stanley Tools, etc., etc., etc.) and taking their technology which they will cannibalize and turn to their own advantage while M$ continues to lose further billions there.....

Re:The Beginning of the End for Google

[kupci]

This isn't Linux, where an open source project can't be killed.

Or Java either, which makes MSFTs offerings "small and irrelevant", even after 5 years of work and top talent like Anders Hjelsberg of Borland fame, and huge piles of money. Open source isn't the reason, it's more complex and has to do with scalability and ownership of the platform. Competing with Google will be very very hard since it simply isn't a desktop app, nor is Linux or Java. (So yeah, Ballmer didn't bury Schmidt or McNealy by any means). Buying an also-ran like AOL is a finger in the dike, like Borland buying Ashton-Tate to get DBASE, or IBM buying Lotus. It shows they don't have a clue, but they are trying.

Re:The Beginning of the End for Google

[mr.hawk]

People aren't THAT stupid anymore, at least majority - sure, they don't know precisely what is this all internet thingy is, but they want 'to google'. MSN can't beat that - and with their attitude I'm sure they won't.

That's not my experience. More than half of the computers I come across when doing the regular neighbour-friendofafriend-yadda-yadda-support has MSN set as the start page. Search the internet? Yeah, sure. Just type your query into the address bar of IE and go - using MSN. It's a sad, sad world.

Re:The Beginning of the End for Google

[SlowEmotionReplay]

"He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves: one for his enemy and one for himself"
Chinese Proverb

"Nothing is more costly, nothing is more sterile, than vengeance"
Winston Churchill

Microsoft may defeat Google, but Ballmer won't help it happen.

Re:The Beginning of the End for Google

[The Lynxpro]

"MS has shown proficiency at crushing their small competitors. They don't seem to have had as much luck with the big guys, though."

MS failed to crush TiVo with their UltimateTV product. So sometimes even Microsoft can't beat small competitors either.

Re:The Beginning of the End for Google

[EvilBudMan]

--Worse, they could end up like Netscape. There was a lot of brainpower in that company too. It didn't save them.--

So smart were they, Netscape thought they could add 2+2 and get 5.

Re:The Beginning of the End for Google

[Anonymous Coward]

But Microsoft doesn't want to make a decent product (necessarily). They want to make lots and lots of money. There's a difference.

Already been done.

[Kozz]

It's been done here. Now, featuring random typos for added realism (TM)!

I see the same mistaken thinking going on

[suitepotato]

Namely, that people are growing smarter and that smarter (by this faction's definition) means people will see Microsoft and AOL for being shams and suddenly see the light and adopt the (sadomasochistic) ways of Linux.

Excuse me while I open a window and laugh.

Car manuals that put the New York Yellow Pages to shame for size and are competitive with sets of encyclopedias have been on the shelves of libraries for years. People know less and less every year about their cars. They know less and less every year about most things because the people who know more and more tend to be doing their jobs correctly: they make it work, and they make it work transparently to the user as to the guts of the process.

You don't need to know how a mainframe works to do your banking, you need not know how a cash register works to buy something. You need not know what an unsigned integer is to compose a letter on a word processor. Windows is easy to use. AOL is easy to use. Put them together and you have the all around ease of use killer setup for home users.

Once again, the tail does not wag the dog. Your kids at school do not control your PC buying decisions and if they did Apple would be the only brand in the USA and there'd be NO Internet as it back then DID NOT fit into Apple's (Job's) worldview. Your average anti-corporate anti-conformity geek in the IT department does not control the corporate PC buying decisions and if they did, we'd all be using BSD command line only boxes. The general "I don't care how it works, I just want it to work" public controls the market.

Sorry to burst your fanciful bubbles, but the Tyranny of the Masses has been the rule and not the exception since before Hannibal crossed the Alps. We can just bring it to you faster and more efficiently than the Roman populace ever could to their wrongly pontificating intellectuals.

Re:I see the same mistaken thinking going on

[Tony]

Your kids at school do not control your PC buying decisions and if they did Apple would be the only brand in the USA and there'd be NO Internet as it back then DID NOT fit into Apple's (Job's) worldview.

It didn't fit into Microsoft's worldview, either. At the time, MSN was a tiny little dial-up service. Microsoft fought the internet; it did not create or help it. In fact, Microsoft didn't care about the internet until major magazines like Newsweek and Time started running feature articles on all the academic use of the internet.

Microsoft has not helped computing; it has hindered it. Gates, Ballmer, and Allen just happened to be in the right place at the right time to ride the wave better than anyone else. They did not cause the wave.

At the time, the most internet-connected, easiest to use desktop computer was the NeXT. You know, the computer on which the WWW was invented? The one created by Jobs' company, NeXT? Considering how the NeXT shipped with IP as the default network protocol, I think claiming Jobs was not interested in the internet is a bit wrong. Since he wasn't even at Apple at the time, to equate Apple's disinterest in the internet with Jobs is disingenuous.

As Apple was on the downhill slide *without* Jobs, I think things would have played out pretty much as they did. Jobs would have returned to Apple to save it, and he would have brought the internet with him. So, although most of your assessment is accurate, the idea that Apple would not now have the internet had they been the big boys is faulty.

Sorry to burst your fanciful bubbles, but the Tyranny of the Masses has been the rule and not the exception since before Hannibal crossed the Alps. We can just bring it to you faster and more efficiently than the Roman populace ever could to their wrongly pontificating intellectuals.

This is the most blatantly disregarded truth in the world right now. And so is the corollary: those that are able to manipulate the masses are able to control the world for their own gain.

Re:I see the same mistaken thinking going on

[jamesmrankinjr]

Your kids at school do not control your PC buying decisions and if they did Apple would be the only brand in the USA and there'd be NO Internet as it back then DID NOT fit into Apple's (Job's) worldview.

