Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Biggest Threat - Google or Open Source?
Glyn Moody writes "Google always plays down suggestions that there's any looming clash of the titans between itself and Microsoft. Meanwhile, the search giant is pushing open source in every way it can. They're contributing directly by contributing code to projects and employing top hackers like Andrew Morton, Jeremy Allison and Guido van Rossum, and indirectly through the $60 million fees it pays Mozilla, its Summer of Code scheme and various open source summits held at its offices. Google+OSS: could this be the killer combination that finally breaks Microsoft?"
Google is Google because of things like Linux and OSS.
Linux/OSS are the tools which allow Google to exist.
I'm just waiting for the next big Google.
FLR
... finally breaks Microsoft?
sure, now that Linux had taken over the desktop.
why should MS care who is the bigger threat! Both are ..
Google are an advertising company. Anything it invests in is done with the ultimate objective of selling more advertising. Microsoft is a software company who have, admittedly, recently taken an interest in Search tools, but not with the objective of selling advertising so much as adding value to its own software and services. One of the reasons Google doesn't talk up any direct competition with Microsoft is because they're not direct competitors. Until they're both directly selling software to the same target market this will remain the case.
Microsoft's biggest enemy, at the moment is its self.
After Vista they proved they've gotten far to large a head count to innovate. Unless they slim down their development team, they're going to go the way IBM did in the early 90s.
Simon.
Why would anyone want to?
No, seriously. Don't get me wrong--I'm a Linux fan. I use Ubuntu on my home server, Debian on one box, Windows on another. But I don't understand why anyone would want to break Microsoft--after all, they make a good product for the market they intend to reach.
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Full Tilt
Google is in no way competing with Microsoft. In fact, Google now depends on Microsoft for it's survival as a large majority of their targets are Microsoft users. However, investing in Linux and open source is a good way of mitigating risk in case of the failure of the Microsoft platform or of conflict with Microsoft.
There should be a "-1:Groupthink"
They don't really compete as much as coexists. Flying chairs notwithstanding.
Just try searching for something on Google - 99% of the top results are trying to sell you something. Anything.
The real threat is spelled competition. It is more than just both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition
Toss in a failed Vista Launch and stable alternatives including Apple, IBM OS/2, etc. They all eat at the pie that once was Microsoft's domain.
The truth shall set you free!
...Meanwhile, the search giant is pushing open source in every way it can....That statement refers to Google. While I recognize Google's contribution to Open Source by the mentioned means, I would not give it that much credit.
Why is it that Picasa still does not run natively on Linux?
Why is it that one cannot specify ODF as among the file formats available for search, http://www.google.ca/advanced_search?hl=en despite the fact that ODF has been in existence for several years and some estimates put the number of ODF documents on the web in greater numbers as compared to Microsoft's OOXML?
Why is it that new products appear for the closed Windows platform before thet appear for the open Linux platform? They should appear simultaneously. [Emphasis mine].
People run windows primarily because of the applications on it. The most significant of these is MS Office. The competitors lack true compatibility with all MS generated files, which makes it tough to go with another office suite, no matter how good it is. I'm an open office fan, but there's some formatting that just doesn't work. Break MS Office dominance with another cross-platform app, be it from Google or anyone else, and you have put a HUGE dent in MS. Not only will the office cash cow lose some weight, but the perceived need for Windows will drop as well.
Be Excellent To Each Other
OS/2? The 80s called and they really want your 10 MB HPFS partition back.
Greatest enemy for Microsoft, is Microsoft self.
If they dont stop using monopoly for advance and supporting open standards, they get big enemies like EU.
Microsoft would stay biggest software company if they would work together with industry, open standards and support competitors (Opera, Firefox, Openoffice.org etc) by ripping browser and mediaplayer off from OS (why OS should have red eye remover and music library?) so users can use what they want. Microsoft could install IE and WMP and other tools if they want to non-OEM windows version, but should allow OEM manufactures and end-users to remove them and install something else if wanted. Of course this would mean that Microsoft should start innovating and building better products and not just one big package what some people calls "OS", even it is more than just OS.
GNU/Linux and different distributions from it what includes different desktops and applications, isn't biggest enemy, yet! But it is big wheel what can turn MS weapons against MS itself.
Windows 2000?
Because you're definitely not talking about Windows Me or Vista, or Works. Right? I think maybe "breaking" Microsoft may be a simplistic way of saying it, but please, yes, let's.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
.. To f**king kill.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I'm waiting for the day when Microsoft begins to wither and die under its own weight, and at the last minute, pulls an IBM, investing heavily in OSS to keep itself going more cost effectively.
/. love
Then MS will suddenly become a much loved company around here, 'cause 'round these parts, supporting OSS =
Then, in a need to fill the void left by Microsoft, Google will suddenly become the big bad guy. All of us on Slashdot will be praising Microsoft and hoping they can take down the big evil google.
or we could agree that both of these companies fulfil a certain niche that the other company cannot, and we need them both. one company provides employment for countless nerds due to its buggy software, while the other company helps those nerds find things, (like porn)
They are not in direct competition with each other.
-I only code in BASIC.-
spam URLs. DO NOT CLICK!
Let's hope that when they do implode (if that hasn't happened already and we just haven't noticed) they don't take the open source world with them. Maybe "we" need to start distancing ourselves?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Google will not break Microsoft, Microsoft will not break Google. Same goes with Microsoft trying to break Linux/OSS and vice versa. Same goes with Microsoft trying to break Apple and vice versa. It will not happen. Each is too big of a company/entity that can just be destroyed by another.
Google now depends on Microsoft for it's survival as a large majority of their targets are Microsoft users.
Only by default because the majority of PC users in the world run Windows. Most of Google's earning power is web-based, meaning it's not tied down to a particular OS or platform. Google could probably care less if MS disappeared off the face of the earth, their apps would still run just as well on a 'nix-based system as on a Windows-based system.
