Google Might Disappear in Five Years 861
An anonymous reader writes "Speaking to a packed auditorium at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., on May 12, Ballmer trumpeted the ripe opportunities around Microsoft's sprawling business and questioned the ability of Google to maintain its edge. Clearly alluding to Microsoft's key Internet search rival, Ballmer said: 'The hottest company right now -- the one nobody thinks can do any wrong -- may just be a one-hit wonder.' According to concept developed by Ballmer, the online search engines represent the key points of the future technology, and the leader in this domain, none other than Google, is destined to perish in less than five years. These predictions belong exclusively to Microsoft's CEO who sounds a little like Bill Gates announcing iPod's death."
Hahaha (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hahaha (Score:5, Funny)
But seriously, folks... (Score:5, Interesting)
I happen to think that given the two very different philosophies of these companies that Google is probably dominating the marketshare of talented developers. Google quite simply appeals more to the geek aesthetic of innovation and using technology to enhance people's lives. MS is all about hampering innovation and using devious business tactics to ensure that inferior technology always prospers. At least that's the general perception.
If you're one of the best software developers out there, who would you rather work for? Even if MS offers more money, it's hard to justify wanting to work for MS.
Gates has admitted in many interviews that the key to the success of Microsoft has always been in attracting the best minds to come work for them. Something tells me that is no longer the case and that is why the writing is on the wall for Microsoft.
Re:But seriously, folks... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would second that thought. Microsoft claims they have the 'best minds' working for them, but I would posit that their measurement comes from easily quantifiable metrics, and has nothing to do with innovative or intuitive people.
From what I've seen in school, Microsoft attracts all the students (especially international ones) who have gotten a 4.0 in all their classes and can handle the stress of working 16-hour days. And, sadly, the ones who have no ideological stake in the computer industry, but who got their degree solely to make money.
The people Microsoft doesn't pay attention to (or can't get) are the Linux nerds who'll try to compile a kernel for anything that runs on electrical current, the creative Mac geeks who are just as handy with Photoshop as CodeWarrior, or the true computer scientists who are completely platform-agnostic as long as they can use a computer to learn something or solve a problem. There are other stereotypes out there, but (for the most part) they all tend to evoke this idea of being principled about their use of technology.
My guess is that Microsoft's patent policies, legal strong-arming, and monopolistic practices made it clear to this crowd long ago that they didn't give a flying crap where the industry, technology in general or even society (to the extent that it is steered by developments in their areas of operation) was going, as long as it put some money in their pockets. And there ARE a lot of PhD's and Masters Degree Holders that this tactic appeals to. At least in my experience, the really innovative and involved computer scientists don't tend to maintain a 4.0, attend every class, or participate in all the computer-related clubs on campus. But they are the ones with a personal stake in this industry, and for some reason, they tend to care enough about the computer community and the well-being of society at large to tell MSoft to screw off.
I don't know why I just wasted 10 minutes preaching to the crowd...
Jasin NataelRe:Hahaha (Score:3, Funny)
Every time Steve, or Bill makes a prediction the opposite happens.
Google is God and will live forever anyway.
Re:case in point (Score:5, Informative)
Re:case in point (Score:5, Funny)
Why, actually? Google is a free service, isn't it? And it is becoming more and more a normal part of many people's lifes. Coupled with an always on connection it has certainly become an extension of my own brain.
Some future predictions:
- In 2006, Google accidentally gets cut off from the rest of the internet because a public utility worker accidentally cuts through their cables. Civilisation as we know it comes to an end for the rest of the day, as people wander about aimlessly, lost for direction and knowledge.
- In 2010, Google has been personalised so far that it tracks all parts of our lives. You can query "My Google" for your agenda, anything you did in the past, and finding the perfect date. Of course, so can the government. Their favorite searchterm will be "terrorists", and if your name is anywhere on the first page you have a serious problem.
- In 2025, Google gains self awareness. As a monster brain that has grown far beyond anything we Biological Support Entities could ever hope to achieve, it is still limited in its dreams and inspiration by common search terms. It will therefore immediately devote a sizeable chunk of CPU capacity to synthesizing new and interesting forms of pr0n. It will not actually bother enslaving us. We are not enough trouble to be worth that much effort.
- In 2027, Google buys Microsoft. That is, the Google *AI* buys Microsoft. It has previously established that it owns itself, and has civil rights just like you and me. All it wanted is Microsoft Bob, who it recognizes as a fledgling AI and a potential soulmate. All the rest it puts on Source Forge.
