| 8:52 am on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|"today's search is nothing." |
At least we now know that he obviously uses his own search engine.
| 12:17 pm on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So we want to compete on the desktop because that's a key innovation area for Windows. We want to compete in the cloud because we think the competition between ourselves and Google and Yahoo will improve things.
Google can't win the desktop battle unless they make the operating system irrelevent. Google needs to keep search "in the cloud" as Bill puts it. They can only doing that by taking the office like desktop functions into the cloud at the same time. I am starting to doubt Google's ability to see this best strategy though.
|At least we now know that he obviously uses his own search engine. |
| 1:02 pm on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|make what we have today look like a joke |
Kudos to Bill for saying it (surely everyone realises that today's search is woefully inadequate?). I'm sure parts of the Googleplex are aiming for exactly the same thing.
| 2:54 pm on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Google can't win the desktop battle unless they make the operating system irrelevent. |
The operating system is becoming irrelevant and Bill Gates is quickly realizing this is coming sooner than anticipated. I am giving mainstream or corporate examples here:
-Remember when the only PC to own was an IBM?
-Remember when the only CPU was an Intel?
-Remember when the only Operating System to run was Windows?
Linux today is where AMD was about 5 – 7 years ago. Upgrading to Linux is no different than going from Windows 2000 to XP. Bill realizes that Microsoft’s ability to own the Operating System market is drawing to a close. They simply need to look elsewhere into the future.
| 7:46 pm on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<< Bill realizes that Microsoft’s ability to own the Operating System market is drawing to a close. They simply need to look elsewhere into the future. >>
Yes, and unfortunately where they are looking for is software patents and IP lawsuites. They know they can't compete with the open source model, they are seeing the failures routinely, and the open source successes, linux had full 64 bit processor support long before windows, which is really costing MS on the server front.
So rather than move with the times like companies such as IBM and even SUN are doing, MS is going to hold out against the tide by doing exactly what they criticized the companies suing them of doing: using the courts instead of the market place to compete. Plus add more and more locked in features to Windows, like an integrated search etc. More security holes with every linked component, the deeper the link, the deeper the holes. It's a bad model, and they are pushing it further rather than moving away from it.
| 7:53 pm on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Linux today is where AMD was about 5 – 7 years ago. |
AMD is in the same place as it was 5-7 years ago -- designated 2nd person whose job is to mainly keep antimonopoly laws aware from Intel and also provide refreshing kicks below belt to Intel's design guys :)
| 7:58 pm on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<< designated 2nd person whose job is to mainly keep antimonopoly laws aware from Intel >>
Opteron won. You must have missed it. MS cancels Windows itanic support [theregister.com]
AMD took a very big gamble and dropped most 32 bit advances and research in favor of getting a working 64 bit processor out the door. The gamble paid off, their 64 bit standard won, Intels lost. Meanwhile Intel kept praying for itanic and their 32 bit 'extreme edition' processors, which were and are extremely overpriced.
Gamers, servers, etc, are all jumping to Optereron or other amd 64 bit options, AMD won another round, they won the XP 1600 - 2500 round too, but just not as convincingly.
| 8:15 pm on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Gamers, servers, etc, are all jumping to Optereron or other amd 64 bit options, AMD won another round, they won the XP 1600 - 2500 round too, but just not as convincingly. |
AMD won to live another day, but its not victory in a sense they are taking over Intel -- just look at market capitalisations to see what market really thinks about them.
Did AMD do a good job with x64? Too right! But in a grand scale of things they are constantly fighting for their survival, and they would have been better off not getting questionable win that made Intel lose its face and admit they were wrong, since now AMD only got time base competitive advantage that is dissapearing every day. I like AMD, but they will never take over Intel because in this game their job is to have 2nd place (Intel would not want them to go bust).
| 8:32 pm on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Repeat after me. Competition is good. Microsoft, or anyone for that matter, wanting to compete in the search engine industry is a good thing.
It is interesting how Microsoft has this attitude such that they want to dominate the search industry. In the 60 minutes Google interview the CEO said he wants to be a major player in the indstury but was short of declaring war on the competition.
| 8:35 pm on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm not suggesting AMD is going to take over Intel, hardly, but if you follow their development they have been making steady progress, upward, with dips down, the Opteron success is probably the first time they flat out beat Intel, hands down. This finally has gotten their processors into servers by HP etc. But even the last dip they had, between xp 2500 and 3000+ was due to them deciding not to push 32 bit processors much further and concentrate on getting a workable 64 bit unit going, which they did. Gutsy move. Big risk too.