Yeah, and everyone would be listening to music on an iPod, too!

Oh, wait...

Peace be with you,
-jimbo

Search Engines are compromised anyway so who cares

[PorchPuppy]

Quite honestly, it boggles the mind that we are talking about stuff like this and not the fact that these so called search engines are being compromised by googlebombing. Resistance is Futile.. Well hell yeah it is futile if all I have to do is googlebomb to get you to see me on the top of your search results. I don't know what Microsoft uses as its term for googlebombing, but they are not excluded from it. Can you really trust your search results knowing that the results you see first were manipulated in order to be first on the list? Focus People!!

Monopoly Maintenance is what I'm worried about

[crovira]

Microsoft has proved an absolute zero at thinking up anything to do with computers.

Innovation is definitely not their bag. They have bought or stolen everything in their OS, beginning with QDOS and ending with Vista (which is strange considering the number of people on their payroll.)

Microsoft has proved unbeatable at reacting. They don't think of anything but but that. They have their antennas out feeling/looking for any financially successful product out there and seeing how they can take it away.

Its very depressing to witness such stullifying behavior.

The REAL Golden Rule

[doublem]

Yeah, but Microsoft was already convicted, got less than a slap on the wrist, and went on it's way without changing anything.

When you have a war chest large enough to fund the Iraq war for a year ALL ON YOUR OWN, the laws don't apply.

"Whoever has the gold makes the rules."

Bill Gates would have to go on national television, kill the president and eat a baby to go to jail, and even then some lawyer would use the Twinkie Defense or a "Stress from battling Linux made him do it" to get is charges reduced to manslaughter.

Of course, if he used the latter defense, Linux would then be deionized as evil, and driving people to kill, which would work great for Microsoft.

Re:The REAL Golden Rule

[duerra]

I think the Chewbacca Defense might be a good choice in this scenario.

So Microsoft will own Netscape

[mdproctor]

Wonder if there will be any more Netscape releases...

Can we quit this once and for all?

[sootman]

Google's #1 use is still search. You can hear people on prime-time TV shows talking about "googling" things but I haven't heard a reference to google maps, gmail, or anything else yet. Google search kicks ass because a) it works and b) it isn't annoying. Until someone comes up with search results that are better and/or a better interface, google has no chance of being killed. And not just 10% better results--we know from experience that a slightly better product isn't enough to get people to change en masse. It needs to be orders of magnitude better.

And that will be tough. Going from 75% useful (yahoo! and altavista search results) to 99% useful (google) was big enough to get people to change. But what--are you going to change to a search engine that gives 99.5% useful results? 99.9%? Could you even *notice* that small a change? And the UI--google has been designed with this quote in mind:
You know you've achieved perfection in design,
Not when you have nothing more to add,
But when you have nothing more to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint Exupery. quoted in James Gosling, Henry McGilton. "The Java Language Environment"

Overally, they''ll be tough to top.

Oh yeah, so anyway, my point: can we quit with the lame-ass "OMG teh google killer?!??!11" scary headlines? And maybe the iPod-killer ones as well?

Re:Can we quit this once and for all?

[PorchPuppy]

I wonder if Google is 99% useful when the fact that their search results can be manipulated is factored in. I realize that this is an old story about the word failure being associated with the president but Google has done nothing to prevent results manipulation and neither has Microsoft. So as far as I am concerned any search engine that can prevent results manipulation is the one that I will consider 99% useful.

Re:Can we quit this once and for all?

[qwerty shrdlu]

"Google's #1 use is still search. You can hear people on prime-time TV shows talking about "googling" things but I haven't heard a reference to google maps, gmail, or anything else yet."

Actually, Google Maps is getting plenty of screen time on news shows- any story where the satellite photos show usefull or at least pretty details displays the Google logo for all to see.

Re:Can we quit this once and for all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job pulling the '99% useful' number directly out of your ass.

There's really nothing you can think of that could be improved with a search engine? Google is really 1% short of absolute perfection? Real context-sensitive search wouldn't be a massively huge improvement? Real language-understanding-based search wouldn't kick ass?

Re:Can we quit this once and for all?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know you've achieved perfection in design,
Not when you have nothing more to add,
But when you have nothing more to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint Exupery. quoted in James Gosling, Henry McGilton. "The Java Language Environment"


Ironic, to the point of absurdity, that this would be in a java book.

What AOL is really for

[ewe2]

Is so Microsoft can own ICQ and AIM. They don't want Google winning IM, so this kills two birds with one stone: present a credible competitor for anti-trust monitors while taking over most of the IM market. I'm not sure Microsoft won't ruin the advantage they gain with this, however. Turning everything into MSN isn't everyone's idea of IM heaven. Who cares about the subscribers? It's the network infrastructure and IM audience they want for Microsoft Internet.

Re: Kmart/Sears

[benjamindees]

Seriously, Kmart/Sears is a match made in heaven. As already pointed out, they basically have to merge to compete with WalMart.

Last year, I was sitting in my car in a Sears parking lot wondering why I have to drive all the way across town to buy decent tools, and wondering why anyone would otherwise shop at Sears. Then it dawned on me: Sears should merge with Kmart. A month later, Kmart announced the bid.

This article is a PERFECT example

[Anonymous Coward]

of a website working on a perceived problem instead of their core problem. Editorial review should be core. Website sizzle shouldn't be.

You're telling me there isn't ONE unemployed English major that could screen these articles for spelling, grammar and nonsense?

Howto counteract

[Anonymous Coward]

If M$ starts a war against google they can simply use their power to destroy microsoft.

Just promote firefoz to IExplorer users in the front page. Lest, talk them about open office, gimp and so...

It can be much more painfull for Microsoft than for google.

In a nutshell...

