Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 11:38 UTC
Microsoft As early as May 1995, three months before Netscape initial public offering sparked the dot-com boom, Microsoft executives were worried that the nascent WWW could one day become a significant threat to the Windows franchise. Another memo is also making the rounds. This internal memo, written in 2005, argues that Google threatens Microsoft and the company's crown jewel, Windows.
Order by: Score:
Content light
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 12:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Maybe they are on a collision course, but the scenario you need to see fleshed out a bit, to believe it, would have to specify what is going to happen to revenues.

If you're MS planners, you're looking first at OS revenues, which are closely tied to PC shipments. Now, do you believe that Google is going to affect the number of PCs shipped, or how many of them ship with Windows, or the price of those Windows shipments? If so, exactly how is it going to, and by how much, and when?

Then there's the applications, of which far and away the biggest is Office. Again, do we believe that Office is going to ship less or at lower prices because of Google.

In the abscence of a specific scenario, this may just be hysteria. Very common. At one major Euro telco years ago, I knew of people who wanted to buy a semi conductor company. Their reasoning was that there was a threat: the Japanese would refuse to ship us semiconductors, and we needed somewhere to make them ourselves. Hysterical, but they got quite a few people believing it, without asking the specific questions: which semi conductors, by when, and does your target company actually make the damned things? It didn't.

I have trouble seeing Google denting MS revenues or profts from the core business. I have equal trouble seeing MS making money from online services. But, that's what happens when in pursuit of vague strategies, you diversify into more or less irrelevant business areas.

The thing that may well be a threat over five years is open source OS and applications. That is what really overturns the structure of the core business.

Where is this argument going wrong?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Content light
by Budd on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 12:47 UTC in reply to "Content light"
Budd Member since:
2005-07-08

Where is this argument going wrong?

Well,the article says : Google threatens Microsoft's position on the Internet, and could potentially lock Microsoft out of its existing distribution channels and reduce the value of Windows.
And before it is said that the internet would become the future platform.

Given the fact that Windows sales are tied with PC sales,one could think that there won't be a need for an OS (like Windows). Some things in the flash,plug it in on the network and voila!

Of course this may sound stupid but this is what I understood.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Content light
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Content light"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Given the fact that Windows sales are tied with PC sales,one could think that there won't be a need for an OS (like Windows). Some things in the flash,plug it in on the network and voila!"

We are imagining a scenario in which Google turns into a sort of giant distributed mainframe, and what are now home PCs turn into thin clients hanging off it through ethernet, and what they run is something other than Windows or MS applications. Is it Linux? Or some new netbooted OS? Or what else is it that makes these devices work with audio files and digital cameras and iPods and printers, and lets you keep your calendar on line, and handle banking and so on? Not to mention play games? Anyway, the money changes from the OEM fees to MS for their software, and becomes a monthly payment to Google for processing power.

As part of this, PCs must become totally different animals. The consumer hard drive vanishes? Probably. It gets replaced by network storage in your account. For all your mp3's? And notes to your girlfriend? I guess so, the scenario assumes you no longer have a PC in the form we have them today.

The corporate environment is harder to see, but maybe Google licenses its network so corporations can run Googlified intranets? Again, MS free or MS lite zones.

The more you flesh it out the more I at least find it harder and harder to believe this being the main threat to MS. I can see Google metamorphosing into a threat to MSN. So what? Is MSN really critical to MS? What kind of position does MS need on the Internet, besides having its software be a natural gateway appliance to it?

Big companies mostly get it wrong about strategic threats. Once ATT was to be the great threat to IBM because of computer/communications convergence. What actually came to threaten them was a cheap and dirty OS from a startup running on open, commodity hardware. Maybe the real threat to MS will come from the overturning of the closed source software model? But perhaps this too is a bit too obvious, and needs implausible changes of habit. Maybe what will turn out to be the real threat is still so tiny its still below the threshold at the moment. I still can't see it being Google.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Content light
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Content light"
Anonymous Member since:
---

We are imagining a scenario in which Google turns into a sort of giant distributed mainframe, and what are now home PCs turn into thin clients hanging off it through ethernet, and what they run is something other than Windows or MS applications....
[snip]
As part of this, PCs must become totally different animals. The consumer hard drive vanishes? Probably. It gets replaced by network storage in your account. For all your mp3's? And notes to your girlfriend? I guess so, the scenario assumes you no longer have a PC in the form we have them today.


I think there's a middle road here: Just because web apps are getting more advanced doesn't mean we'll give up power/storage on the client side. First, because people don't always trust online storage and web apps. Second, because people still want to be able to work offline. Third, because bandwidth/online storage is still expensive, and transfers still aren't instantaneous.

When I can keep all my 30GB or so of data online and have access to them as quickly/reliably as access from my hard drive, I'll consider online storage for everything, but not until.

So things like our mp3 collections and pictures, we'll keep locally. Maybe we'll back some of that up online. (I'm becoming more impressed with Apple's iDisk/Backup stuff now that they're up to 1GB) Still, maybe in the near future, you'll find that e-mail clients become a thing of the past, in favor of web apps. Maybe we'll get to the point where you can sync your Word/Excel files to an online account and access/edit them through the web also.

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't foresee the thin-client/mainframe taking over home PCs anytime soon, but if there are lots of open standards and most things can be accessed through a web-interface, then what OS you're running becomes far less important. G-mail is G-mail, whether accessed through IE, Safari, or Firefox.

Therefore, I don't see a big threat to MS from Google in terms of Google creating an OS or making the idea of an OS obsolete, but Google is a threat. They are one of many factors that loosens Microsoft's strangle-hold on the market, and it's the strangle-hold, not the quality of product, that keeps Microsoft successful.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Content light
by Jamie on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Content light"
Jamie Member since:
2005-07-06

Therefore, I don't see a big threat to MS from Google in terms of Google creating an OS or making the idea of an OS obsolete, but Google is a threat

But they can be a bigger threat if they offer the complete platform with linux OS.

