Gates Successor Says Microsoft Laid Foundation for Google

thefickler writes "According to Bill Gates' successor Craig Mundie, there would have been no Google without Microsoft. 'I mean, the fact is: Google's existence and success required Microsoft to have been successful previously to create the platform that allowed them to go on and connect people to their search servers. Now, Microsoft's business is not to control the platform per se, but in fact to allow it to be exploited by the world's developers. The fact that we have it out there gives us a good business, but in some ways it doesn't give us an advantage over any of the other developers in terms of being able to utilize it.' This comment comes from a lengthy interview between Mundie and APC magazine, which talks with the newly installed strategy and R&D head. Other interesting topics discussed include the future of Microsoft and Windows, OOXML, and and the 'rise of Linux' on the desktop."

Comments

Yeah - so?

[DarkFencer]

And many others (IBM, Bell Labs, Xerox, Apple, etc.) were needed for Microsoft to be successful. Who cares?

Re:Yeah - so?

[Timothy Brownawell]

But you have to admit, Microsoft helped bring computing to the masses. If there had been no Microsoft, the internet would be what USENET was back in the day: something used by geeks and scientists and not much else.

No. If there had been no Microsoft, someone else would have done that. Maybe Apple, maybe BSD, maybe Linux/GNU/etc, maybe some company we've never heard of. Maybe OS/2 would have taken off.

Really, it tends to be complete garbage to say that a particular advance would not have happened if whoever did it hadn't been there. Once the foundations are in place things become pretty much inevitable, and being remembered for starting something is just a matter of out-competing everyone else and/or getting things working two weeks before the next guy.

Re:Yeah - so?

[Newander]

The Internet came to the masses despite Microsoft.

Re:Yeah - so?

[king-manic]

But you have to admit, Microsoft helped bring computing to the masses. If there had been no Microsoft, the internet would be what USENET was back in the day: something used by geeks and scientists and not much else. In that sense, I think he's right.

I wouldn't credit Microsoft, I'd credit IBM and their incredible lack of foresight. It was cheap computing that made PC's ubiquitous. If for some reason Apple had thought of cheap commodity hardware first we'd all be complaining about a apple hegemony and how much we fear and hate the evil apple empire. We'd bemoan the cruel and restrictive titan etc... MS was lucky to get where they are. I have no doubt MS would have been successful due to its shrewd business practices, ruthless direction etc.. but it's total dominance is more about luck then talent or skill.

Re:Yeah - so?

[Alien Being]

You're absolutely right.

MS claims to have paved the way for Google, yet their initial goal was to make the Internet irrelevant with "The Microsoft Network". Ever since they embraced the Net, they've been creating speedbumps, potholes and tollbooths. In my estimation they have set the computing world back at least a decade from where it could have been without them.

Just look at how late they were in offering a memory-protected multitasking OS. How many years were lost fighting "The browser wars"? How many good software companies have been destroyed by their predatory practices? How many serious security problems did they fail to address? How much extra hardware has been deployed in order to cope with the inefficiencies of MSWindows? How much data is locked away in their proprietary formats?

Re:Yeah - so?

[AJWM]

Who made DOS and Windows a large part of the market?

IBM

Until IBM came along and blessed it, the PC industry consisted of Apple (Apple DOS) and a handful of makers of mostly Z-80 based systems (CP/M), plus the mostly game/home use systems from Atari etc. For business use, PCs were either AppleDOS or CP/M. Microsoft's presence was pretty much limited to Microsoft Basic.

Through a combination of underhandedness, blind luck, and opportunism, Microsoft got the contract for the OS that IBM would put on their PC, and (even more luck, because IBM still wasn't taking the PC market very seriously) would retain rights that let them sell MS-DOS to the PC clone makers.

The ubuquitous platform would have been whatever IBM went with for their OS. That was very nearly CP/M-86. It might even have been a Unix-derivative, if Motorola had been able to guarantee a sufficient supply of 68008 processors. (IBM originally wanted to go with that chip, a 68000 with an 8-bit external data bus (analogous to the 8088), because frankly the architecture of the Intel part sucked, but Motorola couldn't guarantee the volume production (it was a new chip), so IBM went Intel instead. Microsoft (and Intel, to a degree) just lucked out.