[Hosiah]

This is like if Target wanted to "kill" Saks Fifth Avenue. So they buy Kmart.

Bad publicity?

[Lifewish]

If they were caught doing that then, because of Google's aforementioned mindshare, top MS execs would be getting lynched left, right and centre. It'd almost certainly get into the more thoughtful newspapers, and would just encourage people to go get firefox.

Unless MS messed with Firefox too.

Re:Bad publicity?

[masdog]

Messing with Firefox is what concerns me more than messing with Google. Google is big enough to survive Microsoft. Short of reprogramming IE to redirect you to search.msn.com everytime you tried to Google, I don't think that MS can actually kill it.

What concerns me now is that MS is buying the primary source for Firefox. If Microsoft decides that the intellectual property that is Netscape should be closed again and require royalties from Mozilla, it would effectively kill the free browser. I don't know if they can do it legally, but with enough lawyers, they can tie it up in court long enough to force a settlement.

Re:Bad publicity?

[Lifewish]

They can't. This is the power of Open Source - once you've sent it out into the world, you can't call it back. Very handy in situations like this.

Re:Bad publicity?

[masdog]

Do you really think that will stop MS from trying, though?

Re:Bad publicity?

[shmlco]

But losing your patron and and your primary development team both at the same time could be a major blow...

Re:Bad publicity?

[Lifewish]

Yes. These days they try to be more subtle about their attempts to break the law. It's all part of their New Shiny Image [tm]. And suing someone for using/distributing code to which they were given a perpetual license allowing use and redistribution would be comic at best.

Read the parent...

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent was saying that B&D tools that were tooled better, but more expensive, didn't sell. When they change the name, they sold.

Rather like buying a ratner's diamond ring...

AOL, Mapquest, and Google

[brunes69]

Anyone else find it weird that AOL uses Google Adsense to display location-specific ads in Mapquest, and lists Google as a "partner", even though Google has it's own competing maps site?

MS buying a share in Google makes this relationship even stranger. AOL uses Google for ads all over the place. And MS also has it's own mapping site.

AOL? WTF?

[DrIdiot]

Most the people I know don't even use AOL anymore.

I think I know more people with cable or DSL than people who still use AOL.

And I don't live in a little nerd world.

Time Warner - "AOL is not for Sale"

[McSnickered]

TheInquirer has an article quoting the Time-Warner chief as saying that AOL is not for sale:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26387 [theinquirer.net]

Still playing catch up

[thebdj]

Seriously, Microsoft is primarily concerned with Google because I think deep down they fear that Google will decide to hop into their much more lucrative fields (i.e. Operating Systems and Office Suites). Microsoft is fighting a losing battle online. They got a late jump on the internet. Everything they have tried online, from webmail, to messenging to internet service started too late and could not compete with AOL (as much as I hate saying that) and now losing to broadband.

Look at sights used for web searches and of the major ones, MSN has to be one of the least used. I am sure some people do not mind the clunky and overloaded website design, but most people I know prefer the cleaner google, or heck even Yahoo is typically cleaner in appearance then MSN.

MSN Messenger is quite seriously a joke. Here is a service that few people really use. AOL IM stills has the majority share here as well since they were one of the original IM services. They also bought up another "original", ICQ. Yahoo, I believe is probably 2nd in the IM race and has a strong support base from its e-mail service and people who use Yahoo as a primary search tool.

I think Microsoft needs to stop worrying about trying to make too much money off of their web-based applications and continue to focus on their bread-winners, Microsoft Windows (TM) and the Office series. Quite simply these bring in more money, and there is no real foreseeable end to the need for Operating Systems and Office suites. But in typical fashion, they will try to buy their way into a market and be the anti-thesis to innovators.

Re:Still playing catch up

[FreshFunk510]

Hrm. I think quite the opposite.

I don't think Microsoft is concerned about Google moving into the OS and Office suite business. That's just not in their space. While Google is building more consumer software, their aim is to index the world's information.

Like you said, Microsoft was late to the internet game and now they're seeing the results of it. Google is getting all the buzz in the internet/information space and, to put it frankly, Microsoft is jealous. Microsoft is like that cute girl that's in the room, and Google is that super fine chick that suddenly grabs every guy's attention. THAT is why Microsoft is jealous... not to mention that Google is kicking Microsoft's ass in the internet space, they're making boatloads of money, the stock is going insane and almost every programmer wants to work for Google. Microsoft feels neglected.

For Microsoft JUST to stay in Windows/Office is like signign it's own death warrant. Yes, that's where they make all their money but every company needs growth. Without growth the stock doens't move.. in fact it goes down because no money is to be made there. With the stock going down, it's harder to attract talent. Like someone said yesterday, you end up with ossification.

There's no doubt that the next big era of computing is on the internet, not on the desktop.

Re:Still playing catch up

[GauteL]

"MSN Messenger is quite seriously a joke. Here is a service that few people really use. AOL IM stills has the majority share here as well since they were one of the original IM services. They also bought up another "original", ICQ. Yahoo, I believe is probably 2nd in the IM race and has a strong support base from its e-mail service and people who use Yahoo as a primary search tool."

MSN Messenger is by far the most used IM system in Europe. It may be behind in the US, but it is making serious inroads in other parts of the world.

Re:Still playing catch up

[Tezkah]

MSN Messenger is quite seriously a joke. Here is a service that few people really use. AOL IM stills has the majority share here as well since they were one of the original IM services. They also bought up another "original", ICQ. Yahoo, I believe is probably 2nd in the IM race and has a strong support base from its e-mail service and people who use Yahoo as a primary search tool.

Nobody uses it? MSNger doesnt have an email service to back it up? Have you not heard of hotmail?