Here is my dream:

1) Google brings out a linux Distro thats capabable of being both a thin client and a thick client (for power users, notebooks and offline usage).

2) The GDE (Google Desktop enviornment) can run on Linux (or even Windows to aid migration) but also completely inside a web browser (firefox).

3) They use a form of XUL to create network transparent apps that can run in browsers or standalone on a desktop.

4) the entire platform can be entirely managed by servers - this is the killer app for enterprises which you wont get with a huge monolithic OS like windows.

5) For non-enterprises, Google provides its own servers to host all apps, storage, games, email etc.

6) Google branches out into high end games and TV on demand via their servers.

Google ends up controlling the network and the content on them or IOW they win complete control and MS is locked out forever.

Reply Score: 1

v lol
by Jackson Brown on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Content light"
RE[5]: Content light
by nathan_c on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Content light"
nathan_c Member since:
2005-07-12

You are trading one monopolist for another. If history teaches us anything, it's that those with eccess power often abuse it in order to maintain it. Rather, once you are on top of the world, you'll do anything to keep yourself from coming down. Remember when IBM was huge and everyone hated them but loved MS? You may wish to see MS crushed, but please don't wish another company to become the grandious monopoly of the future. That's not good for anyone.

All the big tech firms are gearing up for the battle of the century because they all realize that if they win they'll own the industry for a long time to come. Let's hope that this time around no one comes out a clear winner.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Content light
by kmarius on Sat 24th Sep 2005 10:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Content light"
kmarius Member since:
2005-06-30

"Google ends up controlling the network and the content on them or IOW they win complete control and MS is locked out forever."

I hope your dream doesn't come true. You are hoping for a future where Google controls your PC, entertainment and software. A Google of your dreams would become a nightmare to users as well as Microsoft. They would control EVERYTHING you do on your PC, and not just the OS like Microsoft currently does.

You want to replace a company with limited monopoly (OS/Office) with a company that has a monopoly on everything? Do you really want a single commercial company with that much influence and control?

You general vison (Sun tried this) is great, but it's better when there's competition and where you can choose from a range of free, commercial, open or closed solutions.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Content light
by japail on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Content light"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

It's 1996 all over again.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Content light
by Anonymous on Tue 27th Sep 2005 17:47 UTC in reply to "Content light"
Anonymous Member since:
---

This article is nothing but speculation and full of holes .Five years from now , nothing will change as far as Microsoft is concerned , and status quo will remain the same . book it ! , and bet on it !
Google is still a very small company as far as revenue and sales is concerned. Google makes its income from Advertising sales from web. they don't have any tangible business model that can generate anywhere near the type of income this article is predicting , not in five years , and definitely not in 20 years.
Google will end up being just another Technology company competing with Mocrosoft in some parts of their business . Microsoft Rules !

Reply Score: 0

But...
by Budd on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 12:51 UTC
Budd
Member since:
2005-07-08

It's also true that many broke their teeths trying to bite that big chunck from MS. I for one like the fact that MS realized they are not the only ones out there. And that will,probably,spark some innovation from their part.
Of course,I am a dreamer

Reply Score: 1

v down with ms
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 13:11 UTC
RE: down with ms
by raver31 on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 13:37 UTC in reply to "down with ms"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

I have to use windows at work too.

However.

We use Win2k which is the best windows around.
And
We married Win2k alongside OpenOffice.

This works excellent for us as we have 1500 Dell Pcs which came already licensed with Win2k, so it was just a matter of getting OpenOffice installed (for free) on all the machines.

Now we are not tied to MS for our documents, and we have NEVER had files that did not import.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: down with ms
by captain_knobjockey on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE: down with ms"
RE[3]: down with ms
by Moulinneuf on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: down with ms"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

How do you measure the best ? Windows 2000 is deployed in company around the world 30 time more then XP is , it as less security problem and virus and his not a multimedia/game powerhouse like XP is thats why company like it more its also cheaper to acquire. Most people upgrade 98 to 2000 when windows stopped releasing security patch for 98. It whas the same thing with 95.

http://www.informationweek.desktoppipeline.com/news/164303337

What file are you trying to use with OpenOffice that OpenOffice cant open ?

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: down with ms
by captain_knobjockey on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: down with ms"
morglum666
Member since:
2005-07-06

While I love google, and I fundamentally agree with the theory in this article that web applications will become dominant, I think I missed the part where google has any web applications for sale. Search appliances, sure.

Do you ever wonder if these writers just throw together some hot IT keywords and try to write an article around it?

Reply Score: 1

gonzalo Member since:
2005-07-06

Warning: The following may be a bit, uhm, exagerated ;)


What does Google have?
Well, they know what things you search for on internet, and they decide what information to show you about those things, they handle your email (if you use Gmail, of course), they get the best price for you on Froggle, they'll be providing access to the net itself (or so is it heavily rumored)... The bottom line is always that you see the net through them. ("You" or "lots of people", if you prefer)



The applications themselves do not matter as much as you seem to think. Sure, they don't sell Gmail, but does Gmail use affect the need for MSOutlook or MSExchange? Sure it does. If I get a Gmail account, what's my need for Outlook? On an always connected world (and fast enough), do I need to have my email locally? Sure some of us prefer to have it that way, but I do know lots of people who don't bother anymore with an email client program and local email storage.

What if you can get something as Writely ( http://www.writely.com/ ) to be secure enough that you can trust with your private (or shared) documents to store remotely? Oh, yes, MSWord is so much better than Writely, but maybe you just need good enough and really don't use more than 5% of what Word does anyway. Does Writely cost? No. Are they selling the application? No. But could it affect the use of Word? Sure.


