Media coverage focuses on Microsoft’s competition with Google, but Chairman Bill Gates sees IBM – not the Web search leader – as its biggest challenger. “People tend to get over-focused on one of our competitors. We’ve always seen that,” Gates said, comparing the potential threat of Google’s search capabilities to past competitors such as Internet browser Netscape and Sun Microsystems’ Java programming language.
He doesn’t actually say Google. My first reaction to what he said is that he feels Apple gets more supposedly underserved attention as their biggest challenger… though it could also be Google.
Edited 2006-01-05 19:24
Thats because Microsoft see IBM as GNU/Linux.
I’d drop the GNU part when it comes to IBM.
I’d drop the GNU part when it comes to IBM.
IBM is a corporate sponsor of the FSF. The FSF website runs on hardware donated by IBM.
“IBM is a corporate sponsor of the FSF. The FSF website runs on hardware donated by IBM.”
Sounds like IBM made a wise donation for tax deduction purposes. They donate a lot of hardware to various non-profits each year.
Seriously, I don’t get it.
According to the article “IBM, which offers computer services, software and hardware, poses a challenge to Microsoft in defining how Web services will work together in the future. ”
Still, you’re right it doen’t make sense. IBM may be a threat, it certainly has the resources to make things pretty difficult for MS if it wanted to, but a rival ? What “rival” products does IBM put out, Smartsuite ? I think this is just part misdirection, part delusions of grandeur.
> What “rival” products does IBM put out, Smartsuite?
Lotus Domino/Notes (MS Exchange/Outlook)
Eclipse & Rational (MS Visual Studio)
DB2 (MS SQL Server)
just to name a few
What “rival” products does IBM put out, Smartsuite ? I think this is just part misdirection, part delusions of grandeur.
The client for IBM workplace contains a complete office suite forked from OpenOffice it is called the IBM editors (IBM has also added its own project management program).
Since the Workplace client and the Notes client are planned to merge on IBM’s roadmap. In the not to distant future, both IBM Workplace and Lotus Notes users could find themselves with an email/collaboration client that contains a complete ODF supporting office suit. This would be just at the same time as MS is trying to get them to upgrade to Office 12 and move from the old formats (.doc etc) to XAML. Well why not save your money and move to ODF.
I don’t believe IBM gives a damn about Linux or open source for that matter. It’s just a screwy little game they are playing to make the community feel warm and fuzzy. IBM would snuggle up to the devil, if it would help them get rid of their Unix competitors.
The assload of cash they just invested for a new Unix development center in Austin, Texas speaks volumes about the direction IBM is headed.
My understanding of IBM is that they’re far to large, disparate, and bureacratic to actually have a single goal. There are probably sections of IBM which are about FOSS, and sections which are using those sections to increase their profit margins.
Companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Google are far less bureacratic and have less than ten people making all the big decisions.
Saying IBM is for or against anything seems naive to me. They’re for and against everything at the same time
. I think IBM works by betting on every horse and hoping that their money distribution turns a profit but if the horse they thought would win loses they may make money on that little colt that everyone thought would lose!
The assload of cash they just invested for a new Unix development center in Austin, Texas speaks volumes about the direction IBM is headed.
True, and just wait till later on when there is IBM saying, “oh, btw, we’re going to make AIX available on those OpenPOWER servers we just sold you” – get the hardware in with the Linux coolness factor, then move them over to AIX.
The assload of cash they just invested for a new Unix development center in Austin, Texas speaks volumes about the direction IBM is headed.
AIX does not run on x86 (unlike Solaris) nor is it used for multiole virtualized instnces on Mainframes. Linux runs on all the hardware IBM makes. For many users their is a good case for running AIX on the P series.
“AIX does not run on x86”
YET…..
I have an odd feeling this is about to change.
“AIX does not run on x86”
YET…..
I have an odd feeling this is about to change.
No chance
…such as the Java programming language? He _must_ be kidding about that, at least comparing the popularity of, say, C# or even .NET as technology to Java or J2EE…
…such as the Java programming language? He _must_ be kidding about that, at least comparing the popularity of, say, C# or even .NET as technology to Java or J2EE…
Businessweek:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051213_0…
Reports by Evans Data Corp., which does annual surveys of the activities of software developers, show Java use is slipping as LAMP and Microsoft’s .NET technology gain traction. In North America, the percentage of developers who use Java as one of their principal programming languages declined to 47.9 in Evans’ fall survey, vs. 51.4% in the fall of 2002. The same surveys show that while Java use is climbing in Asia, it’s on the decline in Europe.
