×

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!

Gates Successor Says Microsoft Laid Foundation for Google

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the yin-and-yang dept.

500

thefickler writes "According to Bill Gates' successor Craig Mundie, there would have been no Google without Microsoft. 'I mean, the fact is: Google's existence and success required Microsoft to have been successful previously to create the platform that allowed them to go on and connect people to their search servers. Now, Microsoft's business is not to control the platform per se, but in fact to allow it to be exploited by the world's developers. The fact that we have it out there gives us a good business, but in some ways it doesn't give us an advantage over any of the other developers in terms of being able to utilize it.' This comment comes from a lengthy interview between Mundie and APC magazine, which talks with the newly installed strategy and R&D head. Other interesting topics discussed include the future of Microsoft and Windows, OOXML, and and the 'rise of Linux' on the desktop."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

500 comments

What's he smoking? (5, Funny)

kmac06 (608921) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603875)

I think I want some.

Re:What's he smoking? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20603985)

but... but... ./sarcasm --on

If it werent for microsoft, there would have been no internet, or at least no web browsers for it!

I mean didn't Microsoft invent networking?
The first web browser (Internet Explorer, the Mosaic thing is a LIE!), wasn't that created by MS?
And everyone knows IIS was the first web server!
Certainly BSD, Sun, Apple, and the rest didn't have any internet access before they stole it from Micrsoft. ./sarcasm --off

*ahem*
I feel dumber even after typing that, knowing it is sarcasm and false...

Re:What's he smoking? (3, Informative)

stox (131684) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604137)

I don't think you want to smoke what he is smoking. It obviously kills a lot of brain cells. I guess he kept a vintage stash of PCP from the late 1970's.

Re:What's he smoking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20604349)

its not like diesel engine cleaner is hard to get.

Yeah - so? (5, Insightful)

DarkFencer (260473) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603889)

And many others (IBM, Bell Labs, Xerox, Apple, etc.) were needed for Microsoft to be successful. Who cares?

Re:Yeah - so? (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603957)

This claim is pathetically off-base, however. There were Internet search programs before Microsoft even noticed there was an Internet. Search engines like Webcrawler existed while Microsoft's Internet iniative was in its infancy.

Ah well, they don't hire people to run Microsoft based on honesty or an actual understanding.

Re:Yeah - so? (2, Interesting)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604103)

I don't know about that. Yes, there were web crawlers way back in the day. But you have to admit, Microsoft helped bring computing to the masses. If there had been no Microsoft, the internet would be what USENET was back in the day: something used by geeks and scientists and not much else. In that sense, I think he's right.

On the other hand, that doesn't entitle MSFT to any preferential treatment. By his same logic, the phone companies and the electric companies laid the framework for the internet because without copper and electricity there would be no computers. MSFT doesn't provide free software to telephone companies and electric companies. Google shouldn't "take it easy" on MSFT either.

In other words, every invention lays the groundwork for successive inventions. Nothing new about that. It's not so much a baseless claim as it is a "duh, so what?" statement.

Re:Yeah - so? (5, Insightful)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604293)

But you have to admit, Microsoft helped bring computing to the masses. If there had been no Microsoft, the internet would be what USENET was back in the day: something used by geeks and scientists and not much else.

No. If there had been no Microsoft, someone else would have done that. Maybe Apple, maybe BSD, maybe Linux/GNU/etc, maybe some company we've never heard of. Maybe OS/2 would have taken off.

Really, it tends to be complete garbage to say that a particular advance would not have happened if whoever did it hadn't been there. Once the foundations are in place things become pretty much inevitable, and being remembered for starting something is just a matter of out-competing everyone else and/or getting things working two weeks before the next guy.

Re:Yeah - so? (1)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604011)

If it helps Bill sleep better at night let the man continue with his delusions of grandeur.

Re:Yeah - so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20604199)

Yeah, give the guy a break. Hundred dollar bills make horrible stuffing for pillows, he needs all the help to sleep he can get.

Re:Yeah - so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20604089)

Actually, you shouldn't even talk specific companies. I mean, there was technical development that created opportunities and new markets. This development happened at many places and it's hard to point at a single point that couldn't have been replaced. (Cern and Tim Berners Lee maybe.)

Microsoft was pretty much just at the receiving end of this, exploiting the new market rather cleverly. But if they hadn't been there, someone else would have.

