Google's Patents Reveal Strategy To Beat Microsoft

and then... by Rui+Lopes · 2005-10-01 00:44 · Score: 5, Funny

in 2020, everyone in /. will be bashing google. History will repeat itself.

--
var sig = function() { sig(); }

Re:and then... by Barryke · 2005-10-01 00:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Indeed, we will bash Google in the (be it near or far) future. I'm perfectly convenient using their 'tools', but when i think of what their future innovations will mean to my privacy it scares me.

--
Hivemind harvest in progress..
Re:and then... by kubevubin · 2005-10-01 01:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Are you referring to the "privacy" that is already being gradually eaten away at (thanks to the government), anyway? At least Google is a little more upfront about it, and their invasion of our privacy isn't in the same way that the government (and God only knows who else) is attempting to invade our privacy. Google is supported by advertising, and I really don't mind the way that they're going about creating a more personalized brand of advertising. It's not as though they're using any of the information that they're collecting to persecute anyone.
Re:and then... by ashwinds · 2005-10-01 01:02 · Score: 5, Funny

.... only difference is Google will /. /. and bring it down
Re:and then... by aurb · 2005-10-01 01:07 · Score: 3, Funny

And Microsoft will be in the same position as IBM is today... I mean will support Linux, be cool, and everything...
Re:and then... by cortana · 2005-10-01 01:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

You're worried about _Google_?

Do you carry a cellphone? :)
Re:and then... by BewireNomali · 2005-10-01 01:25 · Score: 4, Funny

You're a subpoena away from persecution in a Googleplex world, buddy.

--
un burrito me trampeó.
Re:and then... by LiquidCoooled · 2005-10-01 01:38 · Score: 5, Funny

Also, in 2020, everyone on slashdot will still be saying "this is the year for Linux on the desktop".

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:and then... by ergo98 · 2005-10-01 02:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google's has an extraordinary business sense, and a proven ability to completely redefine the market, however it is good that the ridiculous Google honeymoon is finally coming to an end. It is bizarre seeing some of the fawning and admiration for a company that shares a startling number of similarities to the widely reviled Doubleclick.
Re:and then... by fermion · 2005-10-01 03:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Many have been concerned about google for quite some time. They have been quiently and not so quietly consuming the advertised-paid-for search market, thier algorithm is aging and increasingly easy to attack, and many portal products, like froogle, seem to be in a constant beta state, while other products like toolbar seem less like a useful and more like an intrusive ploy.
What is most worrying is that few seem to be worried about the lack of real compitition. Given google declinng result quality, where is the compitition. Though the results seem to be getting no worse, there must be better ways to do searching. However, with MS pushing thier solution, and Google seeming like the new big thing, I gues no one wants to fund it.
So just like 15 and 20 years ago when many of us were saying that MS was good for some things, not everything, and the market should encourage options, history is now repeating itself when we will give up diversity for some immidiate percieved simplicity.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:and then... by jacksonj04 · 2005-10-01 04:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Or use a credit card? Or store loyalty cards?

These know far more about you than Google, it's just that Google has the skills to mine the data effectively.

--
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Re:and then... by ZorinLynx · 2005-10-01 05:17 · Score: 2

Yeah.. when you gotta choose between having grocery money or reading a stupid PDF, you know someone's a bit greedy. }:)

Has anyone actually paid up to read it? I'm curious as to what kind of copy protection a $180 PDF file has. If not, post it somewhere anonymously so we can all read it. I'm sure it'll piss the author off something fierce, but if he's that greedy, he deserves it....

-Z
Re:and then... by SillyNickName4me · 2005-10-01 06:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Both aim for delivering individually tailored ads to people, but there are some subtle differences.. Google provides those people with a service while doubleclick does not. Google has a pretty good track record with regards to selling your info to others, Doubleclick has not,. I think you get the idea here.

That said, Google is a company that is there to make money, every other thing they do ultimately serves that purpose.
Re:and then... by Prof.Phreak · 2005-10-01 06:08 · Score: 2, Funny

by 2020... we'll all have flying cars!

--
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Re:and then... by anthony_dipierro · 2005-10-01 06:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

At least Google is a little more upfront about it, and their invasion of our privacy isn't in the same way that the government (and God only knows who else) is attempting to invade our privacy.

Google is about as upfront about it as the government. You know they have a lot of information about you, but they won't tell you what it is. Actually, in that sense the government is in some ways better - you can file a freedom of information act request to find out just what it is the government knows about you (although they will likely only give you a partial answer). The big difference is that most people have a reasonable choice whether or not to interact with Google. It's much harder to avoid interacting with the government.

Google is supported by advertising, and I really don't mind the way that they're going about creating a more personalized brand of advertising.

My main problem with them is their lack of a data retention policy. You don't need the full history of every search a person has made over his entire lifetime just to send some ads.

It's not as though they're using any of the information that they're collecting to persecute anyone.

Companies change. The management changes, the ownership changes, etc. Google probably isn't using any of the information in a bad way now, but who knows what they're going to do 5, 10 years from now. Right now, the government probably can't access very much of Google's data unless they have a specific court order. Who knows how true that's going to be 5, 10 years from now. A data retention policy is key. IP addresses, browser information, and anything else which could help identify a person should be decoupled from the rest of the data after a few years. If it is kept at all, it should be limited to how many hits came from a particular IP address on a particular day. Cookie information should be wiped after a while. As much as possible, the information should be aggregated.

Yes, there also need to be tight controls over who can access the data at all, it should be limited to those with a need to know and audit trails should be kept on who is accessing what. This part is already being done according to the reports I've read. But data retention is key.
Re:and then... by shokk · 2005-10-01 06:19 · Score: 2, Funny

The President Google 3000-node cluster does not appreciate your comments. Your bank accounts and information have been erased, and a SWAT team will be sent to your door to collect your lifeless body. Have a nice day, and don't forget to click on some AdSense ads before we kill you.

--
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."

Baldy's got it figured out by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 00:45 · Score: 5, Funny

That's OK. According to Baldy, Google will not be around long enough to enjoy it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=microsoft+%22 i'll+kill+google%22&btnG=Google+Search

Not really accurate by arkham6 · 2005-10-01 00:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Comparing MS and IBM is flawed imo. IBM was the big company before the rise of personal computers that felt it was unstoppable in its world, and did not have the foresight to see that personal computing would someday overtake server style computing. They truely thought that only big corporations would need computers.

MS on the other hand is aware, paranoid actualy that they will be dethroned. While their leaders may act out in stupid and juvinile ways (throwing chairs anyone?), they are aware of the problem and will fight tooth and nail to keep from being dethroned.

Re:Not really accurate by ty_kramer · 2005-10-01 01:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Microsoft's paranoia will not be enough.

Their intractable problem is that they're chained to their Windows/Office franchise. Every new technology they consider must first be 100% guaranteed not to harm Windows and Office. It's a rear-guard action, one that will absolutely cause them to fail in the next five to ten years, assuming the network will eventually trump the desktop. In a world of fast wireless everywhere, it has to. And that world will be here within the decade.

The beauty of it (and horror, if you're Gates) is that a public corporation really has no choice but to protect its cash cows. If Bill were as smart as he thinks he is, he'd have split his company up a few years ago. Heck, he could have used the antitrust trial as cover and whined publicly while getting his company reshaped in a way where it could compete in a network-everywhere world. Maybe split into Windows, Office, and MSN companies, all free to compete the heck out of each other. Sure the stock would have taken a hit at first. But right now, the Office company would be selling bunches of Linux Office licenses. The Windows company would be coming out with a lean, mean Linux-based Windows. The MSN company would be neck and neck with Google in terms of web-based applications. And the combined stock prices of the three companies would be smoking the currect MSFT price. Gates would be so much richer than he is now, it would be astounding.

But Bill is shackled to Windows/Office. And he's not brave enough to radically remake his company in a form that can compete in the 21st century. And if he were, he'd probably face 1000 shareholder lawsuits when the stock price initially plummets.

Game over, it's just a matter of watching it unfold.
Re:Not really accurate by rtb61 · 2005-10-01 02:20 · Score: 4, Funny

It is already to late for any changes to microsoft to have any great significance in it's future. They are confused, disorganised and trying to go in too many directions at once. They are attempting to defeat four adversaries at the same time, IBM in service, google in search, open source in core software programs and sony in game consoles (the future lounge computer). All that has really happened is the management of microsoft started to believe their own publicity (industry geniuses) rather than reality (lucking out, being marketing trolls and abusing a monopoly).
Microsoft have a history of copying every one else and never really originating anything. This means always playing catch up and this was fine where the could abuse their IBM and Intel provided OS monopoly to cripple a competitor but when it came to search and the internet it wasn't possible even with internet explorer and it's pre-configured favoratism to msn search (of course it is too late to block access from internet explorer to google). The big thing was MSN search did basically suck, it had such a bias to paid advertisers in front of user experience that it was basically useless and drove people to google (no different to the others that threw away their market leadership yahoo ,alta vista, ask jeevs, infoseek i.e. greed driven stupidity)
Why the jounalists continue to ignore the impact of "do no evil" and the basic underlying respect for the end user in preventing greed from killing a business in the highly competitive internet search enviroment I do not know (perhaps it doesn't sound good or sell marketing product or promote profits over customer experience). Google had no free ride, they competed for users by providing a better more reliable search experience and won. They are just expanding the services whilst adhering to the principles that made succesfull in the first place.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Not really accurate by bmajik · 2005-10-01 02:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why do you suppose a Linux Office would do well ?