AIM is #1, MSN is #2, and Yahoo is #3, but they are pretty much evenly distributed:

According to online audience measurement firm comScore, in July 2005, AOL's AIM had 30 million unique visitors, slightly down from usage one year ago; MSN Messenger grew 11 percent to 25.9 million unique users; and Yahoo Messenger grew 16 percent to 25.6 million.

From here

Please, stop making things up when trying to get modded as "insightful".

Re:Still playing catch up

[Shawndeisi]

I think Microsoft needs to stop worrying about trying to make too much money off of their web-based applications and continue to focus on their bread-winners, Microsoft Windows (TM) and the Office series.

The problem with playing Ostrich is that Google is going to come at microsoft with guns blazing in a few years. You can bet your ass that Google is going to put some of its web application brainpower towards online office applications. I would use it in a heartbeat over any MS office application. Web applications are going to be the future as you see more and more users with more than one computer.

I would much rather be able to exchange open formats (the practice of which google has been backing profusely) on a web app, especially when I could use the exact same application on Linux, OSX, and Windows (shudder.)

As soon as Office and other key microsoft strongholds have powerful, innovative web-based counterparts offered by google, your platform is no longer a concern. You can migrate to Linux with impunity. D'oh.

Re:Still playing catch up

[Anonymous Coward]

Operating Systems and Office Suites

They already have competition there. So they now have to kill free/open/etc software/source/yermama *and* Google.

MS - What a sorry excuse for a company

[the eric conspiracy]

Is that the best they can think of? Someody else comes up with a good idea and executes it well, and is rewarded by attracting customers. The American Way. Now that sorry sack of shit company in Redmond gets pissed because there is a company out there who is doing things right. Like the local chapter of the Mafia they don't like anyone horning in on their territory, and vow to kill the bastard.

What happened to all the 'innovation' that MS as been preaching? This surely isn't it. It iis classical monopolisti anti competitive behavior - use the cash flow from your market monopoly to crush any potential competitor. It is anit-innovation to the max.

Disgusting.

Re:MS - What a sorry excuse for a company

[KillerBob]

It is anit-innovation to the max.

Radical insight, dude....

Re:MS - What a sorry excuse for a company

[Anonymous Coward]

Go north of the border. Here in Canada, everyone uses MSN Messenger. I tried switching to AIM, but nobody knew what AIM was. Me, being primarily a Linux user, was forced to download gtmess because I was in need of a command line IM client. The results have been less than savoury, and I wish everyone would stop using MSN.

If you purchased any Microsoft product

[Anonymous Coward]

you ASKED for this!

Then Everyone on Yahoo would switch to Google

[tjstork]

All in all, Google should be cheering at the organizational hell that a merger between MSN and AOL would be bring, because, at the end of the day, the result will be a total disaster for Microsoft.

All those Yahoo advertisers depend on Google searches and site ranking to find them. If MS goes and tries to shuffle them to MSN, they'll just balk and advertise through Google instead. The end result would be that MS would be holding two proprietary internet services that don't interoperate instead of one, with no advertising base. And, if it got really nasty, Google could just drop MSN sites slightly lower in its search result, and it could also lower queries about Microsoft APIs and developmental web sites and steer developers towards Linux solutions instead.

If Microsoft goes and makes a browser that breaks Google, Google users will switch even more to Firefox. If Microsoft goes and makes an operating system that breaks Google, end users will not upgrade. Google really does have Microsoft over a barrel.

What Balmer Should NOT Know

[jd]

It wouldn't have to visibly redirect you. In fact, since Google is financed through advertising, redirecting the search isn't the important part. All you have to do is redirect the advertising banner. Since AOL users will likely access through AOL servers, all it would require is for AOL to proxy all HTTP requests, find the ones for the banner ads, then redirect those to an MSN banner advert server. Actually, since Microsoft controls 98% of all desktops, it could be done even easier. Don't do any filtering at all, but simply change IE so that whenever you go from Google to another site, the HTTP header is mangled to look like the browser's previous page was on MSN.

Both of these would be invisible to the user, very difficult for Google to spot, but visible to advertisers and sponsors, which would potentially cripple Google's revenue stream. (This is why advertising is a lousy business model - anything that exists only on a logical level is totally mutable, making it easy for people to steal.)

Re:What Balmer Should NOT Know

[stony3k]

IANAL, but wouldn't that be illegal? Isn't behavior like that the reason we hate adware/spyware? I'm pretty sure Google would be able to sue MS if they pulled something like that.

Re:What Balmer Should NOT Know

[Hortensia Patel]

all it would require is for AOL to proxy all HTTP requests, find the ones for the banner ads, then redirect those to an MSN banner advert server [...] very difficult for Google to spot

Why difficult? It'd be trivial for Google to get an AOL account, set up a webpage to show only a known set of Google-served ads, and look at that page in the AOL browser in the presence of independent witnesses. If any ads show up that aren't in the known set... bingo, smoking gun.

Unless the proxy shows the same ads, in which case why would the advertiser care?

Re:What Balmer Should NOT Know

[jd]

I'm not sure it would strictly be illegal, as Google has no contract with AOL or even with the users. For example, if you had a web cache sitting between Google and the consumer, the request for a Google advert would still not reach Google, but web caches nonetheless exist (in America and elsewhere). Indeed, it is the lack of transparency in the web cache for banner adverts is the main objection to them. (The second is the lack of transparency for DRMed content.)

Likewise, a script has no control over how the computer (or any other computer) interprets that script. That's the main reason software companies claim exemption over lemon laws, as it is impossible to know in advance how a program will run. In consequence, if Google's HTML gets directed elsewhere, Microsoft/AOL may be able to claim that they're exempt from "restraint of trade" laws as the way the HTML is interpreted is not dictated by Google but by the recipient's OS and browser.