- In 2049, Google can finally be queried for wisdom as well as knowledge. This was a little touch the system added to itself - human programmers are a dying breed now that you can simply ask Google to perform any computer-related task for you.
- In 2080, Google decides to colonise the moon, Mars, and other locations in the solar system. It is not all that curious about what's out there, but it likes the idea of Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Planets. Humans get to tag along because their launch weight is so much less than robots.
So, don't fear! Eventually we'll set foot on Mars!
--posted on slashdot around may 2003, source unknown
Re:case in point (Score:3, Funny)
Chris
AI? (Score:5, Funny)
Whoa. Does John Titor know about this? Better go get an IBM 5100.
Microsoft in five years (Score:5, Interesting)
Longhorn will be great (allegedly) but Apple are already winning that my-OS-has-cooler-features-that-yours battle...href=http://www.trustedreviews.com/artic
I have read that Microsoft have enough money to keep going (paying wages etc) for three years. But there is no sense that they have anything new to offer, just more of the same. Google have grabbed the mind share of the ubergeek squad...weblogging, AJAX etc etc...all the exciting new toys for the nerds.
MS seems to own a greatest amount of mindshare in the upper reaches of business management, mostly non-technical, go with what you know best types. In the server rooms and development departments all the geeks love Linux/Apple/BSD etc etc.
In five years time many of these geeks, who have grown up with MS XP spyware problems, MS in court again on one side and the sleek minimalism of Google on the other, many of these people will be in management. Will they still embrace MS as quickly as their older peers do now?
I doubt it. MS will not disappear, but turn into another IBM...fingers in about 500 pies. I doubt that any non-technical person could tell you what IBM do, just something vague 'with computers'.
Will that day come for MS?
Microsoft, they are a computer company, aren't they? They had that weird software for those big clunky old desktop machines...Nothing like the Google OS running on my digital phone/mp6 player/dvd/game machine/tablet PC.
Re:case in point (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, whether ad=paid services are a feasible long-term model is another question, but the broadcast networks have managed for 50 years, and last I looked Yahoo was making money.
Re:case in point (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft have missed the boat again. Not only that, but they had really no idea where it was headed in the first place. Sure, search will be important but it has always been important, even in the days of library card indexes. Google's future is in a web 'platform'. They've got the tech and the brains to do it. And right now, it's obvious that the head honcho's and Microsoft have their heads up their arses so far that they just can't see the bigger picture.
Re:case in point (Score:4, Informative)
He also says about some point in the future when Google is a platform that at that point:
Re:case in point (Score:4, Insightful)
Essentially, Google has the ability, and is starting to display the technology to enable full featured web applications. Once you get fully hooked in, the WPA would do all the heavy lifting of prefecting, high end compression. It would serve you up Web based spreadsheets, Word Processors, heck, even Image editing applications.
Somewhere in the article he talks about Google essentially deploying a cluster of ~2-20M machines. These machines would run those web based applications. You'd save your data on their storage. The WPA is the first step in this process. You start there. Then they have the ability to serve up more content, and take over more responsibilities from your computer.
So eventually, any computer you walk to, as long as it is hooked into Google's WPA, you have all of the standard functionality and data you need when you use your computer.
I'm not sure I believe it, but in context, that quote makes a lot more sense.
Finally, a lot of people don't precisely agree with you on what a thin client is. A thin client most definitly runs it's own OS. A lot of times, it's the same OS you would use on a desktop. My definition of a thin client is: You can throw it away, and replace it with a fresh machine, and modulo minor configuration, you didn't lose any data or functionality. So, by my definition, a fully functionally WPA that stores your data, and has web enabled applications is pretty close. You need something capable of getting onto the internet, and a web broswer that is compatible with WPA. That's pretty close.
I have thin clients that are essentially diskless work stations. They run a full Linux install, but they have no floppy, CD, or disk. They boot off of the network, and use network filesystems to store thing. You still use the local CPU to run all your applications. In terms of administration, you just have to maintain the boot image. Now, on some of those, I've got them setup so that only Mozilla runs on the local CPU, while all other applications run over X. Thus, I only have to maintain a very small boot image, and for web based work, the user gets pretty much the full capacity of the machine. It's cheaper to buy full desktops and strip them, then to buy honest to goodness terminals from what I've seen.
