Slashdot Mirror
Is Google the New Microsoft?
ericjones12398 writes "Google's come up with its solution for Dropbox: If you can't buy 'em, copy 'em. The search engine and online advertising giant replaced its popular Google Docs service with Google Drive, a cloud computing storage service designed to directly compete with start up Dropbox. This raises the question, has Google become the new Microsoft? Us ancient folk who remember the 1990s and the Microsoft anti-trust trial can certainly notice some parallels. A big, dare we say monolithic, company doesn't bother innovating on its own. It just waits for other companies to innovate, makes some changes for legally significant distinctions and enters into competition with the innovator. Sound familiar?
That if Microsoft was a human and google a pig we wouldn't see much difference between the two
Is this Slashdot or Mashable?
2002 I stopped using Microsoft.
2012 I stopped using Google.
I thought that was the basic business model, lie, steal, cheat, and manipulate what you can to make the most profit...
Kind of a trollish article, but since the question was asked...
Yes, Google is the new Microsoft.
I don't know, but Patexia seems to be a front for someone according to the bias in all of their articles over the past 2 years as seen by a Google search.
They just stole from Excite?
They stole email from hotmail?
Please, on a site that bitches about patents blocking innovation we are bitching about a company seeing an idea and building their own now?
What? Why do you say that? Online file storage being accessible way pre-dates Dropbox.
Google deciding it's worthwhile to do...what next, you going to harangue them for their on-line mail service too?
Are Google enforcing proprietary formats, bundling products to the detriment of their competition, and 'reinterpreting' standards such that third party options no longer interoperate properly? Although MS have been forced to improve more recently, I think that style of business was always the main problem that people had with them. Throwing another option into the marketplace without any element of coercion is fine by me, even if it is just a copy - genuine competition keeps everyone on their toes.
I remember when Microsoft was the refreshing, freedom-loving alternative to Big Blue.
My how times have changed.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Come on, let's not overromanticize DropBox here. They didn't invent the online storage business either. There were several companies in it during the .com boom, even Apple got into it before DropBox (and back out).
DropBox entered into a business which is less a business dependent on client software but more on network infrastructure, something Google excels at.
So just to ask, when was Google the first into a market? Not search. Not ads. Not mail. Not voice (they bought Grand Central).
They're the same as they ever were. They aren't first, but sometimes they do a better job or change up the business model.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Can we moderate stories yet? Please? Can't we mark shit like this a -1 Troll?
Google is the new Apple.
Apple is the new Microsoft.
Microsoft is the new IBM.
IBM is the new Xerox.
I still remember GMail offering 1-2Gb when the competition had a maximum of 50mb (or thereabouts). GMail blew away the competition back in the day.
Fast-forward to today, G+ is several years too late to the market, and Google Drive offers less space than the 25Gb SkyDrive users have had for years and hardly anything worth even mentioning functionality wise. And don't get me started on the Ts&Cs about data privacy - there's a reason you'll never see a private cloud solution from Google - they want _all_ your data or they're not interested.
Google has a great search engine and have done some great web-apps before (gmail, google maps) but everything else just seems a bit "meh" at best at the moment.
throw new NoSignatureException();
Because Dropbox was a totally innovative startup, and nobody, NOBODY ever thought of some sort of way of remotely storing files before, no siree! And certainly noone ever had even the slightest idea that synchronising files between different machines could be a useful idea.
All big companies do this. It's not proof that Google is Microsoft. It's proof that Google is big. What made Microsoft distinct was the way it competed. Google doesn't compete with the same level of carnage that Microsoft did. There has been some bloodshed, but the fact that Google+ is where it is, would be a good way to demonstrate the argument that Google is not Microsoft. Have there been allegations of predatory behavior? Yes, of course. Do you hear about it happening all the time? Not really. Google drive is kind of like Dropbox, but Amazon Drive is a lot more like Dropbox. Why is everyone talking about Google, when Amazon stole the service and copied it lock, stock, and barrel? Amazon is Dropbox's ISP for hosting this stuff. And yet, despite the fact that the case of Amazon is predatory, everyone's so concerned about the case of Google, which isn't? Why, exactly do people who care about predatory business practices care more about Google than Amazon? The mind boggles.
This signature intentionally left blank.
No one can invent everything, and i still see Google producing new stuff all the time. They would be a fool not to pick up on trends, and include them in their 'suite' of offerings to remain relevant.
They are also not waiting until the last minute to adopt things, and then do it 1/2 assed, like Microsoft tends to do.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Is Google the new Microsoft that was replaced when Apple became the new Microsoft?
Hold it. Doesn't Google run most of their stuff on Linux?
Is Linux the new Apple?
"Is X the new Y" a way for people without much background or information to fill up a few inches of column space in a hurry?
