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 a "Wake-Up Call" For Microsoft

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the don't-count-them-out dept.

Microsoft 173

wooha points out coverage of a talk Microsoft's chief software architect, Ray Ozzie, gave at a Goldman Sachs conference in Las Vegas. Ozzie said that watching Google rake in advertising revenue was a wake-up call within Microsoft. He said Microsoft plans to do more than simply follow Google's lead by creating Web-based versions of desktop programs or duplicating its search and advertising model. (Despite Microsoft's massive investment in promoting and improving Web-based search, the company still has less than 10% of search engine market share, compared to Google's ~50% and growing.) Ozzie, who has only made a few appearances since his promotion last June to replace Bill Gates as CSA, told analysts and investors that he has been laying the groundwork for programmers across the company to build Internet-based software.

cancel ×

173 comments

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

Moo (5, Insightful)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193526)

And thus, Microsoft continues its grand tradition of being late to the scene, introducing technologies we've been seeing for years in a new and annoying format, and generally maintaining the status quo in the fashion to which we have become accustomed. Mediocrity, ho!

Re:Moo (4, Funny)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193572)

And thus, Microsoft continues its grand tradition of being late to the scene, introducing technologies we've been seeing for years in a new and annoying format, and generally maintaining the status quo in the fashion to which we have become accustomed. Mediocrity, ho!
But what about the "ribbon". Surely you find that a new technology. There's NO WAY anyone could consider THAT an annoying format.

Re:Moo (4, Funny)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194184)

But what about the "ribbon". Surely you find that a new technology. There's NO WAY anyone could consider THAT an annoying format.

Let me see what the Bob thinks ...

Re:Moo (1)

sarathmenon (751376) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194436)

You are forgetting the biggest innovations of Microsoft - Clippy, and UAC!

Re:Moo (1)

charlieman (972526) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194542)

Actually that ribbon looked a lot like blender's tool bar to me. Only blender's is way more flexible.

Re:Moo (2, Interesting)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194764)

Well, as a matter of interest, how about a quickie thumbnail survey?

(1) How many Slashdotters have used Microsoft's Search more than once?
(2) How many have ever used it at all?

FWIW, my answers are "not me" and "yup".

Re:Moo (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195306)

>(2) How many have ever used it at all?
Tried it a couple of times and to be honest quite liked it and it produced good results. However, Google is my home page and well, it's there when I fire up my browser and intertia sort of takes over.

Re:Moo (1)

GeePrime (831254) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195320)

Microsoft has a search?

First Chimes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18193598)

Microsoft products get on my chimes.

First Lamer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18195106)

How's the astroturfin' working for ya?

"Integrating" them into the OS. (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193636)

Remember, Microsoft still has their desktop monopoly. That gives them the edge is "integrating" new tech.

Which is also why Microsoft cannot follow Google's lead on this. Microsoft's revenue is based upon the concept of:
one user
per physical box
per licensed OS copy
per licensed office suit copy.

Microsoft will not do anything that could harm those revenue streams.

Re:"Integrating" them into the OS. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18194490)

Remember, Microsoft still has their desktop monopoly. That gives them the edge is "integrating" new tech.

That may be true, but I think that what will play a part is the fact that most people did not consciously choose Microsoft software and most people don't "love" their Windows environment. Windows is just what came with their computers and if the news media told the truth and said, "Folks, we have another Windows virus/trojan/spyware instead of another "computer" virus, etc., then people would hate MS software even more.

Re:Moo (2, Funny)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193710)

It's call inovation! Silly.

Don't you remeber your brainwashing?

Re:Moo (2, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193750)

Except for one thing. Google (and Apple) are adept at something Microsoft is terrible at: making products consumers want to use.

Microsoft's strength has always been sellign to people who buy technology for other people to use. The only success they've had seling to consumers is the XBox. I'm not a gamer, so I wouldn't know why that would be, but I'd guess it has something to do with the importance of developers to game consoles. In a sense, it's just another platform to sell. If that is true, then consumers aren't buying the XBox for an XBox experience, but to experience games written by third parties.

The question is whether they can crack the corporate market on the basis of their bottom up appeal. I think they can, because they have credibilty with IT departments because just about every IT guy is a regular user of one or more Google services.

Re:Moo (3, Funny)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194806)

The only success they've had seling to consumers is the XBox.

You're forgetting the Zune, of course. The brown one. :-P

Re:Moo (1)

MajinBlayze (942250) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195398)

Microsoft's strength has always been sellign to people who buy technology for other people to use. The only success they've had seling to consumers is the XBox. I'm not a gamer, so I wouldn't know why that would be, but I'd guess it has something to do with the importance of developers to game consoles. In a sense, it's just another platform to sell. If that is true, then consumers aren't buying the XBox for an XBox experience, but to experience games written by third parties.