So google didn't require microsoft. It required a WWW in wide use.

Re:Yeah - so? (1)

tomknight (190939) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604181)

The problem I have is in the quote "Google's existence and success required Microsoft to have been successful previously to create the platform that allowed them to go on and connect people to their search servers."

He's sort of stating the obvious (which is what you're complaining about), but he's also talking bollockss. If Microsoft hadn't existed then Google wouldn't exist in name, but something delivering their serices surely would. Apple could have taken the place of MS, possibly IBM if they hadn't been so rubbish at developing OS2.

Re:Yeah - so? (1)

Foolicious (895952) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604205)

Who cares is right! Playing the "what-if" game is a complete waste of time. The question can never be satisfactorily answered because Microsoft did and does exist. I hate stuff like this. It's like that one guy in the office that sits around telling you about how things could have been.

Re:Yeah - so? (1)

dk.r*nger (460754) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604299)

I think (not like I RTFA) that he means that since Microsoft provided the OS on the computers that made computing a every-body-every-day-act, they provided people to (a) create content for Google to index (b) want to search that content, and is therefore a major part of Googles supply-chain.

Only problem is that he falls in the "after, therefore because of"-logical trap. Chances are that IBM could have pulled off the PC with somebody other than Microsoft, and that somebody else would have made a modular, extensible standard PC if IBM didn't.

Finally: what you did 25 years ago REALLY, REALLY doesn't give you any claim to fame today.

Create the platform???? BWAHAHAHAHAHA (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20603893)

Funny, I didn't know MSFT created the internet, desktop computing, and web browsers.

Google would work just as well if MSFT had been nothing more than a long-forgotten BASIC provider.

Re:Create the platform???? BWAHAHAHAHAHA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20604189)

Desktop computing, while not invented by MS, certainly was aided by their work and OS popularity. As much as i dislike MS, I will give them credit for making something that nobody else made before they did - a low cost computer operating system that runs on commodity hardware and people actually purchased.

IBM didn't. Though I did run PC-Dos, OS/2, AIX, and used MVS and Mainframe "DOS" for more than a few years.
Apple didn't. Though I did have a Mac SE/30 and used the original Macintosh and much later MacIIs.
Dec, Sun, HP, SGI, Novell didn't. Though I did run Ultrix, OSF/1, SunOS and Solaris, HP-UX, Irix, and Netware.
MS did. I did/do run Ms-DOS, Windows 3, 3.1, 3.11, WFW, Win95, Win98, WinNT, WinXP and Win2003 Srv.

BTW, I have a purchased copy of Netscape Navigator from 1996-97. Do you?

Had Linus and the 386 chip happened a few years earlier, the answer could be completely different.

Credit where credit is due, please.

Now go out and convert at least 1 computer from win32 into Linux, BSD or Solaris x86 today! Puppy Linux is perfect for this. http://www.puppylinux.org/ [puppylinux.org]

Standing on the shoulders of giants (5, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603897)

So, what microsoft are saying is google is standing on the shoulders of giants.

Well, I suppose they have to; there are no seats left to sit on ;)

Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants (2, Funny)

rwsilva (217578) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604087)

Nah... what they are saying is that Microsoft laid Google

It's completely true (2, Funny)

MarsDefenseMinister (738128) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603899)

Al Gore was working for Microsoft when he invented the internet.

Re:It's completely true (-1, Offtopic)

gosand (234100) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604085)

The difference here is that this is a statement by Microsoft, whereas Gore never said he invented the internet. http://sethf.com/gore/ [sethf.com]
But I understand you were *trying* to be funny.

Re:It's completely true (1)

oldmacdonald (80995) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604131)

Now Gore has been smeared by this "I invented the internet" for a long time, but this is just vicious!

Bizarre concept. (2, Interesting)

threaded (89367) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603903)

I thought Google only needed a browser to run on, and you can get a browser on any of the various OS I've tried. Well, maybe not that one in the Engine Management Unit, but there again it's not something I thought necessary.

Re:Bizarre concept. (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604105)

The [flawed] logic goes like this: If you take MS out of the picture, then over 90% of the world's desktop and laptop computers go away. What use is Google without a consumer base? MS made the GUI popular and brought the Internet into the home. They are not the first company to do this, of course, but they have been more successful than any other company at it. That is, is Google.com [i]doesn't[/i] work on Windows, then Google would not be the colossal corporation that it is today.

