Manage updates with the Download App
September 27, 2005 6:17 AM PDT
Web mulls Google's threat to Microsoft
- Related Stories
-
Microsoft's nightmare inches closer to reality
September 23, 2005 -
Google builds an empire to rival Microsoft
September 21, 2005 -
Microsoft reorg a bulwark against Google?
September 20, 2005 -
Microsoft, Google may go head-to-head
June 25, 2003
Web logs and discussion forums lit up over the weekend with talk of how computing may evolve in the near future, and whether a shift toward using the Web as a primary computing platform could leave companies like Microsoft to go the way of the dinosaur.
The possibility of such a drastic transformation is nothing new to the software giant: Memos dating as far back as 1995 reveal company executives' concern that the Web could become the next platform and that if Microsoft didn't push innovation on that front, it could lose its hold on market. Now, with Google's umbrella of services widening, some industry watchers have begun to wonder whether that day is on the horizon.
An empire to rival Microsoft?
Many who have joined the discussion say the time is right for such a shift--that the Web has matured enough to take a more prominent role in application development. But others see the lack of broadband adoption on a global scale as an obstacle that will keep such a change at bay for years to come.
Even those who feel current Web technology is advanced enough for it to become a viable platform disagree about who is better fit to bring it to the mainstream.
Google is widely viewed as a young, innovative company whose primary focus is the kind of Web services that would lead the personal-computing platform online. And to be sure, in the blogosphere, there is no shortage of the sentiment that Microsoft is a company whose prime time has long passed.
But many feel that Microsoft is more nimble than it gets credit for being. They believe that the company not only sees the challenge that lies before it, but also has the business savvy, development skills and--maybe most important--the money to forge ahead with a new strategy.
The word from the Web...
• Over the past 10 years, the Web system has certainly rigidified. To the point that in 2005, Microsoft sees Google, the bigco most likely to roll out a WebMachine, as the major threat it's feared all along. In response, Microsoft is integrating MSN into its platform product development group, where Windows is developed. It's too early to know how this will play out, but one thing's for sure--the Web is on an equal footing with Windows for Microsoft now. It took them 10 years to fulfill the destiny that one of their smart engineers, Ben Slivka, mapped out for them in May 1995. But will it be enough to stop the WebMachine?
--Read/Write Web
• You really think that people will go for paying monthly fees to perform computing tasks? You really think that people will want their software and data stored elsewhere and they have to pay to get at it? Thin clients are hype with no substance and lacking any technology that could even remotely make it reality in the next few years.
--Qwerty
• Microsoft would *love* to host Web-based application services (i.e. Office). It would enable them even greater control over the end users and piracy, and (end) a lot of media creation and distribution costs.
--Garcia on Slashdot
• Competitors come and go. Apple is making a resurgance, Oracle is holding its own, Google is the new upstart, and I haven't seen an article about Sun in years. Is Google any more of a threat to Microsoft than any of the others? Probably not...and I forgot to mention AOL. At their peak, they had more cash and more market penetration than Google does now.
--David Workman
• Ahh, yes, Microsoft is done for. Google owns the world. Apple is designing the world. You believe that? Hey, aren't you the same guy who said that Apple would go out of business in 1989?
--Scobleizer
• While a lot of focus on how Microsoft will step up to the Internet-as-platform competitive threat has focused on MSN, let's not forget MSDN. The Microsoft Developers Network should be a major resource through which Microsoft binds developers and ISVs to its revamped services development and deployment strategy. But for now, the MSDN portal is rich in downloads--from code to white papers to how-tos (i.e. "Create an RSS feed")--but skimpy if not downright devoid of software-as-a-service support.
--ZDNet's Between the Lines
• Maybe they are on a collision course, but the scenario, you need to see fleshed out a bit, to believe it would have to specify what is going to happen to revenues. If you're MS planners, you're looking first at OS revenues, which are closely tied to PC shipments. Now, do you believe that Google is going to affect the number of PCs shipped, or how many of them ship with Windows, or the price of those Windows shipments? If so, exactly how is it going to, and by how much, and when? Then there's the applications, of which far and away the biggest is Office. Again, do we believe that Office is going to ship less or at lower prices because of Google? In the abscence of a specific scenario, this may just be hysteria.