Interestingly, the 360 is the first console I've seen that isn't just a "platform on witch to sell software". Instead, the Media Center Extender is pretty neat, my father has a 360, and runs picture slideshows at family gatherings. Additionally, the whole profile concept is fairly new to the console world, and it makes having a family that shares one console very convenient. Additionally, the xbox firmware (there's a fancy name for it, can't remember) interacts with the game more than others that I've seen. As much as I hate to say it, especially here, the 360 is an interesting and well-designed console.

hmm, probably should change my sig to avoid seeming to be a Microsoft shill :)
I personnally don't have an xbox, my father has one, and we will get on it together when I'm over there. also, I use Gentoo at home; and have mostly gotten rid of all things microsoft in my life :)

Re:Moo (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18193842)

I always picture a half dozen angry senior executives poring over analyst reports and press clippings showing how well some competitor is doing (where "competitor" is defined as anyone doing anything related to software or digital technology, however distant from operating systems and office suites) until Steve or Bill looks around and declares, We should be getting this.


Not some of this, or another big opportunity like this one. They mean Microsoft rightfully owns all of this business that the upstart has created for itself. That's what drives Bill and Steve, and that's what drives the top software company in the world.

Re:Moo (1)

tb3 (313150) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195236)

Your comment reminds me of the scene in "Pirates of Silicon Valley" where Bill Gates is charging though the corridors of Microsoft, pushing a trolley with a prototype Mac on it. He's screaming something like, "I want this! Why don't we have this!?"

Re:Moo (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193858)

This is what happens when you're no longer in the business of solving problems.

They [they being all sorts of people not just msft] often use the term "solution" when they really mean "product." I question what problems they think they're actually SOLVING with their "solutions."

I think both companies lost a firm grip on reality when they think that a web-based office suite makes more sense than say Office or OpenOffice. Sure there will be a good initial blast of popularity, but unless people like lag and absolutely no privacy, I can't see web-based "solutions" taking off.

Tom

Re:Moo (4, Informative)

mikeisme77 (938209) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194100)

Google has never claimed that Google Docs was an office replacement--they've always said it was meant to supplement traditional productivity suites. The main advantage of Google Docs (if you've ever used it) is the ability to easily collaborate with other writers of a document that are miles away. Yes, you can do the same thing with a wiki; however, many wikis lock users from editing a document if one user is already editing it--Google Docs doesn't (although if two users are editing the same section of a document, it will warn a user that their changes will be discarded and pop up a Window displaying the changes so they can be copied and re-added). Google Docs, unlike a wiki, also allows easier, more intuitive formatting that will stick when you export it to a traditional productivity suite (wikis don't allow you to export--you must copy and paste into the productivity suite). Plus, not all users need a full featured productivity suite and for those who don't, Google Docs serves as a great alternative solution. I also greatly enjoy the ability to have access to my document no matter where I am as long as I have access to the Internet--yes I can do the same thing with a flash drive, but I really do find Google Docs to be the more convenient solution.

Re:Moo (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194134)

latex + CVS + input files == multi-user editing of a single document. :-)

And it will look better to boot.

FLAME ON!

Re:Moo (1)

mikeisme77 (938209) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194266)

Point well taken, but then you don't have the portability I mentioned (as you have to have CVS and Latex installed on all the computers you want to edit the document on). You also lack the ease of use of Google Docs (although that, admittedly, needs some improvement still--changing the name of the documents is non-intuitive and some people who have never used GMail that I've collaborated on documents with have had problems finding some editing features--such as highlighting text). You're definitely right about the Latex solution looking better though--for one it's Latex, for 2 Google Docs needs some serious improvement in the layout end of things--it's far too limited so I pretty much just do it for getting the words on the paper and then reformat it in Office/OpenOffice later if it's a document that has specific formatting criteria (such as a two column formatted abstract/paper).

Re:Moo (2, Insightful)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194318)

yes but how many average joe's that can barely use Windows are going to know how to use latex, even know what it is, or even know what Linux is?

Re:Moo (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194322)

haha, you have to have a good imagination to have any idea what the doc will look like. LaTeX is all about the logic of the document, and most people would rather worry about the appearance. Horrible collaboration toolset there, might look better but be wrong if someone forgets or ignores another's cvs update.

Re:Moo (1)

mdozturk (973065) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194560)

latex + CVS + input files

vs. the simplicity of using google apps? What you suggest doesn't even come close.

Re:Moo (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194974)

What else are you doing that crafting professional documents is a waste of time? Honestly, sometimes I think people forget the nature of existence.

Pshaw, I can't possibly make a proper looking document, I'm just soooo busy with my social life. Lah-di-fucking-di-da-doo.

Tom

Re:Moo (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195222)

Depends on the circumstances. I wouldn't even consider google apps for my math papers, but I think we all know that's a microscopic niche market. And if you're a company with trade secrets? Google apps aren't the way.