- 1) the facilities available on linux/X windows to make something like office are lacking. It's not an intractible problem, but you've got a lot more richness in the Windows platform that the Office team would need to get from _somewhere_

but, the much bigger issue is:

- 2) Nobody is going to pay for Office on Linux. People that run linux on the desktop are not interested in buying anything from Microsoft. They're usually not interested in buying anything at all, software wise.. but certainly not from Microsoft. I don't see Office for Linux driving linux adoption, so i don't see lots of new customers coming to the space either.

I might entertain the idea that Microsoft would work better split up. But most people that make this argument assume that a split-microsoft will produce Office for Linux. I don't think it will ever happen. To be honest, a large part of the comments on this story are about how google will win with server/web centric apps, etc. How would Microsoft investing heavily to make a thick-client app for a minority player primarily used by a market of people who hate paying for software and hate microsoft more than Stalin, be a good, moneymaking move ?

It is illustrative to look at the MS products for Macintosh. The availability of Office/Mac has not had some staggering effect on Mac penetration. One reason MS makes mac products is that lots of Mac people are more than willing to buy software.. they already paid too much for their computers, and 95% of stupid utilities for macs have been pay-ware (not as much with OS X inheriting a large unix base and unix attitudes about homebrew development.. but historically speaking), so the Mac user traditionally has been extremely willing to pay for software, thus making it a market worth considering.

When the # of people willing to pay for Office/Linux, times the selling price (call it $199 (ha ha)) is larger than the cost to develop it, Microsoft will make Office for Linux. I don't see that ever happening.

--
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Re:Not really accurate by IntlHarvester · 2005-10-01 02:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Every now and again you stumble on a Score 5 post which seems to have been routed in from Bizarro World. And you get tidbits of wit-n-wisdom like this:

+ Microsoft's greatest strength (Windows/Office Monopoly) is actually their greatest weakness. No really. They have a direct channel to push technology into stuff that everyone buys and uses, but it will ultimately fail because they can't sell "Ad-Words" or something.

+ Linux is the answer to all Microsoft's problems -- they only way they can handle the current non-factor of the Linux desktop is by coming out with Linux Office and Linux Windows, which wouldn't really improve their situation but Linux is like cool and stuff and isn't that a good enough reason?

+ 10 years from now, Microsoft will be in trouble. They might make two trillion dollars in that period of time, but I will eventually be proven right.

Ultimately these sorts of posts sprout directly from the melancholy and frustration you see in the Linux Advocacy world as reality has sunk in. Linux has not been competitive in any meaningful sense on the desktop. Microsoft does not have any huge immediate structural problems that would cause them to collapse (as boldly predicted by ESR and others in the late 90s). In other words, there's no real end in sight. At least not one you can count on.

Ultimately there's not a lot of insight in "Game Over Microsoft ... eventually". Eventually this will be true, the world will change, corporations rise and fall. But that doesn't change the current situation one iota.

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:Not really accurate by east+coast · 2005-10-01 03:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

one that will absolutely cause them to fail in the next five to ten years

I've been hearing this very mantra out of the Linux/open source community for years. Microsoft is still as strong as they were then. I heard great stories about how an OS called Linux was going to be mainstream and the revolution was going to happen quickly and, seemingly, out of nowhere. Now the same Linux crowd, probably out of frustration, is looking for Google to destroy Microsoft. Oh well, I guess in a few more years I'll still be hearing the samething about some new shinny trinket.

If Bill were as smart as he thinks he is, he'd have split his company up a few years ago.

As true as this statement may be (and I'm not even sold on that), why do you take Gates as a fool? You may think Gates is a thief or a fraud, fine, but to underestimate Gates is a bad thing, if you see him as an enemy. It's odd how much of the /. crowd seem to think Gates is an idiot when he's the one sitting high on a mound of gold in his vast empire and those of the slashdot crowd posting are lucky to be moved out of our mothers basement.

But Bill is shackled to Windows/Office.

Do you really buy into this web app noise? Not to say that it's not going to happen but not in the next few years. I'm still looking for a web app beyond e-mail that is worth it's time.

--
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Re:Not really accurate by e2d2 · 2005-10-01 03:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Their intractable problem is that they're chained to their Windows/Office franchise

When you got 40 Billion in liquid you aren't chained to _anything_.
Re:Not really accurate by SerpentMage · 2005-10-01 03:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, the matter of the fact is that Microsoft is not aware of the problem. They know that Google is a problem, but they don't know how to solve the problem because they have the wrong question.

Here are the things that Microsoft does not understand.

1) It's about the community, not the company. Microsoft believes that if they offer compelling technology then people will buy it. The reality is that people have "good enough" and buy into things that make their lives interesting, (VOIP, Google Earth, etc)

2) It's about the content and not the software. The Blackberry device was cool because it gave access to email. Take about the email content and the Blackberry device is not so cool. Google understands this, and Microsoft does not.

3) It's about simplicity and not complexity. Microsoft is about complexity and adding features. Google is about taking a single concept and making it interesting and useful (search, gmail, adwords, etc)

If you look at the latest announcements Microsoft talked about tons and tons API's that mimic what Google has. Yet it is not about tons and tons of API's. It's about enough API to do the job without becoming complex. The problem is that Microsoft has too much "inbreeding" and likes to listen to itself. Is there a solution to Microsoft? Nope, not really. Microsoft's highwater mark was reached a couple of years back.

As much as I like C#/.NET (and I really do) they cannot extinguish Java. Java keeps growing and going! Just there is proof that the dominance of Microsoft is waning.

--

"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Re:Not really accurate by wkitchen · 2005-10-01 04:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Companies buy MS Office licenses. Probably the vast majority of MS Office licenses. And that's not likely to change just to facilitate a switch to Linux desktops. But it's also not likely to change just because some of their users are running it on Linux instead of Windows (if a Linux version existed). I think that if a company's MS Office site license included both Windows and Linux versions, the resistance to allowing at least some of their users to switch to Linux desktops would be reduced. So, Office for Windows might not "drive" linux adoption, but it would remove a significant road block.

Of course, that's not the only road block. So, all by itself, it wouldn't magically make Linux a viable desktop OS for everyone. But it would almost certainly result in SOME increase in useage. It wouldn't be overwhelming, but it might be enough for other software publishers to start feeling some pressure to support it. It doesn't have to be a majority to be worth supporting. A significant minority market share, say 20%, would be hard for software vendors to ignore. Because many environments are mixed, ignoring 20% of the platforms could drive away much more than 20% of your customers. All else being equal, which are they going to choose: a product that supports 80% of their desktops, or one that supports 100% of their desktops? And as it gains wider support, that paves the way for growing even more market share. Though I would actually hope that it never achieves quite the dominance that MS enjoys. Diversity and competition are good things.

"Office for Linux" may not be enough to get Linux to that point. But it would be a very good step in that direction.
Re:Not really accurate by mattgreen · 2005-10-01 04:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nice retort, but I must say it is rather cruel to shove this whole 'reality' thing into people's faces, especially on a site like this one. They might even discover there's more to life than the licensing scheme of their chosen operating system!
Re:Not really accurate by Datamonstar · 2005-10-01 05:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Extreme Programming: When you derive randomly chosen names for your arrays by bludgeoning your enemies on the head with your keyboard.

--
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
Re:Not really accurate by po8 · 2005-10-01 06:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
Point by point:
- Microsoft's greatest strength (Windows/Office Monopoly) is actually their greatest weakness. No really. They have a direct channel to push technology into stuff that everyone buys and uses, but it will ultimately fail because they can't sell "Ad-Words" or something.
  
  It is starting to fail now, but for a different reason. Governments don't like businesses to control them. In particular, governments don't like foreign businesses to control them. Every time Microsoft tries to use its channel these days, they're hit with sanctions of various kinds. Every time they try to extend their reach into a new market, they're slapped down in various ways. In the not-very-long run, this is a problem for them. How happy do you think Microsoft is about what's going on in China? Europe? Massachusetts?
- Linux is the answer to all Microsoft's problems -- they only way they can handle the current non-factor of the Linux desktop is by coming out with Linux Office and Linux Windows, which wouldn't really improve their situation but Linux is like cool and stuff and isn't that a good enough reason?
  