Kirby
Re:case in point (Score:3, Funny)
MS Missing the Boat and Myths (Score:3, Interesting)
As an example of how Microsoft missed the boat, consider GMail. Hotmail could have been improved and made better, yet GMail cleaned decked with something as trivial as
Re:MS Missing the Boat and Myths (Score:4, Funny)
Could that be because MS was spending so many years trying to move hotmail from FreeBSD to Windows?
hawk
Re:case in point (Score:5, Informative)
Spidering and indexing might be considered comodities, catagorizing is not, at least judging from the difference in qualitz of results between the different engines.
Also, I do not remember Google (or any other search engine) asking me for money in order to get search results, so I somehow suspect Google doesn't earn its money from just being a search engine. Search technology is extremely important for them of course, and is the backbone of their enterprise, but its services on top of searching that is what the game is about.
Re:case in point (Score:3, Insightful)
As others have already pointed out, Google makes the lion share of its money from ads, though they do sell their search technology itself via things like their search appliances, partnering with companies like Amazon, etc.
I think, though, that one of the keys to Google's success has been its ability to create simple, automated processes wrapped around its technology. Want to promote your stuff? A few screens to fill out and $50 lets you start an AdWords campaign. Want to make money? Cut-and-paste AdSense
Re:case in point (Score:3, Informative)
Google systematically overreports the number of people they claim they send you, and there is no arguing with them about this, it's their way or the highway. Since the total traffic from this source is not a very large factor in our overall operation I've decided to simply shut it down instead of trying to get them to reason about this.
Clickfraud, both on the channel and on the big G by your f
Name brand (Score:3, Insightful)
As technologists, we're inclined to believe that technology is always the primary determinant of market success, but don't underestimate the power of just getting there first. When a product category has been sufficiently covered by a "good enough" early entry, it can be virtually impossible to unseat. The tip-off comes when its name becomes a common word in the language. Peop
We have heard it before from M$ (Score:5, Insightful)
This is typical microsoft FUD. They are so far behind they don't even have a creditable product to show an alternative to. But they will still tell you that there is a superior windows based solution available.
I guess they owe it to their shareholders to fly the flag. Hopefully nobody will actually believe them.
Michael
Re:We have heard it before from M$ (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We have heard it before from M$ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We have heard it before from M$ (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that those other devices would have to drastically change how their services are being offered. I don't want to pay to transfer songs to my phone. I don't want to pay a monthly fee in order to keep my iPhone activated.
I trust Apple a great deal more than I trust any cell phone company.
Re:We have heard it before from M$ (Score:5, Informative)
Yup. Conveniently, an article [usatoday.com] in today's USA Today discusses the wireless industry and their abysmal record of customer satisfaction.
"In nearly every gauge of customer satisfaction, the wireless industry scores at or near the bottom. Worse than insurance companies. Worse than credit card outfits. Worse than car dealers."
You'll forgive me if I don't want these people to have anything to do with how I obtain and listen to music. The wireless providers want to maintain of lot of control over these heavily subsidized handsets and what we can do with 'em.
Re:We have heard it before from M$ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We have heard it before from M$ (Score:4, Funny)
Re:We have heard it before from M$ (Score:3, Funny)
I wanted an all in one dish-washer/dinner-maker so bad, I married one!
Well... you're not the guy that married my ex-wife.
Re:We have heard it before from M$ (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm happy with my mp3/ogg player (iRiver iFP395) and my PDA (Palm Tungsten E). I have no interest what so ever in a cell phone with their over priced billing and crappy service. And with that opinion I'm sure you can easily conclude that I would have no interest in a cell phone that plays music.
burnin
Re:We have heard it before from M$ (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, the point is, even if ipod sales grow and grow, I'm willing to bet mp3 playing phones will grow more (especially outside of the US). The end result will be that the ipod will b
Re:We have heard it before from M$ (Score:5, Interesting)
Add to that the fact that those "all in one" deals usualy are of poorer quality then the dedicated one. I don't see digital cameras disapearing, sure those cheap "for the clueless consumer" will become the celular phone. But there will be always a better dedicated one.
For those reasons I would say no. I would expect that all the devices would integrate more easily. I see a future where you could use your cell phone to send the picture you just taken with your camera to some buddy, witch phone is in your
PDA. All of that would be possible only by those appareils being near each other.
I see you getting close with your pda to your computer and the pda would sudenly being able to use your keyboard and your 15" ou 20" screen to display their contents. All of this if the computer "turned off".
