Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google's Patents Reveal Strategy To Beat Microsoft

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the stretch-the-para-digm dept.

Google 453

linumax writes "According to 'The Google Legacy,' history is about to repeat itself. From the article: 'Microsoft today is where IBM was years ago. And Google is in a position to do to Bill Gates what he did to IBM. The result could be a new industry kingpin. Arnold, author of The Google Legacy, said in an interview this week that it appears that Microsoft doesn't understand Google in much the same way that IBM didn't understand Microsoft 20 years ago. "It will be the Googleplex from 2004 to 2020 - a network paradigm," said Arnold. "It will be enabled by Google's approach to innovation."'"

cancel ×

453 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

and then... (5, Funny)

Rui Lopes (599077) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692694)

in 2020, everyone in /. will be bashing google. History will repeat itself.

Re:and then... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13692720)

People are already bashing google all over the net and on ./ as well. The writing, so to speak, is already on the wall.

Re:and then... (5, Insightful)

Barryke (772876) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692725)

Indeed, we will bash Google in the (be it near or far) future. I'm perfectly convenient using their 'tools', but when i think of what their future innovations will mean to my privacy it scares me.

Re:and then... (4, Insightful)

kubevubin (906716) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692747)

Are you referring to the "privacy" that is already being gradually eaten away at (thanks to the government), anyway? At least Google is a little more upfront about it, and their invasion of our privacy isn't in the same way that the government (and God only knows who else) is attempting to invade our privacy. Google is supported by advertising, and I really don't mind the way that they're going about creating a more personalized brand of advertising. It's not as though they're using any of the information that they're collecting to persecute anyone.

Re:and then... (4, Funny)

BewireNomali (618969) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692840)

You're a subpoena away from persecution in a Googleplex world, buddy.

Re:and then... (3, Insightful)

cortana (588495) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692815)

You're worried about _Google_?

Do you carry a cellphone? :)

Re:and then... (0)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692734)

And then in 2021 IBM the old upstart will overtake Google, then Microsoft will overtake IBM in 2040 in a never ending circle.

Re:and then... (5, Funny)

ashwinds (743227) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692752)

.... only difference is Google will /. /. and bring it down

Re:and then... (3, Funny)

aurb (674003) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692772)

And Microsoft will be in the same position as IBM is today... I mean will support Linux, be cool, and everything...

Re:and then... (5, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692889)

Also, in 2020, everyone on slashdot will still be saying "this is the year for Linux on the desktop".

Re:and then... (1)

Haydn Fenton (752330) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692911)

From TFA:
"The Google Legacy" (Infonortics, $180.00 per download) is available in online PDF version only.

$180 for a PDF file telling us Google might beat MS sometime in the next 15 years... Well fuck me sideways, I've just GOT to get myself a copy of that!!1!one!eleven

Troll comments aside, I hope Google will beat M$, but I don't know whether it'll be as good as we think. MS may be asshats, but people generally rely on them pretty heavily (as is obvious from the market share they have in a range of areas). Some good alternative products are gonna need to come out before M$ are going down the drain.
And let's hope Google get the monopoly position right, keeping their "Let's give the people what they want, and free" attitude instead of the "Hey, we're the best, we can bully everyone now" attitude M$ seem to have adopted.

first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13692699)

linumax writes "According to 'The Google Legacy,' history is about to repeat itself. From the article: 'Microsoft today is where IBM was years ago. And Google is in a position to do to Bill Gates what he did to IBM. The result could be a new industry kingpin. Arnold, author of The Google Legacy, said in an interview this week that it appears that Microsoft doesn't understand Google in much the same way that IBM didn't understand Microsoft 20 years ago. "It will be the Googleplex from 2004 to 2020 - a network paradigm," said Arnold. "It will be enabled by Google's approach to innovation."'"

Not really accurate (5, Interesting)

arkham6 (24514) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692704)

Comparing MS and IBM is flawed imo. IBM was the big company before the rise of personal computers that felt it was unstoppable in its world, and did not have the foresight to see that personal computing would someday overtake server style computing. They truely thought that only big corporations would need computers.

MS on the other hand is aware, paranoid actualy that they will be dethroned. While their leaders may act out in stupid and juvinile ways (throwing chairs anyone?), they are aware of the problem and will fight tooth and nail to keep from being dethroned.

Re:Not really accurate (1)

xactuary (746078) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692749)

'While their leaders may act out in stupid and juvinile ways (throwing chairs anyone?), they are aware of the problem and will fight tooth and nail to keep from being dethroned.'

Exactly. Extreme programming now means code written while fighting tooth and nail.

Re:Not really accurate (0, Troll)

pha777 (764875) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692816)

MS at the begining of the internet was not aware, was not even worried.

They were severals months later, maybe a couple of years.
They were so later, that some guys could build yahoo without MS, and some others could build google, ebay, amazon, etc.

If MS had been aware, they could today be the owners of all of that.
But ... we already know what happened.

MS ... was late, too late, fatally late.

Re:Not really accurate (5, Insightful)

ty_kramer (262524) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692818)

Microsoft's paranoia will not be enough.

Their intractable problem is that they're chained to their Windows/Office franchise. Every new technology they consider must first be 100% guaranteed not to harm Windows and Office. It's a rear-guard action, one that will absolutely cause them to fail in the next five to ten years, assuming the network will eventually trump the desktop. In a world of fast wireless everywhere, it has to. And that world will be here within the decade.