  A relatively easy and inexpensive way for Microsoft to confuse the issue on open formats for data storage and interchange would be to release its office suite for Linux. An incredibly difficult and expensive way to hinder open source in cannibalizing the applications market would be to provide a proprietary module for Linux that permitted running all Windows apps properly. I don't see large benefits to the Linux community from either approach. The office suite has already been re-commoditized by open source. Ditto for the browser. Nothing Microsoft will do in either space can undo that. Microsoft has a reasonable amount to gain from getting their products onto open platforms, and the open source community has little, as near as I can tell. Whether they embrace Linux or fight it, though, they have a genuine problem in the application space.
- 10 years from now, Microsoft will be in trouble. They might make two trillion dollars in that period of time, but I will eventually be proven right.
  
  Sometimes changes happen quickly in the computer business. Sometimes they are very slow. When you have more than $80B in the bank, bet on slow. That said, Microsoft is fighting a three-front battle right now, and on every front it's against their own customers or potential customers. The open source folks want to ignore them, at best. Governments want to neutralize them. Google wants to eat their lunch. Any one of these three are a formidable adversary. I think you'll be surprised how much decline you will see in a short time if Microsoft doesn't find a way to quickly and effectively cope with at least one of these three threats.
Re:Not really accurate by ty_kramer · 2005-10-01 13:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

I see MSFT chained to Windows/Office to the tune of $275 billion, their current market cap.

Wall Street doesn't like earnings your earnings to go up and down, while you try something wacky in the hope that someday it'll be more lucrative than your current business model. Look at Microsoft's financial track record -- always meeting or slightly exceeding earnings expectations. The nice, steady growth rate. No big surprises, up or down.

It's the same with the music companies. They're afraid to go whole-hog with electronic music delivery in the hope that it might eventually make them more money than selling discs. (Of course, in their case, it won't. Oh darn.)
Re:Not really accurate by Darth_Vito · 2005-10-01 15:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do you really buy into this web app noise? Not to say that it's not going to happen but not in the next few years. I'm still looking for a web app beyond e-mail that is worth it's time.

Although I agree with several of your comments, this one is somewhat narrow minded. There are a lot of things that could be classified as "Web applications" that do not necessarily have an icon on your desktop. Some examples include:
* Amazon
* Ebay
* Google
* Dictionary
* Wikipedia
* even Slashdot

These "Web applications" are probably more heavily used by people than the aging Microsoft Office. I can use them from my Treo, which also happens to be a mobile phone, an MP3 player, and much more. Microsoft has a lot of work to do in order to keep from becoming irrelevant.

Am I stupid for not seeing this? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 00:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

Microsoft write an operating system and Office suite - their cash cows.

Google's cash cow is google adwords and google adsense.

Where's the competition between the two? where's the overlap in markets with REAL income, not late 1990s tech bubble crap that doesn't actually bring in $$ to the companies.

Re:Am I stupid for not seeing this? by DeadSea · 2005-10-01 01:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Microsoft is slowly losing their cash cow of operating systems and office software. Linux and open source software are poised to take over this area. Microsoft sees Google moving into new markets that they feel they should have been able to monopolize as well.
The good news is that Google doesn't have quite the strangehold on search that microsoft had on OS and office software. The best Google can do to maintain a monopoly is patents which are hopefully less holding than Microsoft's vendor lock in strategy. Nobody has to use the same search as everybody else to be compatible. Any individual is free to choose a search engine. If MSN search and Yahoo get their act together and gave Google a real run for their money, everybody would win.
Re:Am I stupid for not seeing this? by cowscows · 2005-10-01 01:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think there's a couple big points that the author of the article is missing. If this whole network apps replacing local apps really happens, it's not going to happen the way he thinks it is, for a couple reasons. One reason is open standards. Anyone who makes the switch from MS, a big reason for it is likely to be to escape the file format lock-in that MS inflicted for so long. Corporations won't blindly walk into that again. Along the same lines, I don't think any company, or too many people, will allow all their files to reside on some remote server somewhere. That doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons.

Second is an economic reason. If you're going to buy some software, wouldn't you rather have a copy of it on your desk, installed on your own machine? I would imagine Google trying a subscription style payment system, which i think people will be reluctant to accept. It just takes too much control away from the user, and gives it to the company.

But even if all of this does happen, I still don't see Google holding onto any sizeable monopoly for long. Open standards will allow just about anyone to offer a competing system. Google won't be able to pull the same underhanded tactics that MS did. And nobody wants to be subjected to another monopoly.

Google is just intensely overrated. Yeah, they make some cool stuff, and at one time, they had a search engine that was very useful. But I don't know how far that's going to take them. There's two things that they use to make money right now. Search, (which I don't think they do nearly as well as they used to), and advertisements (spam!). While portable email might be useful enough that people will cope with having it decorated with advertisements, I don't think they'll feel the same about word processors, or powerpoint, or whatever.

Anything that Google does to seriously threaten MS will mean them venturing away from what they're good at, and into new stuff. Sure, they've got smart employees, they might get it right, but they also might screw it up. The strongest thing Google has going for it right now is its brandname, but that's an easy thing to ruin.

--
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Re:Am I stupid for not seeing this? by mzwaterski · 2005-10-01 01:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

If AJAX apps are going to beat downloaded software they are going to have to get much faster. I don't care if thats some innovation in the apps or just the increase of broadband connections, but I would never use a word processor that forced me to wait while it bolded something (at least not when I have an alternative). I would also be a little concerned about what would happen when the internet connection goes down.
Re:Am I stupid for not seeing this? by jav1231 · 2005-10-01 01:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've asked myself this. My opinion is that Microsoft doesn't like to be beat at virtually any game. They have MSN, Hotmail, and Messanger. The idea that someone would beat them out, or in this case stay well ahead of them, bothers them. They're paranoid that Google will enter into other spaces. Also, don't discount the fact that Microsoft has probably put a lot of similar technologies in the cooker that Google has been working on. That being said, I'm still convinced that to a great extent they just don't want anyone out growing them. Google could get big enough to endorse or push their own OS (doubtful) or even an office suite. OTOH, Microsoft is the one benefiting from all of this Google hype. The more Microsoft can make Google look like the bully, the more "journalists" will fret that maybe there's a huge shift coming. What will it mean? What will become of computing? Then the FUD machine from Microsoft can whip the entire technology sector into a frenzy. I'm not sure of the entire strategy, but I'm fairly convinced that Microsoft is glad to see all of this hype.
Re:Am I stupid for not seeing this? by bogaboga · 2005-10-01 01:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your concern on speed is valid. AJAX applications could be installed on a local intra-net. Here, the speed issue would be solved.
Re:Am I stupid for not seeing this? by Asphixiat · 2005-10-01 02:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

for argument's sake - lets assume google make _some_ AJAX word processor..... you'd be able to run the app locally, as perhaps it's open source....bundled with apache? for a local server on the corp LAN? and the public can use the AJAX app on line, and save onto their desktop....on windows, or Ubuntu? Mac or Cell phone, blackberry? Or into their google internet 2Gb storage? Let's hope they use OASIS

Man, the app - if open sourced - could even be branded with a school logo, or corporate mascot/symbol/porn star :) The webapp doesnt have to save remotely at all if the user doesn't want to, thats why AJAX rocks, POSTs and GETs dont require you to reload the page when you choose an item from a combo box, and other nice UI features that ....until now.... have been taken for granted exclusivly on the PC. Just type away, mail merge from your address book (you have google mail too right?)

I too am hopeful for the future, but MS could aquire Adobe/Macromedia, and achieve the same result with flash paper....but I would trust Google's webapp over MS's if I was choosing which software to deploy in that type of environment. Add google desktop search, integrated with related searches online.....Google might also have a retail ISP B2B style, where they provide coffee shops with WiMax, but maybe that would be phase 2 :)
Re:Am I stupid for not seeing this? by bushidocoder · 2005-10-01 10:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

You should look into the Terminal Services enhancements in Windows Vista. They are allowing single applications to be remoted, very similar to what you can do with X today only with integrated authentication and session management. Furthermore, the Vista client integrates full desktop integration, including drag and drop support and mapping to file types. On a LAN, you can double click on a Word doc on machine A without a copy of Word installed, machine A will search the domain for a server with open liscenses of Word, AD windows authentication will transparently authenticate the connection for you, and Word will open on machine A - the user likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
I don't know if the next version of TS works like this, but in theory given their new drawing system, all of the rendering for animations could be send as XAML instructions from the server and rendered through on the client, which would decrease server load and make the system more responsive to the user. No server delay when you open a menu because the XAML for the menus was already pushed to the client.
The way they've put it together, you would be able to distribute Office in much the same way Google could, but with a significantly better user experience. Enterprises would probably still go with MS. Foreign governments are a stretch, but I doubt they'd trust Google any more than Microsoft - if they bail on Office and Windows, it'll be for OO.org and an open source desktop.
From all indications, the Office 12 file format is open enough to satisfy almost everyone's requirements. In a bind, MS could make that file format available to previous versions of Office as a free download to keep people in the Office brand.
I don't think Microsoft is scared about the competition in the Office space, because they haven't started priceslashing Office yet. Remember - if OO.org or Google starts putting them into a bind, they can reduce the purchase cost of Office to beat the TCO savings you get from a competitor. Office 2003 paid itself off a long time ago - they could always offer Office 12 at a premium, and continue to sell Office 2003, only at a significant markdown rate to certain markets if the going gets tough for them.