How about we just ignore any "is X the new Y" from today onwards? Okay?
Another wonderful anti Google story - bravo!
Gotta get paid!
It's the same story people have been writing for years.
Google as the Next Microsoft.
If you in fact Google Slashdot with the words Microsoft and Google, you'll find hundreds of results because people have been saying it for years.
It wasn't so much they stole as they infringed on patents.
Stac felt their patents covered software Microsoft bought from Vertisoft, improved upon and rolled into MS-DOS.
Stac was found to steal from MS though.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
IT is a field that is changing rapidly, and if you stick to only one service you may soon find yourself out of business. Therefore, big tech companies try to get a hold in every promising new market segment. Which is exactly how capitalism should work, developing a multitude of services for the users to choose from. Dropbox didn't invent renting online storage, and neither did Megaupload, it has been there long before them. The only difference is that they offer a limited bait service for free, and they have renamed it "cloud". And that hardly classifies as 'innovation' that could be copied. The author basically has problems that another company dares to compete with his favourite startup, raising shilling to a whole new level.
Facebook
Google does not have the same evil gene as Microsoft.
Posting as AC because until recently I used to work there. Words cannot express the hate and revulsion I feel for that company. Microsoft employees are truly on a different planet. They seem to really believe that the world outside Microsoft does not exist; that standards do not matter; that Microsoft itself gets to set the direction for everyone else. Even in areas where Microsoft is not even a player (e.g. scientific computing), they act as if their own obscure contributions (PowerShell; their HPC thing for clusters) are where it's really at. People will tell you with a completely straight face that Microsoft web-hosting solutions dominate the market; or that MSN search was at one time the leading provider of search-- and these assertions are for the most part not questioned by others. Anyway, there's no point really trying to express why I hate that company so much. I could go on for literally days. It's a gut thing.
Doesn't seem to know much about the products.
GOOG drive: great online office apps, can also store other stuff. No linux client (so far, or maybe forever, who knows). More space that DB
Dropbox: No built in file viewer/editor for office type apps. Excellent free linux client (no kidding, just install, start, it works. No memory leaks. No bugs. No weirdness. Just freaking works. Nice job guys)
Analysis: dropbox is the base product, beaten across all fronts. GOOG Drive is online office storing on the drive, now storing any file you'd like too. GOOG also has more space. If you use linux you can't use goog drive, so I don't, otherwise it beats dropbox across the board.
Both have nuts TOS etc, so just act like you're posting everything public to the whole world, and assume they'll steal ownership of anything you give them access to. Oddly enough, this doesn't reduce their usefulness very much at all, at least to me.
Online storage is a commodity. Its purefanboyism or audio-phoolism to claim your 1s and 0s sound better if you store your bits on Seagate drives or Western Digital drives. You're better off claiming that drawing a green marker on your ethernet cable makes your cloud stored mp3s sound better. Ditto GOOG or DB for storing 1s 0s over IP. Sounds like GOOG wins across the board unless you've got linux then its unusable so DB as the only serious entrant wins.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Google has not cut off Microsofts air supply. ...
Google+ is done even though Windows runs.
I've said this before. All three companies are/were monopolies formed from the ideologies of three of the major desktop computer players:
* Microsoft/Gates.
* Apple/Jobs.
* Google/Wozniak (but with better marketing savvy).
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
Google Drive does have some innovated stuff from Docs - it has awesome realtime collaboration, borrowed from Google Wave. I'd say that if you need several people editing a document at the same time, nothing beats Docs.
The only addition Google made to Docs before rebranding it into Drive is the desktop sync feature and bumping up free storage to 5 gigs. I'd say this is minor compared to existing document editing/viewing/collaboration features, which
a) Dropbox doesn't have;
b) Were steadily developed for at least 5 years.
Why was this troll blog post even allowed to show up on main /. page?
Google is not yet in Microsoft's league of indecency. Microsoft, just to remind you, is a convicted abusive monopolist. Google has not reached monopoly status anywhere significant.
Google is probably at least as dominant in several on-line fields as Microsoft ever was: search (traditional Google), video hosting (YouTube), and mapping/geographical data (Google Maps) come immediately to mind. I don't know how dominant Google Mail is as a hosted webmail provider these days, but that might be a candidate too. And then there are all kinds of smaller/niche areas where Google has been developing and/or buying up early players, though the trend does seem to be much more about consolidation and focus since the change in leadership.
On top of that range of dominant services, there is far more potential for Google to use leverage from an existing dominant service to further its efforts artificially in another market, with the on-line advertising where it makes its real money being a prime example.