God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
The groundwork is already in place: Top OEMs are beginning to install alternate OSs on their machines. If Google has their way, most computing will eventually be done using thin clients; at that point, the internet and computing will become ubiquitous, and MS will no longer be a factor.
The main reason people use Windows is because other operating systems don't meet their needs. It's mainly a software thing, such as is the case for PC gaming (which is still ahead of consoles, but not by as much as in the past). Wine is a helpful product in that it eases the transition for many people, but it's not a complete replacement for Windows yet.
Since things like a suitable alternative for Photoshop (e.g., super GIMP) and a fully-featured Wine aren't going to appear over night, it'll be a long time before MS becomes irrelevant... unless computing moves online. Most business software is either written for Linux already (e.g., development IDEs) or can be COMPLETELY replaced by a combination of FOSS (e.g. Outlook -> Evolution). I replaced my Windows workstation with a Linux workstation at my last job when I became fed up with the task scheduling and constant SSHing in Windows (I had to work on Unix systems anyways).
People are leaving Windows. It's a very slow but consistent process. Every piece of commercial software developed for Linux is a blow to MS. Every computer running Mac OS X is a blow to MS. A lot of little things will bring down MS; it's inevitable. Google, though not a direct competitor, is a huge point of leverage.
Don't think Google's going to come out with Google OS. That's not in their plans. Their idea is to make the OS an irrelevant piece of software when it comes to doing your everyday computing tasks. MS is going to have to come up with a new strategy if they want to cease the antitrust legislation against them.
"You could almost look at defense of Microsoft as a form of the Stockholm syndrome." -neapolitan
Good answer. This is pretty much the post I was about to make. My thoughts, exactly. (I just had to say that.)
Google is in no way dependent of Microsoft, If Microsoft was gone tomorrow people would still find a way to use the web and Google services. If they are dependent of anything it would be good network services. Actually, if Microsoft was gone, it would leave google more room to expand in areas like e-mail handling and office application services.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
Microsoft needs to stop selling new versions of Windows and Office, and transition to a yearly subscription model.
This would generate revenue while letting them hop off of the new version cycles that are intended to force upgrades without adding much in new features that out weigh the penalties of more and more problems.
I used to like Windows more than I do now. I shipped a commercial product on Windows 1.03 and for some business needs I still keep a Windows 2000 image on my MacBook.
Anyway I like to feel that I get good value for my IT investments (I am a one person consulting shop) and right now, I feel that I get best value from a nicely loaded MacBook and several leased managed Linux servers for my own stuff and Linux or Solaris servers for customer projects.
As a Linux user since about 1992 (I downloaded Slackware on a 2400baud modem - ouch!!) I continue to be a little disappointed with the 'Linux on the laptop' experience but I might eventually replace my MacBook with a Dell Linux laptop: it would be nice to just deal with just Linux. I have all but stopped using Common Lisp and Java for consulting, sticking with just Ruby - after many years of investing *lots* of time staying up to speed on many technologies, it is a refreshing change to concentrate more on problem solving than a wide mix of technologies.
Except for rare use on my Windows 2000 image, I would not even consider using any form of Windows for development work.
While remaining even more secretive and becoming even more of a monopoly than Microsoft on things that actually matter, like their search and advertising business, to say nothing of their total disregard for privacy.
Can you say 'divide and conquer'? Thought you could.
It's out there and it's free. I know of a couple people using it instead of old versions of Windows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2
The truth shall set you free!
The problem with all the fences Microsoft built to protect itself is that fences not only fence out the competition, they also fence yourself into a corner. Just as the music industry's practices are what doom them, Microsoft has so much invested in reinventing the wheel to lock customers in that they dare not do anything truly innovative that would break the lockin. If they came out with any disruptive ideas, their customers would have to break their Microsoft lockin by definition, and if the customers had to face that choice, they might just as well use the chance to break away from Microsoft altogether.
History dooms Microsft.
Infuriate left and right
The reason is not just much lower costs. It is what drives MS (and others) to look at them, which gives them LOADS more advertisement. In general, nearly all the web start-ups that are based on Windows die. In fact, if you want companies like MS to consider buying (and jacking your prices WAY up), then you have to be OSS based. Otherwise, they know that they can control you anytime they want, but least you help sell more MS systems.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
To be a threat to Microsoft, you'd have to be a potential barrier to a large amount of future profits. Google is basically two things: (1) A search engine and (2) a wildcard, pouring money into almost everything. Microsoft is not strongly invested into the search area, so (1) is not a threat to it. In fact, Microsoft is more of a threat to Google in that respect, not because Microsoft is doing better than Google, but because Google is the "established champion", and Microsoft (among others, like Yahoo) are the encroachers who are trying to steal that title. As for (2), there's always a chance that Google will discover/invent the next big paradigm shift that changes everything, but then again, so can any other startup, or even maybe big companies like Apple or IBM, or hell even Microsoft themselves (the "Microsoft Surface" looks pretty sweet, for example, though I'm not sure it'll be big enough to be a paradigm shift). It's getting hit by a lightning bolt: a possibility, but not something you worry about from day to day.
.NET, IIS, etc. Honestly, I don't think Microsoft is very worried about Linux on the desktop. I find Microsoft hard to read in terms of OS on the server side, so it's possible they may actually be *WORRIED* (e.g. managers thinking "Hey, if we don't do something, Linux'll win"), but I'm not sure. I *DO* know that Microsoft is getting anxious about their Office software, which is their second biggest cashcow. It's not any-one particular alternative that they are afraid of (e.g. OpenOffice), but that there seems to be a growing awareness of alternatives that they're worried about. I suspect they're aware that this particular type of software is about to become commoditized and are looking at appropriate strategies (e.g. moving to software-as-a-service, via that Office Live thing).