The beauty of it (and horror, if you're Gates) is that a public corporation really has no choice but to protect its cash cows. If Bill were as smart as he thinks he is, he'd have split his company up a few years ago. Heck, he could have used the antitrust trial as cover and whined publicly while getting his company reshaped in a way where it could compete in a network-everywhere world. Maybe split into Windows, Office, and MSN companies, all free to compete the heck out of each other. Sure the stock would have taken a hit at first. But right now, the Office company would be selling bunches of Linux Office licenses. The Windows company would be coming out with a lean, mean Linux-based Windows. The MSN company would be neck and neck with Google in terms of web-based applications. And the combined stock prices of the three companies would be smoking the currect MSFT price. Gates would be so much richer than he is now, it would be astounding.

But Bill is shackled to Windows/Office. And he's not brave enough to radically remake his company in a form that can compete in the 21st century. And if he were, he'd probably face 1000 shareholder lawsuits when the stock price initially plummets.

Game over, it's just a matter of watching it unfold.

You nailed it (2, Informative)

lheal (86013) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692888)

I hope you get modded up. I would add that Microsoft is a top-down company, a cult of Gates and gold. The troops really believe in the vision of Windows and Office everywhere, and the culture refuses to accept anything else.

Free software will kick their assets.

Look a little closer. (1)

Some Random Username (873177) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692876)

IBM had already recognized that PCs were a real market, they has long since stopped believing that only big corporations would need computers. But they used their foray into the PC market to give Microsoft the monopoly it has now. They were stupid, not ignorant.

Microsoft is the same way, they know that people are hoping to make the OS unimportant, and move to portable network based applications. But they are too stupid to do anything about it. They even have the xbox part of the company working to help kill off the windows part of the business. They are stupid, not ignorant.

quite accurate, actually (4, Insightful)

idlake (850372) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692908)

IBM was fully aware of minicomputers and personal computers and the threat they represented, and they did everything they could to stop them taking away market share from them. IBM was paranoid and well-informed.

In part, that's why IBM picked both a rather substandard hardware design and a rather substandard vendor to supply the operating system (IBM didn't have a choice but to go outside for their software--they were under antitrust scrutiny). This was no secret at the time--how badly the PC architecture and Microsoft's operating system sucked, and what IBM's motivations were, was obvious the day the PC was released.

And it worked as IBM intended: it took 15 years for PC software to catch up with the state of the art of the mid-80's. That translated into a lot of extra sales for IBM's mainframes, servers, and workstations. Of course, the PC business ended up being bigger and more important, but even if IBM had know that at the time, they couldn't have acted on it.

And Microsoft is about to repeat this. Microsoft would have to cannibalize their operating system and MS Office businesses in order to move ahead, and there is no way they are going to be able to do that.

Am I stupid for not seeing this? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13692706)

Microsoft write an operating system and Office suite - their cash cows.

Google's cash cow is google adwords and google adsense.

Where's the competition between the two? where's the overlap in markets with REAL income, not late 1990s tech bubble crap that doesn't actually bring in $$ to the companies.

Re:Am I stupid for not seeing this? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13692751)

Gmail? Their search engines? Google Talk? The servers that they're selling, the contracts and agreements they're making with other companies?

Did you just wake up yesterday or what?

Re:Am I stupid for not seeing this? (4, Insightful)

DeadSea (69598) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692777)

Microsoft is slowly losing their cash cow of operating systems and office software. Linux and open source software are poised to take over this area. Microsoft sees Google moving into new markets that they feel they should have been able to monopolize as well.

The good news is that Google doesn't have quite the strangehold on search that microsoft had on OS and office software. The best Google can do to maintain a monopoly is patents which are hopefully less holding than Microsoft's vendor lock in strategy. Nobody has to use the same search as everybody else to be compatible. Any individual is free to choose a search engine. If MSN search and Yahoo get their act together and gave Google a real run for their money, everybody would win.

Re:Am I stupid for not seeing this? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692831)

Google must quickly nimble at M$ browser market. The tie to IE for most web services on Windows must be made irrelevant for M$ to be defeated. What I see so far, from StarOffice 8.0 and the buzz with AJAX software is a good start. Google also has its video that requires no video playing software on the computer. The problem is that for StarOffice, it is not that presentable (read beautiful) on Linux as it is on Windows systems so that initial attraction is difficult to come along on Linux systems.

Re:Am I stupid for not seeing this? (2, Interesting)

mzwaterski (802371) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692915)

If AJAX apps are going to beat downloaded software they are going to have to get much faster. I don't care if thats some innovation in the apps or just the increase of broadband connections, but I would never use a word processor that forced me to wait while it bolded something (at least not when I have an alternative). I would also be a little concerned about what would happen when the internet connection goes down.

Re:Am I stupid for not seeing this? (1)

Elad Alon (835764) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692833)

Nobody has to use the same search as everybody else to be compatible.
Yet! This is what Google has hired all those big brains for - to figure out a way.

Re:Am I stupid for not seeing this? (1)

metricmusic (766303) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692797)

It could if Google came out with a spreadsheet or word processor that works over the web in something like xml and saves files in gmail. If its made to web standards and works in any platform browser than they they'll be indirectly taking on ms's os as well since people wont have to have windows to use it. (office being a big reason people buy windows. for stuff like games ms is doing a good enough job itself moving gamers to consoles).

Googles economic model may be offering basic word processing/spreadsheet features for free and then if they want the more advanced features available they have to subscribe to it. ads in the free version would bring in money to google too.

Re:Am I stupid for not seeing this? (4, Insightful)

cowscows (103644) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692899)

I think there's a couple big points that the author of the article is missing. If this whole network apps replacing local apps really happens, it's not going to happen the way he thinks it is, for a couple reasons. One reason is open standards. Anyone who makes the switch from MS, a big reason for it is likely to be to escape the file format lock-in that MS inflicted for so long. Corporations won't blindly walk into that again. Along the same lines, I don't think any company, or too many people, will allow all their files to reside on some remote server somewhere. That doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons.