One can affect something without selling a competing product.


That's point 1. Point 2 is Microsoft knows this (but doesn't really get what it means). MS knows people stopped caring about the operating system they use a long time ago. As cool and flashy as Vista may be, people don't buy a computer to see their start button lit up when the mouse is over it or windows fading into the background or whatever. They want computers to write stuff or store their photos, surf the web, chat with friends, maybe play some games and/or keep their finances. But they can do (almost all of) those things without Vista, really. You can get lots and lots of personal space for photographs, and share them with friends or family just by passing and URL around. You can do the same with you finances or your documents. I won't even comment about "surfing the web" not needing your operating system at all.

That leaves gaming as the only thing you can't really do on a webpage (forget sucky flash games). But then again... Gaming on the PC these days is going to the net head first. MMORPGs (evidently), FPS, strategy...



So what if Google already has the web as you see it, and then it goes and gives you net access? "Secure internet access" they say, which really means "Access to what we give you". And what if, seeing that they're getting a team of top brains from all areas of the picture, that meant a "better" internet, an internet with better protocols, new capabilities?

Sure, sure, they're not evil, they would use standard protocols everybody else could use too. But that would actually mean they would make those standards... Google would, not Microsoft.



So... what indeed does Google have? Well, they have the means (and maybe the will, who knows). You don't really need much else if you can make a profit by some other means.

Reply Score: 2

kmarius Member since:
2005-06-30

So... what indeed does Google have? Well, they have the means (and maybe the will, who knows). You don't really need much else if you can make a profit by some other means.

I think all of this focus on Google isn't warranted. I doubt Google will be more successfull than it is today in ten years. I mean - look at the "features" of Google.

1. It has a good search engine. MSN and Yahoo has updated their search engines to be just as good.

2. It has a decent mail service. There are hundreds of other competitors that have an equally good service. The most popular is probably Yahoo mail. It's better than Google now (except it only has 1GB instead of 2.5GB, but who needs it?) and has planned an optional interface that makes it behave like Outlook. There are also other mail clients out there that are better (my current web host provides a great webmail).

3. Google maps. MSN and Yahoo has them too. MSN had them first.

4. Google news. Yahoo was there first, and I also remenber that www.alltheweb.com had a news-service long before Google.

5. Google groups. Usenet and Yahoo groups were first.

6. Advertising. Also found in the competitors. Google may have the advantage now, but how long will it last?

7. API for programmers. The competitors have them too and they have often done it better.

8. Froogle. I haven't used it because I'm not an American, but there have been shopping comparison sites out there always.

9. Talk. Again not revolutionary. They use an existing protocol, and has a poor implementation. MSN and Yahoo has a superior messaging client with voice/video support. If you must use an open protocol, use Gaim or another alternative.

Google has interesting features, but they are not the innovators people think.

The only technology they can take credit for is an improved search engine. They were also the first of the larger companies to offer API for search, but they were probably looking for Amazon as an inspiration. The other features are "me too" features to catch up to its competitors.

MSN, Google and Yahoo have a lot of unique features. It's only natural that when one of them implements a new feature, the others copy. Sometimes Google is the first, sometimes they copy. It's the way things work, but Google doesn't seem to innovate more than the others.

Reply Score: 1

gonzalo Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't try to imply, not for a millisecond, anything about Google being innovators, or that they deserve all the attention they get.


That said, they're bringing out some of the most popular applications on the web. Notice I didn't say best (*). And, as somebody says everytime a new OS appears on OSNews "It's the applications, stupid!". Of course Google isn't making money from those applications (or at least not directly), but it is exactly that point -that web applications can be so popular- that hurts Microsoft most.
What if, as the parent message suggests, web apps become prevalent? Wouldn't that hurt MS? Sure it would. Even more if they're web apps which are based on standard protocols and platforms, which MS doesn't control.


That's the only point I was making, not that Google is good or bad, or innovative or not.



(*) And all you say about those apps is correct. But I'm not saying Google did them first, just that they're succeding in getting those applications to be the popular ones.

Reply Score: 1

microsoft is doomed
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 13:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I actually think google and apple are up to something...
I am not sure what to expect but i has to involve a desktop/media combination.

I indeed think this is the beginning of the end of Windows (tm,copy) Microsoft might stay a software resellar but its fighting an uphill battle.
They are on to many fronts, to many "enemies".
History has learnt us nobody lives for ever and nobody stays on top.

Right now the have all the money in the world but
the bigger the are the harder they fall..

Reply Score: 0

RE: microsoft is doomed
by raver31 on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 13:41 UTC in reply to "microsoft is doomed"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Egyptian Empire
Roman Empire
British Empire

They all fell

Is the Microsoft empire next ?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: microsoft is doomed
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE: microsoft is doomed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Egyptian Empire
Roman Empire
British Empire

They all fell

Is the Microsoft empire next ?


dont forget the American Empire when will it fall??

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: microsoft is doomed
by Anonymous on Sun 25th Sep 2005 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: microsoft is doomed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

>> dont forget the American Empire when will it fall??

We are watching that now, and I find it painful. It is clear that the current administration and their supporters believe the hubris they are spouting. WMDs are not safe in 'their' hands, but Uh-mer-ca may stockpile anthrax. The US may 'defend interests' by attacking sovereign states, but Muslims are misusing the word 'defensive' if they use it in the context of justifying a Jihad. Pure hyporcracy. Bush views himself as a modern Lionheart and Bin Laden views himself as a modern Saladin. We are witnessing two back-to-back huricaines of 'once in a decade' strength. They clearly are drawing power from the hot Gulf of Mexico. But is is unspeakable to even ask if there is a connnection. But I digress (rather badly)....