Meanwhile, .NET usage increased to 54.1% from 40.3% in the same period in North America, and exceeded Java use in Europe and Asia. In a different survey series, the use of PHP in North America grew to 36.1% this fall, from 26% in the fall of 2003. It grew almost as quickly in Europe and Asia. “There’s more competition out there,” says Evans President John Andrews. “These other technologies are catching hold. They’re biting away at [Java’s] share.”
Most of these articles are in complete and do not tell you the truth. If the survey is about the same type of applications then obviously
54.1 + 47.9 > 100 % does not make sense to me
If not they are not telling what is the survey about and whant is the percentage represent.
Please do not be misled by these numbers they are just numbers and noting else ….
My *guess* is that .NET is growing more at the expense of Win32, not Java. There are a LOT of old Win32 C++ and VB shops that crank out quick’n’dirty custom solutions for SMBs — these are the folks going to .NET, which makes a lot of sense for them. Mono even provides them a potential migration path to Linux if it’s feasible and costs need to be cut.
Java’s slight decline has probably more to do with the growing industry support and architectural robustness of PHP, accompanied by the realization that for smaller web projects, scripting languages are the way to go (though the size of project they can sufficiently tackle is growing larger and larger).
PHP is also taking quite a bite out of potential .NET business — a lot more than Java business. Trust me: I work on a national health care application, and ~nothing~ but Java would be able to scale adequately. When EJBs become a neccessity, there is only Java. Not to mention that .NET doesn’t even come close to having something like Spring or Hibernate or Aspects.
Java’s success is undoubtedly due strong support from the Apache foundation, and of course the fact that you can easily deploy a *properly* coded Java app on any *nix out there, or even Windows.
Edited 2006-01-06 01:05
I’m not convinced.
You can make numbers to look almost exactly the way you want, depending on where you look, how you compare and the like. Seeing the comparison of Java / .NET with LAMP (which IMHO is ridiculous) makes it hard to be serious about the whole article. To me, this is all a mess-up of different things that don’t really fit together well. What are we talking about? Building dynamic web sites? Creating small CRUD applications to hammer stuff into an SQL database using a web frontend? Building applications distributed across platforms and systems within both an internal network and “the internet” and yet being meant to interact and communicate? There are numbers and percentages written all across the article but the writes doesn’t get clear about some basic assumptions. Otherwise, I’d like him to build a system to link CORBA, SOAP and possibly a bunch of other technologies using PHP, Perl, Python (even though I love the latter ones). Good luck.
Okay I’l admit that Microsofts inordinate resorces enable them to make some really good software. but there business plan is kind of like Genghis Kahn, and unfortuneately that means everyone has alot of hatred for them. Its not Google vs Microsoft. Its Earth and all humanity vs Microsoft.
and Gates never showed himself to be the most “with it” business man. He thought the internet was going to be a failure and that we’d all be on private monopoly networks. Like the really big one that AOL had before they gave up(and connected to the internet). He was also sure of himself that we’d never need more than a few K.
so Gates doesn’t know what hes talking about even now. He knows legal contracts and thats why hes a billionaire, not because he knows pollitics or economy.
but there business plan is kind of like Genghis Kahn, and unfortuneately that means everyone has alot of hatred for them. Its not Google vs Microsoft. Its Earth and all humanity vs Microsoft.
Yes, in your delusional little fantasy world, it’s earth and all humanity vs Microsoft.
Yes, in your delusional little fantasy world, it’s earth and all humanity vs Microsoft.
Well, that’s the way Microsoft and Bill Gates see it.
Sure Sedge…Gates sees the earth and humanity against Microsoft. Now go take your meds.
Sure Sedge…Gates sees the earth and humanity against Microsoft. Now go take your meds.
I’m afraid that’s exactly the way Microsoft sees things, and they want to protect what they have at all costs. You only need to look at MA and ODF to see that as well as countless other places.
Any suggestions to the contrary comes from Microsoft fans who just will not have anything said against them. You don’t need medicine – you need psychiatric help.