Of course, [i]any[/i] OS vendor can say the same of [i]any[/i] application vendor.

without NeXT there'd be no web (2, Informative)

jsepeta (412566) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604209)

without NeXT there'd be no intertube-web-information-highway thingamajig.
without PARC there'd be no mouse

google wouldn't work without either of these companies, but they'd probably do just fine if Microsoft would go under.

I think they both forgot... (4, Funny)

pieaholicx (1148705) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603907)

That without Benjamin Franklin neither of them would be in business. So where's his praise MS and Google? Huh?

Re:I think they both forgot... (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604343)

That without Benjamin Franklin neither of them would be in business

Hmph! How come nobody mentions Thor, the god of thunder? He's the one who should be getting all the credit! (And don't forget saving the world from Loki numerous times!)

Translation (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603911)

Well yes and no. I mean, the fact is: Google's existence and success required Microsoft to have been successful previously to create the platform that allowed them to go on and connect people to their search servers.
Translation: There were no other operating systems before us. Networking did not exist. Microsoft is GOD. Everything that happens from this point on only happens because we allowed it, we are the original creator, the original thought vector of computing itself. We are the beginning & the end--the Alpha & the Omega! *eyes roll back up into head as lightening strikes in the background*

Now, Microsoft's business is not to control the platform per se, but in fact to allow it to be exploited by the world's developers. The fact that we have it out there gives us a good business, but in some ways it doesn't give us an advantage over any of the other developers in terms of being able to utilise it.
Translation: Microsoft maintains a symbiosis with malware developers. Alongside that, we give away free software to universities so that students use it. Then we charge hundreds of dollars for an individual to program the .NET framework. It's free to get the framework's runtime environment on your machine (like Java) but in order to develop anything useful for it, you have to pay us money (unlike Java). In 'some ways' (which I won't list) other developers have an advantage over us because they aren't closed minded to other technologies. Also, we will define standards and strong arm them into the community or make it look like the community made the decision to accept them. Then we will charge you money to develop for them. Remember, we want you to exploit our platform so in the end we can exploit your dependence on us. It's a standard bait and switch procedure. Something looks free then we step in and reveal the cost once you're dependent on it.

For example, as much as our Virtual Earth product uses a lot of local 3D rendering technology, so does Google Earth. So I think there will be other ways in which we distinguish ourselves and where our knowledge of the platform and ability to continually evolve it, will be a business advantage for us.
Translation: Remember when we copied Google in the whole mapping and Google Earth thing? Yeah, that was actually totally our idea. I don't recall who came first but I'm certain it was Microsoft. What we'll probably do is use our income in other markets to make sure that nobody ever hears about things like NASA's World Wind [nasa.gov] again. Remember how we lost money on the XBox? Doesn't matter! And we'll lose money on Virtual Earth too if we have to. It's really too bad Google is doing the same thing because we could have totally been making bank off of Virtual Earth from day one if there wasn't a free alternative. It's all a game to see who can get the most developers hooked first, we'll see where it goes from there.

It is just the difference between being part of the infrastructure of the internet as well as competing directly in the service or client capability as well.
Translation: Microsoft is bigger than Jesus.

--

I think this article should have been filed under "It's Funny, Laugh" as the notion that Microsoft 'laid the foundation' for anything is humorous. Did this man ever stop and consider that technology and advancements in networking or bandwidth made Google possible? That the early Google founders themselves may have had something to do with their fate? This was more of a marketing pitch than an interview.

I think someone should point out to this man that simply because Microsoft became successful doesn't mean that another technology wouldn't have risen to fill the same gap.

Like my father always told me, there ain't no shame in being humble. I think Microsoft is forgetting that humility is a virtue & if they continue to talk like they're the savior of man then they're never going to fix the flaws that plague them. This is the classic example of business tactics & marketing trumping technology & progress.

Re:Translation (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604045)

Thank you for that fine and insightful rant. I clicked on the comments page thinking I'd have to compose something similar, but instead I think I will go grab lunch.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20604145)

Actually, MS's virtual earth thingy has been around for a very long time. The thing they copied from Google was the UI.