The cycle continues by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 00:51 · Score: 2, Funny

Then, 20 years from now, compuglobalhypermeganet will re-revolutionize the industry by introducing the 'Toster' paradigm; google (and everyone else for that matter) will be unable to understand this company's buisness model, and thus they will become the industries new kingpin.

$180 for a PDF by porksoda · 2005-10-01 00:51 · Score: 5, Informative

"The Google Legacy" (Infonortics, $180.00 per download) is available in online PDF version only.

$180 for some guy's opinion on google, go fuck yourself.

Re:$180 for a PDF by jtgeibel · 2005-10-01 04:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is just some guy trying to sell a book. The "news article" is just some publisher trying to draw on the hype around Google to sell this book. The book is actually only available in .pdf format and according to the publishers site is: "Written for business readers, especially senior executives of mid to large-sized, knowledge-based corporations".

Reading the free sample chapter it is even more apparent that most of the claims he uses to back up his argument just don't make sense. For example, he claims "Google's ability to read data from many computers simultaneously is reminiscent of BitTorrent's technology." Honestly, there is probably little similarity between an algorithm optimized for reading data from multiple computers and an algorithm optimized to spread the pieces of a file to many different computers so that they can all share in the bandwidth of distributing the file. Rather, Google's technology tries to organize many copies of data across multiple computers, and then balance the load between the cluster while creating additional backup copies of data when one of the computers dies and stops responding. Such a statement sounds good to senior executives at a large corporation who probably do not understand any of the underling technology, and the author seems to only be riding on the hype of other high profile technologies. I don't see skype mentioned anywhere in the sample chapter, but would be surprised if it isn't mentioned in one of the other chapters.

Plus his "unauthorized snapshot of Google's computing framework" makes absolutely no sense and the second figure shows the "fission occurring" as Google's "software engineering for higher performance" and "hardware engineering for reduced costs" come crashing together. Is this guy for real?

What he has is guesses about some of the exciting things that Google might be developing, but I do not believe history is about to repeat itself and turn the tables on Microsoft, or that Microsoft is in any danger of being run of out the software industry anytime soon.

Google Patents by Frankie70 · 2005-10-01 00:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

From TFA
"In a broader sense, Arnold believes Google is building a "patent fence around search" technology as the firm moves to codify its unique competitive advantage."

Is this good or bad?

Re:Google Patents by Timesprout · 2005-10-01 01:27 · Score: 5, Funny

You must refer to your /. double standards manual. Paragraph 1.1.12 clearly states that when MS patent stuff its bad, when Google patent stuff its good and the whole patents are evil issue is a no go.

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Re:Google Patents by whatthef*ck · 2005-10-01 01:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

"In a broader sense, Arnold believes Google is building a "patent fence around search" technology as the firm moves to codify its unique competitive advantage."
It's obviously bad, but do you notice how Google gets a pass from the overwhelming majority of the Slashdot community?
Re:Google Patents by metternich · 2005-10-01 02:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Indeed, I don't really understand Slashdot's love affair with Google. They say "Don't be evil, don't be evil, don't be evil" a hundred times, then go around and do things that most slashdotters consider evil and somehow we are myopic to this and get stories like Google's 7th Birthday and raw raw raw Google and so on.
I suppose anyone who is in the crosshairs of Microsoft gets lot of slack on Slashdot, like Apple with their DRM. If it were any other company, this is would be virulently denounced.

--
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

Yeah, yeah by nagora · 2005-10-01 00:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wake me up when Google can deliver a good search engine (I know they currently deliver the best search engine, that's not the same thing at all).

To say nothing of the fact that Microsoft got a free ride from IBM to their current position; I can't see MS doing the same favour for Google, can you?

And finally, why would anyone want to rely on a net connection to be able to write a letter, or trust a remote company to hold their data, or basically use any of these web-technologies pundits keep claiming are the next big thing? The world of users was ebullient when it shook off the shackels of having to connect to a mainframe to do work; why would they want to give that freedom up? Normal users, that is - I can see some attractions for stupid PHBs in companies. Google Maps is good, but would I rather have it running on my machine? Damn right I would!

TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"

Re:Yeah, yeah by fish+waffle · 2005-10-01 00:58 · Score: 4, Funny

Google Maps is good, but would I rather have it running on my machine? Damn right I would!

No, i don't think you would. You would probably find it a bit of a resource hog.
Re:Yeah, yeah by PGC · 2005-10-01 01:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

"And finally, why would anyone want to rely on a net connection to be able to write a letter, or trust a remote company to hold their data, ... " Because it's so easy and oh so handy ... anyone with half a brain wouldn't trust a remote company to hold their data...too bad most people have less.

--
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
Re:Yeah, yeah by metricmusic · 2005-10-01 01:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

why would anyone.... trust a remote company to hold their data

I'm not gonna answer why because everyone will have their own reasons but what I can say is theres not a shortage of them. These are the same people who use web based email and they will be the same people Google targets already (but not exclusively).

As to:
" rely on a net connection to be able to write a letter"

I wonder hwo many google/hotmail/yahoo users type their letter in notepad and then paste it into their browser before sending.

--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
Re:Yeah, yeah by Pastis · 2005-10-01 01:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

> why would anyone want to rely on a net connection to be able to write a letter,

why would anyone want to rely on electricity to be able to type a letter?

why would anyone want to rely on a typing machine to be able to type a letter?

why would anyone want to rely on ink to be able to write a letter?

why would anyone want to rely on rock to be able to carve a letter? ... progress ...

think universal remote access
think ultra thin client
think always connected
think reduced costs
etc...

--
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
Re:Yeah, yeah by leshert · 2005-10-01 04:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah, it always amazes me that we've been talking for years about web platforms, etc. No one wants to have to be logged on to write a quick letter in a word processor.

You might be too young to remember this, but that was for many years the last reason for many electric typewriter holdouts. "Why would you want minutes for your computer and word processor to start before you can type a letter, then have to wait another couple of minutes for it to print out?"

Those were valid points at the time, but as office workers moved to a mindset of having the computer powered up all the time, and as printers became shared resources, the objections were overcome.

So, applying the same ideas, I can see a situation in which being logged in to your PC (or whatever device is filling its shoes) means you're also logged in to whatever distributed applications you use. Microsoft tried this with Hailstorm, but public trust in Microsoft was around its low point at the time (assuming it hasn't significantly dropped since then), and they couldn't pull it off.

History never repeats itself! by Nahooda · 2005-10-01 00:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

During my studies in history I've learned that history _never_ repeats itself. Simply because if there's a situation _similar_ to one from the past there are a lot of factors that are simply completely different.

Regards,

Dennis B. Schramm

--
Sigs suck!

Google will beat Microsoft? by backslashdot · 2005-10-01 01:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

By selling advertising? Great for google. But what about me? I'm going to be inundated with advertising and products that never come out of beta? Or will they release "Google OpenSolaris"? Oh, maybe they'll introduce "for pay" google? That's when I switch to yahoo.

Anyway, if I was Microsoft .. I'd be shitting bricks over Apple.

When they release OS X for x86 that can install on general computers, people will be screwed. Corporations may switch to Apple because there won't be fear of single vendor hardware lock in (no need to pay $$ for xpensive replacement parts). And most damning for microsoft the overall cost of Windows will have to drop to $49.99 resulting in mad revenue decline.

Plus due to Napster's totally lame advertising, and mp3 player competitor's lack of design ability, Apple will make buttloads of $$ off entertainment devices like how Sony did in the 80's and 90's. Only way Apple can lose momentum is if the price of flash drops to $1 or less a gig. And they have to compete with $9.99 mp3 players.

Microsoft can kill Google any time they want to. by Andy_R · 2005-10-01 01:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

Simply ship Internet Explorer with a adblock feature that blocks Google's ads, then Google's revenue stream gets turned off overnight.

--
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a

Oops major TYPO! M$FT not people will be screwed! by backslashdot · 2005-10-01 01:04 · Score: 2, Funny

in parent post I meant to say microsoft will be screwed .. not people will be screwed. People will benefit obviously!!

Google and Privacy by HateBreeder · 2005-10-01 01:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

I wasn't really worried about Google's intentions until I've seen the latest "features" they added to their homepage.