--anonymous comment on OSNews.com
• Digging in on the PC platform was a winning strategy and still is, at this point, but the rules will be changing sooner rather than later. When they do, will Microsoft be able to overcome its own inertia and innovate fast enough to stay in the game? Probably not, but the good news for Microsoft is that it doesn't have to...it just has to acquire a company that can.
--TripMaster Monkey on Slashdot
39 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://desktop.google.com/index.html" target="_newWindow">http://desktop.google.com/index.html</a>
Scroll down and read the requirement. It says:
Requires Windows XP or Windows 2000 SP 3+
Does the reporter of this article really understand why this is needed? A web application, by nature, has a lot of limitations. Many of them are due to security concern. For example, it won't have file system access. To work around these limitations, Google needs to write a desktop application. And, you already know which platform it's targetting at first. Yes, the one that has over 90% market share. What's next, may be OS X, may be Linux, but still those are traditional "platforms", and Google will need to write a desktop application to work around the same limitations.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://desktop.google.com/index.html" target="_newWindow">http://desktop.google.com/index.html</a>
Scroll down and read the requirement. It says:
Requires Windows XP or Windows 2000 SP 3+
Does the reporter of this article really understand why this is needed? A web application, by nature, has a lot of limitations. Many of them are due to security concern. For example, it won't have file system access. To work around these limitations, Google needs to write a desktop application. And, you already know which platform it's targetting at first. Yes, the one that has over 90% market share. What's next, may be OS X, may be Linux, but still those are traditional "platforms", and Google will need to write a desktop application to work around the same limitations.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://desktop.google.com/index.html" target="_newWindow">http://desktop.google.com/index.html</a>
Scroll down and read the requirement. It says:
Requires Windows XP or Windows 2000 SP 3+
Does the reporter of this article really understand why this is needed? A web application, by nature, has a lot of limitations. Many of them are due to security concern. For example, it won't have file system access. To work around these limitations, Google needs to write a desktop application. And, you already know which platform it's targetting at first. Yes, the one that has over 90% market share. What's next, may be OS X, may be Linux, but still those are traditional "platforms", and Google will need to write a desktop application to work around the same limitations.
For anything like this to even come close to working everyone will have to have a broadband connection. Furthermore the current Internet infrastructure would not support the notion of evryone having broadband and using high end apps over it.
I like Google but I don't think Bill Gates is sweating bullets yet.
Fred
For anything like this to even come close to working everyone will have to have a broadband connection. Furthermore the current Internet infrastructure would not support the notion of evryone having broadband and using high end apps over it.
I like Google but I don't think Bill Gates is sweating bullets yet.
Fred
For anything like this to even come close to working everyone will have to have a broadband connection. Furthermore the current Internet infrastructure would not support the notion of evryone having broadband and using high end apps over it.
I like Google but I don't think Bill Gates is sweating bullets yet.
Fred
The other way is the thug way. You make your customers victims. After winning customers and a market monopoly, you hand twist the old and new customers, use your monopoly and get everyone to come back and pay more. Everybody comes to you, cursing you.
The problem with second way is, the customers will fly off at the first opportunity. Google is the opportunity.
Why Google and not Sun, Novell and Netscape? Revenue model. Novell could not keep up with ease of use offered by Windows and did not get enough customers to switch their way. Netscape and Sun did not have the revenue model, to support the Navigator and Java aspirations. Moreover, they had to fight MS on its own turf, desktops. There was no broadband and they could not touch Windows.
On the other hand, Google has the financial muscle, a very robust revenue model based on ad revenues. And they dominate the search market which can not go down very easily. Only remaining questions are of will, intent, ability to innovate and timing. They have all these on their side and look to be going in right direction. What does Google need to root Windows and MS?
1. They need an OS that replaces Windows. Looks like they are doing this, looking at their recruitment and open positions news. But Google OS needs to support the file types and applications that Windows supports. That's where Linux lost.