Edited 2006-01-06 11:33
“Past competitors” sort of denotes that MS has won the war on a specific battle front
1. Netscape vs IE — IE might have a lot of installed users, but Firefox (Netscape’s grandchild of a sort) is kicking and screaming and more and more users are at least trying it out
2. Java vs .NET — more Java apps exist than .NET – why look at this google maps on my phone, what’s this you say? it’s not a .NET app! wow! it couldn’t possibly be java because that war is over…
3. IBM being the bigger competitor – hmmm. Any second year MBA (I have no faith in 1st year MBA 😉 ) will tell you that a competitor is one where you compete in the same arena for market dominance. MS does not sell PCs, IBM does not sell gaming consoles. Looking at two companies solely on the basis of revenue and seeing that one company has more revenue than another does not make you competitors!
4. What does IBM have to do with the development of the Cell processor and being in competition with MS ?
5. Microsoft was, is and will be a software company (as stated by them in the article) – I don’t see why IBM is a threat. I can see Google, I can see Apple, I can see Nokia and Sony and Nintendo.
It seems to me that they are not focusing on the proper targets.
IBM’s consulting services competes directly with MCS (Microsoft Consulting Services): They both do billions yearly in revenues setting up custom solutions for Fortune 500 companies. Microsoft isn’t _just_ a software company, though their software does indeed help drive MCS sales. They also do a ton of custom software development as well. So yes, they are huge competitors…there’s a lot of money at stake in that arena, and between the two of them, they pretty much dominate it.
In the same vein, IBM isn’t just a PC company…by far and away they are a services company who just happens to sell PC’s as well. The cash cow for IBM is building large custom solutions for gov’t/large businesses. Why do you think they sold their PC business to Lenovo?
One difference, Microsofts services don’t touch anything but enterprise; IBM on the other hand, if you’ve got the money, they’ll do it.
Incorrect. I worked in MCS for a couple of years (and have a few friends who still do); if a company has the money for a Premier contract with MS they get full access to MCS. They don’t turn anyone away so long as they have the cash.
Thats surprising, there was a tussle a while back between third party service providers and MCS, with Microsoft saying that they would only ever worry about the big fry and leave the rest for the vendors to fight over.
IBM’s consulting services competes directly with MCS (Microsoft Consulting Services):
And IBM will recommend a solution that does not use Windows. Though they will support one if you insist on it.
In the same vein, IBM isn’t just a PC company
No…IBM isn’t a PC company … not any more … Lenovo is a PC company.
IBM isn’t in the consumer desktop PC market anymore, but they still make x86 workstations and servers:
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/intellistation/
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/xseries/
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/opteron/
IBM isn’t in the consumer desktop PC market anymore, but they still make x86 workstations and servers
x86 Servers and high end workstations don’t fall into the common definition of PC’s. Not only are they out of the consumer desktop market they are out of the corporate desktop market.
Edited 2006-01-06 23:31
“Past competitors” sort of denotes that MS has won the war on a specific battle front
or lost? maybe they are giving up on .net.
This is like sounds like Apple’s story, big brother is watching.
Does this mean that Microsoft may be closer to open-sourcing Windows XP in the near future?
Competition with IBM? I would think Microsoft should be more worried about Apple. With Apple changing to the X86 platform, it would be very easy for them to bring OS X into direct competition with Windows
Competition with IBM? I would think Microsoft should be more worried about Apple. With Apple changing to the X86 platform, it would be very easy for them to bring OS X into direct competition with Windows.
No. Apple’s relationship with Microsoft is actually quite good. And Apple will never make themselves too big a threat to Microsoft because else MS can threaten to discontinue Office:Mac– and Office:Mac is very important if Apple wants to continue being viable as an alternative to Windows.
Well, if Apple wanted to they could ‘easily’ change that situation. They _do_ have the resources to do a proper port of openoffice.org.
But why do that if you can get a nice little niche, milking the customers, while being friendly with MS?
Why would they port open openoffice… they already have iWork office suite which has replacements for all of Microsoft office apps (except for excell) but an excell replacement (numbers) is scheduled for release next week.
Edited 2006-01-06 02:13
Nit-picking: It’s Excel and not Excell
But of course, you have a point. But one reason for porting OpenOffice would be OpenOffice’s much much larger user base (Linux+Windows).
But the most important thing is of course having a real alternative to MS Office.
Woah… are you trying to say that Apple is allowing itself to put a cap on its potential success all in an effort to not upset Microsoft?