You might have noticed the: "Personalized Home" thing at the top left of your browser.
In order to implement this feature, Google, obviously needs to know who is actually looking at the page, so that it could then personalize it - therefore, you need to "Sign In" to use the page.
To me, this seems like a way to masquerade their true intentions.
By "Signing in" you're actually letting Google know more information then it requires...
You're not only "Personalizing" their homepage, but you're actually creating a mapping between a "user" and a "search".
In other words, Google would now have the ability to know (same account as GMail) which user looked for what - beyond GMail (where they know what each user read).
If you combine all this data, you get a HUGE database containing personal information.
You'd be surprised how much one could learn just by looking at another person's search queries.
I'm sure that in the following years Google would unveil many more features that would practically lead to them having access to ALL of our personal information.
They're just taking it slowly, one step at a time.

This seems to me like a privacy nightmare.
Are we to let Google have all this information, while we sit aside, hoping they'll protect our data based solely on our good faith?

Remember, that by not using their services, you're private information is not protected.
It's enough that 1 person would have your contact information on his GMail account, another would have your e-Mail and some questions you asked. Google would just have to cross-refer and find whatever they like.

--
Sigs are for the weak.

Re:Google and Privacy by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · 2005-10-01 01:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Easy. You're a middle-aged nostalgist who knows about computers, and you like Buffalo wings. You know you need to work out but haven't quite gotten around to it. You're looking at changing jobs. Your wife is religious.
The scary thing is it doesn't matter if these conclusions are wrong--just the fact that there's a dossier on each of us that is inevitably going to be sold (think of what value some prospective employers or insurers would place on these kind of data, for example).

--
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.

Re:Innovate or die ! by MyLongNickName · 2005-10-01 01:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yup. They invented the search engine. And web based e-mail. And keyword based advertising.

Nothing wrong with using other people's ideas. They have implemented them better than their competition (I use gmail, personalized search, etc). But their products are not revolutionary despite what their fans may thinh.

--
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year

I don't think so by Kawahee · 2005-10-01 01:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Google rules the web, Microsoft rules the desktop (and has a sizeable arm in the server market). I think it's fair to say that Google isn't all that related to Microsoft. Sure, Microsoft and Google have overlapping interests, but Microsoft's main income comes from Windows, and from Office.
Does Google have Google OS? No.
Does Google have Google Office? No.
Does Google have free email? Yes.
Does Google have a search system? Yes.

Where Google competes with Microsoft, it succeeds, where Google doesn't, the industry is owned my Microsoft. And don't say OpenOffice or StarOffice or Linux is going to be killing MS anytime soon. StarOffice 7 was an MS Office killer, what happened to it? Nowhere. StarOffice 6 was an MS Office killer, what happened to it? So was version 5. Linux is meant to be better, but it's not gaining inroads in anywhere but the server market. It might be getting ready to approach the desktop market, but it's not going to do it successfully. And in the server market, Linux servers are used less than Windows servers (35% Windows, 35% Unix, 30% Linux, FreeBSD's in there somewhere SOURCE: /. article). Linux is a Windows killer, we don't see Windows being used less. We see that people are stopping the switch to Firefox, switching back from Linux, staying with Windows and Microsoft Office, despite these "MS-Killers". Google will stay, but it's not going to compete with Microsoft unless it starts an OS war.

--
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.

Re:I don't think so by HikingStick · 2005-10-01 01:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

Does Google have Google OS? No.
Does Google have Google Office? No.
Does Google have free email? Yes.
Does Google have a search system? Yes

I believe these questions need some revision:

Does Google need an OS? No!That's the real beauty and the real threat of Google. Microsoft still assumes that everything needs an OS. Google is proving time and again that the OS is nothing in the long run. Google is acting on something Microsoft considered a threat 10+ years ago--that the Internet may become an OS unto itself (not in the true sense of OS, but in the sense that its platform negates the need to run a proprietary OS like Windows).
Does Google have the technology to release Google Office? Yes! Blogger already shows that you don't need a client app to have a robust word processor. The same is true for spreadsheets, presentations, and messaging (which they already have). The weak link would appear to be a DB, but the deployment of a web-based database engine would not be too difficult for them.
Can Google enhance it's email system to provide the functionality of Outlook? Yes.
Does Google have a better search system? Yes!

--
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...

Microsoft will suffer pooooor IBMs fate! by kclittle · 2005-10-01 01:20 · Score: 5, Funny

Oh, no! MS will fall to the wayside, just like IBM! Alas, such a fate!

Uh... IBM's revenues for 2004 were in the $96B range, with profits in the $8.4B range. http://www.ibm.com/investor/1q05/1q05earnings.phtm l Pooooor IBM, Pooooor MS...

--
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.

Re:Microsoft will suffer pooooor IBMs fate! by craXORjack · 2005-10-01 02:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

They make that much money from OS/2?!
I kid. You make a good point. Many folks who consider themselves techno-literate seem to think that the computing world is defined by wintel pc's and that everything else is a stunted offshoot of that. I hate to think what kind of genesis story these people would come up with if we had an apocalypse and had to start over: 'In the beginning was the IBM PC and it was good. But the most powerful of the gods, the one called Gates became jealous of the PC and slew it and its body became the Earth and its storage became the oceans and the rivers. And in this new age the Blue Screen covered the whole of the heavens bringing Death to the wicked and uninterupted employment to the community college dropouts. And it was good...'

--
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.

What's this RTG office killer? by tcoady · 2005-10-01 01:20 · Score: 5, Informative

From TFA He notes that Google's RTG feature already implements some 70 percent of the functions of Microsoft Office;.

What is that? The real time guardian in talk? Nothing obvious here: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define:rtg

shifting value: hardware, software, services by G4from128k · 2005-10-01 01:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

IBM thought they were king because they thought hardware was the real source of value. MS proved them wrong as Windows/Office software became the standard and PCs became commodities.

MS thinks they are the king because they think software is the real source of value. Google is out to prove that services (search, gmail, froogle, adwords, etc.) are the real source of value.

MS knows this and is trying to get into services, but I wonder if MSN search et al are the OS/2 of the day -- a dinosaur's attempt to compete on a changed playing field.

--
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

Their motto by Crixus · 2005-10-01 01:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well... let's just hope the Google motto rules the day.

Don't be evil. (or something like that)

However, in a market economy where ruthlessness is required to protect assets, I don't see how Google can compete with a company like MS, WITHOUT being evil. The question it, how will the fallout affect normal people. Will the fallout be evil?

--
Ignore Alien Orders

companies that do well against MS by Danathar · 2005-10-01 01:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Companies that do well against microsoft specfically DON'T try to compete head to head with them. Microsoft's strategy has always been to bait a competitor to compete on their turf and then steamroller them.

It's been proven that if you create a product that's good, that people want to buy AND you don't sit on your ASS while Microsoft copies and then bundles your product with windows, you CAN succeed and flourish.

Remember....you don't have to BEAT Microsoft in order to win.

Re:Microsoft can kill Google any time they want to by Andy_R · 2005-10-01 01:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, I don't think they do have to be subtle about it. Adblockers are legal, and it wouldn't surprise me if ad/popup blocking was the most requested feature for IE7.

--
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a

Will google make a better master? by oogoody · 2005-10-01 01:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

We are not better off if google beats microsoft. The new boss is the same as the old boss, just different methods.

For what google is up to: http://radio.weblogs.com/0103955/categories/stupid HumanProgramming/2005/09/21.html#a200

"They are building a real time customer profile on your real identity. This is a very valuable commodity as it gives google the ability to sell high value campaigns to advertisers.

This may are may not seem obvious to you, but it struck me in a tetris like way how all the bricks fit together if you are trying to build up a real time customer categorization system that can be used across all properties. Other companies might do the same thing using a portfolio approach. But google has taken a less direct Sun Tzu Art of War approach.

If you notice google doesn't create word processors or accounting programs. Almost everything they do is about getting content and getting you to provide an identity to them. ..."

There's one born every day by FishandChips · 2005-10-01 01:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

"According to 'The Google Legacy,' history is about to repeat itself."

History never repeats itself. I guess this guy is a little optimistic if he thinks folks will pay 180 dollars for a cliche that isn't true in the first place. Ebay is the place to sell cliches, I guess.

"When you have a problem with Windows, always reformat and reinstall" - what am I bid, $150, $180, $200??!
"Linux is the wave of the future" - opening at $8, no $10 to the gentleman on my right with the beard and sandals
"No one ever got fired for buying IBM" - we have telephone bids for $500

Besides, it's a bit premature to talk about the "legacy" of an outfit that's till in its infancy. Microsoft has $50 billion in cash, annual profits of around $12 billion and a vast monopoly. They aren't just going to roll over, stick their legs in the air and die.

