- Related Stories
-
A Gates reality check
March 9, 2005
(continued from previous page)
We have e-mail where we have Hotmail and Exchange. We'll have hosted Exchange from some of the telcos, too. In terms of Web sites, we have some people doing hosted SharePoint now, we have Spaces, which is a low-end version of that. We'll bring those together. So our services have started out as very inexpensive but not feature-rich. Our servers are very feature rich. So as we bring these things together, we give you the richness and also the choice of having it as server or as a service. And that is a very big deal to us. The place we are strongest in this today is in instant messenger, where the MSN Messenger is the service, and Live Communications Server is the server. So those things are very symmetrical.
So why services now? That idea has been around for a while. There have been some projects within Microsoft to offer Office-like capabilities that didn't actually make it to market. So what has happened to make this a reality?
Gates: The fact that Windows monitors when people are having crashes and problems and we get reports, that's been there for three years. Software is becoming better because it is connected up and you can see how it's being used and you can improve it over time. There hasn't been an infrastructure for doing the patching. Some of these security things have driven that, and we can benefit from having that infrastructure, not just for security but for other improvements. The services concept is coming along. The first company meeting where I talked about software as a service was in 1998. The relationship with our customers has changed from software in a box to something else.
But it's like, when did I first say "information at your fingertips"? That was 2000 Comdex. Do we have information at your fingertips today? No. Do we have a lot more than we had in the year 2000? A huge amount more. We're getting decent Web search, we're getting RSS. So software as a service has been moving along. We needed the Internet. We needed low-cost connectivity. We needed XML. The scale economics of doing large server farms...you can do those and do those well.
So you will see the services thing increase. We bought a company called FrontBridge that's kind of a software service firm. We have a lot of expansion ourselves in this area. It's not just consumers. A lot of it, actually the majority of this, is focused on businesses. We're giving them a choice of how they do IT, and some of it is through services.
Telcos have been wanting to do this for a long time. Some of them are your customers. Doesn't this pose a conflict?
With Oracle buying Siebel, does that change your approach to the customer relationship management software market?
Gates: Larry (Ellison) forecast big consolidation, and he wanted to see that come true, so he's making it come true. It's a brilliant forecast. If the next three people under you don't write code but they do deals, what do you get? You get deals. They will probably do more deals than anybody, and we'll write more code than anybody. We've been very serious about our CRM plans, including scaling that up to very demanding cases.
SAP is very strong in CRM and a good partner. Siebel was the original leader in CRM, and we have a good relationship with them. We'll maintain that, even though they are part of Oracle. A lot of what CRM is about is work flow, and we're building work flow deep into the cloud. You would have to say that CRM as a whole has not fulfilled some of the promise that was out there. So the fact that it is being repartitioned as an assumed part of Office and the platform--lots of it--I don't think that is too surprising. It never emerged as a clear-cut thing by itself quite the way that some people expected.
This morning, you were speaking about some of the tough problems that software hasn't solved--speech recognition, security, presence. What's holding us back from solving those problems?
Gates: The pace of software innovation today is as fast as it has ever been. In speech recognition, over the past decade, the error rates have come down, down, down, down. Now, we haven't hit that magic threshold where speech recognition is better than the keyboard.
See more CNET content tagged:
honeymoon, Bill Gates, API, Google Inc., developer
"So that would be the philosophical difference between Microsoft and what Google is up to at this point?
Gates: Well, we don't know everything they are up to, but we do know their slogan and we disagree with that."
But one they should adopt, "thous shalt not covet thy neighbors goods" (MICROSOFT)
Also, the kind of stuff they are doing ...you know stealing employees from other companies and their secrets (which is illegal) is done with MONEY...which they have a lot of.
and it seems that there are a lot of people out there that says..."yeah...let them do that"..
I predict that one day, just like MICROSOFT has had their day in court, there will be an even BIGGER DAY in court for GOOGLE..
my advice to GOOGLE: Walk and talk softly...
and be a little more humble. you can afford it.
plus the world isn't going to end TOMORROW!!. so take it easy..
there's enough business to go around.
"So that would be the philosophical difference between Microsoft and what Google is up to at this point?
Gates: Well, we don't know everything they are up to, but we do know their slogan and we disagree with that."