That’s just stupid.
If Apple get’s “too successful” that means that they will have taken enough of Microsoft’s core user base to become THAT much of a threat to them. If they take away Office, it would mean that Microsoft is not only not generating revenue from the lost sale of Windows as a result of Apple’s success, but also not benefiting from the sale of Office too!
Microsoft’s shareholder’s simply wouldn’t stand for that kind of last revenue generating opportunity.
I’m really surprised that you would even make such a comment… it implies that you hold a belief that Microsoft holds some sort of control on Apple. That’s simply not true… ESPECIALLY now that Apple has shown that they can overcome what was previously regarded as a major threat like taking away IE for Mac was said to be only a few years ago.
People are already friendlier to the idea of Mac OS as a Windows alternative than to Linux, I don’t see why Apple couldn’t go on a serious offensive and switch a sizeable number of Microsoft customers over.
What do you consider sizeable?
I would say they already have.
> I would say they already have
Depends on what continent you are on. At least here in Germany, Apple is still pretty much non-existent.
How MS would love to have that useless, bungling IBM as its only major competitor. BUt its a long way from reality…
Outside Windows and Office, MS are getting their arses well and truly kicked in just about every area they have encroached. Unable to leverage their monopoly they are forced to compete on a level playing field and consequently face being nothing more than minor players in those fields.
So the only way to really hurt MS is to beat them in the OS and Office suites fields and guess who is leading the charge there? They are the only true competitors that count.
Outside Windows and Office, MS are getting their arses well and truly kicked in just about every area they have encroached. Unable to leverage their monopoly they are forced to compete on a level playing field and consequently face being nothing more than minor players in those fields.
Except Microsoft’s server software marketshare keeps on rising.
Except Microsoft’s server software marketshare keeps on rising.
Well no, but its revenue keeps rising – apparently ;-).
Edited 2006-01-05 22:24
Except Microsoft’s server software marketshare keeps on rising.
No – with the exception of the last quarter (which was a very good one for MS) its server market share has been declining, insomuch that the percentage increase in its’server sales has not matched the increase in the market. Linux has been increasing its server market share at a phenomenal rate over the past few years.
Outside Windows and Office, MS are getting their arses well and truly kicked in just about every area they have encroached. Unable to leverage their monopoly they are forced to compete on a level playing field and consequently face being nothing more than minor players in those fields.
That’s about right. It’s really quite easy in all of Microsoft’s billions to miss the fact that Microsoft’s entire business depends on Windows and Office. Office is the most profitable but Windows is what keeps the revenue from Office and any other software coming in. It was interesting to view just how reliant Microsoft is on Office by their reaction with Massachusetts.
Other areas have been a massive business failure. Microsoft’s large profits mask how much the Xbox has lost. It’s a different world out there when you have to actually get organised to make something profitable, rather then throwing money at it. All Microsoft can hope for with Vista is that it will be seen as ‘the centre of your digital world’. Businesses certainly aren’t going to upgrade to it, and Microsoft’s new product cycles are hopelessly out of synch with what businesses out there are actually using and it’s only going to get worse.
So the only way to really hurt MS is to beat them in the OS and Office suites fields
Well, Windows and Office is all there is. Forget SQL Server, Visual Studio and all the other software. Yes, Microsoft make money from them but they are all totally dependant on Windows being there as an OS. Office is the nice bumper stocking filler.
IBM, which offers computer services, software and hardware, poses a challenge to Microsoft in defining how Web services will work together in the future.
this isn’t about game consoles or software or anything silly like that. this is about who decides how the internet works. this is about killing off anything computer related that isn’t microsoft. this is about absolute power.
People tend to get over-focused on one of our competitors. We’ve always seen that,
Another thing we’ve always seen is Microsoft downplaying and belittling the competitors they don’t have a handle on yet, preferring us to focus on the competitors they already know how to deal with. The real threats are the ones they can’t handle yet. This downplaying is part of how they try to deal with these competitors.
As for IBM, a company like Microsoft doesn’t have to compete with that. It is sufficient to cooperate with IBM and you will have no problems. Say, provide them with the information to service your products, or maybe have them design and manufacture a processor for you.
This competition thing can be overrated sometimes.
“and Office:Mac is very important if Apple wants to continue being viable as an alternative to Windows.”
I thought iWork was supposed to take care of that. No?