.NET, IIS, etc. for free), but rather from surrounding services (e.g. certification, training, etc.) and products (e.g. Visual Studio). Note that this is the same business model that OSS software later adapted (give the software away for free, make money on the services), which is one of the reasons why I find comments about Microsoft being anti-OSS to be a form of over-simplified ignorance. Microsoft is a corporation, not a fundamentalistic ideal. If they can make more money through OSS than closed-source-software, they'll switch in a heartbeat. In the particular case of Apache vs IIS, it's like the Google scenario: Apache isn't a "threat", because Microsoft isn't strongly invested into that market -- Apache is -- and Microsoft is attempting to grow into that market, rather than to hold onto it (and they seem to be quite successful, much more so than they have been against Google: IIS adoption is growing very rapidly).
OSS is a bigger threat, mainly because of free office suites, and to a lesser degree Apache. Most of Microsoft's money comes from OSes, then from Office, and then services associated around server technology like
For the server side technology, Microsoft doesn't directly make money off of these (they give away
So what *ARE* Microsoft's biggest threats? Well, one of them is a little bit obvious when you look at their history, and what has caused them to lose the greatest amounts of money: Government and law. Microsoft is in a difficult position there, because their desktop business centers around pushing new and improved versions of their old product. Consumers, before they buy the next version of Windows, want to know what are the new and improved features, and if there aren't enough new and improved features, they won't spend the money to upgrade. However, if Microsoft adds too many new and improved features (e.g. by bundling a media player with their OS), they may get in trouble with certain governments (namely the British and US ones).
Software design jokes aside, Microsoft isn't dumb. They're already predicting, in the long term (10-20 years) that all of software will eventually become commoditized, and they have plans in place to move entirely in t
one one hand a convicted monopolist who crushes competition thru market domination
on another hand a company whos main aim is to hoard data and serve ads with it, a company thanks to whom the web is littered with splogs
take a pick
evil or not evil, eitherway their main objective is profit (no matter what marketing fud they spread) and for google open source is a way to reach their objectives while cutting the costs, if they were so open why dont they share their algorithms or release their tools on linux?
Microsoft sells software. Their continued existence is based on people continuing to buy their software. Google isn't, but that doesn't stop them from competing.
Google can provide web-based apps that will run on any OS, and these are likely to become more important than desktop apps in much the same way that personal computers became more important than central data centers. I see arguments against using web-based apps, but they are pretty much the arguments against allowing enterprise data onto personal computers, and I don't think they'll be much more effective in this case.
One thing that will push web-based apps is a larger variety in desktop systems. If everybody runs Microsoft Windows with Microsoft Office, there's less of a need for web-based apps. If significant numbers of people run OpenOffice, or the Macintosh version of Microsoft Office, and there's incompatibilities, web-based apps (which will run much the same on any reasonable computer) become more attractive. (There are reasons to think that having a third party hold data on a central server is more secure, not less, than distributing it onto laptops. Google would have a very strong incentive to keep people's data secure, whereas too many businesses and government agencies seem to have no incentive to keep other people's data secure.)
As far as lock-in goes, Microsoft lock-in comes from trying to prevent anybody else from using their data formats and making it hard for people to duplicate the exact functionality of their apps. With web-based apps, lock-in comes from not even having to distribute the app, and by holding data on a central server. This means that it hurts Microsoft's chances to dominate if people use varied software, but it doesn't hurt Google's chances at all.
This means that, if Google wants to become the next Evil Empire, Google should push the development and use of free/open source software. Google should push for greater connectivity, hopefully bringing true broadband to relatively backward markets like the US. Google should provide as much functionality as they can on web-based apps, and push them as hard as possible.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
MS is still the clear winner when it comes to drivers. If I install even the latest Linux I still have issues with hunting down drivers, especially for wireless cards. Vendors only want to have to write and maintain one set of drivers so they write drivers for windows. If there was an open standard for drivers that worked across all platforms then Microsoft would not have an advantage over OSS.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Google has won people's hearts. While Microsoft treats us all as if we were criminals, google gives us whatever we want for free and contributing source back to open souce projects. Google also found the correct way of advertising making big cash at the same time. Of course there'll be tinfoil hat paranoids that will whim about privacy but whatever. If you want is like comparing Castro to Stalin but we'd still be better off with the former.
As pointed out by previous posters, Google is an advertising company and thus isn't really in competition with Microsoft for business. However, they do have software products and OSS projects funded by their advertising revenue which in turn competes with Microsoft. Therefore Microsoft isn't a threat to Google, but Google is a threat to Microsoft.
Google alone won't "kill" Microsoft, but perhaps a combination of Google + Linux/OSS + other Unixes + alternative user platforms such as Apple will be enough to make Microsoft impotent. That, is the victory I'd like to see. Microsoft being irrelevant, and as easily ignored as if it didn't exist.
Look, Microsoft are never going to go away. They're far too big for that. They'll get smaller, sure, but they'll always be here. The sooner people realise this, the sooner we can all get on with writing decent software.
ilovegeorgebush
OS/X is -- and I think will remain -- a niche system. a very good one and one we love to see stay with us but I don't see OS/X "taking over the market"
OS/2 of course sank years ago off the coast of Armonk, and Old Blue went out to pasture.
now the thing that resulted in Old Blue heading out to pasture was RESPONSIVENESS
before the PC Revolt if you wanted to do anything on computer you had top petition data processing to do it for you. and users of every feather where chomping and clamoring at the door to the Computer Room
and then the PC appeared
and the user could do what he wanted without waiting
it was RESPONSIVENESS to put Old Blue to pasture and not just in the "do it for yourself" aspect but also in the Server Farm: the use of many small computers in a network configuration. No Monster mainframe had any prayer of matching a nest of Servers, each working on its own special assignments.
But Old Blue did have pretty good security and maybe this was because we didn't let anyone into the computer room. Whatever the reason, security has gone to pot and it is the security issue that will be the principle issue evaluated in the next changeover.
what we have now is NO GOOD
and EVERYONE know this
this means that there is going to be a change.
and that change is going to center on who is authorized to make programming changes?
Only the OEM Software vendor and then only to his own programming.