Microsoft is a monopoly, and as the economist Peter Drucker has noted, monopolies rairly last more than a decade (unless they can use government coersion). The 'invisible hand' of the free market finds a solution to monopoly pricing. Standard Oil was a monopoly for a decade, then it faced competition. Standard Oil didn't die, but it stopped dictating how everyone used oil. Microsoft will (almost certainly) not die, but they will no longer be able to dictate how we use computers. The risk in this to Microsoft is that once Wall Street figures out that the monopoly is gone, all of the furture earnings have to be downgraded and the stock price will tumble. This would be the 'doomsday' scenario for Microsoft.

Reply Score: 0

RE: microsoft is doomed
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 14:04 UTC in reply to "microsoft is doomed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Google and Apple are up to something? You mean, like they're working together?

Then why is it that Google doesn't make any of its apps for OSX? They're all Windows only.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: microsoft is doomed
by MonkeyPie on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 17:16 UTC in reply to "RE: microsoft is doomed"
MonkeyPie Member since:
2005-07-06

In most of the Google FAQ's it mentions that they hope to support Mac and Linux soon. To me this sounds like they are working on it. Of course they are releasing mainly Windows versions first, it is still the major OS out there.

Also, with Talk, Google is trying to use open standards that won't lock out other programs. Yahoo, AIM, and MSN have all been known to release updates that block programs like Trillian and Gaim from using their services. Google actually tells you how to use those programs to connect to their service.

Also, there is the official Gmail Notifier for Mac.

Reply Score: 1

Google is no better
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 13:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Google is no better than Microsoft in terms of trying to create monopoly. It was somewhat supporting so-called OSS just for getting limelight and trying to look different.
They do not respect privacy and are trying to invade it ...I do not like either of them...but I feel Microsoft is going to prevail..google is good today but tomorrow who knows!

Reply Score: 0

Smoke but no Fire!
by Guppetto on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 13:33 UTC
Guppetto
Member since:
2005-07-06

This article is interesting, but if you think about what's presented, Google and all the conspiracy theorist (Googles unofficial marketing machine) are blowing smoke more than anything else. Last time I checked, the internet (Googles platform) is referensed 95% of the time via a PC. Last time I checked, 90% of all PC's shiped with windows out of the box. Now you do the math, how can Google stage a take over when their services are being accessed via a PC running Windows. Sure, you've got Macs and cell phones and people accessing the internet via other vehicles besides Windows, but the majority of people access Google via a web browser running on a windows PC. Unless mobile devices radically become internet friendly or PC manuafactures stop shipping Windows out of the box (Microsoft for damn sure won't let that happen), Google will remain the overhyped, but much needed to spur inovation, little engine that could. Everyone repeat after me, "I think they can, I think they can, I think they can!" ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Smoke but no Fire!
by mouth on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 14:11 UTC in reply to "Smoke but no Fire!"
mouth Member since:
2005-07-06

I understand your logic; to get to use the internet you must first use a PC. I am a Mac/Palm/BeOS user, and with browsers like Mozilla and Safari running the web services that Google offers flawlessly, I can understand Microsoft's concern. By creating services that are accessible to everyone with an active internet connection, and that are OS agnostic, Google helps those who do not use Windows enjoy the same features.

This was a major reason why Microsoft attacked Netscape. Netscape was helping to create a platform that did not require Windows, but a PC running its web browser. Although I would not want to run a game (3D) that was written in Javascript, I have programmed web applications (not games) that operate as fluidly as local binaries. The internet is allowing large-scale collaborative systems to be designed without being tied to a single OS manufacturer. I think this is what Microsoft is concerned about.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Smoke but no Fire!
by japail on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 17:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Smoke but no Fire!"
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

The reason Microsoft destroyed Netscape was due to the vague threat of the possibility of Netscape supplanting its desktop monopoly through web applications. This was mostly a phantom threat for a number of reasons, though the most obvious is that the quality of even the best webapps sans any embedded thick components was still poor. The transformation of the PC back into a dumb terminal never truly materialized, despite no shortage of interest in server and service companies for the revenue gain this would engender.

I do not think that the nature of the problem has changed considerably since then. Pure webapps still suck, and their domain of functionality is still very limited precluding the irrelevance of the platform underneath. With nonuniform adoption of broadband and a nontrivial existing investment in current infrastructure, any threat Google presents to Microsoft outside of marketing is in a distant future where they provide a platform.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Smoke but no Fire!
by Anonymous on Sat 24th Sep 2005 00:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Smoke but no Fire!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Pure webapps still suck, and their domain of functionality is still very limited precluding the irrelevance of the platform underneath.

Exactly.

I think the purpose of the original article was just something for its author to add to his resume. Maybe the author gets paid by the click.

How to build an article that people will read? Predict the downfall of the mighty evil giant. It's David versus Goliath, that ancient popular theme re-told time and time again in different forms, from movies to the daily news.

Which is why, if you look at the article, it states a falsehood to make the story more dramatic: it claims that Google was started in a "college dorm room", which sounds even more like a "humble-beginnings" birth than "a cubicle in the research offices of the graduate school".

Google's revenue comes from one thing: Advertisements. To the extent that advertisers patronize Google, the company will continue to do well.

But when The-Next-Portal-Comes-Along, what will happen to Google has already happened to every other portal that has preceded it. Advertisers will defect to the next portal as they always have, and Google will be left as the sloppy seconds.

I believe all of the hiring of high profile researchers -- accompanied by widely released press releases announcing the hiring -- is simply smoke and mirrors to give more gravitas to Google's image, to fool less sophisticated investors that Google has a strategy and will be able to execute on it. "We're not a portal, dagnabbit!" Google seems to protest.

