Ballmer: 'We'll catch Google'

A correction was made to this story. Read below for details.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer confessed the software giant's .Net interoperability efforts with IBM and Sun Microsystems have slowed, says he's accepted SQL Server's shortcomings, and vowed to keep fighting search giant Google.

He made the comments Monday at a partner briefing in Sydney on the first day of a whirlwind Australian tour.

In the country for two days of talks with employees, major customers and the business community, Ballmer met with a group of state government CIOs as well as federal health minister Tony Abbott.

A representative for Abbot confirmed the meeting but declined to reveal further details.

Later, a typically enthusiastic Ballmer addressed about 500 partner attendees, who grilled the CEO on all things Microsoft.

Asked about the future of Microsoft's .Net strategy, Ballmer admitted the platform's interoperability work with IBM and Sun had stalled slightly. But there would be a renewed .Net push, he said, and this was "an assigned priority" for the government sector.

"Government has really been pushing for stronger interoperability," he said. "We can't support open source but we can support interoperability."

Another partner complained of SQL Server's lack of spatial storage capabilities, saying the database was being beaten by Oracle.

This may be addressed in the next release (of SQL Server) in 18 months, Ballmer said, but conceded he "really didn't know."

A question on location-based services saw Ballmer plug Microsoft's "heavy investment" in mapping. But when a participant asked why MapPoint had not expanded to Southeast Asia so such services could be built, Ballmer was stumped.

"I didn't know we weren't doing well there," he said. "I'll address that with the team vigorously."

Going after Google
Ballmer saved the best for last, firing a salvo at Google.

"What you're saying is, 'You're so far behind, why bother'?" he said, when pressed to reaffirm Microsoft's commitment to search technology as it struggles to catch up with Google.

"Well, if anyone thinks innovation is done in search, you're wrong. Does anyone here really believe search is going to look like it does now in 10 years?" he asked attendees.

He claimed Microsoft's long-term view was already making ground on Google.

"In the next six months, we'll catch Google in terms of relevancy," he said.

Search has more relevance than just the desktop, he said, reiterating Microsoft's well-known stance. "It's important for people who search a corporate network," he said. "We'll use search to peer into a range of business applications which would allow multiple applications to be searched simultaneously."

"Take for instance the Siebel database," he added. "Now, I've never used that interface. But I'd love to go to it and say 'Who is the account manager for the Commonwealth Bank of Australia?'"

Microsoft's vision for search would eventually make such data discoverable, without using the (actual) application.

"This is important for our customers, but also in joining the battle with Google," he said. "Give up the fight? No, never."

 

Correction: This story misrepresented Steve Ballmer's assessment of Microsoft's .Net strategy. The company's CEO said that interoperability efforts with IBM and Sun Microsystems have slowed somewhat.

Steve Deare of ZDNet Australia reported from Sydney.

[JuggerNaut]

Open Standards and Catching Google!

Until Microsoft accepts open standards across the board and gets
away from trying to corral the web with proprietary technologies,
then catching Google will be an impossible task at best.

[JuggerNaut]

Open Standards and Catching Google!

Until Microsoft accepts open standards across the board and gets
away from trying to corral the web with proprietary technologies,
then catching Google will be an impossible task at best.

How Microsoft could kill off Google

Check out <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.bitpad.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.bitpad.com/</a> for a story on how Microsoft could go after Google's largest (90%) revenue slice, its advertising revenues from search while growing the popularity of MS' own search.

The idea centres around of cutting end users into the revenue sharing the google currently does with website owners. Why wouldn't users use a decent search engine if they were going to make a few cents from every transaction; rather than let others get rich. Read the article and see what you think.

[dgregd]

Not so easy

I read the article. But I have a question. This is a sentence from the article: "I would rather bid $2 or $5 if I was guaranteed a sale". To pay for the bid you have to include this cost into a product price. So what is a real benefit for a customer in this business model? Earn $1 on CPA and pay $1 more for a product? Moreover think about "fraud detection" costs. Show me cost calculations for 100M users spread across the world. Better buy Google stock ;-)

How Microsoft could kill off Google

Check out <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.bitpad.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.bitpad.com/</a> for a story on how Microsoft could go after Google's largest (90%) revenue slice, its advertising revenues from search while growing the popularity of MS' own search.

The idea centres around of cutting end users into the revenue sharing the google currently does with website owners. Why wouldn't users use a decent search engine if they were going to make a few cents from every transaction; rather than let others get rich. Read the article and see what you think.

[dgregd]

Not so easy

I read the article. But I have a question. This is a sentence from the article: "I would rather bid $2 or $5 if I was guaranteed a sale". To pay for the bid you have to include this cost into a product price. So what is a real benefit for a customer in this business model? Earn $1 on CPA and pay $1 more for a product? Moreover think about "fraud detection" costs. Show me cost calculations for 100M users spread across the world. Better buy Google stock ;-)

[frankz00]

Sure ya will, Stevie

He says that innovation is not finished in search and he's right. That bad news is that most of the innovation will not be brought forth by Microsoft in the future either! They always chase what's going on NOW while innovators like Google are inventing things for TOMORROW. That's why we have iPod at the top in music playing devices, Google at the top in search, Yahoo at the top in portals, and so on. The only thing Microsoft has going for it is Windows, Office and $50 billion in the bank. But that's only buying them survival. For all their money, they still can't topple the countless leaders in other fields. This is just Stevie blowing more hot air from the wrong end.

[frankz00]

Sure ya will, Stevie

He says that innovation is not finished in search and he's right. That bad news is that most of the innovation will not be brought forth by Microsoft in the future either! They always chase what's going on NOW while innovators like Google are inventing things for TOMORROW. That's why we have iPod at the top in music playing devices, Google at the top in search, Yahoo at the top in portals, and so on. The only thing Microsoft has going for it is Windows, Office and $50 billion in the bank. But that's only buying them survival. For all their money, they still can't topple the countless leaders in other fields. This is just Stevie blowing more hot air from the wrong end.