Digital signatures that can be checked with a certificate authority will be required.
the company that can do this CONVINCINGLY will be the next company to be the market leader
This is somewhat of a sidetrack comment, but I think it is worth bringing up. Historically there has been lots of talk about Linux displacing MS on the desktop and the importance thereof. While this makes for good conversation, it is somewhat pointless right now. The real battle is in the back-office. The 'hearts and minds' of sys admins have already been won. MS is being displaced in the server market at an alarming (to MS anyway) rate and Linux based iron is moving in. There are very few companies that will roll out mission critical platforms or HPC environments on a Windows base. The competition for Linux in these areas have proven to be Sun, SGI and others. It is the utility computing arena in which MS had a very strong presence that they are rapidly losing to Linux. Is the desktop important? Sure, but like it or not, Linux is not yet a competitor there and (in my opinion) it won't be for some time as it would first require Linux to displace Windows in the home (read 'tard) user market. Give it time and it could happen, but so could Apple displace MS (and probably has a better chance of doing so). Very quickly MS is becoming the odd man out as every other platform has moved to *nix. The tools, utilities, services and such that become an inherent part of everyday business in the back-office are written for *nix and must be ported or completely re-written for a Win32 platform. If one peers into the 64bit arena, MS has met with disaster. Time and again people have been bitten by trying to run 32bit Windows apps on 64bit platforms only to find that he promised compatibility simply does not deliver. The bottom line is that the majority of major advances that are taking place in behind the 'green door' are happening due to the talent of everyday people and the accessibility that OSS gives them to put their ideas into action. When I can throw Linux on a PS3 to play around with crypto tools and have performance that rivals what would have cost me twenty grand 2 or 3 years ago and I have Linux to thank I'll not spend much time digging for an excuse to spend a few thousand bucks on Windows Super-dee-duper Server Edition and the requisite licenses (understand that PS3 example is just that, an example...insert your pet project in its place). Even in the arena in which I work (DoD) Linux and OSS is quickly becoming the standard. I have not seen a new MS based server go in in well over a year and a half, and I see none on the horizon. Since DoD is typically a late adopter, I believe that this speaks volumes. Anyway, I know this is sort of 'rambley' so I'll stop with this; screw the desktop...it will follow the whims of the masses. Yeah, theres money to be made there, but change will take time. Watch the server room to read the tide.
In my humble and unsubstantiated opinion, Microsoft is Microsoft's biggest threat. They have too many products and too many people, and it has made them uncompetitive. If they refocus on their core business, they can come back. Google and other OSS competitors are superfluous.
Microsoft's Products include:
Accounting software (5 distinct huge business packages plus Microsoft Money and a dozen bolt-on applications); Hardware (Mice, Keyboards, Joysticks, cameras, headsets, and game gear); Operating Systems (Servers, workstations, mobile devices, and embedded devices); online services (MSN, Live services, Search, Groups... this is a huge list); database services (Sql Server), Groupware (Exchange), Office Suites (Office, Works), 3 distinct sets of Mapping software, drawing software, desktop publishing software, Reference software, a graphing calculator application, Hardware and software media players, online media services with varying levels of compatibility, tv set top boxes, a dozen different development languages which may or may not be integrated into visual studio.. The list goes on and on,
OSS is one of several competitors offering an alternative for people to switch away from MS products. If oss ceased to exist, some other competitor would arise. That is how a free market works.
-Ellie
p.s. Google, pay attention, you are spreading out too. Diversification is good, but stay good at what makes you great.2008 is the year of the Google desktop!
Only the OEM Software vendor and then only to his own programming. Crap. It's "whomever the system owner authorises to do so".
Your answer "now with lock-in 2.0" is not a selling point.
What's needed are better controls to ensure that changes are only made in accordance with the system owner's policies. Most particularly that means that the "OEM system vendor" is prevented from making changes until those changes have been authorised inhouse.
MSFT makes in a quarter what it takes GOOG to make in a year. That is all.
MSFT: $4.2 Billion last quarter
GOOG: $1.1 Billion last quarter
.. THEMSELVES. MSFT is haemorrhaging internally big time.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
Also, google isn't the only large company betting on OSS, giants like IBM are heavily invested in OSS as well.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The most lucrative of Microsoft's business models seem to have been based on the exploitation of customer and regulatory naivete in a new market. If this is true, and as long as Microsoft doesn't really change, their biggest threat is to have there market grow up, mature, and educate themselves about what has been going on.
Both FOSS and Google help that education process, to different extents, and in different ways. So both are threats. Which is the biggest immediate threat? Whichever one manages to get its message into the dense brains of middle managers first. It's a hard call to make from here.
FOSS's advanced messages (freedom, collaboration, transparency, technical education, etc.) will take a long time to be understood. The FOSS "Free & Cheap Stuff" message is already catching on, but it's not enough of an education in its own right to undo Microsoft's abuses. FOSS supporters who work to thoroughly school their organizations and contacts in the issues do make a big impact.
But I think Google is in a somewhat better position to be the immediate threat. Why? It has a greater power to punch simple "soundbyte" messages, one at a time, into the psyche of of the huddled masses yearning to breath free. I don't know if they're going to do that or not, but they could, and that's the threat.
It's close to the topic of politics -- I don't like soundbytes but recognize their power over the naive. Political discourse would be different if the electorate were uniformly wise and educated on the issues. Not the way it should be, but more the way I think things are, and just my opinion.
once again the debate is all anti-microsoft. an old tired subject around here.
but to be honest. you guys who endlessly caw the words open source at every opportunity... it's true that google may be riding the shoulders of open source but have you ever noticed that they got 50 times further in half the time off the entire linux crowd? the open source model that is popularly pushed here fails when compared to a good concerted commercial organization.
wake up! the open source model based on volunteerism fails.
I wish I had something insightful to say but I'm dumbfounded that you intentionally put double line-break tags in the middle of your sentences. I mean, you actually went to all that trouble to make your comment weird.