2. They need a nice manageable OS code base, which handles security well. That's one of the basic reasons why so many people hate Windows.
3. They need to test their OS well. That's another thing I hate about Windows. How many times am I going to get that "send to MS" dialog?
4. They need to take advantage of net, to build the revenue model for their OS using Ad revenue. Everybody hates paying for new version of Windows every few years. Google can distribute their OS for free and use ads sent to desktops, to generate revenue. The timing and luck is on Google's side with the advent of broadband.
5. They need to keep supporting open standards. No more monopolies. There are some virtualization models for OS (like Hypervisor), which ensure that the OS will work the same way with various hardware products and platforms. Also, people will maintain the choice to run multiple OS alongside. This is a must for a new OS.
6. Rudimentary and Innovative applications on top of the OS. There are office productivity softwares like Open Office, which are substituting MS Office. Who wants to spend $350 for same functionality? Add to that support for open standards!! Google is also developing their own applications with Google Desktop, which helps.
7. Make this OS nicely configurable, make it run on small systems like mobile phones. Other somewhat bad option is to have versions for small devices.
8. Have own browser or use the good ones available - Firefox/ Opera.
9. Own or control the infrastructure required for delivery. Broadband is there. But it involves other players. There were reports of Google shopping for fibre optic cables. If they can control the delivery channel that will give them even better leverage. 10. Most important thing - "Do no evil" approach. It's one of their policies. You don't want to be next MS, do you?
That's it. Ultimately what's an OS monopoly? OS's just something that sits between applications and the hardware. Create an user friendly OS, add some innovative applications on top of that and the MS will be thing of past.
The other way is the thug way. You make your customers victims. After winning customers and a market monopoly, you hand twist the old and new customers, use your monopoly and get everyone to come back and pay more. Everybody comes to you, cursing you.
The problem with second way is, the customers will fly off at the first opportunity. Google is the opportunity.
Why Google and not Sun, Novell and Netscape? Revenue model. Novell could not keep up with ease of use offered by Windows and did not get enough customers to switch their way. Netscape and Sun did not have the revenue model, to support the Navigator and Java aspirations. Moreover, they had to fight MS on its own turf, desktops. There was no broadband and they could not touch Windows.
On the other hand, Google has the financial muscle, a very robust revenue model based on ad revenues. And they dominate the search market which can not go down very easily. Only remaining questions are of will, intent, ability to innovate and timing. They have all these on their side and look to be going in right direction. What does Google need to root Windows and MS?
1. They need an OS that replaces Windows. Looks like they are doing this, looking at their recruitment and open positions news. But Google OS needs to support the file types and applications that Windows supports. That's where Linux lost.
2. They need a nice manageable OS code base, which handles security well. That's one of the basic reasons why so many people hate Windows.
3. They need to test their OS well. That's another thing I hate about Windows. How many times am I going to get that "send to MS" dialog?
4. They need to take advantage of net, to build the revenue model for their OS using Ad revenue. Everybody hates paying for new version of Windows every few years. Google can distribute their OS for free and use ads sent to desktops, to generate revenue. The timing and luck is on Google's side with the advent of broadband.
5. They need to keep supporting open standards. No more monopolies. There are some virtualization models for OS (like Hypervisor), which ensure that the OS will work the same way with various hardware products and platforms. Also, people will maintain the choice to run multiple OS alongside. This is a must for a new OS.
6. Rudimentary and Innovative applications on top of the OS. There are office productivity softwares like Open Office, which are substituting MS Office. Who wants to spend $350 for same functionality? Add to that support for open standards!! Google is also developing their own applications with Google Desktop, which helps.
7. Make this OS nicely configurable, make it run on small systems like mobile phones. Other somewhat bad option is to have versions for small devices.
8. Have own browser or use the good ones available - Firefox/ Opera.
9. Own or control the infrastructure required for delivery. Broadband is there. But it involves other players. There were reports of Google shopping for fibre optic cables. If they can control the delivery channel that will give them even better leverage. 10. Most important thing - "Do no evil" approach. It's one of their policies. You don't want to be next MS, do you?