Second is an economic reason. If you're going to buy some software, wouldn't you rather have a copy of it on your desk, installed on your own machine? I would imagine Google trying a subscription style payment system, which i think people will be reluctant to accept. It just takes too much control away from the user, and gives it to the company.

But even if all of this does happen, I still don't see Google holding onto any sizeable monopoly for long. Open standards will allow just about anyone to offer a competing system. Google won't be able to pull the same underhanded tactics that MS did. And nobody wants to be subjected to another monopoly.

Google is just intensely overrated. Yeah, they make some cool stuff, and at one time, they had a search engine that was very useful. But I don't know how far that's going to take them. There's two things that they use to make money right now. Search, (which I don't think they do nearly as well as they used to), and advertisements (spam!). While portable email might be useful enough that people will cope with having it decorated with advertisements, I don't think they'll feel the same about word processors, or powerpoint, or whatever.

Anything that Google does to seriously threaten MS will mean them venturing away from what they're good at, and into new stuff. Sure, they've got smart employees, they might get it right, but they also might screw it up. The strongest thing Google has going for it right now is its brandname, but that's an easy thing to ruin.

Innovate or die ! (0)

paulwallen (825524) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692711)

At least google is innovating now..not stealing ideas some other guys

Re:Innovate or die ! (4, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692794)

Yup. They invented the search engine. And web based e-mail. And keyword based advertising.

Nothing wrong with using other people's ideas. They have implemented them better than their competition (I use gmail, personalized search, etc). But their products are not revolutionary despite what their fans may thinh.

Re:Innovate or die ! (1)

Radical Rad (138892) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692893)

At least google is innovating now..not stealing ideas some other guys

Yeah. They are like Microsoft was, back when you and Bill first started the company.

The cycle continues (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13692713)

Then, 20 years from now, compuglobalhypermeganet will re-revolutionize the industry by introducing the 'Toster' paradigm; google (and everyone else for that matter) will be unable to understand this company's buisness model, and thus they will become the industries new kingpin.

But ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13692744)

... will it run Linux?

Zager & Evans (1)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692787)

Then, 20 years from now...

in the year 2525... if Bill is still alive... if Google can survive... they may find....

If I was more creative (read: had my coffee already), I'd probably be able to crank out a parody. oh well.

=)

Re:The cycle continues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13692925)

No, it won't be "compuglobalhypermeganet." It will be someone thinking outside the box. Microsoft didn't pay attention to Google because they only did "search." That turned out to be the next big thing and where the market went.

So, 20 years from now, it has to be someone who did something no one else thought would be the next big step. So, let's throw out some guesses who this "compuglobalhypermeganet" will be:

- Iomega
- Valve
- OSDL
- pets.com

I can see it now:

Competitor X: "We thought pets.com did only dog food. Who'd have thought they'd be the one to introduce XYZ that we use everyday..."

$180 for a PDF (5, Informative)

porksoda (253218) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692714)

"The Google Legacy" (Infonortics, $180.00 per download) is available in online PDF version only.

$180 for some guy's opinion on google, go fuck yourself.

Re:$180 for a PDF (1)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692741)

Indeed. Hate to piss karma points away, but one can't help but wonder how much this author paid to have this "story"/advertisement posted on Slashdot. C'mon....

Re:$180 for a PDF (0, Redundant)

khedron the jester (888418) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692784)

Slashdot EeziPost (TM) MK 1.0.002

#NB: For obvious reasons, the first option is ENABLED by default - remember to turn off if you are NOT responding to a dupe

[ ] Another: [ ] Dupe [X] Slashvertisment [ ] WTF [X] $editor is a dork

[ ] Frist psot [ ] link to GNAA [ ] Link to goatse [X] $random_drivel

[X] I Haven't RTFA, but... $random_opinionated_comment

[ ] Slashdotted already!. I bet their server runs on $topic_item too

[ ] Soul_sucking registration required

[ ] Mod Parent [X] up [ ] Down

[X] Fsck: [ ] SCO [X] Micro$oft [ ] DMCA [ ] DRM [ ] MPAA [ ] RIAA [X] Google [ ] Bush [ ] You all

[X] I for one welcome our new $topic_item overlords

[ ] Imagine a beowulf cluster of those

[ ] In Soviet Russia, $topic_item owns you!

[ ] Meh!

[X] Netcraft confirms $topic_item is: [ ] dead [X] dying

[ ] But have the inventors thought of what will happen if $random_amateur_insight

[ ] Once again the USA is clamping down on my [ ] Amendment rights.

[ ] You insensitive clod

[ ] But people who download music from P2P networks are more likely to buy the album

[ ] Cue DVD Jon-type crack in 3..2..1

[ ] Torrent, anyone?

[ ] Here's a link to a patch: $random_linux_distro_url

[X] Profit!!

[ ] Still no cure for cancer

[ ] "()*%£^" No Carrier

Re:$180 for a PDF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13692886)

[ ] Imagine a beowulf cluster of those

ROFL!!

History repeats itself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13692715)

History has a tendancy to repeat itself. However, i doubt it that we'll see the same situation.

If anyone is going to kill Microsoft, it wont be Google.

Google Patents (5, Interesting)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692718)

From TFA
"In a broader sense, Arnold believes Google is building a "patent fence around search" technology as the firm moves to codify its unique competitive advantage."

Is this good or bad?

ahem (1)

woah (781250) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692766)

The correct term is:

Is this good or is it wack?

Re:Google Patents (5, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692848)

You must refer to your /. double standards manual. Paragraph 1.1.12 clearly states that when MS patent stuff its bad, when Google patent stuff its good and the whole patents are evil issue is a no go.