--
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï

(Something insightful goes here) by SuperDuG · 2005-10-01 01:38 · Score: 5, Informative

Here's my problem. Well let me list my precursor problems first. 1.) Why is it that everytime someone writes some stupid story about google that it ends up on the front page? 2.) Why is google any more different than any other successful IT company? 3.) The search engine war is never EVER going to end.

Google is in no way shape or form a Microsoft company. Microsoft is a solid company that makes software, hardware, and a crap-ton of other things. They are not a "one really whizbang product" kind of company. I'm not an MS fan boy by any meas, but lets face facts here, MS is bigger, stronger, and richer than google. No questions asked, they are, period.

However, this brings up an interesting problem. Everyone thinks that MS is going to fail, but give them time, they have just recently announced that they plan to topple google. Let me remind everyone of some past MS "failures" and company's that "Couldn't be beat". Lets start out a little early ...

*Cue the flashback music*

Remember when the PC was something that was really expensive and that no one really knew what to do with except it could be used as a fancy typewriter and play games? Remember when there were a few company's at the time (for this flashback we'll only acknowledge two) Microsoft and Apple. Apple was going to revolutionize the world with the MAC. Moral of the story ... how many Mac's are there in comparison to PC's running windows?

*Cue more flashback music*

Remember when Mosaic and Navigator were the best kids on the block for viewing gopher:// and http:/// sites? Wow, those were the days. You had to pay for a copy of netscape ... PAY FOR A BROWSER. Life was good, then Mosaic's IP got bought by this weird company called Microsoft. And ... wouldn't you know it, they released Internet Explorer. Well one thing led to another and ... Moral of the story ... how many people use Internet Explorer now?

*Cue a Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the fire*

Now we find ourselves in the world of Office suite software. No longer is the office suite a word processor! No! In this world there is email, word processing, typesetting, flyer making, and who knows what else. Anyways There used to be this bastard of a product called Word Perfect (by bastard follow who all owned it ... Novell Corel ... etc) and then there was Microsoft Office. I'm not going to do anything catchy here, but lets face it, no one even really remember Word Perfect or Word Star or Star Office, or any of it. They use Microsoft Office ...

*Cue the rest of We Didn't Start the Fire*

Remember when if you wanted a network server, you used Unix or Novel? (Again for arguments sake we'll focus on the big boys). Remember when MS announced it was going to be bigger than Unix and Novel? Remember when everyone was sure that there was no way to ever be bigger than any of the network operating solutions? How many NT/Server 2k0/3 are out there now?

*Cue something classical ... Aerosmith perhaps*

Back to a generation some of you youngsters might remember. Remember when the three big players for video game consoles were Nintendo, Sega, and Sony? Remember who sold almost a comparable amount of X-Box's to the PS-2 (by year not in whole). Yup, Microsoft again.

What I'm getting at is this. If there's one thing Microsoft knows, it knows how to create a market for itself and give the market what it needs. When it wants to dedicate resources to taking something over, it does it, and it does it full out. The new MS search isn't really all that great right now, but lets just look at the facts ...

Google has gmail, which is pretty popular. Microsoft has hotmail, which is more popular.
Google has gtalk (or whatever the hell its called). Microsoft has

--
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed

Re:(Something insightful goes here) by RoLi · 2005-10-01 02:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
Let me remind everyone of some past MS "failures" and company's that "Couldn't be beat".
Actually many seem to believe that Microsoft "can't be beaten".
You want some MS failures?
- MSN was supposed to crush TCP/IP and HTTP and establish Microsoft's own standards. Oh what happened? Now MSN uses TCP/IP and HTTP/HTML like everybody else...
- Windows on non-x86 platforms failed: On PPC, on Alpha
- XBox sold only half as many units in the first 6 months as Microsoft expected and caused about 1 billion of losses per year (oh yeah, I know the MS-fanboys see that as a "success")
- The "Otto"-project, the "HomeR"-project, etc.
- And of course MSN never became very successful as a search engine
Sure Microsoft has insane amounts of money, but they are not as godlike as you want us to believe. They are just mere mortals.
Re:(Something insightful goes here) by RoLi · 2005-10-01 03:30 · Score: 4, Interesting
And while xbox is a money loser in theory, it is now accepted in the marketplace which is the major hurdle (dreamcast anyone).
Are you working at Microsoft marketing or are just too young to remember the Dreamcast?
If you don't know, Dreamcast was made by SEGA, which was one of the most accepted companies in the marketplace, so "acceptance" surely wasn't it's problem.
The reasons Dreamcast failed was:
- PS2 came with DVD-player, Dreamcast didn't (just like PS3 will come with BluRay and XBox360 won't)
- Dreamcast used a cheap-to-develop but expensive-to-manufacture off-the-shelf desing (just like XBox1 & XBox360) while the PS2 used a highly optimized design which is hard to develop but drives down the cost per unit
- Sega thought that Windows CE and it's APIs would make it sooo easy to port games and there would be a load of games (Oh, yet another XBox-analogy) but in real life PS2 had much more games
- Sega thought that backwards compatibility isn't important, PS2 is fully backwards compatible which is a bid advantage (Oh, again XBox360 is only compatible to "top-selling-games" whatever that is supposed to mean)
- And of course Sega had bad timing: They launched only a short time before PS2 and the PS2-hype caused many potential buyers to wait for both consoles and decide then - of course at that time the Dreamcast was already old and PS2 was brand-new. (Microsoft actually believed their own marketing lies and thinks that launching before the PS3 will help them.)
Of course Microsoft made some stupid mistakes on top of all this:
- Bill Gates said that there "may" be a HD-DVD version at a later time. Now a lot of buyers will wait for that version, so XBox360 sales will be even lower
- They pissed NVidia off so badly that NVidia didn't even bid for the XBox360 contract. ATI was the only contender and Microsoft had to accept their terms.
- They released Halo2 just 1 year before the XBox360 launch. Those who bought a XBox1 at christmas04 are very unlikely to get a XBox360 at christmas05.
- They gave away their only advantage: The only advantage the XBox1 really had compared to the PS2 was that it was newer and technically superior (at least in some areas). Anyway the PS2 was "old" and the XBox1 was "new and cool". With the PS3 being released *AFTER* the XBox360, XBox360 will be "old" and PS3 be "new and cool".
XBox360 looks like Dreamcast3 to me. They will continue to lose as much or even more money on it than with XBox1.
People are drooling waiting for the next one and I imagine by the time the 3rd generation comes out MS will own the market completely (if Sony and Nintendo's blunders continue apace).
Sony's blunder? PS2 is the most successful console of all time and it sold about 4 times as many units as the XBox.
Re:(Something insightful goes here) by DarkJC · 2005-10-01 05:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

As far as ad revenue goes, would you people please look at all the things that MS owns that can utilize advertising ... now please ... tell me exactly where google is beating MS at anything.

Sure, Microsoft can just slap ads into all of their products...Windows, Office, the works. Now who's going to go out and buy Windows, or any other Microsoft product for that matter, when you know it's coming loaded to the brim with pre-installed Microsoft sanctioned adware? I know I'm not.

My point is that while you can say that Microsoft owns more products to advertise in than Google, the fact remains that Google advertisements are done in subtle, out of your face ways so that most people barely notice them. There's more to advertising than just slapping ads in a bunch of your flagship products, and I think Google has hit the nail on the head with their approach.

Microsoft has the worlds most used internet browser that defaults itself to msn.com as its homepage.

So are you insuniating that because of this, MSN Search is the most widely used search? I'm fairly sure you're wrong on that account. This "Microsoft products are more popular" bit has been the theme of your entire post as to why Google won't succeed, and yet when you list examples, you compare search engines. This statement makes me take the rest of your argument with a grain of salt, as I think it's fairly obvious who is winning in terms of search engines, and we all know it's not MSN.
Re:(Something insightful goes here) by pavera · 2005-10-01 07:09 · Score: 2, Informative

What I think you forget, is that in 1980 there was this company called IBM, they had billions in sales, billions in cash, and any time a large company needed computers they called IBM. Suddenly this little company called MS appeared and changed the rules, and the unbeatable goliath of IBM took about 5 years to fall completely apart into a smoldering wreck. Yes they reorged, no they didn't go out of business, and I don't think MS will go out of business either.

MS won in the 90's because they made network computing simple, and easy enough for an attorney or accountant to set up their own network without having to spend thousands on a Novell or Unix consultant. Google is the first firm with the resources (cash and network resources), reliability, developers, and interest to develop fully internet based apps. MS has the a couple of the above list, but they don't have the reliability, and they certainly don't have the interest/desire. Google will make internet computing simple the way MS made network computing simple, and it is this paradigm shift that MS doesn't understand, and loathes. They will fight it tooth and nail, but that is where computing is going, just like in the early 80s when IBM fought the PC tooth and nail because mainframes were their business and there couldn't be a paradigm shift away from that (in their minds).
Re:(Something insightful goes here) by anthony_dipierro · 2005-10-01 07:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why is google any more different than any other successful IT company?