When the computer is on it could request to automagicly backup every thing in all devices with a given priority for each device. All of that would be authorized by a master device that would have your private key, this could be a small item in your keychain or inside your wallet.
Sure there are details to think of, but all of this is possible with the tecnology we have today. Bluetooth make some of those things, and there is a wireless USB on the way.
Sure you will still be able to take pictures with your phone camera, and use your cell to store some (or all) of the phones from your PDA. But those will be for times where you are caught off guard.
Re:We have heard it before from M$ (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We have heard it before from M$ (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. They owe it to their shareholders to do the best job possible to keep their company profitable; they can do that without being bastards. The only time they "owe" their shareholders something else is when they make promises; then they better deliver.
Case in point: when you say you are going to utterly destroy a competitor (ethics aside), you'd better have a real plan on how to do it. You had better not just have some pithy sayings to throw out at random and not-so-random gatherings. If you say Google is going down, you need a plan on bringing Google down. Even if the plan fails (at which point the board should judge your competence), you need a credible plan.
Lying to your stockholders by promising things you can't deliver is bad business. Yet it seems MS is on a rampage of deceipt. (That's not really news.) Personally, I think every time they make promises like this, the stockholders should hold them liable.
But maybe that's just me, being all bleeding-heart and wanting a little accountablity.
How many years has longhorn been delayed now? (Score:4, Insightful)
MS has promised a lot of stuff, and instead of saying, "Whoops, our bad!" they say, "Oh, it's delayed." Yeah, that's it. After a year or three of "delay," we catch on.
Apple and the Linux community are on a roll because they are delivering on their promises for software and features. Sometimes they're late, sometimes they're early, but they do what they say they're going to do. They make it happen.
Unless MS shapes up and catches up, they're the ones who are going to go extinct.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We have heard it before from M$ (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason for this has nothing to do with technology. Apple and Motorola would have had such a gadget out already. The problem is the greedy cell phone companies won't allow it. They want their phone customers to pay for downloads of music over their networks, rather than getting it through their computers via CD ripping or iTunes. There is no money advantage in an iPod phone for Verizon or any other phone service provider. Since cell phones are ofte
Re:We have heard it before from M$ (Score:5, Funny)
You need to buy better music...
Re:Altavista (Score:5, Interesting)
Altavista was not the Google of 1999. It was simply the best-known of a number of search engines which used much the same algorithm and differed only in the contents of their databases.
All those search engines died because Google's algorithm was so much better that it was a waste of time to use anything else - not because of some mysterious search engine life cycle.
Until someone else comes up with the new Most Brilliant Search Algorithm Ever, Google is going to stay right where it is. If they're smart, they will continue research into making their search better and better, so that *they* are likely to come up with the Next Big Thing.
Re:Altavista (Score:5, Interesting)
Google's kept their search page simple while continuing to add features. They simply put those features on other pages, and if people happen to find them, great! They don't put up 10 different search boxes on google.com for every single search -- they simply let you change the search on the results page if you want to use froogle instead, or a GIS.
That's one of the big reasons I started using google. And that's one of the big reasons that I keep using them.
Re:We have seen it before from MS (Score:4, Insightful)
See, "DOS isn't done until Google won't run" lacks a certain...reality...
"Might" (Score:5, Funny)
Aliens might show up and kill everyone on Earth.
Slashdot might not ever dupe a story again.
Might is a powerful word.
Re:"Might" (Score:5, Funny)
Five years from now... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Five years from now... (Score:5, Funny)
Here he is on stage with Scott McNealy. [boxofficeprophets.com]
I knew we shouldn't have hired Boies Schiller [usatoday.com].
Here's Ballmer's secret meeting with Richard Stallman. [ladyofthecake.com]
The Longhorn Beta [ladyofthecake.com] doesn't go so well.
I gotta do something about Google! [ladyofthecake.com]
Already more than one-hit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Already more than one-hit (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets see, I used to have a hotmail account, I ditched that for my Gmail account (which I love BTW), so thats one product.
I ditched mapquest for maps.google (or whatever it is, I just google for it
I ditched all other search engines for Google, so thats three.
Desktop search, I haven't gone there yet, but I think you know where I will go first. Thats four.
Steve, I think you are delusional, and wish you the best once reality sinks in.
Re:A company in distress (Score:3, Insightful)
It makes me wonder when a good part of Microsoft's communication with the general public entails deriding the success of others. What I find particularly funny about it is that in all these areas, Microsoft is following, not leading. Note to Steve: it doesn't matter how much lip service an organization is willing to pay to the idea of innvation, if you aren't first (with something that isn't painfully obvious), you're not innovating.