Re:Google Patents (5, Insightful)

whatthef*ck (215929) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692861)

"In a broader sense, Arnold believes Google is building a "patent fence around search" technology as the firm moves to codify its unique competitive advantage."
It's obviously bad, but do you notice how Google gets a pass from the overwhelming majority of the Slashdot community?

Re:Google Patents (1, Redundant)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692892)


It's obviously bad, but do you notice how Google gets a pass from the overwhelming majority of the Slashdot community?


Yes, I do. That was the point of my post, actually.

Google does 2 things for which any other company would get flamed to
death on /.

1) It's a building a phenomenal database of consumer profiles.
The clincher here is it's Web Proxy (good spin to call it Accelerator)

How does this product help google? Think about it?

What's the difference between Google & other companies with spyware
etc. Google gets a free pass, hence doesn't have to use stealth.

2) Patents.

Yeah, yeah (2, Insightful)

nagora (177841) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692722)

Wake me up when Google can deliver a good search engine (I know they currently deliver the best search engine, that's not the same thing at all).

To say nothing of the fact that Microsoft got a free ride from IBM to their current position; I can't see MS doing the same favour for Google, can you?

And finally, why would anyone want to rely on a net connection to be able to write a letter, or trust a remote company to hold their data, or basically use any of these web-technologies pundits keep claiming are the next big thing? The world of users was ebullient when it shook off the shackels of having to connect to a mainframe to do work; why would they want to give that freedom up? Normal users, that is - I can see some attractions for stupid PHBs in companies. Google Maps is good, but would I rather have it running on my machine? Damn right I would!

TWW

Re:Yeah, yeah (4, Funny)

fish waffle (179067) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692736)

Google Maps is good, but would I rather have it running on my machine? Damn right I would!

No, i don't think you would. You would probably find it a bit of a resource hog.

Re:Yeah, yeah (1)

deaddrunk (443038) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692739)

Erm I still have to connect to a central server to do work same as almost everyone else, unless your company doesn't have email, allows users to keep important documents only on your machine and no-one ever prints anything. Also companies are realising that the mainframe model was actually quite good since if you upgrade software you only have to do it on the server(s) not on a few thousand pcs.

Re:Yeah, yeah (2, Insightful)

PGC (880972) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692773)

"And finally, why would anyone want to rely on a net connection to be able to write a letter, or trust a remote company to hold their data, ... " Because it's so easy and oh so handy ... anyone with half a brain wouldn't trust a remote company to hold their data...too bad most people have less.

Re:Yeah, yeah (1)

oirtemed (849229) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692795)

Yeah, it always amazes me that we've been talking for years about web platforms, etc. No one wants to have to be logged on to write a quick letter in a word processor. Maybe under some circumstances it would make sense (corporate networks using centralized programs) but that can be done anyways without the web. You hit it right here:the world of users was ebullient when it shook off the shackels of having to connect to a mainframe to do work; why would they want to give that freedom up? If anything, cheap, selfcontained multipurpose computing devices could become a threat but that is doubtful. Is most/all google's revenue from adwords?

Re:Yeah, yeah (1)

zCyl (14362) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692845)

No one wants to have to be logged on to write a quick letter in a word processor.

That may be true, but there is a certain value in having the letter itself located in a decentralized location. If you could somehow securely access, edit, and print your documents from any terminal in the world, without carrying a bulky laptop around, then that could be of significant value. So it's not the actual editing that needs networking, but the data access.

Re:Yeah, yeah (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692807)

Microsoft got a free ride from IBM to their current position; I can't see MS doing the same favour for Google, can you?

Google runs on Internet Explorer, which is free with Windows.

Re:Yeah, yeah (2, Insightful)

metricmusic (766303) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692820)

why would anyone.... trust a remote company to hold their data

I'm not gonna answer why because everyone will have their own reasons but what I can say is theres not a shortage of them. These are the same people who use web based email and they will be the same people Google targets already (but not exclusively).

As to:
" rely on a net connection to be able to write a letter"

I wonder hwo many google/hotmail/yahoo users type their letter in notepad and then paste it into their browser before sending.

Re:Yeah, yeah (2, Insightful)

Pastis (145655) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692895)

> why would anyone want to rely on a net connection to be able to write a letter,

why would anyone want to rely on electricity to be able to type a letter?

why would anyone want to rely on a typing machine to be able to type a letter?

why would anyone want to rely on ink to be able to write a letter?

why would anyone want to rely on rock to be able to carve a letter? ... progress ...

think universal remote access
think ultra thin client
think always connected
think reduced costs
etc...

Some guy wrote a book (1)

ewe2 (47163) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692727)

He thinks Google is tuffer than Microsoft. Buy his book to find out if he is right.

History never repeats itself! (4, Interesting)

Nahooda (906991) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692738)

During my studies in history I've learned that history _never_ repeats itself. Simply because if there's a situation _similar_ to one from the past there are a lot of factors that are simply completely different.

Regards,

Dennis B. Schramm

Re:History never repeats itself! (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692867)

During my studies in history I've learned that history _never_ repeats itself also. So since you repeated history, clearly we are both wrong.

Google will beat Microsoft? (3, Insightful)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692750)

By selling advertising? Great for google. But what about me? I'm going to be inundated with advertising and products that never come out of beta? Or will they release "Google OpenSolaris"? Oh, maybe they'll introduce "for pay" google? That's when I switch to yahoo.

Anyway, if I was Microsoft .. I'd be shitting bricks over Apple.

When they release OS X for x86 that can install on general computers, people will be screwed. Corporations may switch to Apple because there won't be fear of single vendor hardware lock in (no need to pay $$ for xpensive replacement parts). And most damning for microsoft the overall cost of Windows will have to drop to $49.99 resulting in mad revenue decline.