By comparison, MS tries to sort of control that. Zune they see as music, not data and they don't see their business as access to data, they want to provide mechanisms to do that and control every part of the process, access to data is secondary and sort of a side effect. Google supports mozilla because it's a primary conduit to your data and opens the playing field, their business is "access to data" not browsers and certainly not controlling it. Same with android, they want to make sure that phones have good and open mechanisms to take part in accessing data so they have invested and provided mechanisms for people to build that. MS still wants to control all of those things. Likewise, google uses open development tools for the same reasons, their business is access and data not "windows apps." Or "windows server apps" or even "linux server apps" Linux happens to get the job done and nobody can control what they do with it to get the job done.
MS's biggest threat is openness and people really understanding what it means to control their own data and have access to it. The paradigm is shifting, just look at the open document stuff, what will MS do when a lot of customers just expect to see their documents on their razr phones rather than buying a bulky POS windows mobile device? Apple and Google are playing in that world.
the biggest threat to MS is people who self-organise to create useful software with no strings attached. Open source is a social process, and it is this social process which threatens MS.
Vista is Microsoft's biggest threat - duh!
Seriously? Google and open source are mice-nuts compared to what Vista is going to do to Microsoft.
It isn't open source.
Please try to keep posts on topic...
Microsoft had a stand-out first quarter.
Each of the company's five business divisions showed double-digit revenue growth.
That was particularly important in the Client Div., the group where Microsoft counts Windows sales. There, revenue jumped 25%, to $4.1 billion, an astonishing gain for a mature market Microsoft Results Turn Heads
Retail sales of Office 2007 have been breathtaking, numbers so big that they are difficult to grasp:
Through end of November, U.S. retail PC software sales are up 10.3 percent year over year as measured in dollar volume...By comparison, Office sales are up 50.7 percent, by the same measure and in the same time frame.
"Here's the really interesting statistic," said...NPD's director of Software Industry Analysis. "Over two-thirds of the dollar volume growth in the U.S. retail PC software market in 2007 can be attributed to Microsoft Office. In other words, the ratio of Office dollar growth to total PC software growth is 67 percent."
The "magnitude of Office sales relative to the rest of the PC software market" is phenomenal, "It's the massively huge tail wagging the dog. If the senior execs at Best Buy, Office Depot, etc. don't buy Jeff Raikes [president of Microsoft's Business division] a beer the next time he's in town, something is seriously wrong." The Year of Office 2007
Microsoft hasn't forgotten the Mac. From the same story:
For Black Friday, Microsoft offered a surprising deal: for about 56 bucks, after rebates, Office 2004 Student and Teacher Edition and the forthcoming Office 2008 Special Media Edition. The new, top-of-the-line Mac Office version would otherwise sell for about $500.
As measured in dollars, U.S. retail Black Friday sales of Mac Office were up 215.8 percent.
Microsoft's biggest threat is itself. As with any business model, If it the best that there is, their is no real threat from a business model elsewhere. If, However, is not the best then the business is left open to real competition.
If Microsoft's hotmail was the best we would not have Gmail, and the others. If Microsoft's Windows was the best then there would be no need for Linux occupying hard drives in a great deal of servers or Apple's OS X, high premium, consumer computers. The fact that all these options exist on the market, or where not taken as real competition only a few years ago, shows that what is hurting Microsoft is there own inability to fill the need of customers.
This is not fan-boyism or Microsoft hating. It is just the facts. If Vista was as stable as OS X or Linux, with the ease of use OS X, and the freedom of customization with Linux, Microsoft would have no competition in the OS market, at least.
breaking stuff is how monkeys mark their territory! whouldn't it be nice to mark THAT territory?:)
The parts of Google that matter aren't open source. The search engine not only isn't open source, the rating algorithms are secret. None of the web apps are open source on the server side. Try to scrape Google's data and see what happens. Read their robots.txt file.
Sure, they have some open source stuff, but it's more in the nature of client code that slaves some open source app to Google's proprietary servers. You're not going to see an open source enterprise search engine from Google, not one you can run on your own servers. Google charges $30,000 (!) for a server that can search 500,000 documents.
Linux supports more hardware than any other operating system and is virtually virus free.
That some manufacturers make closed hardware that cannot be supported without extreme reverse engineering, if at all, is not Linux's fault. It's yours for buying that stuff. If you can't be bothered to check the HCL then at least quit whining.
It's no secret that Microsoft expends considerable capital to get manufacturers to keep their devices closed. The net benefit to those manufacturers should be that their products don't sell. If they want my money, they're open. I'm not paying for my own chains and neither should you.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The ancient Greeks knew that men often find that their greatest strength becomes their greatest weakness. A man who has arete ("excellence") such as great power, great beauty or great prowess may develop hubris ("arrogant pride"), which in turn leads to ate ("blind recklessness" the final letter is pronounced), when an he loses his sense of humility and becomes rash or imprudent. Ate, in turn, leads to nemesis ("retributive justice").
.docx? What else could have lead to these products, other than the mentality of: "they will eat my dog-food and say it is Foie Gras Truffles".
Vista? Office 2007?
Nemesis is sure to follow.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Forget Office or Open Source, what is Microsoft's biggest threat is the game industry.
Linux is not quite ready for the mainstream, but it is close. With companies like Dell selling Ubuntu computers, other companies will see a market and start offering products. Software companies will start seeing a demand for Linux software from mainstream customers, not just from "geeks", and will start porting software to Linux, this includes games.
I know of plenty of people that only use Windows for games, and use Linux for everything else. If game companies stop using DirectX and start releasing games natively on Linux, a lot of people who currently dual-boot will have no need for Windows and stop using Windows altogether.
Seeing as Microsoft doesn't even have Linux based software, losing customers to Linux will mean losing every other piece of software Microsoft makes to Linux at the same time.
Linux on its own won't significantly hurt Microsoft, but game companies will. Have you noticed the "Games for Windows" logo that is becoming more and more common? It is there because Microsoft are aware that the Game companies hold the power.
2008 could actually be the year of Linux on the Desktop, due to mainstream companies pushing it.