But one they should adopt, "thous shalt not covet thy neighbors goods" (MICROSOFT)
Also, the kind of stuff they are doing ...you know stealing employees from other companies and their secrets (which is illegal) is done with MONEY...which they have a lot of.
and it seems that there are a lot of people out there that says..."yeah...let them do that"..
I predict that one day, just like MICROSOFT has had their day in court, there will be an even BIGGER DAY in court for GOOGLE..
my advice to GOOGLE: Walk and talk softly...
and be a little more humble. you can afford it.
plus the world isn't going to end TOMORROW!!. so take it easy..
there's enough business to go around.
Well said,
PS. Hi Bill.
Free Open Source Software (FOSS) is all about open and distributed development of software through a vast international interconnected community working together. This community consists as much of individual users/developers as of well organized organizations (foundations) with good community funding and in the end corporations and companies with commercial funding. This is the way it works, and it does work. Whatever MS does today is mostly already well behind what FOSS world already had. If the future brings interconnected, networked world than the clear survivor is not the one who still thinks PC is at the center, and even closed up tight into restrictive licenses designed to benefit noone but MS, but exactly this community Bill so well tries to humiliate and underestimate, a GNU/Linux, Free Software and Open Source community which has lived on the web even before netscape itself.
No, Google is not the biggest long term threat for MS, it is Free Software and an OS like GNU/Linux, an operating system that makes both your PC and the web work in harmony - interconnected, open and in freedom.
And it is not about coexistence between commercial and free, as Bill says it obviously trying to paint FOSS in the very wrong light: as non-commercial. If FOSS is non-commercial, then what do companies like RedHat, IBM, Sun, Novell and others do? FOSS is not at all essentially non-commercial. The "free" we are talking about means something else: freedom, simply freedom, not monopoly.
If there should be any coexistence than it is between commercial Free(dom) Software (through commercial companies) and non-commercial Free Software (through individuals and community sponsored foundations).
Thank you
Daniel
Well said,
PS. Hi Bill.
Free Open Source Software (FOSS) is all about open and distributed development of software through a vast international interconnected community working together. This community consists as much of individual users/developers as of well organized organizations (foundations) with good community funding and in the end corporations and companies with commercial funding. This is the way it works, and it does work. Whatever MS does today is mostly already well behind what FOSS world already had. If the future brings interconnected, networked world than the clear survivor is not the one who still thinks PC is at the center, and even closed up tight into restrictive licenses designed to benefit noone but MS, but exactly this community Bill so well tries to humiliate and underestimate, a GNU/Linux, Free Software and Open Source community which has lived on the web even before netscape itself.
No, Google is not the biggest long term threat for MS, it is Free Software and an OS like GNU/Linux, an operating system that makes both your PC and the web work in harmony - interconnected, open and in freedom.
And it is not about coexistence between commercial and free, as Bill says it obviously trying to paint FOSS in the very wrong light: as non-commercial. If FOSS is non-commercial, then what do companies like RedHat, IBM, Sun, Novell and others do? FOSS is not at all essentially non-commercial. The "free" we are talking about means something else: freedom, simply freedom, not monopoly.
If there should be any coexistence than it is between commercial Free(dom) Software (through commercial companies) and non-commercial Free Software (through individuals and community sponsored foundations).
Thank you
Daniel
Google makes a ton of *ahem* "Betas" that are seemingly in that state for their entire existence. They are free and they generally meet or exceed expectations, except of course Google Talk.
Microsoft on the other hand, ships out products they charge money for, don't meet expectations (but look at all these check boxes!) calls them "gold masters" (ie: shippable products) but are actually betas in disguise.
Google says don't be evil and generally isn't. Microsoft says nothing about being evil but simply cannot stop itself from being as such. But even with Micrsoft direct from the bowels of the devil, I'll still use their OS until Google Desktop OS 0.1 Beta comes out.
Google makes a ton of *ahem* "Betas" that are seemingly in that state for their entire existence. They are free and they generally meet or exceed expectations, except of course Google Talk.
Microsoft on the other hand, ships out products they charge money for, don't meet expectations (but look at all these check boxes!) calls them "gold masters" (ie: shippable products) but are actually betas in disguise.