Plus due to Napster's totally lame advertising, and mp3 player competitor's lack of design ability, Apple will make buttloads of $$ off entertainment devices like how Sony did in the 80's and 90's. Only way Apple can lose momentum is if the price of flash drops to $1 or less a gig. And they have to compete with $9.99 mp3 players.

Oops major TYPO! M$FT not people will be screwed! (2, Funny)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692761)

in parent post I meant to say microsoft will be screwed .. not people will be screwed. People will benefit obviously!!

Re:Google will beat Microsoft? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692783)

Not gonna happen... for the same reason people didn't switch to Linux, Beos or any of the others.

Desktops are a natural monopoly - you want to be running what everyone else is running, so you can read their documents, etc.

Not to mention the OSX integration with active directory sucks donkey & it isn't even going to get a look in in business until that's sorted (even on tiger, the only thing they really support is login.. and even that's half-assed - OSX doesn't treat the user as 'real', so they can't share files, etc.)

Jesus Tapdancing Christ! (1)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692753)

Microsoft today is where IBM was years ago. And Google is in a position to do to Bill Gates what he did to IBM.
I have no doubt about it, especially in light of Google's recent prolific production of popular services that are eating away the marketshares of multiple internet giants while still maintaining the same clean interface that got the brand in the dictionary! By the way, if you're in the game of slingin' securities, have a look-see at what the article's implications are to GOOG's and MSFT's stock prices compared to each other on this here chart. [marketwatch.com] Middle click that sucker. In the words of Carl from Aqua Teen Hunger Force, frickin' awesome.

I don't have any money to invest, but sitting on the sidelines I really love and am rooting for this company. Go google.

Re:Jesus Tapdancing Christ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13692903)

Actually I woudln't put any of my money in google right now. It's vastly overpriced, the stock price is floating on the hopes, dreams and wishes of a gazillion people. the market will fuck it. Ironically, MSFT is a good buy now, simply from the P/E ratios, it's really cheap right now. I still like google though.

Shhhhhhhhh.... (1)

Bin_jammin (684517) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692755)

Don't tell Microsoft, you'll ruin Google's secret plans!

Microsoft can kill Google any time they want to. (3, Interesting)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692759)

Simply ship Internet Explorer with a adblock feature that blocks Google's ads, then Google's revenue stream gets turned off overnight.

Re:Microsoft can kill Google any time they want to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13692786)

then theres the 'minor' issue of an anti-trust lawsuit which microsoft would probably lose, along with the masses of bad publicity for blocking google.

Re:Microsoft can kill Google any time they want to (0)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692799)

If they did that then there would a lawsuit of gargantuan proportions even before the third dupe of the story on slashdot.

Not even microsoft can deliberately attempt to kill a competitor like that... they have to be a *bit* more subtle.

Re:Microsoft can kill Google any time they want to (2, Interesting)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692839)

Actually, I don't think they do have to be subtle about it. Adblockers are legal, and it wouldn't surprise me if ad/popup blocking was the most requested feature for IE7.

AOL Redux? (1)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692769)

This all sounds like a rehash of the AOL strategy or making customers believe their product "is the internet". I have a hard time beleiving that a new competitor can make a market with the same strategy in this jaded consumer market. Bandwidth really isn't an issue until the video content on the web is as plentiful as the text content. And I don't see that happening any time soon.

Google and Privacy (5, Interesting)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692774)

I wasn't really worried about Google's intentions until I've seen the latest "features" they added to their homepage.

You might have noticed the: "Personalized Home" thing at the top left of your browser.
In order to implement this feature, Google, obviously needs to know who is actually looking at the page, so that it could then personalize it - therefore, you need to "Sign In" to use the page.
To me, this seems like a way to masquerade their true intentions.
By "Signing in" you're actually letting Google know more information then it requires...
You're not only "Personalizing" their homepage, but you're actually creating a mapping between a "user" and a "search".
In other words, Google would now have the ability to know (same account as GMail) which user looked for what - beyond GMail (where they know what each user read).
If you combine all this data, you get a HUGE database containing personal information.
You'd be surprised how much one could learn just by looking at another person's search queries.
I'm sure that in the following years Google would unveil many more features that would practically lead to them having access to ALL of our personal information.
They're just taking it slowly, one step at a time.

This seems to me like a privacy nightmare.
Are we to let Google have all this information, while we sit aside, hoping they'll protect our data based solely on our good faith?

Remember, that by not using their services, you're private information is not protected.
It's enough that 1 person would have your contact information on his GMail account, another would have your e-Mail and some questions you asked. Google would just have to cross-refer and find whatever they like.

Re:Google and Privacy (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692806)

Uh.. no. what 'personalized home'? You're getting paranoid.

The google homepage is just search, plus a pretty google graphic.

Re:Google and Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13692817)

Enlighten me:

A Home in the Hills GTA
Abandonware
Actex Madriver
Actuar
Actuar*
adaware
Age of Empires 3
automatic theorem prover
AVG Virus Free
bally's
buffalo wild wings
business information group
cedar rapids, IA
china dinnerware (I think this was my wife's FWIW, but google wouldn't know that)
christian book store
chromatron
chronic logic

There you go, you have the first few letters. Tell me all about myself

Re:Google and Privacy (2, Interesting)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692894)

Easy. You're a middle-aged nostalgist who knows about computers, and you like Buffalo wings. You know you need to work out but haven't quite gotten around to it. You're looking at changing jobs. Your wife is religious.

The scary thing is it doesn't matter if these conclusions are wrong--just the fact that there's a dossier on each of us that is inevitably going to be sold (think of what value some prospective employers or insurers would place on these kind of data, for example).

Re:Google and Privacy (1)

hey (83763) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692846)

> You might have noticed the: "Personalized Home"
> thing at the top left of your browser.

Er, its on the top RIGHT for me!