Objective vs. Result (1)

JacksBrokenCode (921041) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195466)

Google has never claimed that Google Docs was an office replacement--they've always said it was meant to supplement traditional productivity suites.

You must've missed the Google manager: Google Apps replaced Microsoft Office at 100,000 businesses [itwire.com.au] article. Yes, the Google rep uses a political "it's a supplement, not a replacement" line, but he also says, "We have hundreds of thousands of small to medium businesses that have already...switched their entire infrastructure over to Google Apps." Whether or not they are claiming Office-replacement as a goal, they certainly are touting it as a result.

Re:Moo (2, Interesting)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194590)

whether there's privacy or not depends on ethics and security of service provider. there's also the possibility of google web service software running on a private server (maybe they even open source the stuff someday). Some web based services have taken off hugely, like email and http servers. The delay and lag depend on the network infrastructure, been getting better over the last 20 years. The real barrier to office-type software being web based I think is mostly getting people to use what is necessary rather than bloat and cruft to accomplish 95% of what office docs need to do. We're mostly doing what used to be done with a single-font typewriter or printer and a copier and scissors/paste, but in full color, multiple fonts and visual effects, and taking five times as long to produce these (f)artworks.

Re:Moo (2, Interesting)

snottgoblin (957976) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194612)

"Sure there will be a good initial blast of popularity, but unless people like lag and absolutely no privacy, I can't see web-based "solutions" taking off."

There are more and more people who value availability and accessibility than those who even think about privacy. Just look at the widespread adoption of email, with people putting out their entire personal lives in the hands of the email providers.

If there is enough exposure to such web-based office suites and folks start considering the fact that the chances of loss of data might be lesser this way than having to store it on their disks and back it up, I would think that there might be more widespread adoption.

Re:Moo (you missed "appropiating") (2, Insightful)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194284)

The last stage of your apt introduction is the bit where Microsoft appropiate the technology as their own having removed the original innovator.

They remove the original innovator by a number of means: outright purchase and asset strip (stacker?), use their monopoly (netscape, firewalls, antivirus), FuD (linux - thats not working so well for them)... Have I missed any?

But once the original innovator is gone they can claim it as their own. And force us to use their cack-handed implementation in (to paraphrase the parent) "an annoying format". And what is worse, we let them.

Fume. Froth. Soapbox.

Re:Moo (you missed "appropiating") (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195188)

They remove the original innovator by a number of means: outright purchase and asset strip (stacker?), use their monopoly (netscape, firewalls, antivirus), FuD (linux - thats not working so well for them)... Have I missed any?

Maybe Spyglass/IE. Microsoft acquired the rights to distribute, provided Spyglass got a percentage of the profits from IE. Microsoft then set the price to zero, so they didn't have to send any money to Spyglass.

Part of the blame would be on Spyglass, since they didn't require a minimum amount of money per copy, just a percentage (any percentage of zero is zero).

Re:what if? (1)

xonicx (1009245) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194488)

what if MS wraps a x11 client in HTTP as a IE7 update and start delivering bunch of application which is pain to replicate in browser. Users will get better application in short time and MS can take a lead.

I assume MS will make sure that x11 client works with MS only.

Re:Moo (3, Insightful)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194644)

That's what I thought when I read the synopsis. Microsoft isn't waking up, it's just working harder to play catch up.

On another forum I go to, someone has as their signature (roughly) "IE7- a 7th generation browser in a world of 8th gen browsers", and it's true. Microsoft didn't include tabs in their browser until FireFox and Opera had already been doing it for a while.

As Linux becomes a more viable OS, especially if Google's new apps take off, Microsoft is going to find itself more and more strained as it offers less and less innovation and improvements- the leap from Win98 to Win2K was quite a large one, the leap from 2K to XP less, and XP to Vista even less than that.

This is news? (4, Insightful)

DelawareBoy (757170) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193532)

Come on.. This really isn't news. Does anyone not believe Google is a wakeup call to Microsoft? And if Steve Balmer's Chair throwing is any indication, they were aware of it long before Ray Ozzie was promoted to CSA.

Re:This is news? (4, Funny)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193596)

Cry Havoc, and let slip the chairs of war!

Re:This is news? (2, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193702)

Yes, this time it might be news, if you consider this: Mr Ozzie might be recognizing something, that brand recognition and locking consumers and PC manufacturers into your product is not enough. You *ALSO* have to be a company that people *LIKE*. (note the Mac and PC ad campaign among other things)

No matter how much you make or how much market share you have, you will eventually lose it if consumers don't like you or your new products. There will always be a "new kid in town" that will take center stage.

If MS had a good reputation and were a company that people liked on a level par with their market share, they would have nothing to worry about from Google, Mac, iPods, or anyone else. The trouble is that they don't have what they really need to grow profits against "the new kids in town" anymore, or so it seems.

Re:This is news? (5, Interesting)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193818)

> Does anyone not believe Google is a wakeup call to Microsoft?