It's not, really. I feel pretty much the same way about Google today as I felt about Yahoo years ago. "Geeky name, great products, God I hope they kill Microsoft." Look back in the Slashdot archives. I'm almost sure that Slashdot was saying the same thing about Yahoo, and even Netscape.

Microsoft (and AOL) killed Netscape. Yahoo just kind of stopped being cool. I'm not sure why, and the management of Google needs to really study that one. One difference is that the founders of Yahoo didn't retain anywhere near the level of control that the Google founders so far have. Right now Google is the big story, and it's really up to them what they're going to do next.

The company has billions of dollars in cash, some of which they just raised in a secondary offering. No is really sure what it is they plan on doing with that money, and where Google goes from here is going to be largely determined by that.
Re:(Something insightful goes here) by Graymalkin · 2005-10-01 07:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

Remember when the PC was something that was really expensive and that no one really knew what to do with except it could be used as a fancy typewriter and play games?

You state that like PCs of today are anything more than fancy typewriters that play games. This is how they're seen by a huge percentage of the computer owning public. I'm sorry but Microsoft Windows didn't kick start the PC industry, DOS did. MS-DOS ran on everyone's PC clones, not just IBM's hardware. This put MS-DOS on just about every PC sold that didn't come from IBM. Compatibility with PC-DOS meant that people could buy a PC running MS-DOS from Compaq and run the same programs they had on their IBM PC at work. When Windows got to the point of general usability they simply rolled their DOS contracts with OEMs into Windows ones. Since Microsoft went out of its way to maintain backwards compatibility companies rolling out new PCs with Windows 3.1 could run their old versions of Lotus 123 or WordPerfect.

I'm not going to do anything catchy here, but lets face it, no one even really remember Word Perfect or Word Star or Star Office, or any of it. They use Microsoft Office ...

Wow. You have got to be kidding. Maybe in recent years Microsoft Office has become the dominant productivity suite but for a long time it struggled against its competition. Years ago Lotus 123 has a monopoly on the spreadsheet market. It wasn't until Excel 4.0 came out that it really took off, it did so because it could do everything 123 did including write 123 files in addition to having its own featureset. Excel succeeded because it out 123'ed 123. WordPerfect had eaten Word Star's market and ruled PC desktops alongside Lotus 123 for years. Word for DOS was considered an also-ran. When Microsoft figured it was betting the company on Windows the Word team did a complete overhaul on Word. It got a lot of good reviews initially and the team did quite a bit of market research to find out what people hated about WordPerfect and then made those things simple in Word. In both cases Microsoft's Office products had to pry the market away from a monopoly competitor.

Google has gmail, which is pretty popular. Microsoft has hotmail, which is more popular.
Google has gtalk (or whatever the hell its called). Microsoft has MSN, which is more popular.
Google has google.com. Microsoft has the worlds most used internet browser that defaults itself to msn.com as its homepage.

Wow again. You're comparing Google's recent releases with Microsoft products and services that have been struggling for years. Hotmail has been around since 1996. Gmail has been around since 2004. Google Talk has been around a little over a month. The MSN homepage is seen by a lot of people but not used by many. Yahoo! is read by more people daily than MSN and as you mention MSN is the default homepage of just about everyone buying a new PC with Windows on it.

--
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.

You nailed it by lheal · 2005-10-01 01:38 · Score: 2, Informative

I hope you get modded up. I would add that Microsoft is a top-down company, a cult of Gates and gold. The troops really believe in the vision of Windows and Office everywhere, and the culture refuses to accept anything else.

Free software will kick their assets.

--
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.

quite accurate, actually by idlake · 2005-10-01 01:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

IBM was fully aware of minicomputers and personal computers and the threat they represented, and they did everything they could to stop them taking away market share from them. IBM was paranoid and well-informed.

In part, that's why IBM picked both a rather substandard hardware design and a rather substandard vendor to supply the operating system (IBM didn't have a choice but to go outside for their software--they were under antitrust scrutiny). This was no secret at the time--how badly the PC architecture and Microsoft's operating system sucked, and what IBM's motivations were, was obvious the day the PC was released.

And it worked as IBM intended: it took 15 years for PC software to catch up with the state of the art of the mid-80's. That translated into a lot of extra sales for IBM's mainframes, servers, and workstations. Of course, the PC business ended up being bigger and more important, but even if IBM had know that at the time, they couldn't have acted on it.

And Microsoft is about to repeat this. Microsoft would have to cannibalize their operating system and MS Office businesses in order to move ahead, and there is no way they are going to be able to do that.

Will we hate this new Kingpin? by Brad1138 · 2005-10-01 01:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

We all like to hate & bash the big guy, Microsoft, Intel, Wallmart... Will we hate Google? Is it possible for a company to be the biggest and not be hated, bashed or vilified?

--
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people

Re:Microsoft can kill Google any time they want to by Phleg · 2005-10-01 01:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is modded *interesting*? Google would clearly win a boatload of cash in a lawsuit, Microsoft would have the worst PR nightmare of their career on their hands, and it wouldn't work to begin with since Google can just change the DNS name of their ad servers.

--
No comment.

The Google Linux Distro by fprog · 2005-10-01 02:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does Google need an OS? No!That's the real beauty and the real threat of Google. Microsoft still assumes that everything needs an OS. Google is proving time and again that the OS is nothing in the long run. Google is acting on something Microsoft considered a threat 10+ years ago--that the Internet may become an OS unto itself (not in the true sense of OS, but in the sense that its platform negates the need to run a proprietary OS like Windows).

Well, yes, they need an OS and that OS is based on the GNU/Linux kernel.
However, it's mostly a custom strip down RedHat 6.2 or 7.2 distro
and using a python/perl/mysql backend.

Does a "Google OS" exist? not really. [It's a bit of a stretch]

Does a "Google Linux Distribution" exist? Absolutely.

http://code.google.com/mirror/gsa.html

Maybe in the future, a real "Google Desktop Distro"
would be sold with computers, which would be a basic strip down desktop
with every desktop applications being on the web, on Google Application Servers.

Can't . . . resist . . . by SpeedyGonz · 2005-10-01 02:08 · Score: 3, Funny

I for one welcome our new search engine overlords

Re:Microsoft can kill Google any time they want to by JudgeFurious · 2005-10-01 02:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Close. I think you mean WordPerfect never worked properly on Windows. WordPerfect for DOS worked quite well. I remember the Windows version being a buggy beast though. Also wasn't there a version of Lotus 123 that wouldn't work well with a specific version of DOS? That I think was thought to be deliberate as well.

All things being equal I think it's a case of that was then, this is now. I don't think Microsoft can get away with that in todays world quite as easily as they could back in the day. Today there would definitely need to be some stealth involved because getting caught would crank up the anti-trust machine one more time. Sooner or later if they keep crossing the line someone is going to bust their ass for doing it.

--
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.

What may come to pass ..... by Ex-MislTech · 2005-10-01 02:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

1) Web based office suite - Web based total office solution .

2) IpSCSI RAID storage and remote backup or a variant thereof .

3) GoogleNET - Dark fiber is currently being bought by them nationwide - the extent of this is not known.

4) GoogleWIFI - currently a pilot project in bay area, may roll out nationwide

5) Google IpTV - Multicast/Broadcast video streams that work thru their google video player .

If 3 of 5 of these fly it is a doomsday scenario for more than just M$ .

They could become the fastest growing ISP in the US, and could displace cable and satellite TV .

I don't know if they want to go this big out of the gate, but the google video player debut
of the matrix sequel played smooth as glass here at my house via the net .

A long shadow could be cast, and the great would tremble, and a new sun rises over google, heheh .

Peace,
Ex-MislTech

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

Software is a comodity by canuck57 · 2005-10-01 02:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Microsoft has yet to realize that software is now a commodity item. $600++ for the OS and Office is far over priced if they want to remain at the top. The price should be like a book, say $50 like they sell it in China. (less for illegal copies).

Google is already in the worlds biggest emerging market and presumably making a profit. http://www.google.cn/

Microsoft is jealous but it isn't going to change the fact that to compute you do not need Microsoft.

But imagine if Google came up with that killer app to cluster the whole worlds computer network which is best run on Linux. Or perhaps turn their CPU power into automated remote support for software updates to Linux and charge $19 per year for the service or perhaps free if Google put a single ad banner on the screen. And a user could select from the finest open source to install and run. If their system was stolen they could restore data and setting with their Google account. Now that would turn Microsoft on its end.

Google has it right, it is about servicing the customers needs for a profit and not DRM butt kissing, perpetual bug fixing, insatiable patching, often crashing and expensive. So unless Google side steps, Microsoft might as well save their dollars.