Google says don't be evil and generally isn't. Microsoft says nothing about being evil but simply cannot stop itself from being as such. But even with Micrsoft direct from the bowels of the devil, I'll still use their OS until Google Desktop OS 0.1 Beta comes out.
Google makes a ton of *ahem* "Betas" that are seemingly in that state for their entire existence. They are free and they generally meet or exceed expectations, except of course Google Talk.
Microsoft on the other hand, ships out products they charge money for, don't meet expectations (but look at all these check boxes!) calls them "gold masters" (ie: shippable products) but are actually betas in disguise.
Google says don't be evil and generally isn't. Microsoft says nothing about being evil but simply cannot stop itself from being as such. But even with Micrsoft direct from the bowels of the devil, I'll still use their OS until Google Desktop OS 0.1 Beta comes out.
Both companies are EQUALLY EVIL, it's just that many people see the big G as the white knight coming to save them from the big bad company.
The facts are neither are good for your future. Both have and will have buggy and security lacking products, and your data will be used against you.
Google makes a ton of *ahem* "Betas" that are seemingly in that state for their entire existence. They are free and they generally meet or exceed expectations, except of course Google Talk.
Microsoft on the other hand, ships out products they charge money for, don't meet expectations (but look at all these check boxes!) calls them "gold masters" (ie: shippable products) but are actually betas in disguise.
Google says don't be evil and generally isn't. Microsoft says nothing about being evil but simply cannot stop itself from being as such. But even with Micrsoft direct from the bowels of the devil, I'll still use their OS until Google Desktop OS 0.1 Beta comes out.
Both companies are EQUALLY EVIL, it's just that many people see the big G as the white knight coming to save them from the big bad company.
The facts are neither are good for your future. Both have and will have buggy and security lacking products, and your data will be used against you.
(By the way, I like this quote: "You do me-too Google Talk, and it's a big deal."
So how exactly is google going to infringe on copyright?
(By the way, I like this quote: "You do me-too Google Talk, and it's a big deal."
So how exactly is google going to infringe on copyright?
the windows users of the world unite when saying how common
it is in businesses, noting the interoperability. Thats all "well and
good" except that the great corporate OS is the absolute
BIGGEST RISK, to corporate and private users Worldwide, its a
piece of Junk for web use. NO, MSFT missed the chance to do
what they should have done from the start.
Bill Gates, unable to grasp the concept of "the road ahead" early
in the game, got caught with his pants down by Netscape. So
rather than give his customers something new, and REALLY
improved, he just bastardized windows by mashing in IE. He did
not care about his users, the corporations, or their data.....he
wanted to cut off Netscape's air supply...period. In so doing,, IE
opened ALL the great business software interoperability "hooks"
and left us NONE of the security it sorely needed.
Customers be damned, full speed ahead....and the world has
been paying for it ever since. Oh sure, you got a web browser in
Windows, but why couldnt it be ON windows, not in it? Well
because "smart Bill" hahaha couldnt see the web coming, and he
couldnt see the risks of opening the OS to the web. Now you get
to spend the next 10+ years, cleaning up after him, while he
spends it counting "YOUR" money. He is worth $50 billion, that
is about what the virus, spyware, and patch labor cost
businesses last year.
So to make my point: they had a chance now to build a truly
new, and secure OS, maybe they call it Vista; make it small,
tight, useful, and faster...by tossing out the lame amalgamation
of consumer garbage they keep bundling in.
Could they do this, think outside the box, give us what we
need....a small, fast OS that "works" rather than a bloated code
morass that keeps clogging the internet and emptying wallets.
Nope, they just keep piling it on, and we know what they're
piling up dont we? crap.
It wouldve been best to build a Windows "slim" so it had no IE,
no MediaPlayer, no IM, no Passport, just the business essentials.
Then fragment and cater to the market's tastes, offering Add-on
packs to give users the functionality they want to merge onto
windows.
They couldnt do that for 2 reasons:
1. they dont think like that, and would never admit their mistake
of "bundling" the browser into the OS.
2. The merging of the business and consumer code base of
Windows 2000, or XP, was their goal to reduce costs and
disparate OS pieces, making it better for them, but worse for the
users.
