Comments on: Microsoft's Google killer strategy: Finally on the way?

Company's been considering ways to move its software business into "the cloud." Leaks suggest that Microsoft's getting close to an announcement.

[rlambkin]

It wouldn't be a big surprise to me to see Microsoft switch to a *nix operating system within a few years. If that seems wierd, think about it a bit:

1. Most MS users don't have any idea what their operating system is under Windows, and care even less. The appeal of Windows to them is that they are familiar with it, since it came with their computer. It is the interface and applications that they have learned to cope with that is important to them.

2. MS would get safety, reliability and ruggedness underlying their Windows interface, instead of continuing to backfill an operating system that is inherently unstable. Further more, they would get an army of open-source programmers who would continue to improve it at no cost to MS.

3. MS strength is in their applications, development tools and network administration tools. If they moved some of their best people now wasting their time patching the MS-OS monster, they would be even more dominate in the fields where they perform best.

4. Apple wasn't afraid to abandon an OS platform which was better than MS, but still somewhat quirky. They did it well and have been gaining adherents ever since (particularly developers). I suspect that Apple would not welcome a switch by MS to *nix.

Unless hubris wins out, look for this change within 2-5 years!

[Steven W Rose]

What, and risk being sued by SCO?

[the_piano_man]

That would not surprise me. . . why? "because they can". What would also not surprise me would be to sadly observe the ms corporate greed-heads try (and most likely succeed) to capture most of the open source code for themselves indirectly through the legal system. At least the people in charge of "Apple" have some sense of ethical behavior.

[Commander_Spock]

"It wouldn't be a big surprise to me to see Microsoft switch to a *nix operating system within a few years. If that seems weird, think about it a bit": Why would Microsoft switch to "a *nix operating system" when none other than Bill Gates knows that OS/2 is "better" Operating System than Windows and Linux. I suppose you do know who are the people handling all you cash... well, if history is to be the judge... then, here is what happened in the recent past:

"IBM, Bankers at Odds Over OS/2 Migration Path"

"Vendor advises OS/2 users to switch to Linux, but ATM makers are leading push to Windows"

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,83884,00.html

So; now, what do you think are going to be the directions of Microsoft, IBM et al with respect to the development of web-based applications?

[bluvg]

Why would they switch to *nix when NT is "VMS re-implemented"? VMS was/is a stellar OS, and Cutler (father of both) is a genius (some have called him "the greatest programmer of the 20th century."

Most people really don't have a clue about the internals of Windows--it's evident whenever anyone suggests "ditch Windows for *nix." The problems of Windows are in Win32, not NTOS. In many respects, NT is a more modern architecture. And as for Apple, Microsoft would be absolutely stupid to duplicate that BSD-on-Mach mess.

[starcannon]

I'm not sure if MS is going to be convincing as a contender in the on line applications market.
After spending the last ten years in court rooms instead of laboratories, suing instead of innovating, releasing such hits as win95, winME, and Vista; I can only imagine that price, and availability to video games is all that has kept a great deal of their consumer base from switching to Mac.
I myself moved to Linux exclusively over 4 years ago. I'd have to say that if the marketing went into it, there are a few distro's that could become contenders, but again like Mac, price and gaming will be a major obstacle. Linux is free, but only if your willing to administrate it yourself, and most people aren't going to want to do that, so they'd be paying a subscription to Canonical, RH, Mandriva, etc.. etc.., and while a great deal of games can be made to run on Linux, it is not for the meek, and you should have some pretty decent hardware before trying it.
Don't mis-read me Mac and Linux brethren, this is not a FUD, its just my best attempt at an objective look at things. MS is very good at buying loyalty, even if they don't really ever deliver on the promises. But with iGoogle out there who would bother with iMSN?

[Bluelight1324]

Why would they shift to an out-dated technology?

[6minuteabs]

Exactly what companies has Microsoft sued? No FUD my A$$

[grammarqueen]

...on-premise software...

Surely you mean on-premises software!?

[A_N_Onymous]

Microsoft sucks

[Penguinisto]

I find it to be a losing strategy in many markets, but I don't mind... let 'em if they can.

Problem is (and I've said it before), Microsoft has become a moribund operation that is desperately casting about for something, anything, to stop losing marketshare. In spite of all their spin and channel-stuffing, I'm willing to wager that they know internally just how bad things are starting to get for them, and they don't like it.

No longer can they count on vendor lock-in (they've pretty much given up the ghost on that note, judging by their recent (and EU-forced) action of opening up their formats).