Translation

[eldavojohn]

Well yes and no. I mean, the fact is: Google's existence and success required Microsoft to have been successful previously to create the platform that allowed them to go on and connect people to their search servers. Translation: There were no other operating systems before us. Networking did not exist. Microsoft is GOD. Everything that happens from this point on only happens because we allowed it, we are the original creator, the original thought vector of computing itself. We are the beginning & the end--the Alpha & the Omega! *eyes roll back up into head as lightening strikes in the background*

Now, Microsoft's business is not to control the platform per se, but in fact to allow it to be exploited by the world's developers. The fact that we have it out there gives us a good business, but in some ways it doesn't give us an advantage over any of the other developers in terms of being able to utilise it. Translation: Microsoft maintains a symbiosis with malware developers. Alongside that, we give away free software to universities so that students use it. Then we charge hundreds of dollars for an individual to program the .NET framework. It's free to get the framework's runtime environment on your machine (like Java) but in order to develop anything useful for it, you have to pay us money (unlike Java). In 'some ways' (which I won't list) other developers have an advantage over us because they aren't closed minded to other technologies. Also, we will define standards and strong arm them into the community or make it look like the community made the decision to accept them. Then we will charge you money to develop for them. Remember, we want you to exploit our platform so in the end we can exploit your dependence on us. It's a standard bait and switch procedure. Something looks free then we step in and reveal the cost once you're dependent on it.

For example, as much as our Virtual Earth product uses a lot of local 3D rendering technology, so does Google Earth. So I think there will be other ways in which we distinguish ourselves and where our knowledge of the platform and ability to continually evolve it, will be a business advantage for us. Translation: Remember when we copied Google in the whole mapping and Google Earth thing? Yeah, that was actually totally our idea. I don't recall who came first but I'm certain it was Microsoft. What we'll probably do is use our income in other markets to make sure that nobody ever hears about things like NASA's World Wind again. Remember how we lost money on the XBox? Doesn't matter! And we'll lose money on Virtual Earth too if we have to. It's really too bad Google is doing the same thing because we could have totally been making bank off of Virtual Earth from day one if there wasn't a free alternative. It's all a game to see who can get the most developers hooked first, we'll see where it goes from there.

It is just the difference between being part of the infrastructure of the internet as well as competing directly in the service or client capability as well. Translation: Microsoft is bigger than Jesus.

--

I think this article should have been filed under "It's Funny, Laugh" as the notion that Microsoft 'laid the foundation' for anything is humorous. Did this man ever stop and consider that technology and advancements in networking or bandwidth made Google possible? That the early Google founders themselves may have had something to do with their fate? This was more of a marketing pitch than an interview.

I think someone should point out to this man that simply because Microsoft became successful doesn't mean that another technology wouldn't have risen to fill the same gap.

Like my father always told me, there ain't no shame in being humble. I think Microsoft is forgetting that humility is a virtue & if they continue to talk like they're the savior of man then they're never going to fix the flaws that plague them. This is the classic example of business tactics & marketing trumping technology & progress.

He's right.

[faloi]

After all, if Microsoft had been able to create a decent search engine for the Internet early on, Google would've never come in to being. Without Microsoft all but ignoring the rise of the Internet in its early stages, Google would never be what it is today. Microsoft's continued dedication to bringing really poor web content to the world allows Google to step up and offer web mail services and tools for the desktop that are useful.

A simple test

[Tony]

Take a NeXT computer. Use it for a while. (Never mind how slow it is. You're working with 15-year-old hardware.)

Then use whatever version of MS-Windows you like. Find one that matches the ease-of-use, flexibility, and just niceness of the NeXT. Subtract the difference in age between the two operating systems.

That'll give you a good idea of how far Microsoft has set us back.

In my estimation, it's about 17 years and counting.