Re:Google and Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13692859)

It depends on your locality.
Left to Right writing vs. Right to Left...

Re:Google and Privacy (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692860)


By "Signing in" you're actually letting Google know more information then it requires...
You're not only "Personalizing" their homepage, but you're actually creating a mapping between a "user" and a "search".
In other words, Google would now have the ability to know (same account as GMail) which user looked for what - beyond GMail (where they know what each user read).


Have you just woken up or something?

This has been true of most search engines even 5-6 years back.

Yahoo has a sign in. Excite has it. MSN has it.
Most big portals have a sign in feature.

Re:Google and Privacy (1)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692890)

The binding with GMail and other services (even some future ones) is critical for the plot.

i.e. They know your email contents, they know what you search for, they know which places you visit (by cross-referring your email contacts and your activities on google-maps).

Now consider their future plans to bind you even tighter to their services which will have you expose even more information.

The centralization is what creeps me.

Re:Google and Privacy (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692916)


  The binding with GMail and other services (even some future ones) is critical for the plot.


This is true for other portals also.

Yahoo can also mine information from Yahoo Mail.

Re:Google and Privacy (1)

MvD_Moscow (738107) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692872)

Dude, simple solution. You yourself solved your problem!

In order to implement this feature, Google, obviously needs to know who is actually looking at the page, so that it could then personalize it - therefore, you need to "Sign In" to use the page.

Since Google "needs to who is actually looking at the page", I see only one way out, don't let google set cookies. It's not like anyone is forcing you to personalize your homeapge. It's extra, it's not like they even advertize it all that hevaily. If you are so paranoid about cookies, but you still want the functionality they give, just spoof the cookies. There are several extensions for Firefox that allow you to to do this. I really don't see why you are so worked up....

I don't think so (4, Insightful)

Kawahee (901497) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692809)

Google rules the web, Microsoft rules the desktop (and has a sizeable arm in the server market). I think it's fair to say that Google isn't all that related to Microsoft. Sure, Microsoft and Google have overlapping interests, but Microsoft's main income comes from Windows, and from Office.
Does Google have Google OS? No.
Does Google have Google Office? No.
Does Google have free email? Yes.
Does Google have a search system? Yes.

Where Google competes with Microsoft, it succeeds, where Google doesn't, the industry is owned my Microsoft. And don't say OpenOffice or StarOffice or Linux is going to be killing MS anytime soon. StarOffice 7 was an MS Office killer, what happened to it? Nowhere. StarOffice 6 was an MS Office killer, what happened to it? So was version 5. Linux is meant to be better, but it's not gaining inroads in anywhere but the server market. It might be getting ready to approach the desktop market, but it's not going to do it successfully. And in the server market, Linux servers are used less than Windows servers (35% Windows, 35% Unix, 30% Linux, FreeBSD's in there somewhere SOURCE: /. article). Linux is a Windows killer, we don't see Windows being used less. We see that people are stopping the switch to Firefox, switching back from Linux, staying with Windows and Microsoft Office, despite these "MS-Killers". Google will stay, but it's not going to compete with Microsoft unless it starts an OS war.

Re:I don't think so (1)

pdpTrojan (454023) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692855)

I hope you were kidding when you said StarOffice 5 was an Office killer (or 6 for that matter).

Re:I don't think so (5, Interesting)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692863)

Does Google have Google OS? No.
Does Google have Google Office? No.
Does Google have free email? Yes.
Does Google have a search system? Yes


I believe these questions need some revision:

Does Google need an OS? No!That's the real beauty and the real threat of Google. Microsoft still assumes that everything needs an OS. Google is proving time and again that the OS is nothing in the long run. Google is acting on something Microsoft considered a threat 10+ years ago--that the Internet may become an OS unto itself (not in the true sense of OS, but in the sense that its platform negates the need to run a proprietary OS like Windows).
Does Google have the technology to release Google Office? Yes! Blogger already shows that you don't need a client app to have a robust word processor. The same is true for spreadsheets, presentations, and messaging (which they already have). The weak link would appear to be a DB, but the deployment of a web-based database engine would not be too difficult for them.
Can Google enhance it's email system to provide the functionality of Outlook? Yes.
Does Google have a better search system? Yes!

Microsoft will suffer pooooor IBMs fate! (5, Funny)

kclittle (625128) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692821)

Oh, no! MS will fall to the wayside, just like IBM! Alas, such a fate!

Uh... IBM's revenues for 2004 were in the $96B range, with profits in the $8.4B range. http://www.ibm.com/investor/1q05/1q05earnings.phtm l [ibm.com] Pooooor IBM, Pooooor MS...

What's this RTG office killer? (5, Informative)

tcoady (22541) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692823)

From TFA He notes that Google's RTG feature already implements some 70 percent of the functions of Microsoft Office;.

What is that? The real time guardian in talk? Nothing obvious here: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define:rtg [google.co.uk]

shifting value: hardware, software, services (4, Interesting)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692824)

IBM thought they were king because they thought hardware was the real source of value. MS proved them wrong as Windows/Office software became the standard and PCs became commodities.

MS thinks they are the king because they think software is the real source of value. Google is out to prove that services (search, gmail, froogle, adwords, etc.) are the real source of value.

MS knows this and is trying to get into services, but I wonder if MSN search et al are the OS/2 of the day -- a dinosaur's attempt to compete on a changed playing field.

Their motto (2, Insightful)

Crixus (97721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692825)

Well... let's just hope the Google motto rules the day.

  Don't be evil. (or something like that)

However, in a market economy where ruthlessness is required to protect assets, I don't see how Google can compete with a company like MS, WITHOUT being evil. The question it, how will the fallout affect normal people. Will the fallout be evil?