Yahoo is the only search engine that appears to be holding Google off.
Does anyone not believe Yahoo is a wakeup call to Google? Why have all others declined while yahoo's cleats are so firmly entrenched at the 3 yard line? That should at least give google inc some pause for concern. I say the reason is in small part because yahoo mail is so popular [hitwise.com] - driving so many users to their other services in part from clickity click convenience alone. Personally, I still find myself using yahoo mail exclusively over gmail. That thing ever gonna move from beta?

Re:This is news? (2, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195382)

That thing ever gonna move from beta?

What's going to change when it "moves" from beta? At this point isn't it merely semantics? It's just a way for Google to say it's not officially supported (and maybe save a little money).

Re:This is news? (2, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193844)

Google is a wake up to MSFT. Just like the Internet was a Wake up call to Win95. Just Like Netscape was a Wake up call to IE. Firefox starts taking marketshare, MSFT releases IE 7 which was supposed to be for Vista only for XP too.

MSFT is a medicore following company. They will always get a wake up call after a new industry has been established. MSFT then moves in using their money to buy out or kill the competition, bleed the market dry and say the idea was a bad one to begin with as it is lying around dead.

Re:This is news? (1)

dc29A (636871) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194072)

Come on.. This really isn't news. Does anyone not believe Google is a wakeup call to Microsoft? And if Steve Balmer's Chair throwing is any indication, they were aware of it long before Ray Ozzie was promoted to CSA.

This is news because some highly placed honcho at MS is finally recognizing that their monopoly might be slowly eroding. Not saying MS is dead next year, but IMO MS will slowly die over the next 10 or so years, unless of course major changes occur within MS.

- Their competitors have brand names that are associated with "cool" or are simply dictionary words. MS has Zune squirting!
- Google is taking on Office that works on multiple platforms. Yes it's nowhere near as good as Office, it's a start with a recognized brand name.
- Google is dominating the search market.
- There isn't much growth left in OS and Office markets, in fact MS is his own enemy.

As much as Ray Ozzie has the technical chops (1, Interesting)

gelfling (6534) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193538)

To go and develop a truly underappreciated application such as Lotus Notes, I have to wonder what on earth qualifies him to make pan-Industry statements like this? I honestly don't believe that Ray Ozzies understands anything more of this apart from what his bosses at Redmond tell him, than I do. Ok so Google is 'significant'! They pay you to think that up? Because any idiot would draw the same conclusion. Maybe it's more indicative of Microsoft that it TAKES, a senior uber Executive vice president to know this that this is precisely where the real problem with Microsoft is.

Re:As much as Ray Ozzie has the technical chops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18193666)

Ray Ozzie also developed Groove. You should take a look at it. Then re-read what he said about network applications and get back to us.

"build Internet-based software" (2, Insightful)

Anomalyst (742352) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193540)

Ah yes, the infamous MS "innovation" of follow the leader (badly).

First advert out of the gates: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18195332)

(announcer's voice) A brand new installment of mymemo.doc is coming right up. But first a word from Clippy!

(cue cheesy music) Da ta ta ta da da, daaaaaaaa!

(really irritating whiny voice) "Hey folks, I'm your old friend Clippy. You know me as that loveable little animated paper clip that caused both ammunition and replacement monitor sales to rocket to an all-time high. But did you also know that I suffer from ......... diarrhea? That's why I take Dysprosium, twice a day. And you should too!

And now, back to mymemo.doc
" [blink, blink]

Snooze button.... (1)

blankoboy (719577) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193544)

I think Microsoft hit the snooze button a few times too many and the wakeup came too late. The train has already left the station and Microsoft is too far behind. No amount of throwing chairs is going to bring that train back to the station either Ballmer.

Waking Dream? (4, Insightful)

griffjon (14945) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193576)

Microsoft didn't "wake up" to the right set of ideas - it's not google's services that are beating Microsoft into the ground, it's their general openness and interoperability. Microsoft can put Office online and create a search technology that can find a needle in a haystack not even linked by RFID tags to the tubes, but if they continue to play their embrace/extend/extinguish games instead of opening up, as an internal cultural change, what they produce will continue to be hindered by this proprietary mindset.

(It's not even like they have to jump ship into OSS - Google's technology by and large is closed source, they just play ball better)

Re:Waking Dream? (2, Insightful)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193914)

(It's not even like they have to jump ship into OSS - Google's technology by and large is closed source, they just play ball better)

But built on open source Linux is it not? Google proves Linux can and does scale well.

Re:Waking Dream? (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194342)

Google proves Linux can and does scale well.

It's not only a "scaling story", but a stability story too ...

Yesterday I visited a small charter school I helped get started when they had no money. It's been six years. I setup an email system for them using various Linux software. I showed their full time IT guy how it all worked, but he came from a Microsoft world, such that his knowledge was. I left the area for awhile and didn't check back with them. Six years later, I'm back and check to see how they are - three IT guys later. They're still using the same system - unchanged - and unrebooted - running on an old Pentium 166, serving a staff of 30 with sendmail and ("slow, but good enough") imap. They're afraid to mess with it - it simply works. I'm aghast at the lack of backups, etc., but there you have it. I hope to (carefully) bring them a little more up to date.

