homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Webmaster General
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: phranque

Webmaster General Forum

This 58 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 58 ( 1 [2]     
Gates Wants to Empower the Individual

 3:53 pm on Sep 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

In a CNet interview [insight.zdnet.co.uk], Bill Gates lays out a powerful fundamental philosophical difference between Google and Microsoft:

In fact, they [google] have this slogan that they are going to organise the world's information. Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organise the world's information.



 10:32 pm on Sep 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

>Absolutely no use whatsoever to small businesses that can't compete with large corporate online marketing budgets.

Most people I know well are competing just fine, making far more than the average corp employee is.


 10:44 pm on Sep 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Welcome in the MS trap: read this thread's title with emphasis ... you feel the meaning? ... mind washing so perfect some like to thank Bill G?



 10:53 pm on Sep 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

In fact, they [google] have this slogan that they are going to organise the world's information. Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organise the world's information.

Very interesting debate.

Obviously everyone should be allowed their opinion about these two companies as they charge everyone so much. I for one pay them far more than any other company. But Google tops the list of expenditure for me(Adwords). Mind you they also produce returns for me, as does MS.

If you critique MS for near monopolistic greed and control, then you probably should also consider Google in the same breathÖ

If you rain praise on MS for 'giving people tools' then you cannot ignore Googleís huge advances in this respect in a relatively short period on time.


 12:06 am on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Gates & Co. stopped being interesting many years ago when they stopped trying to do any real innovation and converted Microsoft into the software equivalent of the BORQ - "You, your company and technology will be assimilated - resistance is futile" and many companies (like Lotus) hit the big red panic button and spent all their time running in circles waiting for Microsoft's next sneeze while the Redmond Giant slowly absorbed their market share.

Google on the other hand is thinking out of the box and are now too big for Microsoft to just write a check and buy, so this has Gates and Co. in a panic.

If Microsoft embarks on chasing Google which is a completely different business model it will be at the expense of their current product offerings and customers so the end result will be the consumer takes a hit.


 12:20 am on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

my friend tried out the MSN Search API SDK today and was none too impressed with the tools M$FT had to offer:

"This is just a pathetic excuse for an SDK.

FYI Microsoft, just because you don't own Java and PHP, doesn't mean people don't want to use them.

Yahoo! and Google have both had sdks that included java and php for what...a year? I thought MS was trying to compete here?"

that sure don't mix right with Gates view:

"With Google, there are rumors about them being interested in that services piece, but they really haven't done that much. Our search API is way better than their search API."


 12:31 am on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google is a search engine. Microsoft is its operating system. I understand that's the only thing its making money on. It has MSN, so it overlaps with Google, but they're not really in competition.

Google is in a more precarious position. MS can count on licencing revenue for the next 10 years, unless someone does something remarkable in the OS business. Google cannot.

Google must make hay while the sun shines. Failing innovation or true expansion, what most big companies do is buy things (little companies).


Way off topic:

TigerTom's guide to succeeding in a PLC:

- Fire people
- Buy other companies
- Rebrand
- Re-organise
- Apply the latest management theory, whether its suitable or not ('internal markets', anyone?)
- Sell your shares and hop to another job before the company goes t*ts-up.

None of the first four is about a company's raison d'etre - making a fat net profit - but it looks good to Wall St.

Do it three times, then you're about old enough to retire.


"Empower the individual" really means "enslave the masses" [laughs]


 12:35 am on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

I long for the day when people no longer think it's cool to hate MS and just get on with their lives.


 12:48 am on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)


I know it has been accepted practice over the years to be hard on Microsoft, but I find it very difficult to distinguish between the various attitudes of the two companies.


 12:52 am on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

MS can count on licencing revenue for the next 10 years, unless someone does something remarkable in the OS business.

I believe around 40% of MS's revenue comes from Microsoft Office.

Download OpenOffice 2.0 beta sometime and have a play... I really don't see how MS can maintain its Office revenue stream. There isn't going to be any overnight revolution, but 10 years is a long time...


 1:20 am on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think Bill is constantly rattled by Google. It would be interesting if they joined in and it became a full on debate. Who knows what might be said in the heat of the debate like the bit in A few good men when he loses his cool.


 1:51 am on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Download OpenOffice 2.0 beta sometime and have a play

Funny you mentioned this as I was looking at it just the other day.