I thought iWork was supposed to take care of that. No?
No, iWork is more like a DTP package than a professional office suite. iWork barely handles .doc files (a must), and… Well, just use it, and you’ll know what I mean.
Thom, you are incorrect. As a professional graphic designer myself, I would never use any of the apps in iWork as a means for designing.
iWork is an actually a VERY nice replacement for office. Not only is it so much cleaner interface-wise, its also easier to use and so much more powerful.
The fact that its not fully compatible with .doc files using advanced formatting is very negligable.
Currently I’d have to say things don’t look great for Microsoft.
OS X is a more sophisticated OS by far. If you didn’t have to buy Apple hardware to get it I’d wager a lot more people would have switched to it, or at least tried it out than did.
Google is making waves in all sorts of areas and its almost impossible to predict where they’ll go next.
Java has seen huge success in enterprise business environments, though in my opinion .NET trumps it technology wise. But still, your cross platform crowd only has one option.
But Microsoft still has time. .NET may have been the single greatest, strongest, and well architected piece of software they’ve produced. If they are able to continue that trend into Vista like they say they are going to they could stand to gain back a lot of the respect they have lost with their business practices in recent history.
Time will tell.
Any remark like this needs a pinch of salt, but Gates has a pretty strong point. IBM is the king of enterprise services. Microsoft would quite like to be, but IBM got there first and will fight every inch of the way. The enterprise is where the money is. Why half-kill yourself over a consumer OS when the tide is flowing the other way?
Google can hurt MS, but not too much. Google at present is a one-trick pony (internet advertising). It remains to be seen whether Google will succeed at other things. Apple can also hurt MS, but again not too much. No worthwhile presence in business, entirely dependent on the Jobs effect and vulnerable to the Windows ecosystem via their iPod software.
But IBM can really hurt Microsoft. Services are probably Microsoft’s future and an 800lb gorilla is blocking the track.
Who cares.
Microsoft is irrelevent.
Brain Drain from Java, Apple OS X and Linux to name a few
and the fact that it’s the biggest bore in the IT community.
Quality ISN’T job 1 at Microsoft and they are losing because of it.
The most intelligent thing I’ve heard in a long time…
I can understand your frustration. Did you interview at MS and got rejected? Linux hah you know what it is?
Linux = Loser Invented Another UniX
Got it? And for your kind information, XBOX 360 is kicking ass, office is still irreplacable. Java is dead almost. Is 2006 year of linux? LOL you make me laugh buddy
Ironically enough (and this is pretty well known), at the same time that IBM is one of MS’s largest competitors, they are also one of MS’s largest customers. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars anually for software licenses/support contracts. And it’s not even a case of “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” as while MS makes a ton of money from IBM, MS isn’t a direct customer of their’s. It’s still in both party’s best interest not to piss the other one off though…it’s a very healthy competition between the two, and they have an excellent working relationship.
Last I heard I thought the XBox 360 used IBM’s cell processors, did that change?
I must have overlooked that, but they aren’t cells…they’re PPC. Regardless, I stand corrected :-).
Edit: Fixed typo. Note to OSNews staff, the edit link doesn’t show up on the main thread, but was visible when I clicked “reply” to my own comment.
Edited 2006-01-06 04:01
Again, CNet really shows just how little they know about technology…they seem to simply regurgitate buzzwords in order to sensationalize their “news.” My biggest issue with the article was this:
“Google, extending beyond its dominant position in search, offers a variety of Web software that ranges from communications to e-commerce, all of which poses a potential threat to Microsoft.”
Exactly what type of communications software does Google have that challenge MS? Google Talk? A little late in the game, and so far has been relegated to a very niche crowd. E-commerce software from Google? Such as? They may have e-commerce solutions in place (such as analytics or whatnot), but they certainly don’t write any turn-key e-commerce software solutions (such as Commerce Server/BizTalk/SQL Server/Content Mgmt Server/etc). Comparing the two in those realms is a complete farce, and truly shows the ignorance of the guys over at CNet.
The only point the article managed to make without making an ass out of itself is that the press wants to write about the “sexy” companies, which Apple and Google most certainly are. No one wants to read about IBM as they really aren’t doing anything in the “sexy” arena (except making a ton of money at what they do).