Re:Translation (1)

E++99 (880734) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604183)

Translation: Remember when we copied Google in the whole mapping and Google Earth thing? Yeah, that was actually totally our idea. I don't recall who came first but I'm certain it was Microsoft.

He wasn't making this point, but Microsoft was first on that. I was using terraserver.microsoft.com possibly before Google was even incorporated, definitely before google earth or google maps existed.

Re:Translation (2, Informative)

DaveWick79 (939388) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604313)

Yes, I just looked it up and Terraserver went online in June of 1998, Google opened it's doors in September of 1998.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20604215)

Your insights are fascinating. How might I subscribe to your newsletter?

Re:Translation (1)

DaveWick79 (939388) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604251)

Actually, long before Google Maps existed, Microsoft had this thing called TerraServer. It was about the first public site that allowed you to view high res satellite photography. Back then I think they were trying to sell the service to allow you access to the highest resolutions available, and I think the photography was all B&W at the time as well.

What a heaping pile of poo (3, Insightful)

stox (131684) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603913)

The first time I used Google was on an SGI IRIX machine, and the overwhelming majority of my usage has been via FreeBSD and Linux. Please tell me what Microsoft contributed that made this possible? I come up with a big fat ZERO in answer to that question.

Re:What a heaping pile of poo (3, Insightful)

Horn (517263) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604041)

Right, because google made all their money serving ads to people who use FreeBSD. I think his point (although a poor one) is that without the windows users out there google wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as it is. He's pretending that is Windows didn't exist then Windows users wouldn't exist where in all likely hood they'd be OS/2 or Mac users.

Re:What a heaping pile of poo (0)

SavedLinuXgeeK (769306) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604277)

Not that I agree with the article by any means, but he was stating what made Google popular and successful, not what you did. You have to agree that the marketshare lies with Windows for Operating Systems and much of Google's revenue is from advertising, and advertisers go after the mass (normally).

I mean, your argument is along the lines of claiming telnet existed before Windows and that i could reach google that way, but where is the market share.

He's right. (5, Insightful)

faloi (738831) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603925)

After all, if Microsoft had been able to create a decent search engine for the Internet early on, Google would've never come in to being. Without Microsoft all but ignoring the rise of the Internet in its early stages, Google would never be what it is today. Microsoft's continued dedication to bringing really poor web content to the world allows Google to step up and offer web mail services and tools for the desktop that are useful.

Re:He's right. (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604109)

Without Microsoft all but ignoring the rise of the Internet in its early stages, Google would never be what it is today.

Maybe the Internet would not be either.

CC.

The butterfly effect. (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603931)

Of course, google would not be what it is without Microsoft. It also wouldn't be what it was without Linus Torvalds. Or Thomas Edison. Or George Washington. Or any number of others in history.

Re:The butterfly effect. (1)

LcdAngel (1156765) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604285)

Lets go back further. Without the processor or even the semi conductor, there would be existance of google or Microsoft to begin with. Whats the point of an OS or search engine if you don't have any hardware?

Yeah! All those Microsoft Servers in the Farms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20603933)

Oh. Wait....umm

ROFL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20603949)

we hate google. i'll kill them!

damm. we cant beat google.. soooooooooo....... WE CREATED THEM! YEAH! THAT'S THE TICKET!

ow... i think i broke a funny bone reading that headline. thats some mighty fine crack they must be smoking over at microsoft. hmmm... kind of explains the mess of vista doesnt it?

By that logic.... (4, Insightful)

spookymonster (238226) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603953)

Microsoft owes everything it has to Unix, since C was created for Unix, and Windows couldn't have been written with C...

Uhm... huh? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603963)

If there was no Microsoft, there would still be a Desktop PC. They existed before MS-DOS did and WIMP GUIs existed before Windows. 3D graphics standards existed before Microsoft was involved. Google required a lot of other businesses to exist before they could, but Microsoft is not one of them.

Causality (1)

geekmansworld (950281) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603993)

Hey, you know. My grandfather was a Canadian soldier who met my oma in Holland during World War 2. World War 2 was started by Adolf Hitler. THEREFORE, I would never exist without Adolf Hitler. I guess I'd better be thankful...

Re:Causality (2, Interesting)

piojo (995934) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604321)

Hey, you know. My grandfather was a Canadian soldier who met my oma in Holland during World War 2. World War 2 was started by Adolf Hitler. THEREFORE, I would never exist without Adolf Hitler.