Re:Waking Dream? (1)

mdozturk (973065) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194634)

So that is the cause of the increase in spam ...

Re:Waking Dream? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18195514)

It's possible that embrace/extend/extinguish will not work for Web2.0 at the app level. This reminds me of analysis made within the Halloween documents (http://www.catb.org) to the effect that FUD will not work against Linux.

I don't know if interoperability is really the key, rather it is developer mindshare. I could imagine that the embrace/extend/extinguish strategy might work if it is applied to AJAX, rather than any web app. in particular. To do this, they would have to build AJAX support into .NET, aggressively roll this out in their own ecosystem, and somehow have a version that is so cheap and compelling that it is used by everyone.

Re:Waking Dream? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18195526)

So basically what you are saying is unless you open source your shop you can never compete? Am I hearing this clearly?

But will they actually wake up? (2, Interesting)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193606)

Google: Simple compatible web pages that do what customers want, not evil, everything is beta.

MS: Messy incompatible monolithic apps, scofflaws, ship the alpha version if the deadline arrives.

Yes, it's a wake up call, but I can't see any signs of MS actually waking up and learning anything from Google's succeess.

Re:But will they actually wake up? (3, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193808)

Don't fall alseep just yet. Remeber that skit back in the 80's were microsoft was touting the web browers as a programs front end or GUI?

I think they called them web apps back then too but the idea was you could use a web browser instead of all the other fascinating things microsoft had their hands on at the time. I think this lead into some of the IE security problems too. It is likley, This was a ploy to just lock in IE and create a need in 98 past what critics were aying. But they do have experience in this area in more then one way. (MSN games and such)

So, to discount microsoft for being asleep at the switch when they did alot of this stuff in the late 80's could be disasterous. Outside the being on another computer part, Some might says they were farther along then Google and whoever else are right now.

Re:But will they actually wake up? (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194244)

I'm curious as to which "web apps" you think Microsoft was developing in the 1980's?

Re:But will they actually wake up? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195030)

They were calling them web apps but it was basicly a buzzword associated with using IE as the front end to some program. IT definatly isn't the same web app as we are seeing today. But this doesn't mean they are irelevent.

How this is relevent, They have experience in getting programs to display properly in web browsers and retaining the full functionality as if the programs were regularly designed as we see them today. Office 98 relied a lot of this in their installer and stuff. MS has somewhat of a leg up in these depertment were Google or anyone else is still leanring. The idea MS is sitting back and whating everyone else inovete might be misleading. MS could in fact be sitting back and watching everyone create a market then jump in adding their extras. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they cn regurgutate what they did in the 80's and expect it to fly. But they do have some of the bugs worked out that others had to do and they will have an easier time going to market if the market is actualy there.

Re:But will they actually wake up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18195182)

In the late 80's?

Have you checked your coffee lately? Does it taste strange?

Re:But will they actually wake up? (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195190)

I think you missed the point. The query was regarding the 80's, you know, long before the web...

Re:But will they actually wake up? (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195392)

80's. You know, DOS, 128k-512k RAM, CGA or maybe Hercules? Not web apps.

Re:But will they actually wake up? (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195602)

In related news, I heard that Motorola was relying heavily on their development of the cell phone in the 1820's.

Internet-based? (5, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193618)

Ozzie, who has only made a few appearances since his promotion last June to replace Bill Gates as CSA, told analysts and investors that he has been laying the groundwork for programmers across the company to build Internet-based software.
You mean, ActiveX-based software, right? It's not like these applications are going to really function on any platform other than Internet Explorer (and even then, probably 6.0 MINIMALLY) and Windows XP, and there will be no support for Linux, UNIX, OSX, Windows 2000, etc...

Google offers a great opportunity for those who want to break themselves of the Microsoft habit. Cross-platform, functional on multiple OSes, web browsers, and with minimal requirements.

Re:Internet-based? (0, Troll)

ednopantz (467288) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195318)

Yep, cross platform like Google Earth and Picasa...

Re:Internet-based? (1)

StrawberryFrog (67065) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195646)

You mean, ActiveX-based software, right? It's not like these applications are going to really function on any platform other than Internet Explorer

1996 called, and they want their view of Microsoft back. Things have changed rapidly, better get used to it.

I haven't seen anything new promoted by Microsoft lately that used ActiveX. ASP.net 2 generates xhtml and targets 4 browsers [microsoft.com] (IE6+ Firefox, Opera, Safari) and WPF/E [microsoft.com] is explicitly cross-platform.