Sun couldn't make a go of it as a Sun only product, I mean seriously, who were they kidding thinking Sun users would buy that much of it. However, as an open source product it really rocks!

If large corporations started to convert to things like OpenOffice it would deal MS a death blow and I for one would be cheering on the sidelines. I used to be a big MS fan until they included email in the product for FREE and decimated my industry, then included a browser for FREE and decimated Netscape.

I think there's a HUGE amount of karma backlash coming for those boys in Washington.

The downside is chaos in the industry which could put us back in the mire of data incompatibility - uniform standards is the only real good thing MS has done for computing. I remember the days when every floppy was formatted different, and interchanging wordprocessing data was a giggle, and you couldn't just grab a PC and swap out the hard disk, we've come a long way in that area thanks to the monopoly.

Made the whole Beta vs VHS issue look like a joke.


 2:04 am on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't see why Gates should be worried. If Google actually made an OS it would be a daft thing to do, as its not its core business. If it could somehow give a fat donation to an Open source OS, that would be clever. That _would_ rattle 'im [snickers].

Throw a few mill at offshore software developers, and say, 'make a Linux-for-idiots that runs Windows apps too, and runs them faster'.

10 years is too long to forecast, but ask Joe Public to name an OS brand and he probably couldn't. He _probably_ would know what Microsoft Windows is (not every one needs or uses computers, even today), but Linux? He's probably heard of Apple Macs, and Ipods, but just the machines, not the OS.

So someone would have to give a big boost somehow to a competing OS.

'Linux boosts your bra size!',
'I use Linux, and now beauty queens want to have my kids!'
'If you use Linux, you will win the lottery. It's voodoo, man!'


 2:59 am on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Bill Gates on Google. Bill says "Google this...Google that....Google this....Google that..."

C'mon. No way the world's richest man is dumb enough to go on interviews only to talk about his competitor company, saying their brand name over and over and over and over... something's up. There is an aGENdahhhhh.....

(BTW Google didn't come out supporting PHP and and stuff right away. They produced tools in C/perl, and the adopted a python script someone else had written, and eventually published php stuff as well. Those of us waiting for PHP support for the API were quite disappointed.... it was too long to wait for anyway)


 8:09 am on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

If I may make another "Microsoft poke" (and people will criticise as long as there is something to criticise - you can't expect people to just shut up while there is) what bothered me most about that article was Bill's saying "we". "We" don't have speech recognition yet, "we" haven't passed that golden line - this would be acceptable if the "We-er" would be the innovator or the head of an innovative company. Bill's "we" meant nothing (but insinuated much) because his company (his "we") was never first in anything mentioned in the entire article.

In fact, even "Empower the individual" means nothing - the user already has the power! This is just another example of how well Microsoft understands its users : if you tell someone that they have something they already have, that person somehow gets the impression that it was given to him by the speaker. This tactic has been a fundement of many religious doctrines since more than a millenia.

The thing is with the web is that it is more individualistic than OS platforms - anything on the web should work for anyone able to hook up to it. This totally destroys the "grouping" habits of those wanting to communicate (and produce) from one OS to another - it's a totally different ballgame in that respect. "OS" Microsoft can't compete because, although it can hinder and destroy WWW-dependant companies with its "maverick" javascript/css treatment and free browsers, it hasn't even begun to work towards creating anything that will be able to compete with google in its WWW world.


 2:36 pm on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

quick comment:
don't buy the 'we want to do this and that for the users"....that's corporate speak, and all have to do it. Just look at their actions


 3:49 pm on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Itís all about ego and itís great! You think Bill G needs more money? When youíre the proverbial play ground bully for so long itís a real shock to suddenly encounter something you canít control. Itís the best thing to happen in a long time; any sort of true competition benefits everyone.

MS doesnít have any experience dealing with real competition; now they do in search, and lets hope they rise to the occasion cause what they have right now is pretty weak in that department. My stats continue to show Google 60%, MSN 15%, Yahoo 15%. If big Bill thinks he can even that up, sounds good to me.

(p.s. I use windows every day and works fine for me, however if there had ever been any real competition what I use would be much better)


 4:58 pm on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

I for one hope Google keeps succeeding with their plans. The more competition they can create, the more Microsoft gets better. Who has honestly "challenged" Microsoft in the recent past? No one, until now.