Methinks they doth protest too much.

Reply Score: 0

Now linux has Google as compititor??
by rakamaka on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 13:33 UTC
rakamaka
Member since:
2005-08-12

It is amusing to see how a best OS MS is threatned by a search engine and not another free OS like Linux BSD etc.?
When will Linux will be threat to MS in future?
The linux community should not take pride to beat MS gorilla in 2010 which will be already weakned to knees by Google(!) at that time......as this article goes on......
Now long race has been started between Linux and Google to beat MS.

Reply Score: 1

RE: RE: microsoft is doomed
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 13:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>>Egyptian Empire
>>Roman Empire
>>British Empire

>>They all fell

>>Is the Microsoft empire next ?

Off Course. and Google will fall too.
Its nature..norhing lasts forever.

Will we survive Microsoft..i do not know it could be
the are around for the next 250 years.

ps. Maybe that is the beauty of free-software/open-source it can never fall or die.
Once its created its a constant.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: RE: microsoft is doomed
by raver31 on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE: RE: microsoft is doomed"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe that is the beauty of free-software/open-source it can never fall or die.
Once its created its a constant.


Thats the reason that most of my computers run Linux.

I will not worry if Microsoft goes bust, it wont affect Linux
I will not worry if RedHat goes bust, it wont affect Linux
I will not worry if Linspire goes bust, it wont affect Linux
I will not worry if Mandriva goes bust, it wont affect Linux.


I will worry though, if all the thousands of Linux developers suddenly decide to stop coding for Linux.

See, thats the thing that Windows fanboys cannot fathom. Linux is dependent on no company, it is not a product, it is a concept, it is an idea, it is immortal.

Think of it like this, if ALL programmers stopped writing Linux programs, the source code is still around. So there is nothing to stop anyone else coming along and starting it all off again.

Linux can never be killed. But Windows can.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: RE: microsoft is doomed
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: RE: microsoft is doomed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Think of it like this, if ALL programmers stopped writing Linux programs, the source code is still around. So there is nothing to stop anyone else coming along and starting it all off again.

Not only that, but the only way ALL the Linux developers would suddenly stop writing for Linux would be if some other open source operating system came along, and even then, only if this new OS were so much better is every way that no one could fathom not-using it. Even then, the only way support would be dropped all at once is if the new OS were completely compatible.

So... yeah, not too much to worry about.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[2]: RE: microsoft is doomed
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE: RE: microsoft is doomed"
RE[3]: RE: microsoft is doomed
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: RE: microsoft is doomed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

IMHO open source is dead now. Yes, linux is widely used, but the original spirit of linux is died. The most of the code of the important projects come from profit-oriented companies. The main desktop of the big free and open linux (KDE) is based on a commercial (and relative very expensive) widget set (Qt). Yes, QT is QPL and GPL. but very far from free. And the only one useable office application also from commercial company (SUN). The only one useable development tool (java) also from this company. Yes, there are funny toys for amateurs (PHP, Python, etc) and this systems are really FOSS projects - but this systems never will real alternative for enterprises or home users, only for very small companies or organizations.

Open source isn't dead, but the current dominant desktops are dead (KDE, Gnome). They don't bring anything new to the table and fall short of windows and OSX. On the server side Linux is just another free Unix.

Now that they hype of open source has died, people can get back to writing good software.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: RE: microsoft is doomed
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: RE: microsoft is doomed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

> The only one useable development tool (java) also from
> this company. Yes, there are funny toys for amateurs
> (PHP, Python, etc) and this systems are really FOSS
> projects - but this systems never will real alternative
> for enterprises or home users, only for very small
> companies or organizations.

erm, you know that java is a language and sun java is just an implementation?
the rest - no other 'dev tools' - amateurs php / python ... makes me think that you have no clue what you are even writing about

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: RE: microsoft is doomed
by Anonymous on Sat 24th Sep 2005 08:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: RE: microsoft is doomed"
Anonymous Member since:
---

erm, you know that java is a language and sun java is just an implementation?
Yes, java is a language. But this language specification, the class libs, etc come from SUN. The other implementations are only clones of the original java. And the most of java applications only run the original SUN JVM (or the IBM jvm, but is a fork of the original SUN's java).

no other 'dev tools' - amateurs php / python ... makes me think that you have no clue what you are even writing about
If you ever created a bigger professional application (> 50 000 lines of code, with strictly terms) and with support after the starting the use of this application, you probably agree with me.

Reply Score: 0

The real plan
by GrapeGraphics on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 13:54 UTC
GrapeGraphics
Member since:
2005-07-07

Imagine, just imagine... it goes something like this.

M$ envisions the future, a world where they get a monthly paycheck from subscriptions. So they plan on getting a set top box in every home (X-Box) and then start enabling online/connected apps starting with establishing a community of gamers. Great R&D too. When the market is sufficiently saturated role out a few useful apps meant for home use, maybe an office lite project, possibly entertainment. As long as they can get the subscription service up and running. Ah, then comes along Apple and it's iPod which is also a trojan horse sneakin' into the minds and hearts of consumers as a means for media convergence which actually seems to work end-to-end. Damn, they have a whole packaged solution. Then Google comes along... another threat that seems to be very popular to the same target M$ needs in order to make that 100 billion dollar profit.

I could go on and on.

Reply Score: 1

Games
by saterdaies on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 13:59 UTC
saterdaies
Member since:
2005-07-07

The world wide web reduces consumers' reliance on Windows since it can run on virtually any platform equally well. But applications aren't really the things that are missing from alternative operating systems. For example, you can get several email clients for Linux or Mac, several word processors, etc.