Google is cherry picking MSFT's lunch (5, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193686)

The most difficult market to take out of MSFT's grasp is the Office software, with legacy files, macros, APIs, integration with workflow etc. And since Office is tied to Windows OS, it allows MSFT to continually tweak the OS, foist upgrades in a never ending cycle. But another big cake in MSFT's plate is the license revenue from the Microsoft Exchange Server. It is not bulk priced, every email id created by the its corporate clients not MSFT, creates license revenue for MSFT. This is the market most easily wrenched from MSFT's grasp.

A good browser is all the interface needed to deliver email. And not being tied to a machine but being available over the net is a useful thing. So the Google Calender and email can compete with MSFT. That is where is Google is making a move. The corporate email market is so big and is such a huge revenue generator, there is place for both Google and Exchange and Lotus Notes and may be yet another player. If Google corners anywhere between 20% to 33% of the corporate email market, it can outfox MSFT. If the next upgrade of Vista is not compatible with Gmail's corporate clients, they would even consider not upgrading. Already there is some reluctance in the marketplace to upgrade and people are getting upgrade-weary. If the OS upgrade forcing Office grade cycle gets broken, and if some corporations demand true interoperability instead of settling for MSFT compatibility, cracks will develop in MSFT's dominance. But it is all well into the future. Might take 5 years for this to happen.

Re:Google is cherry picking MSFT's lunch (1)

popeye44 (929152) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194712)

We use notes at work and while it's not my favorite client we run it for 25,000 users at a cost of 9.00 per user. There isn't anything that compares to that price. "in my very limited knowledge of enterprise clients" The new web based Notes is almost the same as your desktop and they can share address books etc. It's very functional has a wysiwyg text editor much like gmail. Now I'm saying NEW.. but of course this being government we're a couple of versions down from the current Notes release. We're at 6.5. Notes client is still a bit of a resource hog.

Next "home work" for Google (2, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193762)

My suggestion to Google is to take multimedia its next "home work." Why not find a way to popularize open video and audio formats like ogg? As an example, the popular Google summer of code would have a project specifically geared to creating plug-ins that enable windows based multimedia players play ogg based formats.

Next, it then becomes our burden to make sure we wean ourselves off Microsoft's formats an to popularize this move.

Ads in Vista (4, Funny)

moxsam (917470) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193768)

What's next is advertisements in Vista.

Re:Ads in Vista (3, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194658)

Microsoft would like to send you an ad. Cancel/Allow. [Cancel]
Are you sure you want to cancel? Cancel/Allow. [Cancel]
Microsoft has added you to the list of people who will receive ads.

What the hell just happened?

Always too little too late (4, Interesting)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193784)

As the story states Microsoft is after the advertising revenue, not really actually interested in providing the rich content that google strives for.

There is where the difference lies, Microsoft does not see this or many of the other markets it shoves it's foot into as a "we can do this better because we care", it's more like "hey, there's someone making money on this, lets do it too!" and that's how they approach it. They make a shortlist of competitive features and try to cover those.. and little else. Then talk the talk of what people are saying about thier competition ("we're secure, you can share, we're open, we got what you are looking for. etc.")

Microsoft hasn't been innovating for years, it's more like they play a continual game of catch-up.

Re:Always too little too late (4, Insightful)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194106)

> Microsoft hasn't been innovating for years

Microsoft Research innovates like crazy. It's just rare that anything ever escapes alive and in recognizable form from MSR.

Hell, what has Linux innovated lately? Desktops on spinning cubes?

Re:Always too little too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18194224)

Hell, what has Linux innovated lately?

- DRM-LESS Kernal.
- Price.
- Pirate users welcome.
- Doesn't treat the user like a thief.
- 64-Bit.
- Speed.
- Reliability.
- /proc interface.
- profit.

Re:Always too little too late (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18194354)

Anyone want to try listing some real innovations?

Any list that includes 'welcomes piracy' as an innovation isn't worth the pixels you're reading it on.

Re:Always too little too late (2, Insightful)

Paul Bristow (118584) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194720)

How about (for free):

a single OS that scales from tiny embedded systems up to supercomputers
many CPU architectures supported
pluggable filesystem support
pluggable scheduler support
ALSA - a decent multi-interface audio system
Low-latency support for media
Useable kernel level Software RAID
Oh and a Unix compatible system that replaced things costing $1000s back in the mid 90's.
affordable NAT
affordable firewalling

There's probably more, and some of these things appeared elsewhere first, but Linux got them deployed widely.

Re:Always too little too late (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195016)

The extent to which linux fails on all its basic desktop/multimedia workstation fronts makes the price tag for windows or mac seem quite acceptable.

Wasn't 'lately' a key term here? Linux has always been technologically lagging professionally developed kernels. It's still a horrid mess. It takes money and corporate organization to make a massive technological software project worth a damn.

See: Any open source project not developed by a corporation.

Where are these fairy-tale innovations that corporate OS's don't have?