I guess I'd better be thankful...
Causality is a fun and complex thing. Some things (most) create ever-growing waves of effects that expand polynomially (or is it exponentially?) throughout time. Other things are engulfed (I think)--I suspect that some movement of molecules turns to friction and energy and whether the molecule bounced in this direction or that direction has no effect. Perhaps the actions of a person that starves and dies on a deserted island are engulfed--their effects on the world diminish with time. A man like Hitler, however, forever altered the world, and this world is constantly getting further from a world where he didn't exist (the changes are still growing, we will never return to what the world would have been).

I'm not sure what differentiates an event that is "lost" from one that catches on and expands polynomially? (Or maybe all actions are engulfed, eventually--the Earth is going to be swallowed by the sun in pretty much exactly the same way as it would be if Hitler had not lived.)

Sorry for my ramblings, and nobody had better mention Godwin's law.

Australopithecus Africanus threw a stone first (4, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603995)

Well, the logical conclusion is that everything became possible because the Australopithecus Africanus discovered that the stones could be used as projectiles and gradually learned to use it as a tool. From there it is just a short skip and jump to the taming of fire, the domestication of dog, invention of agriculture, domestication of other animals, the invention of wheel, invention of script, invention of paper, invention of the printing press..

Next thing you know another Boreopithecus Redmondanus is throwing chairs instead of stones.

Hardly... (5, Informative)

techmuse (160085) | more than 6 years ago | (#20603999)

The "platform" that Goooooogle uses was not developed by Microsoft. The Internet originated with DARPA. Other companies developed the routing and networking infrastructure. The Web originated at CERN, on a NeXT machine. Web browsing was common on Unix machines long before it was available or easily usable on Windows machines. Windows didn't even support TCP/IP natively when the browser was developed. The web server also originated at CERN, although the first popular one (NCSA HTTPD) originated at UIUC's National Center for Supercomputing Applications. Microsoft was late to the game, late to recognize the usefulness or importance of the Internet, attempted on a number of occasions to try to gain control of the Internet as a platform, and has done little or nothing to advance the Internet on its own (except for adding extensions to standards that would lock people into its own platform.)

Oh...and Goooooogle runs on Linux.

Re:Hardly... (1)

timster (32400) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604231)

And who developed the NeXT machine? A team working under Steve Jobs! And NeXT went on to become Apple in the famous reverse takeover.

The fact that Apple (of all companies) has a way, way better claim makes the Microsoft claim seem even more ridiculous. This guy is so far away from reality that I can almost hear all of Microsoft's competitors giggling.

Well said (1)

laing (303349) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604371)

I could not have said it better myself. You've covered nearly all of it. The one point that you did not expound upon is the illegal bundling of IE with Windows in an attempt to quash Netscape (who had the dominant browser at the time).

Assumptions (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604007)

Google's existence and success required Microsoft to have been successful previously to create the platform that allowed them to go on and connect people to their search servers.

That assumes that only Microsoft could have brought about the proliferation of the common desktop computer. I personally think that Microsoft was a major factor, but someone else would have stepped in later had they never existed. This is just plain arrogance, and easy to state since there's no way to know what would have been otherwise.

They're right, of course. (3, Funny)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604019)

Just look at the evidence. There's no way they could ever make Google compatible with Macs or Linux.

heh. (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604021)

Huh? I thought it was Al Gore that invented the internet.

Seriously, its retarded that MS is trying to claim that the internet wouldn't be around except for Windows. I mean PC's don't *have* to run windows. If Windows wasn't around the world would just be running something else. Hell, even PC's aren't that necessary. We could all be surfing with Macs or Amigas or thin clients or something else that didn't get invented in this timeline.

Anybody could have written an Operating System (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604023)

The market decided on Windows, partly from features and partly with a bit of brute force applied against vendors that would have chosen otherwise. But, had OS/2 or Mac or Amiga won, there would still have arisen a TCP/IP stack, then HTTP, a browser, and still a Google....

Yahoo and Altavista (1)

Generic Guy (678542) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604043)

Another ridiculous example of Microsoft hubris. Plenty of us remember MS itself being late to the Internet party back in the 1990s.

If anything, Google came about because of Yahoo (with banner ads, etc), and possibly Altavista which was also being sold as local document search/archival platform.