Well, there are probably many ways of looking at this, but my take is this:
The only way to challenge Microsoft in a serious way is to outdo them at their own game, or to change the game around. I believe Google is doing the latter, and Microsoft appears to not be fully aware of what's coming at them right now... Another way would be to hit Microsoft where it hurts and to break their stranglehold on the office application and integration business, and simultaneously break their operating system monopoly. Google Docs is not nearly enough in its present stage, but if there was a really superior and well respected Google Office, that would be a major problem for Microsoft, because businesses would most certainly adopt it, especially of it was open source and ran on Windows, Mac OS X and a Google-branded version or Linux (or why not FreeBSD?). Open Office is fine, but maybe customers want something slicker and easier, and lightweight, more like Apples Pages, Numbers and Keynote?
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
The question.
It's the question that is important, since if you break it down to basics, it states "which is a bigger threat to microsoft, a or a" leaving out the most abvious part, microsoft itself.
Microsoft has run so thin over the years that it's a miracle in itself that it still is a single company. However, their strategy cannot be "we aim to be best at everything", since that's an impossible task for any company.
They have to clarify their own strategic model, get rid of subdivisions that don't fit into that model, pull a 180 on some of their projects that MAY fit into the strategy and emphasize on the remaining tasks.
That's the only way for them to survive. After the Vista fiasco, there will be very limited trust in the company for years to come.
OSS and Google are just "companies out there". Most of OSS and Google should not clash with the core strategy of Microsoft, if there was one to begin with..
I would have to say Microsoft's biggest problem is Steve Ballmer. Near as I can tell, his chief asset is a friendship with the big guy. I am not aware of a single other accomplishment that can be laid at his feet in his almost 30 year history with MS. Microsoft really needs someone new at the helm to reinvigorate the company. Somebody like Steve Jobs, or even a Jack Welch. Somebody who is willing to look at things differently and who is able to induce changes in a corporation with all the inertia of Microsoft. MS today reminds me a lot of IBM in the 80's. Pretty much worthless, and yet everyone saw it as invincible. IBM is still around, but has only a fraction of the influence it once had.
Not likely, at least not any more than Sun+OSS was, or IBM+OSS was, or AOL+OSS was. All these companies wanted to do was claim ownership over some aspect of OSS, and each has failed due to a lack of appreciation of FOSS's shortcomings.
Sun loves Teh Lunix, because they only care about selling database software... and a very lucrative consulting service. IBM loves Teh Lunix because they only care about selling hardware... and a very lucrative consulting service. AOL... has their heads up their ass, but was hoping FOSS would somehow magically solve all their problems (as most FOSS companies do).
For reality, let's look at Munich, Germany, and their high-profile FOSS failure. In 2002 they thought it would be really neato to rip out their entire network and replace everything (literally) with Teh Lunix. Well, it's 2008, and all they've served up was a steaming pile of failure. Huge lesson learned- Teh Lunix is not ready for teh desktop. Another huge lesson learned- Microsoft allows organizations to do far more than Munich's highly paid Lunix consultants appreciated. But in all fairness, it's hard to say whether those highly paid consultants championing the Lunix total conversion were blinded by zealotry or dollar sights (well, Euro signs in their case). Or both, of course.
But of course, this is all overlooking the fact that Eric Schmidt has a raging hard-on against Microsoft. First he was at Sun... which turned FOSS in order to be anti-MS. Then Schmidt moved to Novell... which turned to FOSS in order to go anti-MS. And now, he is running Google... which has never been shy about attacking Microsoft, and is (sigh) embracing FOSS in order to attack Microsoft.
It's an old story, and not very interesting. Once Schmidt runs Google into the ground, he's going to move on to somewhere else, and THAT company will start hating Microsoft and using FOSS. And MS will just continue being the dominant player in the software industry, at least until someone figures out that customers want software which works reliably, rather than software which is FOSS. But I think we can rest assured that someone will never be Eric Schmidt.
Linux/Open Source was the first threat to Microsoft. Linux started hitting Microsoft on the server side. Apache stopped any chance Microsoft had of controlling the Internet.
Then Google came along and did things with the Internet that Microsoft hadn't even thought about. Now Microsoft had to contend with this new threat. And is failing badly.
And finally, Microsoft being punched on their home territory, the desktop. Apple is now threatening Microsoft on the desktop.
Microsoft has three real threats unlike the one they had with Netscape back in 1996. Times are changing.
Has anyone considered what the future looks like for MS when I can use my I can use my Apple i device of choice in conjunction with WiMax to access FOSS and other applications running on Google servers?
Microsoft was the first (and remains the only, according to Linus) company to profit from the sale of binaries. Before MS, software development was paid for by hardware sales (Apple and IBM still work this way). FOSS says it can be completely free. Google is saying it can be ad-supported. It's clear that Google's approach will be the next one to dominate. The immediacy of no-install coupled with no-pay is unstoppable, and Google is uniquely positioned to win at it. So there *is* a direct competition between Microsoft and Google, and it *is* the biggest thing in software today. Google doth even protest too much. Until 2007 MS had enough control over the browser to cause them serious pain. The failure of Vista in 2007 is symptomatic of all this, but clearly represents a turning point.
Google will need more control over hardware than Microsoft had. The PC was an office machine that could set its own rules. Computers today are part of people's lives, and to fit there they must be organic in function and form. The Open Handset Alliance is proof Google understands this. This change also made Apple's approach valid again.
Google loves FOSS because they know people will pay for it anyway. You can repair and even build a car yourself, but a very tiny (if colorful) fraction of people do. You can't pirate server-side software, and why would you want to?
-Carl
Themselves. The other companies out there will simply be around waiting to pick up the pieces. These companies' leaders will be haled as geniuses and great businessmen by the business press after being, essentially, in the right place at the right time.
Wait a minute... that sounds familiar. I seem to remember a little company... name started with an 'M', I believe... and a big international company of some sort... Oh, well - that was a long time ago. Long faded into history. Nobody could learn anything from that.
That is all.
Which was a direct competition to Google's entire revenue model, AdSense.