Re:Always too little too late (1)

The Notorious ASP (628859) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194676)

Speaking of Microsoft Research... Andy Wilson [microsoft.com] - Check out the videos for Touchlight and PlayAnywhere - very cool stuff.

Re:Always too little too late (1)

lubricated (49106) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194704)

>> Hell, what has Linux innovated lately? Desktops on spinning cubes?

Linux is an operating system kernel, not a person or a company, it's not sentient, and it's not going to innovate anything. I'm glad you were able to turn a microsoft bash into some kind of anti linux comment. You also forgot to bash apple and bsd.

Re:Always too little too late (5, Insightful)

notaprguy (906128) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194324)

I'm sorry but what "rich content" does Google provide? Google is the yellow pages so I guess if you consider advertising "rich content" then your statement is accuraet. If you think that Google isn't motivated by financial interests then you're a very scary type of pollyanna. Also, if I were the paranoid type (which I'm not) I'd be way more scared of Google than I am of Microsoft. Google knows who you are, what you do on the Internet, who you conduct transactions with, who you send email to (if you use Gmail) etc etc.

Lotus Notes meets Web 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18193792)

Why do I have this image in my mind of a large dirigible approaching a mooring mast in a thunderstorm?

Hiring woes (1)

pohones (1067460) | more than 6 years ago | (#18193824)


As it seems, they are really trying to fool people about Google. A lot of posts about Google in the Microsoft hiring blog:

http://blogs.msdn.com/jobsblog [msdn.com]

Re:Hiring woes (1)

Sneakernets (1026296) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194260)

From that site:

So, when candidates ask me if I am afraid of Google, Facebook,



Holy shit, when you make any successful site or business on the web, you're considered COMPETITION?

On the bright side, Search "google" on the msdn tech careers blog. You'll find them laughing at Google for "horrible business ideas" and other misc. idiocy. They sure are eating those words now!

ozzie eh.. (1)

SohCahToa (1038480) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194022)

Ozzie, who has only made a few appearances since his promotion last June to replace Bill Gates as CSA, told analysts and investors that he has been laying the groundwork for programmers across the company to build Internet-based software.

He did so by bitting off the head off a bat, then making a reality show about himself.

Love the google adwords ads shown here (1)

DoctorEternal (189062) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194172)

I bet slashdot is raking in it's share from Google too. :)
Dr.E
http://www.turingshop.com/ [turingshop.com] -- 3D Space Opera

We are lucky... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18194188)

That MS can't afford to buy Google.

sh1t (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18194200)

Why play fair when you don't have to? (2, Insightful)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194202)

He said Microsoft plans to do more than simply follow Google's lead
...they plan to also leverage their monopoly.

Google only has 50% of the search market? (1)

creationer (985324) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194230)

Huh, I thought it would be higher...I guess yahoo isn't that bad after all.

Re:Google only has 50% of the search market? (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194464)

Huh, I thought it would be higher

Well, one could argue that they have the important 50% - the 50% that also has excess cash to spend on advertisers offerings. Look at who's making money and who ain't ...

Also, I question the 50% number. According to zdnet [zdnet.com]

According to estimates close to 90 percent of Google's visits are search-related, compared to about 10 percent for Yahoo. Google has also proven that search offers better financial rewards, outpacing Yahoo in revenue by close to $3 billion for the first three quarters of 2006.

Business (1)

RahoulB (178873) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194282)

The key phrase was that "business customers won't like it". MS doesn't actually care about consumers - they are just after the multinationals

Googled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18194440)

Dutifully, I did Google "a wake up call for Microsoft", and, wouldn't you know it, I found TFA!!!

No it's not (2, Insightful)

WingedEarth (958581) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194500)

Microsoft doesn't appear to be anywhere close to woken up. When was the last time Microsoft actually offered something new, rather than copying other people?

Re:No it's not (1)

Serapth (643581) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194892)

Sharepoint 2007
Office 2007
Sql 2K5 w/ CLR .NET 3.0
XNA
Tablet PCs

Need I keep going, or do you not want your happy anti-Microsoft fantasy shattered? MS has tons of "new", ironically, all of it will be copied by the open source world in the next few years, but hey... whats a few double standards between zealots, eh?

Google is Evil now. of COURSE m$ is interested... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#18194708)

Google says "Be Not Evil" and schedules rigorous drama classes to build sham 'goody feely' nameshare.
Google allows and uses evil practices to garner 'additional' advertising revenue for zero additional value.

When are the advertisers going to learn that the "CONTENT NETWORK" is garbage? Stop paying for people's missed clicks in gmail.

It's sad that bad ethics are not considered evil these days.

It's a brand problem (1)

BlueCoder (223005) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194824)

Evidently no one at the top at Microsoft has a clue about brand names and company image. By Microsoft trying to be a one size fits all we do everything company, it's losing it's identity. People just don't trust the name Microsoft or that one company can be good at many things. The brand Microsoft isn't even recognized as making good software, just as being dominant in the industry and cut throat.