The only arena in which MS competes with Google is search/web content delivery…and that’s it. I’m pretty sure they’re aware that they will probably never catch up with Google…and that they don’t have to. MS already has a very successful business model (like it or not), and have had for 30 years. They have absolutely no reason to stray from it…leave well enough alone. Google is actually perhaps one of the only “competitors” that if they were to disappear tomorrow it wouldn’t affect MS’s bottom line whatsoever. If IBM disappeared, MS would take a huge hit in the pocket book as they spend an insane amount of money with MS.
I’m also tired of people comparing Apple to MS…they are competitors on a very small scale (compared to other MS competitors), and again in different arenas. Apple is a hardware company that just happens to sell an OS for their hardware. They don’t compete _whatsoever_ in the services/custom solution development realm (does Apple even have a consulting division?).
I’m so glad I stopped reading CNet a couple of years ago…next thing they’ll have us believing is that Microsoft and Intel are competitors.
“Pay no attention to what the left hand is doing, now Abracadabra!”
I can’t believe people think that Microsoft should be more worried about competition from Apple than IBM.
Guess that says a lot about media hype and fandom.
Nobody said that.
The article is making assumptions about quotes from Gates which said that one of their competitors got far too much attention as competition for Microsoft that what it deserves and that Microsoft’s REAL competition is IBM.
The editor of this story assumed that Gates was talking about Google. Those people that have protested thus far believe Gates is talking about Apple.
Nobody is saying one way or another that Apple is more of a competitor to anybody than anyone else. Rather, just contesting the notion that Gates was talking about Google rather than Apple.
I think that Apple is in fact a greater threat to Microsoft than Google… at least with what we know of their capabilities and projected business plans thus far.
Edited 2006-01-06 02:45
“I think that Apple is in fact a greater threat to Microsoft than Google… at least with what we know of their capabilities and projected business plans thus far. ”
Than Google? Yes. Than IBM/Sun/Oracle/<insert software company name here>, no. MS simply has no need to worry about Apple.
More than likely he was referring to Google though as that seems to be the hype lately…anyone the news can pit as a competitor to MS is bound to stir up some buzz, even if it’s incorrect. Such is the news though.
“MS simply has no need to worry about Apple.”
Who other than Apple has an OS that rivals Windows is user friendliness and stablity etc and one that now runs on x86. I think you’re under estimating them.
“More than likely he was referring to Google though”
Could be…. Microsoft has been more than likely to refer to Google as a competitor yes is always very reluctant to publicly regard Apple as such lest it give them even more credibility amongst those who haven’t used a Mac.
OSX isn’t their cash cow though, hardware is. I do agree that once the x86 transition is complete that MS may have a bit more to worry about in the home user arena than they do now…but MS’s cash cow is in the enterprise, in which they are very firmly entrenched and will continue to dominate for quite a while.
Compared to the either competitors (at this point), Apple is just a small blip on the radar.
At beginning
MS always says that they are not threats.
However, their reaction is far from what they said.
Do you remember that MS spents a lot for advertisment for lower TOC of Windows than linux?
Do you remember that MS set “Firefox” as a restricted word on MSN blogs.
MS faces the threats in another way.
They know/think that if they admit the threats, the threats will be discussed more and more(due to Microsoft).
Therefore, Microsoft don’t talk about real threats in public.
People slamming Gates; the fact is, Bill is right, IBM is a big competitor to Microsoft; IBM is the one that is capitalising on Java, pushing that forward, pushing all their middleware forward, and that is a direct threat to Microsoft, whose bread and butter isn’t Joe Average but Ernie the Enterprise customer who needs to have his cluster of 15 servers working etc.
What is standing in Microsofts way is IBM, and that is what people forget, hence the reason why Microsoft was so happy to get in bed with SUN – SUN is no competitor to Microsoft – they’re after different customers, and by enlarge, they seem to share the turf quite happy, who Microsoft see as a threat to their dominance is IBM and their ability to mobilise their sales and support staff very quickly vs. Microsoft and SUN who rely heavily on a network of third party service businesses to provide that integration and support – at the ground level.
Nobody is slamming gates for saying that IBM is or is not a competitor. They are slamming the journalist’s assumption that he meant Google when speaking of a different competitor.
yeah, I never understood the media when they were saying Google was Microsoft’s main competition.When Google is only a popular search engine. Google does not sell OS ,business apps and popular software titles. I don’t see how they can compare.