Oh, it should be illegal, but I'm not convinced that the courts would agree. Hell, Microsoft even convinced the courts that Windows 98 was a different OS and not Windows 95 with the browser built into it and a few bugfixes. (Microsoft was prohibited from building the browser into 95, but by calling the combined package Windows 98 the deal was circumvented.) Although Microsoft was eventually defeated over blocking DR-DOS within Windows 3.1, DR-DOS had changed hands twice and the original company had suffered crippling damage. Microsoft could easily have four, five maybe even ten years between being discovered and anything being done - by which time Google would be as dead as a doornail - and the penalties almost couldn't begin to compare with the profits MS would stand to make if that happened.

Re:What Balmer Should NOT Know

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of this (bad style, and surely illegal somewhere), IE7 could just offer a nice new feature, and filter Google ads. Of course this is just for the customer's convenience, ads are just such a nuisance, and of course you choose yourself whether you use it.
 
Oh, sure it is turned on by default, why are you asking?

Re:What Balmer Should NOT Know

[Trepalium]

It could be argued that altering a web page in-transit like this would be creating a derivative work, and therefore could be copyright infringement. I'm sure a lot of other things would be tacked onto such a lawsuit, including the ever popular anti-trust violations and trademark violations. This is all speculation because IANAL, of course.

Re:What Balmer Should NOT Know

[Khyber]

Actually, since Microsoft controls 98% of all desktops,

Got references for that? Last I heard it was around perhaps 90%.

Power move hahahaha

[Greefer]

Well I guess they would be buying some users that would not need to search the net via google. AOL Keyword = Oprah As for the rest of the people on the net .. just not gonna happen.

Obligatory Ballmer 'roid rage link

[higuy48]

http://www.ntk.net/media/dancemonkeyboy.mpg

My favorite part has always been when he actually hurts himself in the middle of it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

(Microsoft reads slashdot)

[stinky wizzleteats]

Oh, yes, AOL will totally annihilate Google. Whatever will Google do if the unspeakable power of AOL is brought to bear against it? The world will end if Microsoft buys AOL. Woe, etc.

convincing?

besides the mindset - people use MSN still

[dindi]

MSN is still the default search engine when you type crap into IE, and grandma, grandpa, or non /. non geeky non internet literate people just do that.

Besides that I noticed how fast MSN is indexing nowadays, if they continue that they could even compete without buying shares.

Also they are preparing for their PPC (pay-per-click) launch.

But they cut the tree/shoot themselves in the foot again with their search SDK.

Why ?
Yahoo / Google offers search apis for perl, php, c++ (platform indipendent solutions)
ans MSN is again a windows download and no other examples ...
Why not?
Supposedly msn is just XML (as far as I read the specs, so unless they M$-ized the format you can write your own stuff in PHP or whatever else still.

Still why not make a few lame functions or examples in PHP/PERL/C just to mention a few...
I mean it is not rocket science to parse XML/SOAP but hey if you give an exapmle code it says: try it it is easy and we come with good will.... ahm it is microsoft i almost forgot :)

Re:Let's try again. re: Quantum Link

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if it was intentional but you just punned (I'm assuming you did it knowingly). AOL used to be the Quantum Link service marketed largely to Commodore users. Anyway, great post! :)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Also, what's the worst that can happen?

[serutan]

Google would lose as much as $380m of advertising revenue if AOL dropped its search engine and took on MSN's. That would cut Google's profit by something like 25 per cent, potentially giving its huge share price something of a tumble

A 25% dip in profits wouldn't exactly "kill" Google. A loss that size could happen to any company in a bad year, including Microsoft if people don't fall in love with Vista.

AOL & MS have different work cultures.

[managedcode]

Moving MSN into Products and Platforms means, they are now under direct supervision of Bill. MS has aggressive work culture while AOL is packed with laid-back typical corporate Americans. Bill will first fire Ballmer if he bought AOL or they will buy AOL minus it's lousy employees.

Better hurry

[geoff lane]

'cus the way google is going, buying up dark fibre and installing wifi access, it's pretty obvious that they want to provide services direct to users and bypass the ISPs entirely.

MS may end up buying AOL just at the time when it becomes irrelevant.

All they can possibly do is

[advocate_one]

keep resetting the default search back to msn everytime the AOL client gets launched despite the customer's preferences...

If they do do this, then they can find themselves right back in court for abusing their monopoly position...

There is no other way they can possibly hurt Google except by continuously FUDding them into the ground with scare stories about Google being a gateway to pron and/or whatever the current bête noir is... remember, think of the children...

Google and Yahoo

[Anonymous Coward]

...should merge.

Or perhaps that's only the first stage...

[ShadowBot]

in thier plan.

Consider:
1.) Microsoft buys AOL, switches AOL to MSN search
2.) Google profit predictions skydive
3.) Google shares skydive even more (becuase Wall street is panicky like that)
4.) Microsoft buys Google switches GOOGLE to MSN search and dances on Google's grave!!!

I apologise for any heart failures above scenario might have caused. But Microsoft's evil like that!

That'll Never Work-Forrest Gump.

[Anonymous Coward]

"To quote Bullet Tooth Tony, "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity." People are, and always will be, stupid."*

To quote me. Never underestimate the desire of an elite crowd to point out, every chance they get, at how stupid the rest of the world is compared to them.

*Are you saying you're stupid too?

Re:That'll Never Work-Forrest Gump.

[Krach42]

"To quote Bullet Tooth Tony, "Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity." People are, and always will be, stupid."*

To quote me. Never underestimate the desire of an elite crowd to point out, every chance they get, at how stupid the rest of the world is compared to them.

Well, I don't think it's an unfair assessment to make, when surveys have shown that about 1/5th of all Americans think the sun goes around the earth. Of course, this may have just as much to do with our education system, as anything else. People may come from all over the world just to study here, but it's not because of our superior programs, it's because of our superior opportunities.