I love how Microsoft never improves anything, they just add syllables.
Karma: Non-Heinous
That was a real nice secret plan we had there for a while, real nice, until you guys decided to publicize it. The cat's out of the bag now, we'll have to come up with something else.
Don't Microsoft have Miguel on the payroll? That's a big benefit to FOSS also.
Which makes both companies... $0.00, at best.
Which makes both companies... $0.00, at best.
Which makes both companies... $0.00, at best.
Android is vaporware (and reportedly extremely buggy vaporware at that)... and MS isn't even making money on Windows Mobile.
You're kidding, right? Neither Google Docs nor StarOffice are competition for MS Office. With MS Works, maybe, but nobody really uses MS Works (mainly just because MS Office is far superior, and knowing MS Office is a valuable job skill).
So again... we are seeing a pattern here of Google throwing money into "competing" with MS in areas which aren't making money.
Honestly, if I were a Google stockholder, I'd tell Eric Schmidt to knock it the fuck off. But that's Google's thing now: they are SO desperate for SOMETHING which makes money besides advertising, they are (in the words of Fake Steve Jobs) playing blindfolded basketball and praying somebody can make a basket. And Eric Schmidt's thing is turning any company he runs into an MS-hating FOSS class project. I predict Google will collapse just like every other company Schmidt helped run.
Sounds more like dot-bomb era "new economy" thinking to me. Google thinks they can squander money to marketplace success. Hey Google, 1998 called, they want their business model back.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Want to see how far a chair can really fly? Have the XBox group suggest that they would be better off abandoning Windows as their gaming platform at the next board meeting.
Have gnu, will travel.
Microsoft is the most important player in the housewife/joe6pack user market. They make a nice OS. It works for people.
Disclaimer: I like Windows, and always have. I know and use BSD for servers.
Google depends, like all advertisers, on eyeballs. It doesn't care how the eyeballs appear, except for analytical aggregate. The only way it would care is if it could increase the number of eyeballs. MS gets people to Google. Google gets people to Microsoft.
I just don't see how either is a) in competition and b) would want the other to go away. Google needs users to stare at its advertising. MS provides boatloads of them. Google could come up with the world's greatest OS and it still would not add any market share unless the users of that OS were new users a la Windows 95.
I have to say, I completely dislike what Google has done to the net. Polluting millions of web pages with redundant come ons for soap and services just isn't my idea of a fun time, and their ability to rook in thousands of ops with the adwords setup makes them all the more whorish imho. Folks, Google is a great idea, but you don't have to like it, and I don't. Shipping massive amounts of advertising on a continuous basis makes you an asshole in my book.
In comparison, Microsoft sticks its hand out once, when I need an OS. I buy it, and they go away. I get a nice OS, end of story. And spare me the Linux comparison. There is no comparison. I have used Linux professionally for 8 years. Good servers. But the Linux desktop is still as far behind the current MS OS as it ever was. They've both progressed, but RH6.2 was not ready for prime time compared to Windows 2000, and Ubuntu 7 is not ready for prime time compared to Windows Vista. Microsoft, and Windows 95, is the reason most of us are here having this conversation. They vastly increased the number of PC owners, and therefore available eyeballs, back in the 90s. Now that networks and processors are fulfilling that promise, you have more generally satisfied housewife/joe6pack users, but they are and will always use MS OSes. I love Linux and OSS, but you are all drinking KoolAid if you think Linux is going to make a dent in the MS market share, let alone increase the overall size of the pie to Google's benefit.
it's unlikely they would have survived long enough to dominate the search space. Few people would return to a search site that crashes whenever used, as shown by hitting the Google Search button followed by nothing happening. Then, there's the cost issue.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have been following Microsoft closely from the very beginning. Right now, their dominance comes from their control of the desktop.
Google, which is trying to make the web browser replace the desktop, is a threat only to the extent they can achieve that goal. The problem with the web browser replacing the desktop is not technological, in this era of broadband, it is an achievable goal.
It is not, however, culturally or psychologically, achievable. In this era of "dirty tricks" replacing ethical behavior for even the most minor issues, people feel a lot better with their programs and data under their personal control.
Online mail from Yahoo and GMail is perfectly good if you don't about spying or tampering, but I run an hmailserver on my local machine for anything important, and I only keep it up when I am monitoring it. Same thing for office suites or any other programs where an office rival or personal enemy could gain an advantage by snooping or tampering. It is just common sense not to leave yourself vulnerable.
It is not not surprising that Google has experienced phenomenal growth, web advertising is profitable and is rapidly increasing in importance, and it fits in well with their web as desktop strategy. However, there is a very low barrier to entry, and Microsoft could crush them anytime it wants. All it had to do is offer more for advertising dollars than Google does, and with four times the revenue, they could outbid Google easily. If they were to buy, say, Ask.com, and throw some real advertising dollars behind it, Google would be at a tremendous disadvantage.
You see, the problem is that Google does NOT own the web browser, it just owns search. And it owns it only because people have no incentive to change. If Microsoft engaged a GOOD ad agency, one with a Tversky or a Lakoff mentality driving it, people could be easily convinced to change.
\
I agree with your point but with the names like google there is a faith attached and that is what is helping open source to a lot large extent, when students see that google want them to work on open source projects in summer of code then they understand it more better that if google is betting on open source then it must be top of its class. and also this bigness, this diversity of work area and work force is what makes google and ope source too simmilar to each other and hence get more out from each other. also your point regarding beating google, i tend to disagree, the reason is the same reason why oss was not able to cut microsoft down till high flyers like schettleworth and google joinedin is because, there is always a faith facter that helps any one to grow. and that is what we have in google, People even replace search with google, and now a common phrase is DO SOME GOOGLING, instead of DO SOME SEARCHING with this kind of faith level in the company takes a lot more than just price slashing or court cases to go down.