The more Microsoft gets better, the more Google will get better. By the time either of them bow out (if they ever do), the world will be a much better place. I can only see this whole MS vs. G thing as a good thing.


 5:38 pm on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Who has honestly "challenged" Microsoft in the recent past?

Oracle is still giving them a good run for their money as I'm sure Gates thought that MS SQL Server would make Oracle roll over and die and it hasn't.

Apple created the whole iPod craze which was totally out of left field as you know Gates would've loved that a Windows CE device was in everyones pocket playing music instead.

Just goes to show you good products and strong marketing can still leave a giant like Microsoft in the dust.


 6:25 pm on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

I was half asleep when I read what his Billness had to say, but despite recognising the letters and words it made no sense to me whatsoever. It appeared to be entirely meaningless techno-babble.

Am I an idiot are there others that agree?

Q: More developers are becoming interested in building new applications using the Web as a platform, as opposed to the PC. Do you feel you're in competition with Google, Yahoo and other Web properties for developers' attention?
A :No, I don't think so. The architecture we are interested in we call server-equals-service, so that we will have the full Exchange capability that you can subscribe to, where we run it, or you can have it on-premise with the traditional licensing approach. At this conference, we do give out APIs for the MSN Search and the MSN Virtual Earth capability, so things that have been cloud-based services, you can have client applications that other services can connect to. So, I'd say the evolution is server to service, and bringing that symmetry in.

Can anyone tell me what this actually means? Is it just a collection of made up buzzwords and phrases? Despite the punctuation, I'm struggling to even identify proper sentences.



 6:30 pm on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am sure M$ will win finally. I stick to M$.


 10:02 pm on Sep 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Oracle is still giving them a good run for their money as I'm sure Gates thought that MS SQL Server would make Oracle roll over and die and it hasn't.

Apple created the whole iPod craze which was totally out of left field as you know Gates would've loved that a Windows CE device was in everyones pocket playing music instead.

I'll give you Oracle (barely). Sure Bill would have loved a Windows CE being the player, but do you honestly think he gives 2 cents about that market as a whole? If Apple isn't gaining marketshare with OSX or stepping on Office's toes, "'tis but a scratch".

You don't see Bill talking into a microphone about Apple everyday do you? Nope, it's Google he's afraid of.


 5:13 am on Sep 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

MS is still a vertical entity in an expanding horizontal networked marketplace...their one sure way to gain more share vs. Google in the search marketplace is their strategy with Longhorn...in the meantime...Google is continually rolling out new innovative features that will eventually be rolled up into their "global networked OS"....this is something that MS can't deal with ... their software cycles our seriously out of touch with the rapid fire ASP/Web Services models running now...(instantly updated with new features for all to see and use...no installing and hassling with cumbersome downloads...)

There was some news that today that MS is courting AOL and looking to create a partnership (spend big money on part ownership)...and you can bet that part of that discussion is the inclusion of MSN search with the new arrangement (though Google pipes in with the fact that their relationship with AOL is in good shape)...

MS will do everything in their power to break down the Google magic and convert this to their goodwill for their barely evolving products collection (keep them just good enough so people can be marginally productive)

This will continue to spark as much divisive conversation as both these powerhouse battle for the end users and consumers..


 4:32 pm on Sep 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think people are so caught up in the M$ vs. G$ battle that they are missing the double-negative-cancelation (positive) effect of the statement that Brett quoted Gates as saying (in the first post of this thread here).
In fact, they [google] have this slogan that they are going to organise the world's information. Our slogan is that we are going to give people tools to let them organise the world's information.

M$ is no paragon of virtue, having done its share of evil. Yet it is the only one strong enough to put a noose around the neck of what has become an even more evil company, G$.

Honestly, despite their doublethink propaganda, G$ has become the most evil company the world has ever seen - it is frightening. As I have been explaining in many of my posts, with examples such as their arrogance of blackmailing websites into AW just to be found in G$'s now-purposely-useless "natural SERPs" and G$'s outright copyright-and-bandwidth-thievery of AutoLink, G$ is out to control all the information of the world.

As I said at
as Orwell's 1984 rightly forewarned,

He who controls the information, controls the past. And he who controls the past, controls the future.