That's it. Ultimately what's an OS monopoly? OS's just something that sits between applications and the hardware. Create an user friendly OS, add some innovative applications on top of that and the MS will be thing of past.
The other way is the thug way. You make your customers victims. After winning customers and a market monopoly, you hand twist the old and new customers, use your monopoly and get everyone to come back and pay more. Everybody comes to you, cursing you.
The problem with second way is, the customers will fly off at the first opportunity. Google is the opportunity.
Why Google and not Sun, Novell and Netscape? Revenue model. Novell could not keep up with ease of use offered by Windows and did not get enough customers to switch their way. Netscape and Sun did not have the revenue model, to support the Navigator and Java aspirations. Moreover, they had to fight MS on its own turf, desktops. There was no broadband and they could not touch Windows.
On the other hand, Google has the financial muscle, a very robust revenue model based on ad revenues. And they dominate the search market which can not go down very easily. Only remaining questions are of will, intent, ability to innovate and timing. They have all these on their side and look to be going in right direction. What does Google need to root Windows and MS?
1. They need an OS that replaces Windows. Looks like they are doing this, looking at their recruitment and open positions news. But Google OS needs to support the file types and applications that Windows supports. That's where Linux lost.
2. They need a nice manageable OS code base, which handles security well. That's one of the basic reasons why so many people hate Windows.
3. They need to test their OS well. That's another thing I hate about Windows. How many times am I going to get that "send to MS" dialog?
4. They need to take advantage of net, to build the revenue model for their OS using Ad revenue. Everybody hates paying for new version of Windows every few years. Google can distribute their OS for free and use ads sent to desktops, to generate revenue. The timing and luck is on Google's side with the advent of broadband.
5. They need to keep supporting open standards. No more monopolies. There are some virtualization models for OS (like Hypervisor), which ensure that the OS will work the same way with various hardware products and platforms. Also, people will maintain the choice to run multiple OS alongside. This is a must for a new OS.
6. Rudimentary and Innovative applications on top of the OS. There are office productivity softwares like Open Office, which are substituting MS Office. Who wants to spend $350 for same functionality? Add to that support for open standards!! Google is also developing their own applications with Google Desktop, which helps.
7. Make this OS nicely configurable, make it run on small systems like mobile phones. Other somewhat bad option is to have versions for small devices.
8. Have own browser or use the good ones available - Firefox/ Opera.
9. Own or control the infrastructure required for delivery. Broadband is there. But it involves other players. There were reports of Google shopping for fibre optic cables. If they can control the delivery channel that will give them even better leverage. 10. Most important thing - "Do no evil" approach. It's one of their policies. You don't want to be next MS, do you?
That's it. Ultimately what's an OS monopoly? OS's just something that sits between applications and the hardware. Create an user friendly OS, add some innovative applications on top of that and the MS will be thing of past.
SAP will loose its grip on the market slowly due to internal reasons.. Also the high end market is getting smaller and smaller, which shall Market is very positive on them, but it is going belly up - 2007-08 would be the right time for this to occur. Google has got the money and the investor confidence...
SAP devouts - dont get mad this is jut my thoughts - GOOGLE will survive
SAP will loose its grip on the market slowly due to internal reasons.. Also the high end market is getting smaller and smaller, which shall Market is very positive on them, but it is going belly up - 2007-08 would be the right time for this to occur. Google has got the money and the investor confidence...
SAP devouts - dont get mad this is jut my thoughts - GOOGLE will survive
SAP will loose its grip on the market slowly due to internal reasons.. Also the high end market is getting smaller and smaller, which shall Market is very positive on them, but it is going belly up - 2007-08 would be the right time for this to occur. Google has got the money and the investor confidence...