So I think you're objectively incorrect that Google is not yet in the same league as Microsoft were. They are actually some way beyond where Microsoft had got to, it's just that no-one has called them on it in court yet. That could simply be because there is no-one left to compete credibly and no-one new brave/foolish enough to try to disrupt a market where Google is already the dominant player, which is in practice almost the definition of a monopoly.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Come on, what's innovative about Dropbox?
Yes, the interface is all cute, it runs smoothly and doesn't spam the hell out of me. Still, filesharing isn't new. Syncing isn't new. Coming up with something similar is just what is supposed to happen in a competitive marketplace.
If Google launched a smear campaign against Dropbox and came up with some severely restrictive and sloppy alternative, maybe the comparison would make sense. But so...meh. Btw, I heard Google's financial statements are hard to read. They're totally the new Enron.
WOW IMAGINE THAT A TECHNOLOGY COMPANY HAS A COOL NEW IDEA AND DOES IT BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE DOES... SO LET'S DO IT WITH MOAR MONIES AND BETTAR!!! srsly ericjones12398, should five guys burgers and fries not exist because mc donalds does... and should mc donalds ignore how successful a smaller chain has become? they both serve the same markets with similar products... jack in the box, subway, burger king, taco bell, et. al - are they all 'ripping off' or 'failing to innovate' other ideas?
Google's Hangout service (which integrates nicely with docs -- now drive) also integrates nicely with YouTube.
Google+ may be "years behind", but Hangouts seems to directly benefit startups by offering a groupware "free" in terms of money that rivals corporate tools today.
All of my source code is mirrored on Google code, and has landed me 8+ contract jobs.
Copying? Yes. Microsoft? Not in my eyes.
This is all a big joke right?
Google inovates every day.
People copy good ideas every day.
Slashdot readers complain about something every day.
The world keeps spinning.
Microsoft actively battled, and still does, open standards. Google pushes open standards and puts a lot of weight behind them.
Microsoft has always (and was convicted of) using it's monopoly power to force other products and services on users. Even though it has a venerable monopoly on search and online video, Google does NO SUCH THING, in fact they actively open all of their APIs on both platforms and allow ample third party integration.
Microsoft does little more than pay lip service to the open source movement, and has even gone on record to say it's a cancer. Google actively peruses open source, they publish a huge amount of their work under open source licenses, and they put a lot of money into sponsor ships through programs such as the Summer of Code.
People like to give Google a lot of flack for knowing everything about you - HOWEVER Google actually goes out of their way to allow users to have total control over their data. You can log into your Google profile at any time and export all of your data and then delete the profile, leaving no trace. You can opt into having all your data anonymized, and you can opt out of all tracking on their properties, if you choose. Can you do this with Microsoft's products? I mean it is 2012 and you can't even access your hotmail via an open protocol, let alone export your data.
Microsoft and Google have always been polar opposites. All of this recent hatred toward Google is really unjustified.. it's basically perpetuated by people who simply like to vote for the underdog.. previously Google was the underdog, now it is other companies... Google is no longer "cool" and "hip", it is "corporate" and therefore evil... well, evil is relative. Compared to Microsoft, Google is a relative saint.
Like done in any other free market, Google sees an idea with potential, decides they can do it better, and makes their own implementation. They still respect the patented ideas (mostly), and when needed, re-engineer the implementation. This is competition, and without it, things would hardly improve in terms of innovation since there would be little motivation. People should be happy Google spends so much money in trying out new ideas and products instead of just sitting on it and watching it grow.
This is true free marker: the big fish eats the small fish. Google is removing competition. At this step eventually we'll end up with big corps ruling... oh, wait, we already have big corps ruling us, essentially slowly killing democracy. Good luck with that, I'm leaving... oh wait, I can't leave the planet yet.
Sure, I admit there are similarities. Both are giant greedy companies. Both gobble up competitors, and when they are prevented form that they both launch competing products. I view Google's "Don't be Evil" lip service as about as transparent and self serving as the 1990's and 2000's era MS open source lip service.
On the other hand Google's own products are fairly decent. MS's are largely crap. Most times when MS buys a company the "adopted" products go rapidly to crap. Google's "adopted" products tend to trundle along for a while. MS was a creditable platform vender and most of the assaults on other companies were against those that built on top of MS's own infrastructure. Google has only made one Android related purchase that I can recall. Maybe that is an area ripe for future abuse, but for the moment they have not had their own "it ain't done 'till Word Perfect won't run" moment.
If Google is the new MS, then at least the trains run on time. (most days) It ain't much, but at least it is something.
It's just sound ridiculous.
Shamelessly stolen from four years ago:
Google now has a full-blown case of the Microsoft Business Disaster Model. This model goes like this:
The most profitable company this year (2008) was Exxon-Mobil. A company that has to get its hands dirty and actually move a physical product had higher profits than Microsoft, a company that just thinks up bits that it then distributes, largely electronically. Imagine the profits if Microsoft were to sell off all its huge money losers, retain only enough employees to maintain Windows and Office, and pay out all the profits as dividends. It would be the most incredible stock the market had ever seen.