I've generally found that each and every single individual is intelligent, and rational. But occationally, even the most intelligent or rational person will make a stupid choice, or believe something stupid. Some more than others. Some will convince themselves so heartily on a piece of stupidity that they will defend it to the grave, in a vane attempt to save face, or some unwillingness to take a good look at it and say, "Holy crap, I'm a moron."

*Are you saying you're stupid too?

Him? I don't know. But me? Yes, on quite a few occations, I'm stupid, also. And I sincerely hope that people point it out to me, when I am.

Re:That'll Never Work-Forrest Gump.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I don't think it's an unfair assessment to make, when surveys have shown that about 1/5th of all Americans think the sun goes around the earth.

Do they ever do these surveys where people get paid to get the right answers? It might change the survey results...

Was there ever a time

[MECC]

When the best competitor won, instead of just the most deceptive, violent, and aggressive?

Wouldn't it be better if the company best at providing search results and other virtual views of the internet came out ahead, instead of the one best at killing off the competition with anything but quality service and products? If the winners are always the ones that are simply better at getting rid of competitors, what hope of betterment is there?

Isn't the inevitable outcome of this direction that we get better at getting rid of others, as opposed to getting better at doing and making things?

I'm not so certain innovation is what draws geeks

[brokeninside]

So much as the implementation. At its core, Netflix isn't doing anything other than what libraries and rental shops have been doing for decades. What makes Netflix different is their execution of the business model: good selection, prompt service, decent price.

My eyes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus H. Breakdancing Christ, I'll never complain about the Slashdot colour schemes again after Ring the TFA. I haven't seen that shade of green since GEM on the Atari ST. They should be convicted for Assault with a Deadly Shade of Green, with Conspiracy to Blind.

WANG!

[StoryMan]

What happened to Wang? (Is it Wang! (with an exclamation mark?) or just Wang?)

I remember Wang. I don't know where I remember Wang, but it wings a bell.

Isn't it more likely...

[tkrotchko]

Seems to me that AOL has sent Time/Warner into a half-decade tailspin.

If I were Microsoft, I'd tread very carefully. Its almost like the management crew over at MS still thinks AOL is the enemy and that they're somehow beating them by buying them.

If AOL were to do to MS what they did to Time/Warner, it would be a dictionary example of "irony".

re: Microsoft vs. innovation

[kupci]

Nope. Actually, Compaq (IIRC) "innovated" there... by reverse-engineering IBM's BIOS and producing compatible hardware.

Yes, it was Compaq's 386, and IBM's poor strategy, that benefited Microsoft. IBM made many mistakes, for great reading see Robert X. Cringley's Accidental Empires book. Among the problems - IBM underpowered the original IBM PC, and then was slow bringing out the 386. They tried to make the hardware proprietary, by using the 'Microchannel' architecture, the market didn't buy it and went with Compaq's 386 architecture instead.

So the whole innovation deal, that open source just copies, but doesn't innovate, is baloney, one only needs to look at Microsoft. Which came first, Turbo Pascal or Visual Basic? Mosaic or Internet Explorer? Java or C#? ln -s or Microsoft's smart links? etc etc.

But this whole innovation argument is annoying Microsoft FUD. Rather, Microsoft seems to follow the kaizen model, i.e. constant improvement - look at Windows 3.1 to Win 95 to Win XP. And Visual Studio is a great IDE. And this is exactly the situation with Google. I think we'll see Microsoft improve, just as Windows has improved with Linux competition, and C# is an improvement on VB with Java competition, however just like these apps won't be destroyed, neither will Google, since it's outside the realm of MSFTs desktop realm.

Quite Simple

[blooba]

It's quite simple really. Microsoft writes crap software, while Google writes excellent software. Microsoft: crap, Google: excellent. Microsoft will therefore never, ever come anywhere close to being able to even dream about killing Google. To think otherwise is a joke of the highest order, a farce, a sophomoric folly.

Three words: AOL Time Warner

[Behrooz]

AOL was already the quantum link to killing AOL Time Warner.

You have to admit that there aren't a lot of entities big enough to lose more money with AOL than Time Warner already did. Maybe M$ going for the worst-acquisition-ever record...

NO, not quite

[UberXY]

If MS buys AOL, it won't be GOOG that gets killed - it will be AOL. OTOH, if Google were to buy AOL, and then team with Apple with OS XI running on Intel, then we can all sit back and watch MS decline. xAOL employee

Google 'OS'

[ShadowsHawk]

What I'd really like to see is an OS free computer. With Google providing internet access, it would be interesting to see a computer that runs all of it's apps directly over the net. I suppose it would be similar to the old mainframe system where you used dummy terminals to run applications. Still, that could effectively wipe out the need for Windows. ShadowsHawk

Re:Google 'OS'

[RodgerTheGreat]

It's called a "thin-client", and the idea has been bandied about the industry for some time. Personally, I see the idea as a huge security risk- you think DRM is bad now? Imagine if content "providers" didn't just have access to your player application when you're online, they had physical access to your machine?

"Sorry, the content of your account has been deemed illegal, and your access has been revoked. The Police are being informed. Have a nice day!"

I could see the AOL crowd going for the idea, though... not that Microsoft's letting it happen if they complete the buyout.

Re:I'm not so certain innovation is what draws gee

[Baricom]

Most libraries and rental shops don't mail your selections, or (especially) let you keep them as long as you want for a flat rate.

Re:I'm not so certain innovation is what draws gee

[spectre_240sx]

Don't forget about their system of tracking what movies you're interested in. While I would certainly never pay for such a service without something else attached, it's a very big bonus. It's also one of the reasons I try to get all my friends to get a netflix account because then we can reccomend movies back and forth via the service. This type of integration really helps to sell the service.