SAP devouts - dont get mad this is jut my thoughts - GOOGLE will survive
At this time I should like remind those of us who were looking forward to the "showdown" between IBM's OS/2 and Microsoft's Windows during the mid 90's; and, I suppose I do not have to mention again the name - Netscape; here is my point, like the Linux OS; (and, Google does appear to be in need its own Operating System as some may have quite rightly observed) IBM up to this point in time is unable to release the OS/2 Source Code to the open-source community because of proprietary issues with certain companies and your guess would be as good as mine as to which particular would be involved here, any guesses! That was the first point; now, here is the second point - Windows as we now know it was in its infancy the half brother of OS/2 and my assumption here is that since OS/2 was the de facto "networking" client (the web once again being seen as the platform) at the time much of its "code base" is still in Microsoft's artillery shells; beyond this are the possibilities that thousands of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) remain as part of the "Crown Jewels" under Microsoft's control) are thoughts been given to the legal objections and the costs that would be involved should there be a challenge in the courts by Google or any other company.
Now, here is the the other point, the Gates camp as part of a possibly diversification strategy have already cast their eyes on the development of the "Air Taxi" and autos now sport a significant percentage of computerized products as well as they have the war "chest" to wage what is widely believed that they are very good at - a "marketing" strategy.
As a reminder, there was a company called Connectix Corporation that developed products that enabled Windows to host other OSes; so, with maturity of the Windows platform lets not hope that the "Google Desktop" go the way of IBM's OS/2 and Connectix Corporation's Virtual PC!
At this time I should like remind those of us who were looking forward to the "showdown" between IBM's OS/2 and Microsoft's Windows during the mid 90's; and, I suppose I do not have to mention again the name - Netscape; here is my point, like the Linux OS; (and, Google does appear to be in need its own Operating System as some may have quite rightly observed) IBM up to this point in time is unable to release the OS/2 Source Code to the open-source community because of proprietary issues with certain companies and your guess would be as good as mine as to which particular would be involved here, any guesses! That was the first point; now, here is the second point - Windows as we now know it was in its infancy the half brother of OS/2 and my assumption here is that since OS/2 was the de facto "networking" client (the web once again being seen as the platform) at the time much of its "code base" is still in Microsoft's artillery shells; beyond this are the possibilities that thousands of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) remain as part of the "Crown Jewels" under Microsoft's control) are thoughts been given to the legal objections and the costs that would be involved should there be a challenge in the courts by Google or any other company.
Now, here is the the other point, the Gates camp as part of a possibly diversification strategy have already cast their eyes on the development of the "Air Taxi" and autos now sport a significant percentage of computerized products as well as they have the war "chest" to wage what is widely believed that they are very good at - a "marketing" strategy.
As a reminder, there was a company called Connectix Corporation that developed products that enabled Windows to host other OSes; so, with maturity of the Windows platform lets not hope that the "Google Desktop" go the way of IBM's OS/2 and Connectix Corporation's Virtual PC!
At this time I should like remind those of us who were looking forward to the "showdown" between IBM's OS/2 and Microsoft's Windows during the mid 90's; and, I suppose I do not have to mention again the name - Netscape; here is my point, like the Linux OS; (and, Google does appear to be in need its own Operating System as some may have quite rightly observed) IBM up to this point in time is unable to release the OS/2 Source Code to the open-source community because of proprietary issues with certain companies and your guess would be as good as mine as to which particular would be involved here, any guesses! That was the first point; now, here is the second point - Windows as we now know it was in its infancy the half brother of OS/2 and my assumption here is that since OS/2 was the de facto "networking" client (the web once again being seen as the platform) at the time much of its "code base" is still in Microsoft's artillery shells; beyond this are the possibilities that thousands of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) remain as part of the "Crown Jewels" under Microsoft's control) are thoughts been given to the legal objections and the costs that would be involved should there be a challenge in the courts by Google or any other company.
Now, here is the the other point, the Gates camp as part of a possibly diversification strategy have already cast their eyes on the development of the "Air Taxi" and autos now sport a significant percentage of computerized products as well as they have the war "chest" to wage what is widely believed that they are very good at - a "marketing" strategy.
As a reminder, there was a company called Connectix Corporation that developed products that enabled Windows to host other OSes; so, with maturity of the Windows platform lets not hope that the "Google Desktop" go the way of IBM's OS/2 and Connectix Corporation's Virtual PC!