This is business as usual for Google. None of their flagship products were straight from the minds of Google, and that's certainly not a bad thing.
Why is it that Google is copying Dropbox? Dropbox was not the first, either. Isn't the whole point of innovation to take something and make it better? Dropbox did that by making cloud storage and syncing far less painless than it currently was. Google can further that goal even farther as the product matures.
This honestly just looks like a weak attack on Google. Would anyone even have cared negatively about a competing product had it been anyone other than Google? We'd probably be applauding the added competition to drive the various cloud storage providers to create better products.
Facebook were only the ones that have been caught. It's fairly obvious that there are more companies involved.
Dropbox needed to get patents in order to be successful .
Blame dropbox VC's not Google.
Google is still aok in my book.
They removed spam from my life, they gave me a free CR-48
and they trust me enough to sell a quality app on their PLAY-app market.
IMHO, all these internet $B companies are too big. Apple, Facebook, et al.
I imagine Congress will smack them like they did Microsoft.
Then I hope they move off-shore to send a message to our stupid leaders to
embrace openness, not their TSA-style future.
Help eliminate stupid speeding tickets
Companies steal - all companies do it. Apple stole from Android, Android stole from iOS, Windows stole from OSX, OSX stole from Windows - it's a never ending circle. Twitter and facebook have both stole from each other, Linux has stole from Unix and so on and so forth.
The companies that don't steal don't innovate either, they just piss off their users because company X has a great feature and the users want it. Eventually those users leave for company X.
If it's a good idea and you're not doing it, then you're doing it wrong.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
They're similar in that they both seem to fear that some upstart or technology will supplant them so they're constantly moving into areas that have had nothing to do with their core business up to that point (e.g. Microsoft got into browsers because they were afraid of the web replacing Windows, and Google got into social because they were afraid that Facebook would replace search.) and generally done a half-assed effort in those spaces. However, they have had some successes like Android and Xbox so it's not as though these investments can't pay off.
Other than that, the similarities end. Microsoft's abuses make Googles pale in comparison, but as of late Google has definitely been heading down that path. The wi-fi snooping case is starting to look worse and worse for them, and they've been using their search to push their social network so I can see where the comparison's arise. In some ways Google's actions are also probably a little easier to swallow since many of their products or projects are open source which plays well with the community here.
I think what a lot of folks here are doing is jumping on the whole "OMGWTFGOOGLESTOLEMYBASEBALL" bandwagon. The reality is, if google's solution is even marginally good at syncing and sharing files (which it appears to be with my limited usage), it has potentially the missing link of a pretty damned good documents toolbox for text, spreadsheet, and presentations.
But let's back up here for a second. Ever since Google has had a documents platform from January 2010 on, they've been in want of an *easy* way to get your documents there. Sure, you could go in, upload them, and then pull them back out later, but that was cumbersome and annoying. You could email them to yourself, but again - cumbersome and annoying. They FINALLY added this ability - and just took a baby step forward to make it a "cloud drive" for all of your documents. Not that big of a deal for them, but a hell of a lot more useful to the average Joe.
I do understand that Dropbox has been around for a while - since 2007 in fact. But they never really picked up until the 2009 timeframe for the average user, and while they've been pretty innovative on the synchronizing front, they've not really expanded out very far. Not to mention, they have a bit of a strange market - They tout themselves as a sort of sharing and backup solution. However, the only reason there even needs to be a "sharing" solution is because emailing larger files can be inconsistent but the means to do so with Dropbox isn't particularly elegant even as they add features to make it easier. And to consider dropbox as a means to "back up" your documents is a bit of a joke when there are far superior services that don't try to get into the "sharing" market (and can therefore create a much better backup solution) that are quite a lot cheaper. I'm looking at you, Crashplan and similar services. Because when I want to back up my computer offsite, I don't want to pick a quite limited-capacity folder to do so.
So really, Dropbox is only particularly better than the competition at sharing files. But as I said, it's not even quite great at that. If Google can step up and put out a product that integrates with email for their millions of users (it does), integrates with Google Docs to persuade people to jump into the cloud documents market (it does), and can not lose your data (Google seems to be pretty good at this) - I'd say that's a *good* thing. Hell, it may even convince Dropbox to continue innovating. And isn't that the idea of free enterprise in the first place?
I hate sigs...
things sure have changed when in so many instances MS is the underdog.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I don't trust any online storage supplier to be around for ever so I will always have two online storage services going and will keep everything that I care about on both.
Anyone used yahoo briefcase before. Not the functionality of online sync but it has been around for almost a decade. Talk about failing to innovate...