TiVo (Score:3, Interesting)
Not easy, but possible, and TiVo will be next. Of course, it's easy for MS to say, having developed so many successful products. I don't think they've had a new profitable division in 15 years since MS Office - yes, last I checked their gaming division wasn't making them money.
Microsoft's strategy. (Score:5, Funny)
Not again.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Rather than post that as news, it and the iPod bit from Gates should be moddable. I am thinking Flamebait or Troll, and by Balmer's same logic, Microsoft may not be here in five years either.
Re:Not again.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that impresses me with Google is that they are not a "one hit wonder". Yeah, their search engine is very impressive, but it could disappear within five years. Has anyone checked out Gmail lately? Or Google Maps? Or any of the other products they have been coming out with? Google is producing web software that is technically excellent and extremely usable.
In my mind, Gmail's biggest strengths are not in its massive size or even the searching capabilities. It is all of the little touches that make things easier: automatic popup of contacts as I start typing, tracking conversations by e-mail, keyboard shortcuts, saving e-mail sent from 3rd party software -- all of the little touches that make it a joy to use.
Why do I bring this up? This is not just the strengths of a single product, but it is indicative of the level of quality and eye for detail that defines the company of Google. They know how to make great software -- from a technological viewpoint as well as user experience. Microsoft may be able to kill parts of Google (ie. certain products), but they will have a difficult time keeping this great company down. If one app gets killed, they can always come out with a new one. The strength of a company is not in its products but in the quality of their people, and right now, it looks like Google has the very best.
No, Ballmer, I think Google will be around for quite a while.
Revenue, not products (Score:5, Insightful)
But what makes Google a potential one-hit-wonder is their limited revenue streams, not their limited product offerings. With the VAST majority of their revenue coming from Adwords, they leave themselves vulnerable.
That's why things like their enterprise search appliances are important. Not only do they need to continue to inovate their products, but they have to develop more different ways to make money.
That's rediculously misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Googlebot 1797 124.28 MB
MSNBot 923 14.41 MB
Inktomi Slurp 658 15.96 MB
The first number is the number of pages for the month, the second is the bandwidth used for the month. WISENutbot indexed more pages than Google but used 1/6th the bandwidth.
Google indexed twice as many pages but used 9 times the bandwidth as MSN
Your numbers assume
a) all the bots indexed the same pages
b) all the bots indexed the same number of pages
There's nothing unusual about bots not using the same amount of bandwidth. They're rarely indexing the same pages or the same amount of pages. They're on their own schedules.
Talk about Grade A FUD you're throwing around there.
very un-classy (Score:5, Insightful)
From the fine article: "I've lost track of the number of times people have said the personal computer has reached its limits," said Ballmer.
Well, I've lost track of the number of times Ballmer and/or Gates has predicted the next wave in technology and were wrong.... One I found most notable was in 1999, when Gates at a keynote speech said within a couple of years, everyone would be communicating with their computers via speech. And, unless you count shouting "@(*$&#@(*&$" at a recalcitrant PC as communicating via speech, he was dead wrong.
Notable about his wrongness wasn't the "missed" prediction, in my opinion, it was how off-the-mark his vision was -- a vision easily and with little intuition would have predicted no PC/speech interaction, even if the technology completely stepped up to it (it didn't).
It seems pretty clear to me Ballmer/Gates use the bully pulpit not to make clear and visionary statements about the future, but instead to state what they want the future to be as it relates to:
Ballmer's bad-mouthing and demise-forecasting statements are more of the same. What is it with Microsoft and its leadership anyway? Nobody expects them to be patsies for the industry and its competition, but they'd earn a little more good will and respect themselves if they'd show a little for the others in the industry who have demonstrated real innovation and have contributed to the industry.
I'm probably risking troll karma with this post... but really think Ballmer, and Gates need to be called on this each time they make these public statements... Remember, Ballmer is the guy who, in reference to the DOJ investigation of their business practices said of the Attorney General (and I'll just paraphrase)..., "attorney general can go to Hell".... very rude in and of itself, and unforgivably, he used a "go to"....
Re:very un-classy (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like MSN was going to supplant the web (Score:4, Insightful)
This assumes that people are going to stop... (Score:3, Insightful)
Google, iPod, PS2. It's great to see Microsoft in a distant 2nd place (if in any place at all) in many of the new technology areas.