The things you REALLY can't get on another platform are games and the web is no good for this purpose. As someone who has a lot of friends who very computer literate, this is the area which ties them to Windows and unless Google could figure out a way to get games through AJAX, they'll still pay the Windows tax.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Games
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 19:18 UTC in reply to "Games"
Anonymous Member since:
---

i agree, web programs are totally useless for the kinds of programs that make windows the dominant os.

you can't do large programs on web. its just easier to download them, thats what hard drives are for. photoshop, flash, most videogames. are NEVER going to have web based equivalents. at least not till the web gets much faster and cheaper. if the internet was as fast as your hard drive is, and insanely cheap to send terrabytes of software to people every day THEN it might be possible.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

The easiest and to me the only viable way Google or any other company can dent Microsofts revenue is through the ASP (Application service Provider) model. That is to perfect a web-based office suite that is able to read and write xls, ppt and doc files. They can offer this as a free addon to Gmail for individuals and a subscription service for companies.

The best kept secret in computing today is that the technology we have is adequate to put every desktop application on a web site that is accessible to any device with a web browser. Even complex Computer Aided Design (CAD) tools have web based varieties but for some reason corporations are stuck to a bygone model of the fat client (usually Windows based) model that has proved expensive and impossible to secure against viruses and spyware.

Google has a window of opportunity to use the web to attack this gasping client-server model by providing corporations with secure, web-accessible applications at a fraction of the cost of what they have today. The time has come for the sub $100 device that is armed with nothing but a web browser and Google has the money to ride this wave to success

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

"The time has come for the sub $100 device that is armed with nothing but a web browser..."

Well not quite. The thin client with web browser and the conventional PC will do exactly the same things with their web browsers. The difference is only going to be local applications and storage. But how much are you going to save? $100 at most - the processor, memory, opticals, graphics cards, display, keyboard, all still have to be there. About all you can lose is the hard drive and MAYBE the OS, but you still have to find some kind of OS to drive it, even if its net booted.

Are applications going to be a lot cheaper net booted? Doubtful.

Take a look at how much thin clients sell for. And the performance of them! Don't say it will not happen, but if this is MSs main threat, they can sleep easy.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

"...for some reason corporations are stuck to a bygone model of the fat client (usually Windows based) model that has proved expensive and impossible to secure against viruses and spyware. "

Of course! Lets fix all those security issues by making data from every interaction of everyone with every computer everywhere all hosted by the same network! hackers will never get into that!

If one day all this comes to pass... I don't even want to imagine what an industrious hacker could accomplish if the system weren't 100% perfectly secure in all respects. But it would be, right? so what am i worried about? Not to mention the potential danger presented by even a single malicious rogue google employee.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Look at all the tactics Google is using and the direction that they are going in. Microsoft and by extension, all software companies, have been caught unaware by the company set to change the world forever. Google is aiming to be the world communication giant by taking emphasis off the operating system (which I love b/c I can't stand "Best OS" debates) but turning it more toward integrated technologies that bring information and functionality to people. Microsoft will still have it's place but they have failed to do more to further the web platform which will eventually relegate Windows to being no more than a low-level piece of software which connects to the Google communication network. Quite frankly if that does happen to Microsoft there will be little need to utilize the overweight software that is Windows and one of the linux distributors (most likely Google in the future) will take the reigns. Windows will turn into a development system which we will develop content to publish to the Google communication platform.

GoogleTV, GoogleWi-fi, GoogleBroadband, GoogleMaps, GoogleChat, GoogleOS(??)...

Reply Score: 0

IF google hadn't have gone downhill
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 14:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Google has realy gone downhill in the past year in terms of actual usefullness. I have a hard time seeing them staying on top if they don't change something quick

Ive just flat out stoped useing google, from the sheer amount of garbage search results. Results that have absolutly nothing to do with what I enter, links to other search engins.. somthings wrong when you can enter 2 random words in google and 70% of the links go to other search engins (many times its 7-8 links on the first page go to the same search)that have results to what you were searching for on google. Its a mess to sort thrue, google hasnt even tried to stop them, as far as I can tell. both yahoo and msn have been giving me better results (doesnt yahoo use googles search tech.. why is yahoos results better?)

I think google just doesnt care about its search anymore, I imagin its "text ads by google" is there bread and butter. As far as I know MS hasnt got into the advertising service market yet.

Right now, googles domanice as the main search page is simply from name branding. A lot of people saying things like "google it" and not just computer enthusiest, but people who dont even use thier computer much, it realy thrue me off when my mom told me to "google it", and she only goes online like once a week. MS probably pissed off about it im sure they wanted people to say "MSN it" sence its almost impossible to throw more $ at a problem like name branding, and expect it to go away once people adopt a word.

having a lot of people call all sodas Cokes, or all tissue as kleenex, is an extreemly powerfull marketing tool thats very hard to overcome

Reply Score: 1

NoMachine + Google = Check Mate
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 14:56 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The pieces are already in place. If Google were to use NX No Machine or FreeNX technologies M$ is in for a hellish XPerience.
Ballmer vows to bury google? Well Steve, the grave you dig may be your own. Here's how it's done.
1. Offer people free WiMax
2. The device that connects them to this service? Thin clients for home use, or just use a client in Windows. That takes them out of Windows and into a remote Linux OS (or any OS of their choosing for that matter). It has OpenOffice and Firefox + all the other goodies. TV? Sure, why not. Music? I'm sure that can be arranged.
Integrate MythTV and it's a no brainer. Add VoIP with it, no problem!!
3. The Fat Lady Sings!
How many Joe Public's would love to be freed from the daily virus and adware removal and updates? And if mass produced these clients would be sub $100, maybe even $50. Damn near disposable. It's not only M$ that should be VERY worried, the telcoms and cable industries will be in for the fight of their lives. With WiMax one can envision IP cell phones ( oh there already here). No need for those rip off providers. All these industries are guilty of treating their customers like crap, so no tears will be shed. They'll get what they gave.
For those unaware, No Machine open sourced some of it's code. Now M$ can't just make it go away by buying their way out of this one. The future is looking awfully M$ free, isn't it? Where do you want to be tomorrow? Probably not with M$. To sum, for Google to pull this off they MUST live up to their motto "Do no evil". What goes around comes around, and if people feel that they're being used they'll look elsewhere.

Reply Score: 0

google win
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 14:58 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Google will win because they have the better hackers.

Reply Score: 0

Web-based apps
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 15:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Although this idea has been around for a long time it will never be realized until broadband becomes the norm in every home.

I don't see how dial up could ever run a web based app successfully or in a satisfactory fashion. But then again, maybe I'm wrong.

Sounds interesting though.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

>>>>>"Are applications going to be a lot cheaper net booted? Doubtful."

What planet are your from?
Web-based is not the same as net booted
I work IT for a mega corporation with over a hundred thousand employees. Per capita expenditure (time, money and materials) we spend administering our web based intranet applications is a tiny fraction of what we spend for our fat client applications. Less down time, more competent security on the servers rather than depend on ordinary users to secure their own applications.

The trend in my organisation is to make all group applications (even MS Outlook) web accessible from any spot in the world. This trend is making the client OS less and less relevant. I do not regard it as far fetched to be able to access my office-based applications with a cell phone or a playstation or gameboy.

The Web is an entity and a trend that MS has fought tooth and nail to control but failed. Google would be foolish to fight MS with any other tool

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

"Web-based is not the same as net booted"

In theory you can boot directly to a server regardless of the location.

Dreaming a little here;
Imagine a pen drive type device with the addressing information, account information, desktop settings, etc., pre-loaded.

Call it the thin-client from hell, and just skip the local OS altogether. Users can only screw up a local OS anyway.

Just enough to get you on the web, and nothing else. No need for anything else if the applications you need are all on the web.

Reply Score: 0

First idiocy from eweek, now news.com
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 16:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

But I think these morons have learned that if they write some braindead headline then sites like Osnews will eat it up.

How many times do we have to go over this? Until google is given a platform in the browser that doesn't suck ass for real applications, e.g. XAML/XUL and many other bits then it means nothing.

The browser is a half a decade away from becoming mainstream to give us that richness. And even then it doesn't challenge windows in the operating system and office components.

I hereby announce that the commodore-64 is ripe for a comeback and ready to challenge Microsoft.

Reply Score: 0

Inches...
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 16:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It always feels good when you come home after a hard day's work knowing that you just did away without yet some more inches of a lightyears distance... doesn't it...?!

Reply Score: 0

RE:First idiocy from eweek, now news.com
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 16:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>>>>"The browser is a half a decade away from becoming mainstream to give us that richness. And even then it doesn't challenge windows in the operating system and office components.">>>>>>>>

Stop talking about what you don't know
An example among many

http://www.laszlosystems.com/lps/sample-apps/


Click on the links one after the other

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Stop talking about what you don't know
An example among many

http://www.laszlosystems.com/lps/sample-apps/


Please use your head before you type. I know all about Lazlo and how it uses flash. I already pointed out XUL and XAML. It doesn't mean shit until its built into the browser. No, flash is not the answer.

Reply Score: 0

Awesome
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 17:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I hope Google succeeds, but until they provide a operating system on all new PCs and include tons of useful software and ease of use, it's not going to happen.

It's just usual M$ motivation tactics to justify trimming the fat.

Reply Score: 0

The end to Windows & Microsoft...
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 18:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

...is a non-Microsoft OS/platform ala OS-X or one of the many GNU/Linux distros, along with non-Microsoft applications such as OpenOffice.org, et. al.

If Google is positioning themselves to provide such alternatives, then they could be the ones to unseat Microsoft. But until they come out with some sort of productivity suite which includes a word processor, spreadsheet, & presentation package, it's not going to happen.

Reply Score: 0

ringworm
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 18:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

i like the smell of cum ringworm rash

Reply Score: 0

Re: IF google hadn't have gone downhill
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 18:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Exactly... if Google don't keep improving their search engine, someone else will "out-google" them.

In fact there are 2 flaws with the Google results-pay engine that will never change:

1. Ranking primarily on how much people pay in practice goes against giving the best results.
2. Google is a lazy engine - a lot of the web is not included. Also they don't have a manual submission anymore for new sites.

Reply Score: 0

What is new ?
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 18:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The profit of google mostly coming from the search engine. Google search engine is very nice, but it is not a too new thing - and google is not the first internet search company, IMHO the yahoo, altavista, etc are older. Yes, google is a most popular at this moment, but it can change in the future.

And IMHO at this moment the internet is not useable for application platform. In the future I can imagine with the .NET (instead of java) but now the technology (javascript and flash) is not enought on client side.

Reply Score: 0

RE: What is new ?
by Whats That There on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 18:43 UTC in reply to "What is new ?"
Whats That There Member since:
2005-09-21

I had google ads on my site. now a lot of people in my workplace use my site, and they all share the same IP.
google declined paying me, and banned my account, as they said...

"self-promoting your own ads (clicking on links) is against regulations"

they would not listen to my valid arguments about the shared IP.

I wish them no harm, but I will never advertise them again.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

If they didn't ship windows with almost any new computer how many would actually pay for a windows?
I can agree that they did visual studio and to some extent also office good but deffinitly nothing else, the only thing that keeps windows in top today is IMHO games.
Sadly no linux distro has made any effort to become a major games distro. So come on geeks make a bsd AND/or linux distro that is made for games and game developers, then I can almost gurantee that windows will loose a big chunk and see it as a threat. DirectX SUCKS!!! OpenGL rules.

Reply Score: 0

oasis
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 19:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

One another problem MS has to face: the OpenDocument format. I read all what I found on that subject. It seems MS has really pain holding its position with their proprietary formats.
Any thoughts on this?

Reply Score: 0

No next Microsoft
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 19:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This article, like many others, is looking for the next Microsoft. Who will topple Microsoft, and sieze the throne?

Ordinary business users will topple Microsoft, when they decide that allowing any company that much control over their own computers carries far too high a price. That realization also means that those users won't allow that control to any other company, either. There won't be another Microsoft. Not Google, not Apple, no one.

This isn't a shift from one vendor to another. It's a shift from vendors to users. The seller's market is over, it's a buyer's market now.

Sure, it will take years, probably decades. But selling software is on the way out. The growth is in services.

Reply Score: 0

Windows is its crown jewel?
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 19:23 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

No way! Microsoft depends much more heavily on Win32 than on Windows.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Windows is its crown jewel?
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 23:30 UTC in reply to "Windows is its crown jewel?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

you *do* realise the win32 api is going to be yet another legacy library in vista, right?

Reply Score: 0

RE: open source desktop is dead
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 19:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Yeah, the corporate involvement in open source desktops like KDE and Gnome is one of the causes of its demise. They wanted to emulate windows too much. Also, Novell, RedHat, Suse, whatever were never able to put a facade over Unix which OSX does successfully.

The best thing to happen would be for more resources be put into freedesktop.org for Xorg/graphics infrastructure issues and let a new generation come on that will do something different than KDE or Gnome. They're both dead as far as mainstream usage is concerned.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

do you have *anything* to back up *any* of those statements?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes, it's too bad that Gnome and KDE were just cheap windows ripoffs and open source couldn't innovate. The problem was that RedHat and other corporate interests wanted a cheap windows ripoff. If they would have done something innovative then maybe things would have turned out differently.

The important thing to do now is to go forward and consider Gnome and KDE a bad dream. Maybe a fresh start and a few years down the road an open source desktop can challenege Microsoft again.

Reply Score: 0

v Maybe the end of which far and voila!
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 20:18 UTC
gonzalo Member since:
2005-07-06

Woa.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Indeed.

Reply Score: 0

go Google!
by 2501 on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 20:48 UTC
2501
Member since:
2005-07-14

linux,google,apple,IIIIIPPPPPOOOOOODDDD!!!!

Now Microsoft is concerned about its rivals. I am glad to know that Google is taking a different approach in how to run and offer new apps to its customers. Can you imagine tu have a computer with no OS. It seems that we heading to that direction.

Go to Thinkfree.com and try their Office verison on-line. That is the future.

And for artist...just get the Apple.

If you want to fly free....get Linux.

I can not wait for Microsoft to sink.

-2501

Reply Score: 1

strange
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 23:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

i do not know what is wrong with this link but i can not really open it, i'm redirected to wyciwyg://0/link !!

first time that camino behave strangely.

Reply Score: 0

v too late
by Anonymous on Fri 23rd Sep 2005 23:46 UTC
google adulation
by jtrapp on Sat 24th Sep 2005 01:55 UTC
jtrapp
Member since:
2005-07-06

I find the sycophantic adulation of google somewhat disconcerting. Google is no better and no worse than any other company of their size. Like any publicly traded company they do not have your interests in mind. Their only mission is to maximize return for their share holders, nothing else. They are the new kids on the block and everyone loves them. But, let them win and begin to dominate our lives and I am quite sure that they will be as hated as MS is today

Reply Score: 1

why?
by Anonymous on Sat 24th Sep 2005 05:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why would a web service company threaten an Operating System company?

Reply Score: 0

RE: why?
by Anonymous on Sun 25th Sep 2005 19:17 UTC in reply to "why?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Why would a web service company threaten an Operating System company?"

Because it's entirely possible to connect a computer to the web without a locally installed Operating System.

The future could easily go this way:
Get the applications Joe Sixpack uses on the web, mail, word processing, etc., and then get Joe off of a locally installed OS completely. With this model there would be no need for a Windows or Linux desktop.

Reply Score: 0

Web based applications: it will be good ?
by Anonymous on Sat 24th Sep 2005 05:18 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I don't know. IMHO PC=freedom. If you buy your PC you can do it with anything. You can setup linux, windows, BSD, you can use OpenOffice or M$ Office. But if will only dump terminal on client side, you will hardly depend on internet - and internet companies. Yes, the most important things are free on the internet - but if will only PC-s on client side, the little x86 based servers will disappear (because this severs is mostly based a normal PC). It can be very good a big hardware companies, like IBM, SUN, or anybody, but IMHO the normal users will lose. And if anybody can rule this net this company can rule the world. It is also good for big music, movie, etc companies: without ripping, file sharing, etc they can give their contents more expensive.

Reply Score: 0

Because they hate our freedoms
by Sphinx on Sat 24th Sep 2005 17:15 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

"Google threatens Microsoft and the company's crown jewel, Windows."

No, freedom and the will of the people to seek that freedom threatens Microsoft, the regime's crown jewel Windows and yes even the google monopoly should it become one.


I apologize for the bush quote subject line

Reply Score: 1

Google owning consumers IS a threat
by Leigh on Wed 28th Sep 2005 21:02 UTC
Leigh
Member since:
2005-09-28

This misses the risk that consumers may identify with Google more than Windows and turn to Google first, bringing ad revenue with them. It's not just OS shipments that are important. Consumers are a huge market and they now identify more with the web and their mobile devices, than with the PC. That could make Google their first choice for paid services and could make a Windows connection to mobile devices less meaningful.

Reply Score: 1