It just waits for other companies to innovate, makes some changes for legally significant distinctions and enters into competition with the innovator.
Sort of like Bell Labs and Unix.
Google Drive was rumoured since Gmail.
Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
yeah the very first impression upon seeing that Drive icon in the system tray was that "hey they copied Dropbox", so uninstalled it just
One still has the choice to either use Googles products, or to not use Googles products.
There are other search engines, and other free email providers. Google became big because people chose to use their products, personally I have never "been forced" to pay Google anything... clicking on an ad or two has causes some-one to pay Google.
Microsoft became big by taking choices away from people, it may vary where you live, but if you want (or have ever wanted) a computer with-out MSWindows in Denmark your options are severely limited. Some companies even charge extra because you have to "customise" your computer to buy it with-out MSWindows.
More choices = good
Less choices = bad
I still haven't gotten a blue screen of death using any of Google's products. Until then I'd say the answer is no.
D
Dear Facebook,
Thank your PR team kindly for posting this anti-Google article on Slashdot. In case anyone's forgotten,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576321182058902822.html
Now I wonder -which- company really lacks ethics here? Maybe the one whose founder weasled their core product from someone else?
AC
...is absolutely asinine.
Even today both are very innovative.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Google gives it all away for free. Microsoft charges insane prices and whines that people pirate it.
Big difference. Windows and Office should be free for home use. and charge the Businesses and those making money. It will significantly increase customer satisfaction and maintain install base.
But unfortunately, Microsoft has not had a CEO that understands that. Maybe next year when they are losing big time to google they might figure it out. Microsoft is already a major failure with their Phone OS, nobody wants it and nobody has any interest in writing apps for it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This has always been Google's business model. Find a market that is exploding or is about to explode and build something that is better than the alternatives, with that you will become the dominant part of that market. With smartphones and fast affordable connections for them exploding, with people using more than 1 or even 2 devices daily, syncing between seems like something you could/should compete in.
... AltaVista. It was pretty much identical.
So you are right. They were a "clone" ... with faster results.
Google introduced Google drive on April 24, 2012. And people have been illegitimately storing stuff on google servers for a long time
There's a difference between locking people into your products and making products that people want to use.
And not the "modern" IBM - the old, 1960s IBM. The one where the users never actually owned the machine, could only run approved programs and could only get spares, upgrades and addons that were allowed.
Then they went and spoiled it all by inventing an open PC architecture.
Can't see Apple making that mistake!
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
While this practice is quite evil yes at least... #1 if googles attempt fails they give up after a year or so instead of just forcing us to adopt their crappier version of the software without choice #2 Google is not charging us $299 a license for their version #3 Google sometimes actually comes up with something better than the original which in the end benefits all of Internet-kind
Shebang yes. Breaking web standards left and right because "they can". Did MS ever have the audacity to front non-compliant URLs?
Or call it what you will.
MS, and MS buddies like Oracle and Apple, are using frivilous patents offensively.
MS and friends are clearly trying to kill Linux, and Android, with a flood of BS patent suits.
I do not see Google sinking that low.
MS was caught red-handed handing out bribes. And that was just one of the many irregularities in that obvious scam.
I think MS, and their buddies at ISO, still want us to beleive that OOXML. What a total joke.
Dropbox is nothing new, being able to "share" a drive in Windows, NFS, SMB, even Apple had some proprietary version in their OS7 that also worked with scanners.
The only thing new now is that internet speeds are available at similar speeds (but nowhere near the latency) of locally connected network storage. 17 years ago, having 10/100 Ethernet at the office was a new thing, Windows 95 was new and people were still migrating from Windows 3.1
Today you can connect all your home hardware with Gigabit Ethernet, or wireless 802.11 at 100Mbps+ speed or have LTE enabled devices be able to access the internet at 50Mbps+
This is "good enough" to have storage remotely, but not yet good enough to replace local storage. The remote storage has to hit 32GB before it's functionally useful. 1-5GB is only good enough for music and photos. 5GB is about the same as one DVD, and you'd be better off burning a DVD every time you needed to share that much at once.
The other thing that dropbox does is let you access your data via a third party anywhere. This is not different enough from SMB, only in how it's presented. As far as the computer is concerned it's a networked drive, the same as the Apple Time Capsule. It's different from MegaUpload in that the subscriber doesn't automatically make the files readable to the world, thus incurring the wrath of the RIAA/MPAA.
The downfall of these services will be trying to charge money for accessing your own data, akin to banks that charge ATM fees. This simply won't work as users can just save the locally stored data somewhere else, unlike a bank which your only option is to carry cash-only.
Blue-Ray was better than HD-DVD
So if I open a Chinese restaurant, I am being evil because other's have already opened Chinese restaurants?
Is all competition evil, according to you?