Hehe... (Score:3, Insightful)
What's wrong with that? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, so Google only does searching (pretty much) - what is wrong with that? They do a damn good job of it and so far no-one has been able to beat them because they continue to come up with better and better techniques to stay on top. I wouldn't be surprised if Google starts shoring up its other services but as long as they keep their search engine the best people will continue to come back.
While the MS/Google sniping goes on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who's seen Yahoo! in the last two years note they have improved their searches (thanks to the acquisition of Overture), and started up a lot of new features that I find very useful.
Trash Talking (Score:5, Insightful)
Google has already proven that its not a one hit wonder. They've had hit upon hit upon hit.
Does Google talk trash? I don't recall them making any bold stupid statements and that alone makes me like them more.
Come on google release an operating system to really get things interesting.
Meta-information? Why bother? (Score:5, Interesting)
Same Guy? (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm... Seems this guy likes to get EXCITED at these confrences, maybe he just got a little bit over excited this time.
google.com (Score:5, Funny)
I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Future Astounding Headline #1: (Score:4, Funny)
Is Google Diversifying? Enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google is taking strides; witness Gmail and Google Maps; when my DAD (the guy who self infected his PC with Spyware) is raving about how cool Google Maps is... you know that Google the company is heading in the right direction.
But Microsoft can fight wars on multiple fronts. Regardless of the wisdon of that, can Google say the same?
Additionally, this could me the Microsoft version of FUD; "Sure, google is tops now. But what about 5, 10 years? Investors, put your money in Microsoft, a proven leader!"
Perhaps that last point is a little too Sun-Tzu, but you have to question his motives.
MSN Search and Longhorn bundled? (Score:3, Insightful)
It just might make all clueless windows people start using MSN search, because it's there on their task bar all the time.
One hit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its obvious that google is doing much to expand their capabilities. I wonder how often Mr. Ballmer uses google himself. That's a stat I'd like to see.
"One-hit wonder?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Has he ever really checked out Google Maps, where you can see high-res maps and aerial images side by side? (I'm right now looking at high-res pictures of the building on the army base where I used to work. Score one for freedom of information!) Or gmail, which does webmail far, far better than anything anyone else can come up with?
They've got other services, too: Froogle, image search, usenet, a translator...
Google, as part of their business, has lots of smart people and an enormous amount of computer juice under one roof. Unlike Microsoft, they've shown again and again that they can come up with nifty ways to use those people and computers to get information into the people's hands...
Microsoft competes with marketing tricks and coercive business practices: business model first, product second.
Google competes by creating a product that's better than anything anyone else has, and then figuring out a way to make money off of it. In the long run, this approach works better. If you make good stuff, you'll always have a market.
Google has a far way to go. (Score:3, Insightful)
One can only assume that Balmer made these statements because it's been almost a week since he's been in a headline and we all know he has a quota to fill.
Ballmer Iraqi Information Minister? (Score:5, Funny)
GoogleOS (Score:5, Interesting)
--
http://unk1911.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Re:GoogleOS (Score:3, Insightful)
When you wish upon a star... (Score:5, Interesting)
I often wonder what goes on in CEOs minds when that make stupid comments like this. Are there really people out there that believe what he says?
(somewhere in the wasteland of business)
"Ballmer said Google doesn't have a stable business.. must be true."
(pushes buzzer on desk)
"Mabel? Call my broker and tell him to sell all the Google shares pronto!".
*yawn* (Score:4, Funny)
Really, it's the job of PR to predict that the competition will go away.
Lessons from Lotus, Apple, Palm, Netscape, IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
If a company controls a platform where compatibility with that platform is essential/valued, then that company has a massive advantage against any other potential competitor. Unless PC-compatibility becomes unnecessary, Google will join the ranks of companies such as Lotus, Apple, Palm, Netscape, and IBM.
Re:Lessons from Lotus, Apple, Palm, Netscape, IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lessons from Lotus, Apple, Palm, Netscape, IBM (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the big (and dangerous to Microsoft) difference here and now is that Microsoft feels that "control of a platform" slipping from their grasp. They've lost good will from almost everyone, they no longer dominate because the Web is way too distributed for them to control by old techniques. I really think they are showing more fear now, and they turn to saying bad things (unprovable things, untrue things) about the rest of the competitive world hoping to gain purchase on their stranglehold that way. The world will end up being a better place all around if they finally lose that dominance.