No longer can they count on legacy support (Vista --and their changes in Server 2008-- has proven that the NT core simply cannot hold up under the stress of keeping one foot in the old and the other in the new).

--

IMHO, I don't see MSFT's strategy as being sound. Even if they did manage to kill off Google (good luck with that one), they would have to essentially abandon their core business to do it. Thing is, their core business has competition - hard competition.

Completely unscientific case-in-point: Apple. Yesterday, I cruised to a mall for the first time in a little over a year - in this case, a mall in the Portland, OR metro area (Tigard). The Apple store there was packed solid, with a literal ton of folks waiting outside just to get in. Business was heavy there... getting hold of someone just to quickly inquire about the shelf price of OSX 10.5 took me ten minutes. Meanwhile, every other computer store nearby (or anywhere that sold computers) was nice and slack, with few people and little activity.

Totally anecdotal, I know, but it tells me volumes about what MSFT is facing... and it doesn't look good for them, IMHO.

/P

[marcbo9401]

If you ask me, I think Microsoft should have went and bought CompUSA instead of letting the Mexican owner liquidate the company. As everyone knows, Apple left to start the Apple stores and really didn't care about their presence at CompUSA. I think it would have made sense to rescue CompUSA and overhaul it to sell products strictly for PC/Microsoft OS. After all, Gaming is a common reason to run Microsoft OS these days. However, I suspect part of the reason this didn't happen is more to-do about Bill Gates "retiring" from the Computer Industry. Yes, things are changing quickly on the computer landscape now. The years to come will certainly be interesting.

-MB

[Martin_Australia]

To the ignorant, childish and clueless Microsoft haters and penguinisto:

Against industry trends and the constant parroting of naysayers like penguinisto on this post, Microsoft continues to grow and grow. Microsoft just recently posted 15% growth in Net revenue up from USD$44b to USD$51b and growth of 12% in Net income up from USD$12.6b to USD$14.1b. Apple dissappointed and so did Google but Microsoft beat all analyst expectations and the ignorant naysayers.

Let's see - Google is a one trick company - they have monetised search, big deal nothing else. What is their innovation? Apple - Mac OS only accounts for 3% of computers desktop operating systems and Linux 1% but you wouldn't think so from all the anti Microsoft comments from people living in fairy land. What innovations can Apple claim? And guess who propped up Apple when it was on the verge of going down the gurgler? Microsoft with USD$200m. Microsoft is the only constant in the business and they continue to grow! Does this sound like a company which does'nt meet it's customers expectations and business and industry needs and is "going down"?

Microsoft continues to innovate, invest, acquire and deliver wanted products and technologies - like all enterprises. If it hasn't then how do you explain their continued growth?

Linux was meant to be the death of Microsoft = Global Linux market share has been going backwards. FACTS.

Microsoft has come from nowhere and is now considered one of the top 3 players in Business Intelligence - Gartner report. They are now also considered a leader in Unified Communications as well. Cnet is already saying the 2nd generation of Zune is a legitimate rival if not better than iPod and Xbox already proved you can come from behind in a mature industry just like Microsoft has done in Business Intelligence, Unified Comms and many others areas.

Microsoft will invest USD$6.5b on R&D this year and it continues to innovate and make good and successful acquisitions. Examples - aQuantive, Danger (Mobile) and many many others. Look at innovation such as Surface, PhotoSynth, .NET, Silverlight, Software plus Services for Exchange, Office, Unified Comms and many others and wait to see what's just around the corner with their Software + Services strategy.

The latest NPD report of Open Source Office Apps and Google Apps sees only 0.5% of US consumers switching to office apps in the cloud and against this Microsoft has posted record growth in Office sales.

More than 50m mobile phones with Windows Mobile are being shipped per year with growth of more than 300% per annum - how many iPhones have been sold!? No comparison.

As usual the ignorant clueless naysayers simply say "you must work for Microsoft" because I am defending them. I am defending them as I happily invested in them many years ago and my company is very satisfied with their products, technology and servicing. As a consumer I have had no issues whatsoever with Windows Vista on my home PC except for the lack of drivers from Creative for my soundcard - not Microsoft's problem.

Your opinions and personal experiences are NOT representative of the global consumer base or global industries so stop trying to make out that it is. As usual the vocal minority are in fairy land thinking they represent the majority.

So before you continue to make uniformed and ignorant childish comments - get some facts and stop swallowing Google and Apple press releases and the hype around open source and 'cloud computing'.

