Slashdot Mirror
Google a "Wake-Up Call" For Microsoft
wooha points out coverage of a talk Microsoft's chief software architect, Ray Ozzie, gave at a Goldman Sachs conference in Las Vegas. Ozzie said that watching Google rake in advertising revenue was a wake-up call within Microsoft. He said Microsoft plans to do more than simply follow Google's lead by creating Web-based versions of desktop programs or duplicating its search and advertising model. (Despite Microsoft's massive investment in promoting and improving Web-based search, the company still has less than 10% of search engine market share, compared to Google's ~50% and growing.) Ozzie, who has only made a few appearances since his promotion last June to replace Bill Gates as CSA, told analysts and investors that he has been laying the groundwork for programmers across the company to build Internet-based software.
To go and develop a truly underappreciated application such as Lotus Notes, I have to wonder what on earth qualifies him to make pan-Industry statements like this? I honestly don't believe that Ray Ozzies understands anything more of this apart from what his bosses at Redmond tell him, than I do. Ok so Google is 'significant'! They pay you to think that up? Because any idiot would draw the same conclusion. Maybe it's more indicative of Microsoft that it TAKES, a senior uber Executive vice president to know this that this is precisely where the real problem with Microsoft is.
Google: Simple compatible web pages that do what customers want, not evil, everything is beta.
MS: Messy incompatible monolithic apps, scofflaws, ship the alpha version if the deadline arrives.
Yes, it's a wake up call, but I can't see any signs of MS actually waking up and learning anything from Google's succeess.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
As the story states Microsoft is after the advertising revenue, not really actually interested in providing the rich content that google strives for.
There is where the difference lies, Microsoft does not see this or many of the other markets it shoves it's foot into as a "we can do this better because we care", it's more like "hey, there's someone making money on this, lets do it too!" and that's how they approach it. They make a shortlist of competitive features and try to cover those.. and little else. Then talk the talk of what people are saying about thier competition ("we're secure, you can share, we're open, we got what you are looking for. etc.")
Microsoft hasn't been innovating for years, it's more like they play a continual game of catch-up.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
Not some of this, or another big opportunity like this one. They mean Microsoft rightfully owns all of this business that the upstart has created for itself. That's what drives Bill and Steve, and that's what drives the top software company in the world.
Google is a wake up to MSFT. Just like the Internet was a Wake up call to Win95. Just Like Netscape was a Wake up call to IE. Firefox starts taking marketshare, MSFT releases IE 7 which was supposed to be for Vista only for XP too.
MSFT is a medicore following company. They will always get a wake up call after a new industry has been established. MSFT then moves in using their money to buy out or kill the competition, bleed the market dry and say the idea was a bad one to begin with as it is lying around dead.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Remember, Microsoft still has their desktop monopoly. That gives them the edge is "integrating" new tech.
That may be true, but I think that what will play a part is the fact that most people did not consciously choose Microsoft software and most people don't "love" their Windows environment. Windows is just what came with their computers and if the news media told the truth and said, "Folks, we have another Windows virus/trojan/spyware instead of another "computer" virus, etc., then people would hate MS software even more.
whether there's privacy or not depends on ethics and security of service provider. there's also the possibility of google web service software running on a private server (maybe they even open source the stuff someday). Some web based services have taken off hugely, like email and http servers. The delay and lag depend on the network infrastructure, been getting better over the last 20 years. The real barrier to office-type software being web based I think is mostly getting people to use what is necessary rather than bloat and cruft to accomplish 95% of what office docs need to do. We're mostly doing what used to be done with a single-font typewriter or printer and a copier and scissors/paste, but in full color, multiple fonts and visual effects, and taking five times as long to produce these (f)artworks.
"Sure there will be a good initial blast of popularity, but unless people like lag and absolutely no privacy, I can't see web-based "solutions" taking off."
There are more and more people who value availability and accessibility than those who even think about privacy. Just look at the widespread adoption of email, with people putting out their entire personal lives in the hands of the email providers.
If there is enough exposure to such web-based office suites and folks start considering the fact that the chances of loss of data might be lesser this way than having to store it on their disks and back it up, I would think that there might be more widespread adoption.
Well, as a matter of interest, how about a quickie thumbnail survey?
(1) How many Slashdotters have used Microsoft's Search more than once?
(2) How many have ever used it at all?
FWIW, my answers are "not me" and "yup".
Why should this be surprising?
The key is that consumer != user.
When your IT department won't buy you the laptop you want, it's because the consumer is them and the user is you, and in this case you have different interests.
I was working professionally in IT in the era 1983 - 1995, the rise of Microsoft, and this was a very common scenario: senior managers got Macintoshes, everyone else got PCs. The reason was that senior managers had enough clout to steer the acquisitions. The argument that the incremental value of equipping two users with PCs was greater than the incremental value of equipping one user with a easier to use system didn't cut it when you were talking to the boss.
With the exception of the people in accounting, nearly everybody who saw both systems side by side, and was not already a user of one or the other platform, nearly everybody was more attracted to the Mac. We even had TCO data showing that Macs were cheaper. But nobody wanted to admit that training was a cost, and nobody knew how to measure differences in productivity, so the equip two users with a PC vs. one with a Mac carried the day. I was there, and I saw it happen.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.