He he ... (2, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604051)

Now, Microsoft's business is not to control the platform per se, but in fact to allow it to be exploited by the world's developers.

Well, it gets exploited all the time, so they're succeeding. :-P Though, maybe not the way they think.

Cheers

Not quite like IBM (4, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604053)

...yes, sort of like IBM looking for a quickie outsourced OS helped to create Microsoft.

But not really.

While IBM created the environment for Microsoft to thrive, Google wasn't aided by being inside Microsoft to give them the advantage of official endorsement. Google thrived on their own merits, and didn't have to pull a switcheroo with an existing product line of theirs to get people to use their main product. The packaging they did do was remarkable in it's lack of crassness - simple text advertisements, relatively clean services for images, maps, and tools, etc.

It's the usual progression to see Microsoft's PR switching to a "Well, we're really just like Google - we're really their buddy, see" approach after the usual dismissive phase.

Ryan Fenton

FUD from MS again news at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20604055)

If I remember correctly, Microsoft was the one saying the internet would amount to no more than a fad and ignored it until netscape really started going off then they bundled an arguably inferior browser with their OS and put an end to any serious competition for a few years. So I wouldn't say Microsoft helped Google, more like thought about strangling it with its own guts.

Man!! Can these guys bullshit or what? (1)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604065)

Google does not use Microsoft internally to run their servers.

Microsoft was one of the *LAST* platforms to adopt TCP/IP. (Even counting Trumpet WinSock)

There were web browsers WAY BEFORE IE.

What, exactly, did Microsoft for for Google?

Job Opportunity (2, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604075)

The Bush administration has taken a liking to Microsoft's public relations and historical accounting techniques and wishes to hire them.

The guy is a loser (1)

lib3rtarian (1050840) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604097)

Admittedly though, since I work in the technical area, I don't read very many books. Almost none in fact.
What the shit? I work in the technical area too, and I read. This guy is a big loser, someone should kick his ass.

Re:The guy is a loser (1)

lib3rtarian (1050840) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604161)

It goes on!

I have developed with guys like Tom Friedman from The Times who wrote The World is Flat and my ability to collaborate with him on the book, you know, it became a popular best seller and helps people understand what this flattening world is like. I got to help him write it, so I didn't have to read it when it was done!
Somehow I don't think this dweeb really did any writing. What a shithead.

Ahem... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604135)

The fact that we have it out there gives us a good business, but in some ways it doesn't give us an advantage over any of the other developers in terms of being able to utilize it.

Except for those secret unpublished APIs, that is.

The world looks different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20604141)

from inside the monkey house...

Mundie's ego matches Gates. We we worried? (4, Interesting)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604157)

No. The 'salvation' attitude at Microsoft will continue. They can do no wrong, and will defend each legal claim until exhausted (and have the money to do it, too). Their success is an accident of history, boorishness, and illegal behavior, as documented through hundreds of judgments. There's a nugget of good work done here and there, but you won't change their ego, their testosterone-driven hubris. It's silly to try. Step aside, let the train go through, and continue on. Let Gates retire, the sooner, the better. Mundie adds little.

The nice thing about dictatorship is that eventually, the dictators either retire or pass on, leaving lesser leaders in their place. These lesser leaders inevitably fail.

In comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20604167)

Some people credit Nazi Germany ran by Adolf Hitler with the fabulous reconstruction of Europe in the post WWII era. The Marshall plan and the creation of a unified Europe based on equality would never have been possible without the Nazi led preparing ground work of leveling the old Europe beforehand. Of course this is outrageous as the Nazi's never intended todays basis for the society in Europe. Likewise Microsoft cannot be given credit for any competitor they did not kill off timely. Microsoft's only contribution to ICT is proving racketeering a successful concept on the basis of the judiciary not understanding the basics of computer programming.

Without #2, no burger king (1)

GigaHurtsMyRobot (1143329) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604193)

I just left the men's room where I laid the foundation for this lunch I'm about to eat from Burger King. I'm not going to be responsible for the box it came in, only assisting in BK's usage of my digestive system.

Probably true, but... (1)

oneiron (716313) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604219)

If Microsoft hadn't done it, someone else would have. Not only that, but almost all of the other players who were in a position to 'lay this foundation' probably would have done a better job! I'm really not sure how comparing yourself to a cement contractor is a good thing...particularly when the foundation you've laid is full of cracks.