[WJeansonne]

That's because there are only two or three Apple stores, duh!, compared to thousands of regular computer stores. So naturally they are going to be more crowded. What a lunk headed observation you made dude!

[jltnol]

I just don't get the 'cloud computing" move... from MS or anyone for that matter.

Yes, I understand what it is, how it works and it's advantages, but I just don't understand how people who are used to paying for an application ONCE, will be tricked or fooled into paying for it month after month.

Unless they can manage to do it the Google way, free, I, for one won't be giving up the flexibility of owning my own software, to yet again, "subscribe" to something else I have to pay for month after month. And while I understand that subscriptions are the wave of the future, I intend to resist as long as I can falling into the well of renting things that are cheaper to purchase and own.

This is going to be like all the music subscription services.. pay a monthly fee, and get all the music you can listen to... for a month. And we all know they haven't exactly been huge successes, so why does MS thing that getting people to "rent" their software will work?

[bwvla]

Jltnol, You are correct when it comes to most homes and small businesses, we've little to gain from subscription software in 90 percent of cases.

However most corporations dont work under that paradigm. They lease everything including workers (contractors, temps, and consultants). As twisted as it may seem, its actually cheaper for them to lease everything. First they get to outsource responsibility to focus on "core business", much like you or I hiring a lawn service to gain more family time. The other half due to how our nations messed up accounting rules and taxes codes which benefit those who send their money in the right loopholes.

Corporations essentially subscribe to software already through licensing agreements. Going to "the cloud" they might pay a bit more for the subscription but in turn get to cut some IT jobs as deployment and update responsibilities can be moved move upstream (to india?)

The software companies see this as a win win. They get to offer compelling cost cutting services to their largest buyers, the corporations and gain more business. As a side effect they get to shift the minority customers (aka homes and small businesses) to the coveted subscription model. This means steady revenues parting from the whims of development cycles and competition. If they play it like cell carriers they can lock us in for multi year contracts.

I agree with you there is little in this for the common man. But for the captains of industry its a big money tree.

[wildchild_plasma_gyro]

I was just cocsing my voical caords and wanted not to disturb my negibour as that is what i find mentally difficult and disruptive to my life force.
I decided to look for the thing that was resonating the most.

Reason being all you have to do is collect and dampen not block every thing (REMEMBER THOSE WORDS).

It was the mirror.

Cali summer (dont forget to cool the forest ground)

[rapier1]

Cloud computing is an interesting prospect except when you want to get some work done and you don't have network access... Or your network is slow. Or there is a routing problem. Or there is a lot of congestion. Or there is high loss or jitter. I'm also not so sure I want to surrender my data to another party. Thsi is *my* data. I like to maintain full and complete possession of it.

[marcbo9401]

As a small business owner who has been building/servicing PCs since 1993, I can tell you my business has been built up around PC Software "fat clients". I use Adobe Products (Acrobat, PageMaker) on a day-to-day basis, along with Microsoft Excel & Lotus 1-2-3. I use Microsoft's "Remote Desktop" application to access my office when I'm not in my office. This comes built into XP Pro, so I've paid my dues. It has already been paid for, so as long as my cable modem/connection is up I am good to go. If the Internet goes down then I simply have to drive back to my physical location, where the local area network (including printers) can function with no Internet. All my apps have legal licenses, so I don't foresee Vista purchases any time soon. If anything else, my Clients are prompting me to start supporting MacOS as they have family members and co-workers who are buying Macs. Interesting times to be living through IMHO.

-MB

[thevoidboy]

Hey, folks.

What they are talking about is Sharepoint Server. It's already made the rounds through enterprise IT as the silver bullet to solve all their collaboration issues, but it remains to be seen whether it addresses issues that enterprise needs solved or is another Microsoft way to squeeze new money out of corporate IT.

This is no Google killer. In fact, it may just spell a significant threat to Microsoft itself, if it goes as badly as version 2.0 has already.

[partytildawn-20159620461052270]

I think that consumers can only benefit from any competition between Google and another firm that has the ability to take on the internet giant -- even if that competitor is Microsoft. Google is NOT responsive to consumer questions or needs. Ever tried to write, fax, or email Google? Good luck. You will never get a replied -- not even a form letter (and that is even for those paying for services from Google.) Competition will force Google to become more customer friendly

[microsoft slayer]

Well, they're only 10 years late...