Google got their search and targeted ads. The rest can be done on a gnu+linux*(extra) home server. The only problem is lazyness and people not knowing how to set it up. Oh and also ip4v
How can you take this article seriously for even one second?
Google is going into the same business that others are already in . . . OMFG!!!!!! EVIL!!!! EVIL!!!
So if I open a hardware strore, am I evil because others have opened hardware stores?
What tech has not done anything like dropbox? Yahoo, MS, Apple, are all doing similar, and have been for some time.
If MS starts Bing, that's fine, no problem at all, no slashdot article screaming about microsoft being a monopoloy or anything. But if it's Google . . . OMFG!!!!!! EVIL!!!! EVIL!!!
Don't you people even recognize a Google smear when you see it?
monopoly operating system?
Oh? Well then no it's completely different.
Apple copied everything they ever made. They just had the intelligence and forbearance of their customer base to take their time and fill in the rough spots and gaps. Nothing Apple introduced was earth-shatteringly new, just world-changing better.
Not until Sergei starts throwing chairs.
...Is trolling the new news?
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
yes.
This "article" is a pure troll. I am not even going to bother reading the discussion because it will just be bickering over stupid shit which allows the troll to be more effective.
Microsoft makes a "cooperation" deal with companies to work together on their technology, steals the sourcecode/technology and then ends the contract.
This was the case with IBM's OS/2, Corel Word, Oracle's Database and Stac Electronics' "Stacker" where Bill Gates himself famously lied in a sworn testimony about the theft.
These are just from the top of my head, I am sure people can come up with other examples.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Like a frog in a slowly heated pot...
Yes, of course, Google is the new Microsoft.
Microsoft has historically been very aggressive towards their competitors. They've frequently crushed competitors. Their users, who are their customers and pay them money, they treat reasonably well.
Google, on the other hand, focuses their aggression against their users.. Google's tries to collect as much info about its users as it can, which is a lot. Then they resell that data to advertisers. This has them in trouble with the EU privacy authorities and most of the US state attorneys general.
Then there's the drug dealing. Google had to admit guilt to multiple felonies related to advertising drugs. They had to pay a $500,000,000 penalty to avoid felony prosecution.
And no, it wasn't just "Canadian pharmacies". The FBI became involved because some drug dealer they were chasing ran an online pharmacy racket on the side and advertised with Google. The FBI then ran a sting operation against Google, running more and more outrageous ads for illegal drugs. Google execs met with the FBI's con man, who was pretending to be an agent for a Mexican drug lord. They extended him credit for AdWords ads. The U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island says Larry Page knew all about this.
Microsoft has had antitrust problems, but nothing like that.
Much closer to the "Old Microsoft". Produced languages (BASIC, FORTRAN, COBOL, ASSEMBLER, LISP) and tools.
Then, Microsoft got into environments. Which, when combined with tools and lock-in, made platforms.
Google? Not so much. Just tools. With easy exit strategies. I don't feel the need to stop using DropBox even if I use Google Docs. I am not forced to use Android or Chrome to participate in Google Docs.
The litmus test I am presently using is when Microsoft will support Microsoft Office on Wine. Just a mention, even.
Now the work has been done for Microsoft. Wine 1.4 supports MS Office 2010. There are potentially a million users out there. And each of these could pay as much as $500 (or as little as $50 after discounts). That is 50 to 500 million dollars on the table. Not taken simply because that would put a dent into the MS Windows as platform idea.
Google? I am still pretty sure they would take the money.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
"This raises the question, has Google become the new Microsoft?"
The question is....who's raising this question? What public relations firm is raising this question? The answer though is a resounding NO. Google is NOT going around using sleazy tactics like Microsoft does. Google is NOT using software patents to kill open source. Google is NOT funnelling money to trolls like SCO or IV and others in an effort to as drive up cost or litigate open source and free software products out of the marketplace. Google is NOT a member of the troll group BSA let alone a leading member. Google doesn't stack standards committees with their own drones in an attempt to corrupt the standards process. Google does NOT spread FUD about open source violating their patents but refuse to come clean on what patents yet force people to sign non-disclosures about said software patents after they are cajoled into paying a license fee for software that they did not even write one line of code for.