I've defended MS before, but (1)

mc6809e (214243) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604223)


This is the biggest load of bullshit I've heard in a long time.

Let's give credit where credit is due:

1) cheap 14.4/28.8 kbps modems
2) HTML
3)
4) cheap 15+bit color video cards

As far as I can see, MS had nothing to due with any of these things.

Hello... Altavista, hotbot, yahoo? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604225)

From wikipedia:

AltaVista was started by Digital Equipment Corporation employee volunteers who were trying to provide services to make finding files on the public network easier.[citation needed] AltaVista was launched public as an internet search engine on 15 December 1995 at http://altavista.digital.com/ [digital.com]

HotBot was one of the early Internet search engines and was launched in May 1996 as a service of Wired Magazine. It was launched using a "new links" strategy of marketing, claiming to update its search database more often than its competitors.

In January 1994, Stanford graduate students Jerry Yang and David Filo created a website named "Jerry's Guide to the World Wide Web". Jerry's Guide to the World Wide Web was a directory of other websites, organized in a hierarchy, as opposed to a searchable index of pages.

In April 1994, "Jerry's Guide to the World Wide Web" was renamed "Yahoo!".

And let's not forget about Archie and Veronica.

Veronica is a search engine system for the Gopher protocol, developed in 1992 by Steven Foster and Fred Barrie at the University of Nevada, Reno.

Veronica is a constantly updated database of the names of almost every menu item on thousands of Gopher servers. The Veronica database can be searched from most major Gopher menus.

So how did Google become popular?

Google began as a research project in January 1996 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, two Ph.D. students at Stanford University, California. They hypothesized that a search engine that analyzed the relationships between websites would produce better results than existing techniques, which ranked results according to the number of times the search term appeared on a page.

Dear Microsoft: Search engines are a natural consequence of the World Wide Web. They didn't need you. Google got popular because of its indexing algorithm. Period.

Close, but not quite right (3, Insightful)

rjamestaylor (117847) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604227)

Yes, MS laid the foundation for Google to be a success, but not as Mundie suggests.

The analogy would be more akin to Detroit, in the 1970s, laid the foundation for the success of Japanese automakers.

Instead of laying a positive foundation, it was a foundation of failure that gave Google a chance to seize upon.

Much could be said for the entire Web economy -- it was Microsoft's Monopoly position on the desktop and subsequent Failure To Innovate that opened the way for desktop-less computing. And Linux. And for a resurgence of Apple (which could have easily been killed off if not for Microsoft Pinto, I mean, Millennium Edition's reliability and XP's Security).

Thanks, Microsoft!

Revisionist History / The Big Lie (2, Interesting)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604243)

This is very interesting. It is, of course, untrue at almost every level and clause. (The clause "The fact that we have it out there gives us a good business" seems true, though you could argue that it takes a lot more than that.) But this two paragraph set constitutes is a big lie. Or I should say Big Lie. It doesn't matter that it's wrong, some will believe and parrot it. The more energy you spend fighting it, the more people will hear it, and some believe it. Even if you (if you were a senator, FTC commissioner, DOJ head, etc.) don't believe it, you can still grin and use it as an argument against... something.

That's where things get interesting. Why is Microsoft saying this? Is this just the normal self-importance of Microsoft, or the naivite of Craig Mundie, or does Microsoft have a plan to annoy Google by making Google Microsoft's child? I suppose it could be used over and over in arguments against Google, where MS and Google disagree, but is there something in specific?

Yes and No (1)

devnullkac (223246) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604245)

In one sense, yes, MS's success ensured that lots of people were out there connecting to the Internet. But in a more important sense, no, MS was not key to making data indexable or searchable. HTTP's success ensures enough data can be indexed by a spider to make it worthwhile; HTML's success ensures enough people can access a web-based search engine, regardless of desktop platform. The only thing MS brings to this party is masses of underserved users, yearning to breathe searchable data.

such boasting (1)

unconfused1 (173222) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604255)

That's funny since Google deploys to a browser, which more people than just Windows users use. Even more amusing is that most of Google's success on Windows is via Firefox...which again is on more platforms than merely Windows.