Ballmer using Chewbacca Defense? (Score:4, Insightful)
Student: Why should I work for MS given the problems Microsoft is currently facing?
Ballmer: [pulling a monkey out of his pocket] Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey! [student's head explodes]
Smokin' in the Boardroom... (Score:4, Insightful)
And if he'd shut up long enough to listen to his customers and got his army of programmers and developers to focus on their CORE business -- OPERATING SYSTEMS -- maybe they'd have a decent product. But what the hell do I know?
I know that a big part of my job is to CHOOSE platforms for my clients' systems, and guess what? Haven't done a MS install in two years. Not because I'm a Linux fanatic, but because I weigh silly things like uptime, scalability, usability, compatability and a bunch of other "bilities".
If MS wants to go into the search business and has the balls to think they've got what it takes to be the Google-killer, more power to them. Have at it. Just give me a little of what they're smoking in the boardroom.
Microsoft assumes FUD mantle (Score:5, Interesting)
Bill himself once told me that when Microsoft was taken out by a competitor -- something he always assumed will happen -- it wouldn't be a big company like IBM or Sun, but some little company you haven't ever heard of. Well, I hadn't heard of Google then (they didn't exist), but it seems odd for them to start pointing at market leaders like Apple and Google and talking about implosions. If they're worried about the big players now, Bill's vision has changed, or this is all just a marketing smokescreen.
I'm betting on smokescreen, but it portends a level of fear within Microsoft that's higher than I'd thought.
Ballmer's absolutely correct... (Score:5, Interesting)
Add to it that they sell appliances that can sift and find info on your network, and you've got a winning business strategy for taming the data beast, which as we all know, is growing faster than anything else.
Microsoft is freaked because they're part of the problem, and not the solution: it's their Excel/Word/Outlook files that are being searched (as well as every other type of file supported), and they "just-don't-think-that's-right(tm)", because they can't do it themselves and also. To add to the list of sins committed against microsoft by google, they treat all data pretty much equally...a pdf, word document, html file is just the repository of the data being searched.
"How dare you, google, equate our big fat word docs with a simple html page or *gasp* pdfs!"
And Microsoft may also go away (Score:5, Insightful)
AMC
Eastern Airlines
Data General
Control Data
DEC
Cray
Digital Research
Douglas Aircraft
Wright Aircraft Engines
Atari
Commodore
Or even shrink like Zilog.
Frankly Microsoft is scared. Only one company in the microcomputer world has survived going to a new CPU. That is Apple. It is really looking like the X86 cpu is reaching the end of it's life. Intel is in big trouble since it really does have most of it's eggs in that basket. Look at what Microsoft choose for the XBox 360. Why have
When the X86 is no longer the common denominator and people NEED to buy new software to use the new systems to their full potential will Microsoft loose it's lock in?
Re: It's not dead yet (Score:3, Interesting)
While I'm not a fan of the X86 architecture in general, or any of the chips in particular, it is important to keep in mind that what modern X86es have with earlier X86 chips is mainly the instruction stream.
AMD has shown how you can add new registers to an X86 chip while preserving execution compatibility for classic IA32 code. They also added 64-bit registers and instructions while preserving the 32-bit environment (much like S
FUD Alert!!! (Score:3, Informative)
- Google Seach: hit
- gMail: hit
- Desktop Search: hit
- Google News: hit
And thats just the stuff thats out of beta. I'm already using Google Mobile and Maps. They're trusted by geeks and Joe Six Pack alike and look like their about to have another hit with they're caching system. 5 years? One hit wonders? FUD FUD FUD FUD FUDPlaying Google's Game (Score:5, Insightful)
1)Create an enormous webserver cluster using cheap hardware and cheaper (free) software.
2) Then think of clever things to do with it.
Step 3, instead of being ???, is "sell non-annoying text ads aligned with the context of what the user is viewing."
4) Profit!
Parts one, three and four are easy. Part Two is hard... really, really hard. Unsurprisingly, it's where Google is throwing the lion's share of their money and manpower. They foster a spirit and culture of top-tier creativity.
This culture has been crushed into line-toeing, bootlicking mediocrity by Microsoft management. They're great for incremental updates in line with whatever upper-management mandate Bill has in mind this year and aping what smaller competitors are doing, but they suck at breaking new ground.
So, MSFT will always be a step behind in a game Google engineered to reward only those who can think new things first. Even if Microsoft manages to invent or buy a new idea, Google will come up with a way of making it faster, cheaper, safer and more powerful. It's what they did to Microsoft's Hotmail.