I started working in this industry before most of you were a gleam in your daddies eye (I'm 85 and still actively programming and evangelizing Microsoft). I was writing C and assembly language programs when they started. I helped an Oregon professor build a computer that used an ASR-33 teletype and 7400 series integrated circuits in circuit boards that I designed and built. I'm saying all this as a way of saying I think I have the background to make my choices reasonable. I don't like Apple, I don't like Google. I don't like a number of things but I don't bash them. I take a VERY dim view of Open Source - not because it's bad but I simply don't understand how I - for example - could put bread on the table if I gave my hours away. Open Source makes absolutely NO sense to me. Now for a long time I've used my.msn as my home page. The problem is that my layout has Slashdot occupying the middle of the screen. So I changed my home page to Bing. Now I can ignore this forum comfortably because I'm just sick to death or reading post after post after post bashing Microsoft and essentially saying how great other venues are. Now I went out and bought a MacMini, an iPhone and a Verizon account so that I can develop apps for iOS. The crazy thing is training material for Xcode says I should know Objective C. Training material for Objective C says I should know C and suddenly I'm writing C again realizing how ancient (and good) the language is. And believe me - I'm doing this to make money. Besides, I'm having fun programming the Apple because I could do well. SO if you want to contact me I'm budatdotnetchecksdotcom - otherwise all of you have fun with your f...ing MS bashing - I'll just quietly capitalize on it.
Good think I saw this before hitting 'moderate'
Its possible gmail search works grand for you, but its complete and utter shit for me! Their inept search doesn't find tons of words that I KNOW are in the mails!
I have to pop it all to do offline searching because the search i gmail is utter crap.
Now i suppose its possible I've run into a bug, but you can't report bugs to google because their whole "support" website boils down to "go away user"
(Now some fanboy may say that there is a "report bug" menu item from one of the "menus" on the site - NO - there isn't - perhaps that's another bug from the company who only cares about who you are, and nothing about what you want)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
So, while I do not like simple comparisons like "is Google the new Microsoft?", they have their share of morality issues like most large corporations...
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
That was (maybe still is) Microsoft's model. Google doesn't seem to be at that point. They are open, even if it may allow a competitor to use their services. If the day comes where you have to have an Android phone to use mobile Gmail or something to that effect, that will be a big step in the MS direction.
Apple is the one that actively blocks devs from writing apps that compete with IOS facilities they want to control... Apple is the one that has terms of service preventing any transactions going on without them getting a 30% cut. Apple is the one that actively kills any attempts at third-party hardware or dev platforms.
Apple, in fact, is a lot worse than I remember MS being in the '90s, save for the proprietary API bullsh*t with win32. Steve Jobs was one of the biggest control freaks in corporate history.
Google is more evil than Microsoft ever was.
They where trying not only to use their crappy software, but to LIKE it.
Now, google is not perfect, specificly big questions about their monitoring and privacy policies. They are hardly microsoft. While they certainly copy other ideas, they for the most part make great products, little bugs, treat their programmers well(MS used to run a sweat shop for nerds in the 1990s), and don't use their market position to prevent people from making competing products or services.
Apple if anything is the new microsoft.
No Apple is.
This has to be one of the dumbest artist reasons I've ever read. Was Dropbox unique? Were they the first ones to do cloud storage? NOPE. First one I remember was box.net. Probably were many, many more prior to that. This isn't copying. This is just taking an old idea, and adding your own spin to it.
....so is Microsoft the new Google? Sounds like the OP is s lazy troublemaker.
Whats wrong with being anti-google? Why are you so pro-google? Are you an employee? I sure hope so.. otherwise you're just whoring without getting paid.
It's not Google. Apple is the new Microsoft. Vendor lock-in and patent trivial things.
There is one big difference- Google doesn't come pre-installed on every desktop PC. The real problem with Microsoft was that they leveraged their position as the dominant operating system provider to force users to install and use their software. If Google wants to build a better product and then compete on the merits of their products, then users will only benefit.
Is Slashdot the new front for microsoft shrills to bag Google?
It is feeling more and more like it by some of the posters on here.
Oracle? When did Microsoft steal Oracle technology?
SQL Server is the evolution of the Sybase ASE 10 code base.
And I think it's MicroSoft that got taken to the cleaners in that one. Sybase netted a pretty penny for the sale, and mere months later released ASE 11 which was a dramatic change to how the whole thing worked, adding record-level instead of page locking, more robust Transact-SQL facilities, and huge changes to the programming API used by non-Java languages.
Sybase pretty much sold MicroSoft their old used car, then opened the garage door on their new fleet of vehicles.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
You are talking of 9 lines of code out of 15 millions, and contributed by a Google engineer?
Google is the new "Joseph Goebbels"
http://www.youtube.com/user/ronpaul2008
http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/google-spy.pdf
IBM's OS/2... because of MS Windows
Stacker... because of MS DoubleSpace
Oracle's Database?
you must be meaning Sybase because of MS SQL Server
Corel Word? wtf are you talking about?
MS stole Intuit key people to boot the office division not corel
Stole? w0w... i started using google as a remote drive when gmail came out ....it had the ability to store/get files. ..so who's coping who? I dont remember dropbox existing when gmail started .....
Or you could install this: http://disconnect.me/ along with an Adblock. No?