Sure they did... (1)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604265)

Up until XP windows used the BSD networking stack. Google runs on BSD servers. The BSD code, or a fork thereof, is used on a majority of servers. Most routers run kernels based on the BSD code. Most DHCP clients are based on ... well you get the idea. I mean seriously... BSD => Microsoft, that is quite a typo...

I really needed that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20604269)

Thanks for the laugh ... I really needed that today!

Experiment (2, Funny)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604301)

Let's send a machine back in time(running Linux on a PowerPC architecture so they don't get any bad ideas)
to assassinate Bill's mother before he was born, thereby erasing his entire existence. We can then observe the effects on the present and determine if the statement is true.

I'm not convinced (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604317)

Microsoft was late to the party to begin with. Then it crashed in, and flailed around causing more damage than good. It tried to take on various bits at the party with little success, then this new guy comes in and does something that microsoft failed at, and Microsoft is now trying to claim the glory for itself?

It looks to me like a grasp at straws.

Causality (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604331)

Every event in time effects all future events. Yes, if the creation of a company 30 years ago that effected the economy and computer industry (for good or ill) as much as Microsoft has had never occurred, then yes, history would have transpired differently and Google would almost certainly not exist.

There is not a doubt in my mind, however, that some other company would have arisen that would have done pretty much the same thing that google does now. It's a niche that would need to be filled.

Delusional culture at Microsoft (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604333)

I think this is just another example of the delusional management culture at Microsoft. Look at what's been coming out of Redmond lately:

- We made Google what they are (and by implication can un-make them)

- Vista is setting sales records! (and so are voluntary downgrades to XP, which they're conveniently not reporting)

- Anti-competitive? Us? (Yeah, you)

- OOXML is a great standard! (so good we have to bribe partners to vote for it)

- Zune is an iPod killer! (iDontThinkSo)

- Forced updates were just a lack of communication (coupled with a lack of intelligence)

- We listen to our customers (the same way Bush listens)

No (1)

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604337)

Only in a very roundabout way, shooting-the-messenger style. Yeah, sure, their OS runs most of the computers in the world, most of which use Google, but that's a faulty line of reasoning; Apple or NeXT could plausibly have taken over the market in the same way.

Perhaps, by making the PC affordable and almost omnipresent, they helped enable Google's success. But they sure as hell didn't contribute to it, nor did they form any kind of bedrock for it.

OOXML (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604339)

TFA also has some interesting comments about OOXML:

There are a lot of people who have raised a great many issues which we don't think have a lot of practical merit, but serve the purpose of creating some anxiety during this process. Many of the comments that were submitted had common threads and were put together by people who oppose this activity.

So given all of that, we were actually quite positive about the fact that we came within literally a couple of countries of having the thing ratified even at this point.

It's interesting that this is both similar to, and different from, Miguel de Icaza's recent comments. It's similar in that they both completely deny [slashdot.org] the validity of the main criticism that's been leveled at OOXML, which is that it says a lot of things have to behave like certain MS products, without saying what that behavior is. It's different in that Miguel seems to have emphasized his opinion that some other aspects of the criticism of the standard has helped to improve the standard and make it something that really would allow other people to implement it, whereas Mundie seems to be saying that the entire ISO debate was a worthless FUD attack on poor little MS, and that MS simply intends to win the vote through politics, without making changes in the standard in response to the criticisms.

Microsoft's Real Problem (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604355)

there would have been no Google without Microsoft. 'I mean, the fact is: Google's existence and success required Microsoft to have been successful previously to create the platform that allowed them to go on and connect people to their search servers.

This is exactly Microsoft's problem, and the reason why Craig Mundie can't fix it. He sees the world through Microsoft blinders, and believes all goodness has come from them -- even though their most successful products were developed outside of MS and acquired by them. With Craig Mundie in charge, MS will continue to make the same mistakes it has in the past, and won't end up changing when it needs to change.

I remember far enough back to when IBM was considerd by all convention wisdom to have an "unbreakable lock" on the computer market. We all know what happened there.

What ARROGANCE (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 6 years ago | (#20604365)

This is why ms needs to perish.

Really, if ms went down the crapper, local and world business would keep rolling along for at LEAST a YEAR. In the mean time, others would pick up the slack, and it would be BETTER, with one LESS gigantic megalomanical company calling the shots. And, it would put intelligence gathers in a tissy since they wouldn't for long be collecting handed-over back door keys, too.

EAT your arrogance, mshaft.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...