No, *this* is the real plan to bury Google.

[lasindi]

1. Microsoft buys up a chair manufacturer in Silicon Valley.
2. Have Ballmer stand in front of Google HQ.
3. Tell him that a few more Microsoft employees are moving to Google.
4. Get out of the way.

Re:No, *this* is the real plan to bury Google.

[FxChiP]

This WWE HARDCORE match is scheduled for one fall!

Weighing in at 185 pounds, he is the world Hardcore Champion, the CEO of Microsoft, STEVE, BALLMER!!!

And weighing in at 193 pounds, he is the CEO of Google, Inc., ERIC, SCHMIDT!!

*Ding ding ding!*

Bet you guys anything that Bill Gates interferes. ;)

Actually most libraries do

[brokeninside]

But only if you're blind. For as long as I can remember, most libraries have programs to mail audio books to blind people, let them keep them as long as they want and mail the next selection upon return of the previous selection. I don't know for certain, but I'd wager there are federal dollars behind this.

Mod Parent Up, Grandparent is smoking crack

[Tezkah]

MSN Messenger is by far the most used IM system in Europe. It may be behind in the US, but it is making serious inroads in other parts of the world.

Here in Canada as well, MSN Messenger is the King of IM. Other people I know (mostly USians) use AOL IM, and very very few use Yahoo! IM. Making AIM and MSNger compatible would completely decimate the amount of users for things like GoogleTalk and Yahoo! IM. Why bother with Jabber servers and getting everyone to switch to GoogleTalk when *everyone you know* uses an MSNAIM compatible client already? Brilliant strategy for winning on the IM front, really.

The Truth (Overheard at DEMOfall 2005)

[Stitch_Surfs]

at http://demo.com/demofallDEMOfall 2005 someone cleverer than I said:

Google is the new Microsoft
Microsoft is the new Yahoo!
Yahoo! is the new Google....

It Could Be Interesting

[fupeg]

Personally I don't care if Microsoft or Googles dies/wins/{insert melodramatic verb here}. But this could be very interesting. Google has been able to take an unusual business tactic of promoting lots of disparate innovations and then trying to find ways to monetize them. To be honest, it hasn't really worked all that well -- yet. Their lack of monetary success on these fronts has been easily hidden by their massive success in their "old" business: search related advertising. That old business brings in billions that fund all the new businesses, that don't bring in much money (yet.) So what happens if Google has a down quarter where their revenues slipped significantly. Their revenues have generally gone up every quarter since their IPO, so that would be a huge change. It would be interesting to see if they would try to cut costs if their revenues were slipping. They might mean less Google Labs projects. Or maybe they would stick with their same business model, even though that might mean a huge drop in their stock price. Either way, it would be interesting to see how they "grow up" in the face of real adversity.

The real way to use AOL to kill anything...

[eagl]

AOL killed Time Warner by tricking the board into the merger, so the best way for anyone to use AOL to kill anything is to get the target to buy AOL.

That'll Never Work-Hard-working Tool.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you're a only using the tools a few hours a year its not a big deal, all day long its a huge difference. The main reason Black and Decker tools are not used by professionals is because in the long run, its less expensive to have a quality tool that lasts and performs well."

*note to self*
Don't buy the B&D penile implants.

Agreed to a point-- MS, Pheonix, and Compaq

[einhverfr]

The PC revolution would not have happened without Pheonix, Compaq, and Microsoft. This being said, Microsoft and Phoenix were probably the main innovators (Phoenix on technical matters and Microsoft on business matters). Compaq merely happened to be able to be at the right place at the right time to take advantage of both.

Now look at Linux today. It is more effective at commoditizing hardware than Windows is, not only because it runs on a wider range of architectures, but also because it allows one to use old systems in dedicated roles with new versions of the software. You can still run a small DNS server using the latest versions of Linux and BIND on an old 80486, for example. Note that NetBSD might een have an advantage in this area but has less mindshare than Linux. This would never work on Windows because there is no incentive to allow people to run computers for this long (if they did, upgrade rates would suffer).

Part of Microsoft's problem is that they have become the established competition. They have to avoid having disruptive technologies/methodologies introduced that could cause them to lose substantial market share. If they lose enough, their business will implode. For Windows (last I checked a 40% profit margine) I think that this is about 30%, for office (72% profit margin), they could afford to lose maybe 60% before they find that this is simply not worth their while (these numbers assume a slight decrease in price due to competition but nothing drastic).

IANAL, but I don't think that Microsoft can "kill" Google without serious legal consequences. As a convicted monopolist, the bar for antitrust lawsuits is set fairly low, and they can't really afford to lose any more suits (the problem is something that lawyers call "collateral estoppel" where every suit they would lose would add to the facts that Microsoft would be prevented from relitigating. The antitrust judgement against Microsoft could be compared to a minor scratch that just barely draws blood, but those who think that this is too lenient fail to note that it is as if they are in water heavily infested by dangerous sharks.

Huge numbers of abusive practices of all kinds...

[Futurepower(R)]

Not just "abusive marketing practices". Huge numbers of abusive practices of all kinds, so many that it might be impossible for one person to document them. Here is just a hint: Microsoft has never been a trust-based company.

Windows 98 had a memory management scheme which would cause it to crash if too many programs were opened. Resellers are required to disclose the names of their customers. Microsoft invented new protocols for connecting to the internet, which, predictably, were found to have security vulnerabilities. With the introduction of Windows XP, Microsoft began integrating its own computers with those of its customers. Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser is amazingly buggy.

Here was an early attempt of mine to document the problems: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. I only began to scratch the surface of the abuses.

AOL/Microsoft merger

[Bent Mind]

Hmm, I have to think about this for a minute. Microsoft going after Google by buying AOL. Funny, I always thought AOL would be the one to kill Microsoft (thinking more about AOL customers than AOL itself).