Re:Software is a comodity by parryFromIndia · 2005-10-01 03:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

All you said is true - but what prevents Microsoft from playing catch up? They are in a better position - money wise, market share wise, and technology wise, to do all the things Google is thought of doing. They have an OS, an office suite which is already ubiquitous and enough money to buy/build anything which matters and they don't already have. They recently started Windows OneCare which includes antivirus, online backups etc. - How long it would take for them to offer online Office on a pay per use basis? Nothing Google is doing can kill Microsoft - they can only be forced to play catch up and they do that very well. They will continue to earn all the moolah till they can and when they can no longer, they still can afford to play the competitors' own game a little late and still can beat them at it.

Secret to M$FT's Success: COM/DCOM cut-n-paste. by mosel-saar-ruwer · 2005-10-01 02:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

It could if Google came out with a spreadsheet or word processor that works over the web in something like xml and saves files in gmail. If its made to web standards and works in any platform browser than they they'll be indirectly taking on ms's os as well since people wont have to have windows to use it.

Anti-monopolist whining and blather to the contrary notwithstanding, the secret to M$FT's dominance on the desktop is COM/DCOM cut-n-paste functionality. You can cut a few rows from an Excel spreadsheet and paste them in a Word document. You can cut a picture from a Word document and paste it in a Powerpoint presentation. You can cut a Powerpoint graphic and paste it in a Paint window. Etc etc etc...

Last I checked, neither OSX nor Linux had anything that even remotely resembled COM's flexibility or third-party vendor support. Hell, I tried using the Adobe Suite on OSX 10.2 last year [helping some idiot "scientist" put together a conference presentation], and I couldn't even cut and paste simple pictures from one Adobe application to another - I had to save to disk and use "File | Open" instead.

For that matter, do any of you even know how Acrobat works? All that Acrobat does, and I mean ALL that it does, is simple import Word documents and paginate them [or, to be more precise - spiffify their pre-existing pagination]. That's it. For all intents and purposes, Acrobat has no word-processing functionality whatsoever - all the heavy lifting and straining is done in Word [and the rest of M$Office], and afterwords, Acrobat simply imports the Word document and [re-]paginates it. [For a mere $500? What a bargain!]

Frankly, I don't see Google [or anyone else] replicating M$FT's COM/DCOM functionality anytime in the near future.

Re:Secret to M$FT's Success: COM/DCOM cut-n-paste. by mini+me · 2005-10-01 03:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Frankly, I don't see Google [or anyone else] replicating M$FT's COM/DCOM functionality anytime in the near future.

Perhaps you should check out KDE again. It's entire system is based on small COM-like objects (known as KParts) that are joined together to make full applications.

Also, COM/DCOM is deprecated.

Beware what you wish for... by west · 2005-10-01 02:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Remember that IBM didn't lose it's market, in fact, all the competition in its market segment (mainframes) essentially died out. Nobody cares about anti-competitive practices in that market anymore. IBM simply failed to win the *next* market segment.

If the analogy really stands up, then Microsoft will own the desktop forever, and all the rest of the competitors in that space will shrivel and die as the market becomes less relevant. The next market (network applications) will overshadow the desktop market.

It would seem to me that if one was really interested in the desktop market and wanted to see continued competition, then it's quite possible that Google winning the next war could be the worst thing that could occur. Linux could be the next Amdahl :-).

Re:that depends by symbolic · 2005-10-01 03:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

If google manages to become as disgustingly predatory as Microsoft was, then yes, history will probably repeat itself. However, it's possible that Google could shepherd in a new paradigm (actually, an older paradigm that has been reworked), and still maintain a decent set of ethics. I'm not certain that being a scumbag of a company is a requirement for success.

Google's becoming arrogant by mattgreen · 2005-10-01 04:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

As much as MS is decried for being arrogant, Google now seems to be doing the same thing. Statements like "we'll topple Microsoft because they don't understand us" and the implication that, "we're the new Microsoft, the dominant player" point to a culture of corporate hubris. That is a dangerous thing, although I suppose it is inevitable when their stock price is as inflated as it is.

Web App's are silly by doublem · 2005-10-01 05:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

We've been hearing about the approaching power of the web app since Java and Netscape first cozied up to each other.

It hasn't happened.

Let's be blunt, web apps are slow loading and clunky compared to the average locally installed application, and it's likely to remain that way. Even broadband won't resolve the issue. Actual bandwidth will have to get to 100 MegaBit before most users will consider a web app fast enough to use.

And even then we hit the old "Switch to OpenOffice" hurdle. Specifically, most users are not going to switch unless there's a good reason to do so. Unless the web apps are clearly better than whatever Microsoft is offering, they'll languish.

And the we need to face facts. Linux is on the server, and we need to compete in that market. I like my Linux desktop, and will be thrilled if iTunes is ever ported to Linux. Aside from that, even if Linux is ready for the desktop, inertia will keep it out of the market in any meaningful way.

Most users still see their computers like a stereo, not like a car requiring maintenance, and installing alternate operating systems is a niche activity, no matter how common it seems in this forum.

Microsoft must LOVE all the time and energy we're wasting on the Desktop, because they know Linux is not a serious threat there. Where are all the Linux companies making their money? SERVER installs.

The server market is where MS fears Linux, and where it has some advantages. Wasting time on the desktop when Linux needs to go after the enterprise, fortune 100 server is playing right into Microsoft's hands.

--
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA

Yes it does, Read the speculations... by managedcode · 2005-10-01 05:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

1 MS somehow has the copy of Google's strategy. Their is heavy corporate spying between the two. MS Managers are interviewing at Google just to sniff what's going on ? For example, a Manager working for Jeff Rikes interviewed for Google. It is speculated that Google will launch a product similar to MS Business Solutions but the product will be web based.....
2 We need an Office online and do you think Bill is sleeping ? LOL, take a dip in your bath tub. I speculate they must have already started their internal testing on the product. Don't you trust managedcode ?
3 Server-Equals-Service. Its really embaressing the way Ballmer talks. He should first learn to respect Geeks/Developers. Bill has this vision since 2000(web-services). Ultimately it is making money out of it. Gooogle is intimidating MS, trust me now MSN is under direct supervision of Bill and you will see search improve drastically. Bill was focused on Windows for the last 5 years to mature it as a world class product and it sure is now. Do I sound like his technical assistant, oho fuck!
5 The FAT Layer... As company matures their are people who worked hard once upon a time. They now buy Box tickets to Mariners game and work at Microsoft to socialiaze. Some ambitious men like Lee were frustrated because of this. IBM has the fattest layer who negotiate with governments and they have their own way of milking. Slowly MS is going that way but it would hard to see Bill sitting down and doing nothing.
6 Product Vs Product(Major Products) Windows/Office - Keep Dreaming about Linux with 1% Market share. (Office story is threatening, but new features are being offered and I speculate that Office will be an Integrated communication system or some value added product to maintain the bottomline).
SQL-Server - Oracle-Fuck yourself. Google, if you can beat this, I will put a SELL recommendation on MSFT. I have seen the performance of Yukon, it rocks. It will fuck Oracle & DB2 on 64 bit.
Xbox - So nicely timed. The entertainment division will be in Black this year.
Web-Services - GOOG leads.......
7 Morale amongst employees, Very High for GOOG plus the attitude. MS 25% supercharged, another 25% work because they like to develop and another 25% work to earn and another 25% don't care.
8 Compensation MS bumped it up for all its GMs and VPs. Yes the Box ticket holders so I don't see much difference but will make atleast 25% difference but what else Bill can do now ? Google has the best pay and job satisfaction amongst its employees now. And a sky rocketing stock producing googlainers.
MS has too much shit internally to deal with and sure Google will see some setbacks too. The clear winner will be the consumer because of innovation and I am glad corporate America is once again innovating leaving China and India behind.

Googleplex.com by ebcdicpb · 2005-10-01 05:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

Google seems to have already registered googleplex.com

...but through a different registrar, as if they might have something to hide.

Wrong! Microsoft did not dethrone IBM by kbahey · 2005-10-01 07:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

It was not Microsoft who dethroned IBM. It was the minis then distributed computing that did so.

IBM was the king of the mainframe: highly reliable and expensive centralized computing that is accessed from terminals.

The trouble for IBM started with the minis with proprietary operating systems, such as DEC VMS and the like. Then it was the UNIX minis made by several vendors like Sun, Pyramid, HP.

Much later it was client server computing that finally toppled IBM from the position of dominance they had. There was Novell Netware and Banyan VINES there as well, way before Windows networking was something to go by.

They changed from the arrogant top player to a much humbled, yet respected company. This was in the early to mid 1990s as I recall.

Microsoft's role in all this is not that great, apart from providing the operating system for PCs in the client server world.

--
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.

Slashdot Mirror

Google's Patents Reveal Strategy To Beat Microsoft

96 of 453 comments (clear)