Re:Their motto (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692844)

Can you define "evil"? It's a word that I've personally only heard used in children's fairy tales and by George Bush. In all honesty, I don't know what "evil" means in real life.

I, for one... (1)

bredk (838817) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692828)

I, for one, welcome our new non-gorilla overlords!

Chilling truth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13692830)

Then again: timely, coincidental or weird. This is what's on the bottom of this page today:
Finagle's Seventh Law: The perversity of the universe tends toward a maximum.
And this seems to be just that last straw: I'm dead serious here. i wish i could post a screenshot, but there is no such thing as a slash-attachment.

To confirm you're not a script,
please type the word in this image: inhuman

I'm not exactly feeling comfortable these days.

Woah woah woah (1)

el_womble (779715) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692835)

I thought this was to be the digital age of openness. That we would be free to use whatever software we liked, because programs can exchange information freely thanks to technologies like XML/XSLT and applications will run on any system because the source is open and modern languages are designed with portability in mind. Why oh why would we put ourselves in the position where single company rules the world again? Its for this reason that I think this guy is full of it. Yes, Google want to gain ground on Microsoft... who doesn't? If Google really wanted to improve the world they would be in tight negotiations with Apple, Linux, *BSD and Sun so that they can do the above - share data and applications between hetrogenous systems. Its not impossible, its greate for the consumer, and its greate for these companies. How many CEOs could really say that being beholden to a single company is good for share holders? But at the same time CEOs like Microsoft, because they make it easy to buy software - no one ever got fired for buying Microsoft. The vision is already coming true. There is a reason why Java did so well in the enterprise market - freedom to choose container providers, operating system and hardware vendor whilst only doing minimal porting for each choice. The next step is for the same CEOs that made that descision to start looking for the similar technologies on the desktop. Its not going to be Java. Its not going to be C/C++. It could be Mono/.Net, but I doubt it. The fact is that whilst Google / Apple / Linux / Sun / Linux and *BSD don't have a lingua franca Microsoft arn't going anywhere.

companies that do well against MS (2, Interesting)

Danathar (267989) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692838)

Companies that do well against microsoft specfically DON'T try to compete head to head with them. Microsoft's strategy has always been to bait a competitor to compete on their turf and then steamroller them.

It's been proven that if you create a product that's good, that people want to buy AND you don't sit on your ASS while Microsoft copies and then bundles your product with windows, you CAN succeed and flourish.

Remember....you don't have to BEAT Microsoft in order to win.

Re:companies that do well against MS (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692923)

Also, remember to keep away from chairs when Steve Balmer is around.

Innovation? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692842)

Get real. There has not been any real innovation for a long time.

Agreed, there has been a lot of evolution.. But innovation ceased a long time ago.

Googlix (1)

zpok (604055) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692850)

If there is one company I see succeeding in bringing linux to the masses it is Google. Too bad they aren't into the game (yet). They seem to have an understanding of the less is more attitude that makes average users happy (even those who swear they need more features instead of less).
And they have that intangible extra quality to bring services to the desktop that others can't do as easily as them, much the same way as Apple incorporated "digital lifestyle" doodahs in their OS (iLife), to which MS still is clueless, even with their Home Theatre ventures (which I personally think is a good idea desperately in need of sensible execution).

I hope it's by now proven that it's not by mimicking king MS that you'll beat them, it's by going one further while at the same time covering the bases.

Apple does it pretty well for a rather small but vocal audience, linux makes assorted computer wizards happy, who however are totally clueless to what an average user is (the mithical Joe Sixpack) and will keep proclaiming next year to be the year of Linux desktop, somehow believing that at that year everybody will change into them (commandline wizards). And meanwhile MS sees everything is well.

Google could do some real damage to the crowd that doesn't really care but is fed up nevertheless without a clue as to what to do about it.

I do hope they won't try any clever name (like googlix) and go for something like Google Desktop or the like.

Will google make a better master? (2, Insightful)

oogoody (302342) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692852)

We are not better off if google beats microsoft. The new boss is the same as the old boss, just different methods.

For what google is up to: http://radio.weblogs.com/0103955/categories/stupid HumanProgramming/2005/09/21.html#a200 [weblogs.com]

"They are building a real time customer profile on your real identity. This is a very valuable commodity as it gives google the ability to sell high value campaigns to advertisers.

This may are may not seem obvious to you, but it struck me in a tetris like way how all the bricks fit together if you are trying to build up a real time customer categorization system that can be used across all properties. Other companies might do the same thing using a portfolio approach. But google has taken a less direct Sun Tzu Art of War approach.

If you notice google doesn't create word processors or accounting programs. Almost everything they do is about getting content and getting you to provide an identity to them. ..."

There's one born every day (4, Insightful)

FishandChips (695645) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692864)

"According to 'The Google Legacy,' history is about to repeat itself."

History never repeats itself. I guess this guy is a little optimistic if he thinks folks will pay 180 dollars for a cliche that isn't true in the first place. Ebay is the place to sell cliches, I guess.

"When you have a problem with Windows, always reformat and reinstall" - what am I bid, $150, $180, $200??!
"Linux is the wave of the future" - opening at $8, no $10 to the gentleman on my right with the beard and sandals
"No one ever got fired for buying IBM" - we have telephone bids for $500

Besides, it's a bit premature to talk about the "legacy" of an outfit that's till in its infancy. Microsoft has $50 billion in cash, annual profits of around $12 billion and a vast monopoly. They aren't just going to roll over, stick their legs in the air and die.

The author doesn't understand google (1)

MECC (8478) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692878)


First of all, microsoft is threatened by everybody because microsoft tries to be into everything.

So, saying ms is threatened by google ( or anything/anyone else) is a no-brainer. This, by the way, pretty much describes the so-called author.