[malcolmmc]

Sound like we're going back to the bad old days of Mainframes and (almost) dumb terminals. Does anybody out there want to trust the security of their data in Microsoft's cloud?

[organgrinder101]

The Mac vs. Apple vs. Windows argument is completely overblown:

1. Mac's = Fashion accessories / mass market appeal
2. Linux = Stability vs. Usability
3. Windows = Nobody likes the market leader

Finally, the Google argument - they are a fast-growing, innovative company that has done something spectacular with their search tech, however, looking at their activities since their IPO the pattern is simple:

1. Find another core competency! - Google has a singular advantage - and that is the reliability and trustworthiness of their search engine, more precisely, the algorithm that powers it. This core tech is replicable and not sustainable, hence the scrambling to other applications of their search revenue stream, because at some point the competition will catch up.

Also, beta testing and their Google labs arm is nothing more than a marketing experiment - they are excellent ways to judge reactions and market appeal for new applications.

2. Grow! - In trying to actually justify their stock price Google is doing what all big companies do - they buy more companies to increase their intrinsic value... in this respect they share the same philosophy as Microsoft, GE or Bechtel

3. If you can't make it, buy it! - By purchasing start-up tech they are trying to compete with Microsoft and increase their product offering - however - they have an uphill battle as (the only customers that really matter) Enterprise use Office formats as a de-facto standard, what does google do? Try to change the rules (OODF anyone?). this fight is about platform, not products.

4. Change the game! - Google hides behind open-standards because it knows it's got bigger fish to fry - nobody cares about formats / end-user applications when all that matters is the platform - Google has the web cornered with their search portal, and they are trying to gain a foothold in Mobiles with Android.

Microsoft controls the desktop platform and is trying to fight back in Google's turf - in the end, Operating systems will still be required and a Web-Platform will never fully replace a desktop app (and if so, when it does, the network connections which manage the application will be so fast that the web app may as well be a desktop application - the lines are blurring, and the war is about the platform)

5. Proprietary vs. Open standards - this is hokum, if open standards were truly in Google's best interest their search algorithm would Open Source - but it is in fact highly proprietary, and as the company grows, more and more of their software will contain closed code simply because it is a technological advantage or a trade secret that leads to profits.

These companies are no different from one another, the crap that fanboys put out about the decline of Microsoft and the growth of benevolent Google and cool Mac's is phony and petty. These are businesses trying to make money, and if playing on the sympathies of end-users helps their cause then so be it...

M.

[t8]

<quote>These are businesses trying to make money, and if playing on the sympathies of end-users helps their cause then so be it...</quote>

It works for me. Google is cool.

[naterandrews]

Microsoft will (unfortunately) win the war against Google, Apple, (insert any other company name here). Let's face it- the war they are facing is the online/ad war, not a war that directly harms their core cash cows Windows and Office. With those two cows pumping juice on a continual (and growing) rate, they have enough to finance any future endeavors to destroy enemies that challenge them in a significant way (even in the remote possibility that their cash pile was depleted).

Google is a challenge to them because it is a new rival that was the fastest growing online company loading itself with cash and developer allegiances. With the impending Yahoo! deal that will surely close (if not through the bid itself, but from overthrowing the board- this WILL happen), and their new massive ad powerhouse in Aquantive, it is only a matter of time before Microsoft kills or at the very least severely diminishes Google's power. Even the naysayers of the power of a combined Yahoo!/Microsoft/Aquantive cannot question the ferocious ambition of this titan. If this new merger doesn't work, look for a new massive deal a few years down the road. (Microsoft is incurring debt for the first time in the companies' history to purchase Yahoo! but that cash pile will quickly regrow- especially with no real and direct threats to Office and Windows, they can grow that pile back in a matter of Quarters. If you are willing to debate the power of Mac OS X, which I admit is a great OS in it's own right, Microsoft will have plenty of time to knock Apple back down to minority share before Mac OS becomes a vible alternative to Windows- it's just business.)

There may be the fan boys out there that say Apple will kill Microsoft. Even the Linux fans out there say Microsoft will die because of Open Source. However, until the day-

a) Open Source companies unite and compete with Microsoft instead of themselves + MS
b) Apple somehow enters the server market (successfully) and steals a huge share
c) Some company launches a GREAT (not just good) Office Suite that can upstage Office
d) Apple can show that a media monopoly somehow equates more power selling Macs
than iPods (which the reverse is actually happening).
e) Some variant of Linux is somehow the standard OS on HP and Dell PC's

Microsoft will never "die".