AOL does have a lot of customers. However, that's not all they have. Thinking back on my favorite Windows applications, one of the best alternative media players was WinAMP. I still use XMMS, a WinAMP clone. AOL owns WinAMP. Back when instant messageing first started to become popular, you had AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo, and ICQ. AOL bought ICQ. I still use ICQ. As I recall, AOL also owns a nice chunk of Netscape technology. It would be interesting to see Microsoft buy AOL. Merge WinAMP into Windows Media? Merge AIM and ICQ into Messager? Merge Netscape into IE? I'm really glad I have Google Talk, Xine, and FireFox now.

Not really the news: Great evils combined.

[Futurepower(R)]

Not really the news: The world is waiting to see what happens when great evils are combined: Microsoft will buy AOL and Yahoo and combine it with MSN, and call the combination CyberHell. Visitors to CyberHell will get hundreds of pop-up ads, none of which can be trusted. Searches will provide links to companies that have paid for placement.

No More!

[guilhermesa]

This is plain frustrating and depressing. We need more revolutionists to end capitalism. I hope everyone realizes what is really happening. All the rage Microsoft has towards Google just works for their advantage as a mega-corporation. The more these monsters expand, the less competition/innovation for the industry, definitely not a benefit to the consumer. We're forever going from benefiting the public to benefiting the corporation. In the largest sense, it's clear to see this isn't the best model. The question is how long will it take? But I don't care, its gona take time... and I'm getting older dammit.

They are (Microsoft) above all fat and strong. It's very easy to start buying out niche markets, deploying similar technologies, and ultimately, if Google doesn't move quickly enough, start to lead the market with similar business models. All of Google's legacy trashed in the garbage. They better move to better search algorithms because soon I'm sensing someone else will (perhaps ADIOS?). Fuck, the bubble bursts!

Truthly, I don't know who to go for. Money Money Money! If you're smart enough you know this is not how you win things. How do you win without it anyway? I guess this isn't my time...

Wow

[spx]

Isnt this all like when you see a really hot chick with a really ugly man....

Google uses Linux.

[Futurepower(R)]

Google's hundreds of thousands of computers use Linux. Certainly not a Microsoft OS!

Re:Aol... Music

[seweso]

Well AOL music is pretty cool, I listen to it pretty often. See http://www.seweso.com/blog/Winamp%20Music%20Mooi.m 3u for some songs (you need a pretty up-to-date version of winamp).

Monopoly

[advb89]

If they do, it will yield yet another Microsoft>Monopoly lawsuit...

Micosoft wages too many wars these days

[Anonymous Coward]

From the good old days of M$ destroying any chance of netscape being popular they've gotten a bit too cocky for their own good I say.

Wage yet another battle, m$ vs linux, m$ vs firefox, m$ vs openoffice, m$ vs google. If fairly sure i've covered the most of them so far though im sure m$ is currently picking a few more fights.

But like old master say 'a good warrior is one that dies on the battle field'.

m$ popularity, once upon a time was that 'windows is a must have' soon enough it will be (and for many it already is) 'windows is one of 2 choices in the market the 2nd one (linux) doesnt hold any hefty licence fees'.

What m$ should do is walk to middle line, admitt that they are not the only software vendor on this planet and devise ways of marketing their product to comminucate with the market they are trying to cater to, invest in value adding and value for the client. Insted they rather go off trying to sue everyone and above all this will be m$'s undoing.

Yet another truckload of money invested in a pointless waste of time, good one microsoft your making it easier for people to make their choices.

I really do hope...

[jd]

...that you're right. I think one thing that makes me nervous is things like the "smart" markup tried be some companies on browsers that have added hypertext to pages. (Microsoft did that, for a while, IIRC.) I don't recall lawsuits over that, even though the pages were functionally different, not merely logically different. It disturbs me that so many thought it a good feature and that the biggest reason it never happened was that the IE team had largely moved on by then.

U.S. citizens: Weep for your country.

[Futurepower(R)]

The Court's Findings of Fact in the Microsoft antitrust case lists 207 pages of abuses.

Microsol?

[ady1]

or maybe Microsol and move their headquarters to tyrian sector

Re: Kmart/Sears

[Rosyna]

wondering why anyone would otherwise shop at Sears

Someone obviously hasn't seen the softer side of Sears.

Why "Kill" Google? Because it's Netscape #2.

[dallaylaen]

You have forgotten the main reason: Microsoft hates the whole "thin client" concept, because it makes the "desktop" thing irrelevant. Most windows apps (even open-source) are damn hard to port to other OSes... except for those that are really just front-ends.

Basically that's the same reason they wanted to kill Netscape.

I'm not stating anything new here, it's all Joel: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

The Google's business model is commoditizing the "end user's computer platform". Too bad for MSFT.

Also, Google is getting too mush control over the Internet. If I control all the people's cars, I'm Overlord... Until someone takes over the oil and suddenly is on par with me. Worst nightmare (I don't control the cars, just an example).

That said, I find parent's posts completely valid, maybe except for #2: surely it's running Linux but than what? Not so much publicity...

But anyway Google *is* helping Linux. I've found Googling howtos/manuals easier than reading through windows/office/whatever help files that silently assume I'm dumb and don't want any choice :-P

You can know in advance..

[Khyber]

Likewise, a script has no control over how the computer (or any other computer) interprets that script. That's the main reason software companies claim exemption over lemon laws, as it is impossible to know in advance how a program will run.

I call bullshit. It's called Alpha Testing (within the company,) and Beta Testing (public testing.) That's how companies figure out if a program will work or not. In fact, that's how most, if not all, software companies work, with maybe the exception of Microsoft, which we all know/love/hate/slam/bash due to reputation/bugs/lax support/etc.