- Related Stories
-
A Gates reality check
March 9, 2005
For Bill Gates and Microsoft, that's the big question. This week at the software giant's Professional Developers Conference, Gates rallied the troops--software developers, Microsoft's most important audience--to build enthusiasm for Vista, the oft-delayed new version of Windows, and Office 12, an update to Microsoft's most profitable franchise.
Gates' mantra hasn't changed much in 20 years: The PC is the center of the computing universe, and Windows, along with Office and other products, represents the best platform for new software development. What is new, and is much in evidence this week in Los Angeles, is the growing influence of Web-based development.
In that realm, Google has emerged as the poster child for a new wave of applications assembled from the piece-parts of several Web sites. No Windows necessary. Microsoft has its own ideas, of course.
Gates sat down with CNET News.com to talk about competitors old and new, why software hasn't fulfilled promises and the mixed blessing of controlling 90 percent of the world's PCs.
Q: More developers are becoming interested in building new applications using the Web as a platform, as opposed to the PC. Do you feel you're in competition with Google, Yahoo and other Web properties for developers' attention?
Gates: No, I don't think so. The architecture we are interested in we call server-equals-service, so that we will have the full Exchange capability that you can subscribe to, where we run it, or you can have it on-premise with the traditional licensing approach. At this conference, we do give out APIs (application programming interfaces) for the MSN Search and the MSN Virtual Earth capability, so things that have been cloud-based services, you can have client applications that other services can connect to. So, I'd say the evolution is server to service, and bringing that symmetry in.
With Google, there are rumors about them being interested in that services piece, but they really haven't done that much. Our search API is way better than their search API. Clearly, they are working in that area. They haven't done as much on the server piece. They had a Google server, but it was very bad at corporate search. That did not work well at all. That's the only place where I think they have done any server-type piece. Yahoo doesn't think of themselves as a platform company. I don't think you will ever have the Yahoo PDC. Google, because they are in the honeymoon phase, people think that they do all things at all times in all ways.
Well, I guess that's what you have to combat, right? They are in this phase, and when Google does anything, they get attention.
Gates: Yeah. You do me-too Google Talk, and it's a big deal. But we had our honeymoon phase, and it was fun from maybe 1985 to 1995. And we've had lots of competitors in their honeymoon phase. But I'd say, in some ways, this is the biggest honeymoon I've ever seen.
Is that a long-term threat for Microsoft? People like Google come along and they have this Web development idea and they popularize that notion and people listen?
Gates: Developers are not building on some Google thing at this point. The idea that the computing industry can simplify its offerings dramatically by having this server-equals-service approach, and having richer services, absolutely I believe in that, and we need to be at the forefront of that. The idea that management can be more automatic and software updating can be more automatic, state-replication more automatic--there are some big things here that can drive the industry forward. They are very complex, because we have to make things very reliable and very secure if you are going to do this. It's just now that we have the maturity of XML and the Web Services protocols that we can start to do (this).
So Google is not offering development capabilities yet. Of course, I expect they will. But they're not in that game at all today. In fact, they have this slogan that they are going to organize the world's information. Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organize the world's information. It's a slightly different approach, based on the platformization of all of our capabilities and not thinking of ourselves as the organizer.
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.
How does Microsoft want to bring that server-equals-service capability to the market? You have the servers. Do you have the services?
Gates: Well, let's go through it. We have Active Directory, which we are making a lot richer. There's a lot of talk about that here. And we have Passport. So we're making those very symmetric, and having this federation capability be central to the architecture, those things follow.
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