You see consumer and corporations have totally different needs,
and security concerns. A Company cannot afford to allow their
information to escape, whereas an unknowing consumer is less
likely at risk, other things being equal. Instead, we still have IE,
mashed into the OS, and now we have 7 versions of Vista, none
of which is really the secure OS, that does NOT have the web
framework open for hacking underneath.
It would serve the market and MSFT much better had they really
innovated...simplified, improved the OS by adding stability.
Putting more "cards" on top of the already shaky cards that are
up, is no way to build a new OS. But my breath is wasted on the
dim witted, unknowing mass of users who will "flock" or
whatever lemmings do, when they run out to buy the next
windows, only to find it is just as much a tossed salad as it ever
was, and it needs a few more "bolt-on" security components
made by other manufacturers to try to keep the pests out.
Nothing like building it for the long haul.
If MSFT had made bridges, airplanes, buildings, cars, or some
sort of real, tangible product, many users would have long ago
realized they bought a cheapo imitation, after seeing it fall apart
on the web.
But since many cant begin to understand proper software
coding, and security practices, you keep buying the Winblows OS
that works like a Ford Pinto "fireball", or the Firestone "maypop",
when what we really needed was the J&J Tylenol "tainted"
product pull, and rethinking their strategy.
If you dont understand, I cant explain it to you any better....the
OS was not built for the user, it was built for MSFT to make more
$$ at your expense.....get used to paying for the true definition
of "slack" ware... should be called MSFT Mista. They Missed-a
chance to do the right thing and make it secure.
the windows users of the world unite when saying how common
it is in businesses, noting the interoperability. Thats all "well and
good" except that the great corporate OS is the absolute
BIGGEST RISK, to corporate and private users Worldwide, its a
piece of Junk for web use. NO, MSFT missed the chance to do
what they should have done from the start.
Bill Gates, unable to grasp the concept of "the road ahead" early
in the game, got caught with his pants down by Netscape. So
rather than give his customers something new, and REALLY
improved, he just bastardized windows by mashing in IE. He did
not care about his users, the corporations, or their data.....he
wanted to cut off Netscape's air supply...period. In so doing,, IE
opened ALL the great business software interoperability "hooks"
and left us NONE of the security it sorely needed.
Customers be damned, full speed ahead....and the world has
been paying for it ever since. Oh sure, you got a web browser in
Windows, but why couldnt it be ON windows, not in it? Well
because "smart Bill" hahaha couldnt see the web coming, and he
couldnt see the risks of opening the OS to the web. Now you get
to spend the next 10+ years, cleaning up after him, while he
spends it counting "YOUR" money. He is worth $50 billion, that
is about what the virus, spyware, and patch labor cost
businesses last year.
So to make my point: they had a chance now to build a truly
new, and secure OS, maybe they call it Vista; make it small,
tight, useful, and faster...by tossing out the lame amalgamation
of consumer garbage they keep bundling in.
Could they do this, think outside the box, give us what we
need....a small, fast OS that "works" rather than a bloated code
morass that keeps clogging the internet and emptying wallets.
Nope, they just keep piling it on, and we know what they're
piling up dont we? crap.
It wouldve been best to build a Windows "slim" so it had no IE,
no MediaPlayer, no IM, no Passport, just the business essentials.
Then fragment and cater to the market's tastes, offering Add-on
packs to give users the functionality they want to merge onto
windows.
They couldnt do that for 2 reasons:
1. they dont think like that, and would never admit their mistake
of "bundling" the browser into the OS.
2. The merging of the business and consumer code base of
Windows 2000, or XP, was their goal to reduce costs and
disparate OS pieces, making it better for them, but worse for the
users.
You see consumer and corporations have totally different needs,
and security concerns. A Company cannot afford to allow their
information to escape, whereas an unknowing consumer is less
likely at risk, other things being equal. Instead, we still have IE,
mashed into the OS, and now we have 7 versions of Vista, none
of which is really the secure OS, that does NOT have the web
framework open for hacking underneath.
It would serve the market and MSFT much better had they really
innovated...simplified, improved the OS by adding stability.
Putting more "cards" on top of the already shaky cards that are
up, is no way to build a new OS. But my breath is wasted on the
dim witted, unknowing mass of users who will "flock" or
whatever lemmings do, when they run out to buy the next
windows, only to find it is just as much a tossed salad as it ever
was, and it needs a few more "bolt-on" security components
made by other manufacturers to try to keep the pests out.
Nothing like building it for the long haul.
If MSFT had made bridges, airplanes, buildings, cars, or some
sort of real, tangible product, many users would have long ago
realized they bought a cheapo imitation, after seeing it fall apart
on the web.
But since many cant begin to understand proper software
coding, and security practices, you keep buying the Winblows OS
that works like a Ford Pinto "fireball", or the Firestone "maypop",
when what we really needed was the J&J Tylenol "tainted"
product pull, and rethinking their strategy.
If you dont understand, I cant explain it to you any better....the
OS was not built for the user, it was built for MSFT to make more
$$ at your expense.....get used to paying for the true definition
of "slack" ware... should be called MSFT Mista. They Missed-a
chance to do the right thing and make it secure.
"me-too Google Talk.."
"platformization of all of our capabilities..."
"big-bang client and server..."
"building work flow deep into the cloud...."
"federation capability..."
"take that 2D menu structure that things are kind of buried in
and blow that up..."
Seriously, who IS this guy?
"me-too Google Talk.."
"platformization of all of our capabilities..."
"big-bang client and server..."
"building work flow deep into the cloud...."
"federation capability..."
"take that 2D menu structure that things are kind of buried in
and blow that up..."
Seriously, who IS this guy?
Netscape talked about this years ago and MS killed them (with help in high places) and then tried to steal their vision.
The thing is though MS didn't make the vision happen, Google did.
Who cares about Windows as a service and Office 12? Boring!!!
There is either web serves or software. MS is trying to make it the same thing. But web services through a browser opens the market up for anyone to compete. The only reason MS tries to blur the line between the two is so they can control the services using their server. But hey there are other and better servers out there now. Linux rules the Web for a reason and LAMP is the most common web stack for a reason. Microsoft is the little guy in this domain and they will stay that way because they are not open.
Netscape talked about this years ago and MS killed them (with help in high places) and then tried to steal their vision.
The thing is though MS didn't make the vision happen, Google did.
Who cares about Windows as a service and Office 12? Boring!!!
There is either web serves or software. MS is trying to make it the same thing. But web services through a browser opens the market up for anyone to compete. The only reason MS tries to blur the line between the two is so they can control the services using their server. But hey there are other and better servers out there now. Linux rules the Web for a reason and LAMP is the most common web stack for a reason. Microsoft is the little guy in this domain and they will stay that way because they are not open.
Netscape talked about this years ago and MS killed them (with help in high places) and then tried to steal their vision.
The thing is though MS didn't make the vision happen, Google did.
Who cares about Windows as a service and Office 12? Boring!!!
There is either web serves or software. MS is trying to make it the same thing. But web services through a browser opens the market up for anyone to compete. The only reason MS tries to blur the line between the two is so they can control the services using their server. But hey there are other and better servers out there now. Linux rules the Web for a reason and LAMP is the most common web stack for a reason.
Microsoft is the little guy in this domain and they will stay that way because they are not open.
Netscape talked about this years ago and MS killed them (with help in high places) and then tried to steal their vision.
The thing is though MS didn't make the vision happen, Google did.
Who cares about Windows as a service and Office 12? Boring!!!
There is either web serves or software. MS is trying to make it the same thing. But web services through a browser opens the market up for anyone to compete. The only reason MS tries to blur the line between the two is so they can control the services using their server. But hey there are other and better servers out there now. Linux rules the Web for a reason and LAMP is the most common web stack for a reason.
Microsoft is the little guy in this domain and they will stay that way because they are not open.
Google is a web service company that makes their profit through advertising. Microsoft makes their profit selling licenses to software that they own.
Active Directory, Exchange and Passport are not web services, at least they aren't today. MSN's search is a pretty solid third place service (behind Google and Yahoo) and that's ok.
Microsoft has a habit of getting into markets where other companies or products are dominant (Intuit, Sony, CNN, Google, AOL) and then whining when they don't instantly crush their competition.
There's no reason why Microsoft shouldn't compete in Google's space, but they just may have to live with being a number 2 or 3 player in that game.
By the way, do any of you know anyone that actually uses Microsoft's IM? I don't either.
- Google's search service is number 1 while MSN search is playing catch up.
- There are some web service level technologies that Google released first. While at the same time, Microsoft's web service line ups are not growing.
- There are online advertising technologies that Google's very good at and MSN's models are not as successful.
- And lastly, both want to hire the same set of IT talents.
Although these are not Microsoft's core business, still MSN needs to succeed. Both are branding on the (purely web-based) technology and service levels. In a way, Bill Gates like the idea that users would think everything is available at Microsoft and MSN -- No need to look elsewhere. All Microsoft all the time. :D
Here in New Zealand I have only met very few people who use an IM other than MSN. I'll bet that one of the main reasons is because MSN is the default homepage, coupled with having friends on the same network.
Most people who use Hotmail as their primary account use MSN messenger, those who do use Yahoo as their primary email, use Yahoo IM and so do their friends. Most people with Yahoo email also use yahoo.com as their homepage, I'll also bet that most people with gmail accounts have Google as their homepage.
Generally, people like to use the same organisation for all their services, it just makes things easier. MSN, Yahoo, and Google are definitly competing, and the stakes are high.
More info: kiwiscanfly.blogspot.com
- Google & Microsoft are not direct competitors
- by Arbalest05 September 14, 2005 5:16 PM PDT
- Microsoft and Google have completely different business models and don't compete directly - although Mr. Gates and Mr. Ballmer ("I'm going to kill Google") may wished that they did.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- there is a world out here
- by September 15, 2005 4:38 AM PDT
- MSN IM may not be the marketleader in the US, it very much is in Europe and elsewhere (some 3/4 of the MSN account holders is based outside the US). if you don't know anyone who uses MSN IM, it could be that your social circle (rather than microsoft's reach) is narrow
- Like this
-
- There is a world out here as well!
- by September 15, 2005 4:39 AM PDT
- MSN IM may not be the marketleader in the US, it very much is in Europe and elsewhere (some 3/4 of the MSN account holders is based outside the US). if you don't know anyone who uses MSN IM, it could be that your social circle (rather than microsoft's reach) is narrow
- Like this
-
- Yes, but...
- by Mendz September 18, 2005 7:51 PM PDT
- ... there are some areas of interest common to both which are known to be profitable.
- Like this
-
- Google and MS are direct compeditors
- by daryl.j.m September 19, 2005 10:01 PM PDT
- MSN is a web-portal organisation, and although they don't like to admit it, so is Google. Think of MSN as a seperate company, because in Microsoft's little utopia, that's what they are.
- Like this View reply
Processing -
Showing 1 of 3 pages (108 Comments)Google is a web service company that makes their profit through advertising. Microsoft makes their profit selling licenses to software that they own.
Active Directory, Exchange and Passport are not web services, at least they aren't today. MSN's search is a pretty solid third place service (behind Google and Yahoo) and that's ok.
Microsoft has a habit of getting into markets where other companies or products are dominant (Intuit, Sony, CNN, Google, AOL) and then whining when they don't instantly crush their competition.
There's no reason why Microsoft shouldn't compete in Google's space, but they just may have to live with being a number 2 or 3 player in that game.
By the way, do any of you know anyone that actually uses Microsoft's IM? I don't either.
- Google's search service is number 1 while MSN search is playing catch up.
- There are some web service level technologies that Google released first. While at the same time, Microsoft's web service line ups are not growing.
- There are online advertising technologies that Google's very good at and MSN's models are not as successful.
- And lastly, both want to hire the same set of IT talents.
Although these are not Microsoft's core business, still MSN needs to succeed. Both are branding on the (purely web-based) technology and service levels. In a way, Bill Gates like the idea that users would think everything is available at Microsoft and MSN -- No need to look elsewhere. All Microsoft all the time. :D
Here in New Zealand I have only met very few people who use an IM other than MSN. I'll bet that one of the main reasons is because MSN is the default homepage, coupled with having friends on the same network.
Most people who use Hotmail as their primary account use MSN messenger, those who do use Yahoo as their primary email, use Yahoo IM and so do their friends. Most people with Yahoo email also use yahoo.com as their homepage, I'll also bet that most people with gmail accounts have Google as their homepage.
Generally, people like to use the same organisation for all their services, it just makes things easier. MSN, Yahoo, and Google are definitly competing, and the stakes are high.
More info: kiwiscanfly.blogspot.com