Some apps are WYSIWYG. Some others are WYSIWTF.
Liking one idea invented elsewhere so much you copy it isn't the same as being utterly devoid of vision and innovation to the point where having an original idea of your own is so rare, you can date astronomical events by it.
Google has plenty of ideas of its own. That's what matters.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The differences between Google and Microsoft is very deep, especially when it comes to origin, management and how they do things.
Read through this "little" list of things Microsoft has done:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653
Then, compare that mountain of evidence against what Google has done so far. In comparison with most online business Google comes out very clean. Compared to Microsoft you have to compare to something like Monsanto before you even begin to come into the same ballpark as Microsoft.
This article is a sham and probably paid for by MS.
HTTP/1.1 400
Sound familiar?
Answering your question, yes, it sounds awfully like Apple.
Not sure what Google has to do with this article, though.
Read this to see why it's impossible for anybody to sink quite as low as Microsoft.
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958
Yes, you don't have to use Google. You don't have to use Windows either.
Nowadays, you hardly have to use windows, indeed. In big part, thanks to all the on-line companies which managed to turn most of the important stuff into on-line services accessible from any standard compliant platform, thus rendering the whole question of OS irrelevant.
But in a not-so-long-ago past, Windows was the only way to go because most of the software one needed only existed as win32 application, lots of the hardware one could buy only came with windows drivers instead of being a generic USB class with generic drivers, it wasn't easy to buy computers without windows and replacing the OS wasn't easy either, and Microsoft had managed to leverage their OS monopoly to almost get a monopoly in office suite (everybody considering Ms-Office as a de facto standard, which was problematic because not only their format wasn't standard, it wasn't even consistent or compatible between versions) (or, buy pushing their bundeled-in Internet Explorer, Microsoft could almost have managed to create their own ecosystem of weird microsoft dialects instead of the standard driven web that we know today)
Of course, today, thanks to on-line service and opensources equivalent like LibreOffice or Firefox (or Google's own Chrome and Google Docs), thanks to gizmo vendor using stuff like UVC (Universal Video Class) for their webcams instead of obscure proprietary interfaces, thanks to reverse engineering efforts, thanks to developpers paying for alternative OSes (including Google's own support of Linux), etc. You can go without Microsoft.
It took massive effort from every one *else*, and it took some revolutionary shifts in paradigms (on-line services making the OS irrelevant), before we reached a situation where you don't need to go to Microsoft.
Now compare with Google: You don't have to use google's stuff, and google is indeed making it easier for you, by making it as easy as possible to interoperate with their service. Their e-mail servers speak standard IMAP and POP, so should you decide to move to another provider, it's damn trival to get your mail with you. And the contacts are easy to export, too. Their chat system is using XMPP/Jabber, so it's possible to interoperate with any other fully complient XMPP chat provider that does support federated chat (basically anyons but Facebook. FB's XMPP is just a compatibility layer above their proprietary chat system and a doesn't not interoperate with anyone else). Their Google Docs documents can be exported both to industry standard (Open Document Foundation) and de facto standard (interroperate with MS-Office). Most of their software is availble as opensource. (Android, Chrome, lots of libraries, ...)
At no point in time have they done anything to prevent people running to other solution. They insist in trying to be as much interoperable as possible, and people stick to them because they are damn convenient.
About your privacy considerations : well if you really want to keep your life secret, nothing prevents you from using encryption. You can even send and receive encrypted mails through your gmail account as long as you're accessing it with some standalone IMAP/STMP compatible client (say Thunderbird). You can chat with encryption as long as both ends support end-to-end encryption like OTR (Off The Record - supported by the whole libpurple family like pidgin, adium, etc.). In fact it's possible to use Google services without revealing much of your private life. (Unlike facebook where it's fundamentally much more difficule to avoid revealing anything, due to the nature of their service).
Google has a core business - advertising. But pretty much everything else they do, they do it nicely - use standards, publish source, etc.
Of course they play nice, not because they're pure-hearted angels, but also to avoid alienating their user base and thus loosing ad viewers. But no matter what their motives are, they mostly stick true to
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Yea, Google has been having M$ tendencies, for quite a while now. Their rip-off of iOS is the event that clued me in on their new behavior. "Don't be evil"... unless there's gobs of cash to be made.
OK so Apple has iCloud and Amazon has Cloud Drive so are they all the new Microsoft? Or is this just really dumb? Everyone has a cloud storage option these days. Dropbox has not been the only one for sometime. And I imagine Apples is bigger than Google's at this point since everyone with a Mac with Lion or IOS device has it already.
Yes, Google looks to have become Evil!
They seem to be getting into everyone else's business.
And they want to know everything about you!
I do not trust Google anymore.
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." -- Isaac Newton
Casteism
Google is the one which is expected to compete with Microsoft