Anyone who remembers the famous 1984 TV-Ad about "1984" and computing can appreciate the irony here even more. (Indeed, even Steve Jobs' Apple-fans can doubly appreciate and support the alarm that Bill Gates' is correctly sounding about G$'s extreme evil.)

At this point, the only company powerful enough to stop that outrageously unceasing totalitarian agenda of the "do only evil" G$ is M$.

While it is true that M$ will likely employ its own tactics in this battle that may be expected to be distrustworthy, Gates' making the mere statement here exposes something about G$ that has not been said before by an "important" enough source before. He has made it official: G$ really is quite openly out to control all the world through controlling all the world's information.

I, or anyone else here, or anyone else can shout out about G$'s extreme evil these days, but our voice carries less weight than that of Gates.

Gates is "important" enough for g$ to take notice to that statement. M$ has now effectively put G$ on the competitive defense for G$'s totalitarian objective to control all the world. If G$ ignores it and just continues going forward with it, M$ mass-marketing will destroy G$ by broadcasting and correctly repeating to the world of G$'s agenda to control the world. That could be marketing death for G$ if the media and the masses finally wake up to that reality of G$'s true agenda.

So, for Gates to have exposed it means that G$'s extreme evil for that can now be seriously discussed, and may be thwarted.

Simply put, Gates statement finally puts accountability onto what G$ has been trying to do lately.

By Gates being the one to expose it, it also puts Gates into that same accountability to not go in that control-the-world agenda too. That is a very good thing, too!

It is clearly now M$'s marketing advantage to now exploit the exposure of G$'s evil to control all thr world's information. In turn, that also makes it to M$'s marketing advantage to NOT go down that path themselves. Because of that, it creates a double-accountability againt both G$ and M$, for the resulting benefit for all the rest of us! Freedom may be assured after all!

So, notwithstanding the possibly consumer-costly ways which M$ might likely employ in stopping the evil of G$'s "control the world" agenda, M$ still can bring an end to it either way. G$ will have to change its agenda to control all the world - or die from a M$ marketing blitz that correctly exposes the true depths of G$'s arrogant evil.

Either way, the end result is a very good thing. Freedom will not be usurped!

In mathematics, when you multiply a negative by another negative, the answer is positive! :)


 7:57 pm on Sep 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

"...It is clearly now M$'s marketing advantage to now exploit the exposure of G$'s evil to control all thr world's information. In turn, that also makes it to M$'s marketing advantage to NOT go down that path themselves. Because of that, it creates a double-accountability againt both G$ and M$, for the resulting benefit for all the rest of us! Freedom may be assured after all!..."

Where does Google say they are going to "control all the world's information"?

I believe their statement AND intent is to "going to organise the world's information..." and then make it accessible to all through the Web Sevices model ... this is a far cry from "controlling" the world's information...which is exactly what M$'s intent is...

And isn't it another classic that Gates has to "rip" Google's slogan and twist it for his own use..this is the real model going on...it's just clever semantics (kind of like what's coming out Wash DC these days)


 10:27 pm on Sep 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

The key to this is to remember the M$ approach to the marketplace...if someone tries to intrude in their marketplace..they have the ultimate power to nuke that company...OR if they want to enter into a marketplace (in this case online search) and work to own a large share of it...historically they will do whateve they have to (even to the point of peaking the government's interest..knowing very well that they can last in court for years while the grab what they can)...

In the case of M$ vs. Google and search...M$ has some very specific strategies in place that they are just beginning to work ... (longhorn being one...dis-information/extreme counter marketing another...etc..etc..etc..etc..these have all been pushed into the marketplace before in other situations...)..

Google is simply leveraging its market standing into deeper and more diverse services and marketplaces...so they are working the process in a different way..
(and forget what Ballmer says about Google not being in the marketplace in 5 years...that's crap...and typical M$ marketplace PR warfare)...


 12:25 pm on Sep 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

I read this interview, I was surprised he actually got a little hostile towards Google.


 6:10 am on Sep 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

A previous poster said that everyone's motives are suspect once money enters the picture. I'd say the opposite: Once money enters the picture, everyone's motives are clear and open. Until then, you should be suspicious.


 2:35 am on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

These too companies share the same objective...money, I find the GG guys the most arrogant people in the world though.

This 58 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 58 ( 1 [2]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / Webmaster General
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved