OSNews

http://www.google.com/help/features.html

http://www.google.com/options/index.html

http://labs.google.com/

http://www.google.com/ads/index.html

http://www.google.com/services/index.html

A good name

A reputation of not being a monopoly like windows

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.

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.