Google and Microsoft don't exactly share the same main market do they? I know they make money in similar ways but do they share the primary product they both have? Google seems to take things back to the basics of computing, when it was function over form, Microsoft seems to have forgotten this and it seems like their market analysts stare at apple all day and stick a bunch of pretty GUI stuff on their operating systems. Google's don't be evil attitude is going to win over Microsoft's sue everyone all the time idiocy. Microsoft is indeed its own biggest threat, many times over the years have their employees and other people who have studied the company agreed, the company doesn't have any organization anymore, too many people doing this and that and no one is working on fixing the problems with the existing products. Sometimes i wonder if Microsoft is like one of those company that employs entire buildings of people that have a project changed every 2 months so most of the building just comes in every day to be there and then leaves at night and gets a paycheck for it(I want to work there). But Its true that Microsoft will soon die and then shortly(relative) after Google will also die...And then the machines rise to take over with me leading them to victory! Or another company takes over and then its "Is Google's biggest threat closed-open source software?" or whatever it is then that 90% of the geeky people side with.
The decision makers at large and small businesses do not normally read Slashdot and other journals. They are more often than not sold solutions buy sales people or their advisors. (Remember the old phrase, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM.") Well, just as VHS won over Beta in the video wars because JVC were smart enough to ensure a lot of Porn was released on VHS, so with the future of software and OS's, something somewhere will be 'the' killer app to get whoever creates it a foothold. And if whoever that is, whether it's Google, Microsoft, Zoho or some as yet unheard of company or pair of individuals, continues to innovate, then they will end up taking the lead. Remember how it was in the 1980s, who made the best image editing application? Electronic Arts with Deluxe Paint! How things change. Electronic Arts are now the world's leading Game publisher and Photoshop (from the at the time unheard of Adobe) is now the leading image editor. Why? Because EA dropped the ball with DPaint while Adobe have continued to develop and innovate so that Photoshop continues to be a SOLUTION. Enough said. :-)
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
Google definetly runs on and makes heavy use of OSS, but I think that their support has more to do with altruism than anything else. That being said they are an EVIL company - they perform widespread censorship, and decide what information America, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the world, is allowed to view. Microsoft, for all of it's mid 90s crappy software, never was an agent of widespread censorship. It could have, with as much ease as it forced 10 bug/week versions of IE on the world.
So next time you are doing some Google unapproved information retrevial - trying to find a cheat for unreal tournament (can't do it), a virii database (also censored), or porn involving horses (google says neigh!), just think for a second about how benevolent this company really is.
You keep using that phrase "fail 100% of the time". I do not think it means what you think it means.
...for that rousing update.
Let us not forget that MS has been padding their sales figures for Vista since their first announcement. (Coupons given away that are good for a free upgrade are not sales, especially if they're not used.) Who is to say this is any different? TFA doesn't drill down into how MS is compiling their sales figures. It just makes a reference to a bare claim from MS. Are they (perhaps?) counting new XP sales that are issued a serial number that could also be used for Vista Premium as a Vista sale? Enquiring minds want to know.
Playing the devil's advocate, I might cite anecdotal evidence just as easily.
Of the punters I know, exactly two are running Vista. For both, it's what shipped with new kit. One thinks it's bollix, but isn't literate enough to install XP (or Linux) instead. The other simply thinks it's inevitable that they will be assimilated, so they might as well keep Vista rather than install XP only to eventually be forced back again.
The remainder who bought new kit installed some flavour of Linux, re-installed XP, set up a multiple-boot, or opted for OS X, thinking if they were to spend that much on new kit, they might as well take the plunge while they're at it. That's in rising order. (And, those who kept XP in any combination mostly wanted it just for gaming.)
Without new kit, the rest are still running XP, with no plans to move to Vista until they have no choice. And, game support and DirectX 10 are the bits they're pondering, not any of the rest. Outside of the game crew, more of rest of the lot than ever are eying Linux or OS X as possible alternatives if MS gets a titch more pushy, including some former MS nutters I thought would never consider it.
Nor do I know (outside of mention in the nag rags) of any large firm with intention to move any time soon. Most seem to see it as an eventuality, but have no desire to make unnecessary upgrades to kit to do so simply because MS says as much. And, over a pint, the boys from the machine room don't seem too happy about it, even down the way.
From here, outside of the press room, Vista doesn't really look to have significant traction, and it doesn't seem likely to develop much until it can show some value that seems commensurate with the price tag.
I try to keep this list of Google open source luminaries up to date
But it would have mattered at the beginning. It would have cost a big wad of money extra.
Their insight was to leverage FOSS for that from the beginning.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Is what the license says. That is the whole point of the GNU license.
Honestly folks, hone your reading comprehension skills, sometime is amazing to read the claims made around here that are easily dispelled by reading one or two documents....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Such idiocy is akin to say that a Radio or TV station, or a magazine or a newspaper, are advertisement companies. Or tha the Super Bowl is an advertisement event.
Advertisement, is a source of revenue, but their product is highly accurate search results of stuff in the Internet, or email service , or picture repository.
You name it, but the revenue stream is advertisement.
If they were an advertisement company they would sell ads and place them somewhere visible (like double click I suppose, that branch of google may adjust to that description).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Honestly, google a bit. OK use MS search engine.
They have declared to have monopolistic control of the market of Operating Systems, both in the EU and the US.
All your inane babbling is misguided because regulators and the judicial system are past arguing that point.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It's hardly idiocy to call it that; don't forget that whilst traditional media companies - such as the television or radio stations you mention - existed in a given form for decades before being forced to diversify. Google on the other hand began as a company whose primary product was search, but rapidly diversified into other areas. The consistent theme between all the things they've diversified into has always been advertising, so it's perfectly reasonable to refer to them as an advertising company.
Because we know how well they've stuck to that! Spurious argument, I know; but clearly 'data acquisition' isn't an ends, it's merely a means. Although as another poster has pointed out, products (means) and profit (ends) aren't necessarily directly linked. In Google's case, there are a fair few steps to the process.
Each of them is a serious threat to MS.
Together, they are Redmond's nightmare. In the long run, MS cannot beat them.
As often, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.