"In Arnold's analysis, he said some filings in the patent portfolio point to an accelerated use of high-speed fiber and wireless that could be used to deliver Google technology."

This isn't about how ms doesn't understand google. It about how Stephen E. Arnold doesn't understand the internet. It sounds as though he thinks google is going to try to build its own version of the internet, just for its own traffic. Next, they'll have special 'google' stations that only go to google, placed in coffee houses everywhere Then, you can buy one from google along with goole networking connections into your home with their ubquitous googled worldwide high-speed banana-peel-driven fiber network. Or, just use the worldwide google wireless network (that prioritizes google traffic over microsoft searches). All other wireless networks would of course just fall my the wayside.

It looks more like this Arnold character doesn't understand the idea of a feasible business model.

If this guy can get a book published, I should be able to get my used toilet paper published, no problem. Who's his publisher?

--
So many clueless people, so little time...

Maybe it is just me... (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692879)

...but I find all that kind of sensacional articles, thoughts, opinions like "the $a is killer of $b", "$c in future will beat shit out of $d, for sure!" useless and trash. At least for me, it DOESN'T matter who will win and how - as long as choice is left to me, not to some kind of majority.

Yeah, yeah, I know, everyone will claim now that it is important will Microsoft stay in future as powerful as it is now, will Google rulle search for at least five, years... Hmmm, I haven't seen anything they have to offer to me. Apple/PC hardware, Linux/BSD interesting project news, things which actually works - that matters.

It seems to me that Slashdot turned into some kind of investiment newsletter - "see, it's mee, it's mee, you should invest in me, I will beat Microsoft, well, after ten years maybe, okei, it is too late, but look at the screenshots!"

Even those stories about Xbox hacking, watercooling, etc. is much more interesting that such drivel.
I would like to see more stories about real difficulties and solutions for open source music recording, desktop publishing, mixed systems (OS X, Windows, Linux, BSD in one network), etc. It is stuff WHAT matters.

I just don't get it - does it is very important now? Microsoft will stay and Google will stay too. Maybe we should find a way to live along?

Maybe slashdot should think about some kind of integrity? Editors, please?

(Something insightful goes here) (5, Informative)

SuperDuG (134989) | more than 8 years ago | (#13692885)

Here's my problem. Well let me list my precursor problems first. 1.) Why is it that everytime someone writes some stupid story about google that it ends up on the front page? 2.) Why is google any more different than any other successful IT company? 3.) The search engine war is never EVER going to end.

Google is in no way shape or form a Microsoft company. Microsoft is a solid company that makes software, hardware, and a crap-ton of other things. They are not a "one really whizbang product" kind of company. I'm not an MS fan boy by any meas, but lets face facts here, MS is bigger, stronger, and richer than google. No questions asked, they are, period.

However, this brings up an interesting problem. Everyone thinks that MS is going to fail, but give them time, they have just recently announced that they plan to topple google. Let me remind everyone of some past MS "failures" and company's that "Couldn't be beat". Lets start out a little early ...

*Cue the flashback music*

Remember when the PC was something that was really expensive and that no one really knew what to do with except it could be used as a fancy typewriter and play games? Remember when there were a few company's at the time (for this flashback we'll only acknowledge two) Microsoft and Apple. Apple was going to revolutionize the world with the MAC. Moral of the story ... how many Mac's are there in comparison to PC's running windows?

*Cue more flashback music*

Remember when Mosaic and Navigator were the best kids on the block for viewing gopher:// [gopher] and http:/// [http] sites? Wow, those were the days. You had to pay for a copy of netscape ... PAY FOR A BROWSER. Life was good, then Mosaic's IP got bought by this weird company called Microsoft. And ... wouldn't you know it, they released Internet Explorer. Well one thing led to another and ... Moral of the story ... how many people use Internet Explorer now?

*Cue a Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the fire*

Now we find ourselves in the world of Office suite software. No longer is the office suite a word processor! No! In this world there is email, word processing, typesetting, flyer making, and who knows what else. Anyways There used to be this bastard of a product called Word Perfect (by bastard follow who all owned it ... Novell Corel ... etc) and then there was Microsoft Office. I'm not going to do anything catchy here, but lets face it, no one even really remember Word Perfect or Word Star or Star Office, or any of it. They use Microsoft Office ...

*Cue the rest of We Didn't Start the Fire*

Remember when if you wanted a network server, you used Unix or Novel? (Again for arguments sake we'll focus on the big boys). Remember when MS announced it was going to be bigger than Unix and Novel? Remember when everyone was sure that there was no way to ever be bigger than any of the network operating solutions? How many NT/Server 2k0/3 are out there now?

*Cue something classical ... Aerosmith perhaps*

Back to a generation some of you youngsters might remember. Remember when the three big players for video game consoles were Nintendo, Sega, and Sony? Remember who sold almost a comparable amount of X-Box's to the PS-2 (by year not in whole). Yup, Microsoft again.

What I'm getting at is this. If there's one thing Microsoft knows, it knows how to create a market for itself and give the market what it needs. When it wants to dedicate resources to taking something over, it does it, and it does it full out. The new MS search isn't really all that great right now, but lets just look at the facts ...

Google has gmail, which is pretty popular. Microsoft has hotmail, which is more popular.
Google has gtalk (or whatever the hell its called). Microsoft has MSN, which is more popular.
Google has google.com. Microsoft has the worlds most used internet browser that defaults itself to msn.com as its homepage.

Face facts, google can't beat microsoft if microsoft doesn't want to be beat.

As far as ad revenue goes, would you people please look at all the things that MS owns that can utilize advertising ... now please ... tell me exactly where google is beating MS at anything.

pontification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13692905)

Let the author pontificate, but $180 per download of a pdf file?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?