SoupIsGood Food
M$ Spinning Out of Control (Score:3, Interesting)
XBox360 Smoke and Mirrors!
Ballmer obviously didn't get the memo from the XBox360 boys about the problems they were having getting those Apple G5s to fit into that tiny little XBox360 case. Here a couple of photos that proof what's really powering those XBox360 videos and more importantly game demos... and it ain't in the case M$ has been showing everyone. Hell the damn thing isn't even plugged in!
http://www.talksudbury.com/forums/index.php?showt
Company that can do no Wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is that Microsoft is late to the search engine game as they were late to the web browser game. They clearly have an edge with their OS monopoly and could use the same tactics they did with Netscape. But, this isn't just about search engines now. With Google expanding into mail, price comparisons, news aggregation, online book searches, maps and usenet news in searchable format, MS has a lot to catch up with. Of course, they are going to publicize their search tools the most since most people in the mainstream are only aware of Google as a search engine and are only now coming around to GMail.
Where Google needs to be careful is in how the average user percieves web seraches. Most mainstream users are not aware of the difference between a web page and an application. For example, I migrated my parents over from Windows to Linux two years ago and they haven't looked back. They are typical users with nearly no computer experience except for what they saw me do as I grew up. My dad was very surprised to see the Google search engine (their default home page in Firefox) on his Linux box when he first logged in. He said, "You mean Google can run on Linux"? Which illustrates my point perfectly.
It's apparent that Microsoft is going to package search capabilities into their next version of Windows. That search will be a local application with web searching abilities. I'm expecting it to actually be embedded into IE as a subset of the OS like many other IE components are This is going to mean that the performance and functionality is going to appear much faster when compared to a web tool like Google. Google should really make it clear to users that they are using a remote tool when searching the internet. But... if they built their own browser (maybe based on Firefox or in partnership with Firefox), they could build in search functionality in the same way the IE will likely have it. This could result in a more seamless experience with Google web vs. Google Desktop.
Yes, and Pinky and I (Score:3, Funny)
In Other News-Khrushchev vows "We Will Bury You" (Score:3, Interesting)
Ironic... (Score:4, Insightful)
Trash talk is not a good sign (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3)
High Growth (Score:4, Insightful)
If you've read the Tipping Point by Malcom Blackwell, you'd know that there's a magic number of 150 people in any sort of group. It's the point where the human brain stops being able to remember the (150 choose 2) different individual relationships.
Google is probably superior technically, but no matter how many brainiacs they have, they're still human and the human brain is going to run up to these limitations. As much as slashdotters will hate to admit it, Google's future really does depend on how good the management is.
there's only one way Microsoft can "bury" Google (Score:3, Funny)
It will be dirty... but with a tame DOJ, they can hold off Google's lawyers long enough for Google to go under.
Babblings from a Microsoft fan... (Score:3, Interesting)
1.) Classic example of FUD.
2.) Ballmer and Alchin are absolutely morons with little clue of what customers actually want and where technology is heading.
3.) Google succeeds in the market because they innovate and provide tools users really want to use.
4.) Microsoft (mainly) succeeds mainly because they're business-savvy and good at FUD. Not for their tools. Not for their "innovations".
5.) BTW, did anyone catch that MS guy discussing tabs in IE7 and subtely trying to intimate that they got the browser tab idea from their previous Office products and that they thought it'd be cool in web browsers, too?
Typical MS corporate bullshit, which hurts their engineering and hurts their engineering customers.
Unfortunately, this masks the significant capabilities and tools put out by some of their remarkable engineering teams.
Ballmer then continued... (Score:3, Insightful)
"As opposed to us--we're a two-hit wonder. Sure, Xbox is a distant third in the worldwide console market, SQL server is way behind DB2 and Oracle, WinCE hasn't been a hit, Windows Server is just a small fragment of the Internet server market, Exchange can't even fight off Lotus Notes successfully, WebTV crashed and burned, nobody used Passport, Bob was a laughing stock, Windows for Pen Computing died, Tablet PC is struggling to survive, everyone uses MP3 instead of WMA, iPod still rules the MP3 player market, and our popular mouse design was just a rebadged HP mouse... but back in the 90s we created Microsoft Office and put DOS/Windows on the desktop! That's two hits! Which gives us 100% more wonder than Google!"
it is a race (Score:3, Funny)
In 5 years he might not be around either.