What people instinctively know is that for every product and business you need a leader and a vision. It would just be way better if Microsoft started businesses as DBA's all with their own organizations or just spun off new companies. It would still be the same people owning the companies and receiving the profits but they would be real brands and have identities of their own.

Sure Goggle many have it's fingers in many pots but when it comes down to it I recognize them as an Internet and web services company. If they tried to sell me a desktop operating system I'd look at them cross-eyed.

Google simply the best (1)

nevvamind (988833) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194858)

I was looking for the typical new.gif for my company's Intranet webiste, tried searching on both Google & Live.
Results were amazing.
Try it out for yourselves, search for new.gif in Google Image search Vs Live Image search.
What you realise instantaneously is that microsoft's search operates in an entirely different dimension (and wrong context(s)) !
No wonder google has the lead.

You know... (1)

superbus1929 (1069292) | more than 6 years ago | (#18194972)

The last time I checked, "Microsoft" had not become a verb. When we search for something, we "Google" it nowadays. We can't say Microsoft has achieved that status with anything... not yet. Maybe when someone overprices a new product that does virtually nothing new, we can say they "Microsofted" the product? Oh! How about when someone releases a product that limits what you can do with said product and locks it up if you don't follow the rules? Is that "Microsofting"?

All I know is that whenever someone is so successful that they break the rules of English, then they've kinda-sorta surpassed you on the relevancy scale. ;)

Re:You know... (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195350)

>The last time I checked, "Microsoft" had not become a verb
Speak for yourself. Here we have lots of systems that are Microsofting their data. And it ain't pretty.

Google - really 50%? (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195132)

Every site I look after typically has 90-95% of incoming search engine hits coming from Google. People I talk to report the same. I'm surprised Google's share is said to be as low as 50%.

Microsoft is NOT an Internet company (2, Insightful)

ScaredOfTheMan (1063788) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195260)

I don't mean to point out the obvious but MS is not an Internet company (even with OZ's help). They are OS and standalone application developers...who are able to use TCP and UDP in their products but certainly do not have the corp. balls to do something really innovative to get them noticed on the net.

The reason they are getting their @ss handed to them this time around (in search, social networking etc), is they can't bend the will of users to use their sub par products like in days gone by. No more proprietary formats or files, they really have to compete if they want to win, and to compete means take risks...and its for that reason that they will not win.

They got lots money...and a nice chunk of the desktop market...but that's not as important as it used to be. One final example, flash video basically demolished wmv as the defacto standard of video sharing overnight. First it was hardware abstraction...now its OS abstraction...and then what will MS do?

What the hell? (4, Informative)

kimvette (919543) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195596)

Why is it that when Microsoft, dominating an entire industry, sees another company doing well in a quasi-related niche, feel compelled to enter and dominate that industry as well?

I'm a capitalist through and through but I'm so fucking sick of Microsoft.

I'm sick of hearing how secure Vista is, when their Vista security features are so annoying 99% of users will probably disable them.
I'm sick of hearing how much of a vast improvement Vista is over XP, when OS X and KDE on x.org have been there/done that for ages now -- ESPECIALLY when the truly major "improvements" in Vista restricts' customers' Fair Use and Right of First Sale activities.

Oh, and what about MSIE 7.0? Where are the improvements? It does not pass the acid test (even though every other browser on the planet worth mentioning passes now), designers still have to bend over backwards for modern techniques to render correctly in MSIE, and it breaks differently than MSIE6, so things are more interesting. On the plus side, at least they DID fix .png rendering, so I have to give them some credit there.

I used to be a Microsoft fan, and I've hated practically everything they've done after Windows 2000, because I see it as predatory, self-serving, and providing FAR less value to the customer, all while prices are tripling and quadrupling for Windows. For what? restricted activities on the computer? Revocation of First Sale rights? Restriction of Fair Use?

Sorry, I had to vent. This is not intended to be insightful, informative, or even interesting; it's merely a good opportunity to vent in a place where hopefully some Microsoft drone will read this and say "Hey, are we REALLY that bad? I guess we are alienating our customer base." In summary: Fuck Microsoft. There is no need for them to dominate advertising, and quite honestly, I rather they didn't even try, because if there is one thing Microsoft truly excels at, it's annoying and alienating customers.

Posted using Firefox 2.0 on Linux.

Microsoft COULD Do it "Better" (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 6 years ago | (#18195660)

They have the technology. All they have to do is redirect domain name mispellings to their ad-laden page of crap. They already do THAT. The next component of the technology is one that randomly introduces errors into the URL when type it in. Most users don't do that often though, so they'd also have to figure out how to get you to that page some percentage of the time when you use bookmarks. Lets see... They could also show ads while a web page is loading, put ads in various currently unused space on the desktop... the possibilities are limitless! And it's all so easy when you have control over the operating system and all its applications!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>