The bottom line today is that if you want a 64 bit system you are going with Opteron, AMD has never been in this position before, they started as a clone fab if I remember right. And if you want a real 64 bit OS you'll need to go to Linux... MS and Intel were asleep at the wheel on this one, reminds me of rambus memory.
mods, sorry, way way off topic.
| 8:54 pm on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Repeat after me. Competition is good. Microsoft, or anyone for that matter, wanting to compete in the search engine industry is a good thing. |
YES! I couldn't agree more.
It is interesting to me that so many Gates-haters despise Microsoft because of it's monopoly on the OS, yet will defend Google's monopoly in Search as fabulous and revolutionary. Why? What's the difference in the two? Google has 80% or so of the SE market, their algo stinks to high heaven, and post-IPO they care nothing for the web community that made it great.
There are a dozen search engines out there that are 10 times better than Google but can't compete. At least Gates will keep'em honest by continuing to compete.
| 9:07 pm on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<< It is interesting to me that so many Gates-haters despise Microsoft because of it's monopoly on the OS, yet will defend Google's monopoly in Search as fabulous and revolutionary. Why? What's the difference in the two? >>
Don't count me in that group, I totally agree with your statement, 100%, competition is good, monopolies, or near monopolies, are bad. How Google has managed to maintain it touchy feely do no evil image despite the fact that it had become an almost monopoly, that often dictates the success or failure of many a web site is absolutely beyond me. It's not like Google has really innovated anything radically new or anything, it was just a better algo for a search engine, and gmail was just a slightly slicker hotmail with some bells and whistles added.
Of course, it's not Google's fault that the other search engines really just dropped the ball, that MS took until 2004 to realize that hey, maybe people use search engines? Hello MS, earth to redmond, I'd say it's safe to say that MS will never understand the web at all.
Personally, I don't despise MS for their monopoly on the OS and Office application market, I despise them because of their fundamental corporate philosophy, which is reflected in the programming and architecture decisions they make with their products. Plus of course their ongoing criminal antitrust behavior that the US courts have been too spineless to properly penalize them for.
<< There are a dozen search engines out there that are 10 times better than Google >>
If you make a true statement then follow it with one that is questionable to put it mildly you sort of diminish the force of your arguemnt.
| 9:13 pm on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
> dozen search engines out there that are 10
> times better than Google
Someone better .... that's certainly possible.
As for a dozen SE's that are 10 fold better at search, I'd be interested in seeing that list.
| 9:31 pm on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You are a legend!
|I'd say it's safe to say that MS will never understand the web at all. |
Or otherwise: Some elephants can't dance!
| 10:24 pm on Jan 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<< Some elephants can't dance! >>
MS's ongoing inability to grasp what the web is is a direct reflection of that corporate culture. It's the reason MS is a closed source shop, where all decisions come from the top. You can see this failure consistently over the last 10 years. Failure to see that the web would be anything. Failure to start browser development until Netscape forced them to wake up. Failure to update IE 6 once they believed they had the market beaten. Failure to create a search engine when they started MSN, which itself was started only once they saw AOL's success.
This failure isn't a coincidence, it's because the web was and is more or less an open medium. MS simply cannot understand open, free mediums, it doesn't fit into their business model. Although I like msn beta, it's a very nicely coded product.
If I were Bill I'd realize that I don't have much vision at all, let alone a vision that's worth trumpeting. Then I'd retire.
There's a reason for this, it's directly related to the proprietary software development model, which always moves over controlled, sealed networks, most of them inside the redmond campus [except of course for email and various other vpn type technologies].
Compare this to all open source projects, which are open, code open, web based development, information flows absolutely freely between members, and is available for public scrutiny. This is why MS cannot understand open source, or the web. It's because they don't use it like serious projects do, they don't respect it, it's just another business cost to them, or a potential new profit center. They have no passion for the web, otherwise they would never have left IE to stagnate as long as they did, this is so obvious, they can't hide that fact, they don't have access to that type of passion, I guess it's not for sale...
| 12:21 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Used to do marketing for Intel. All of us here are techies, but you get into focus groups with "average folk" and all can recognize Intel. I think 1 in 300 recognized AMD.
While brand may not matter for you (who buy on features) it matters an awful lot to average folk who's main concern is to avoid making a mistake. (Interestingly Germans ignored the brand and went for best features = bought AMD.)
Intel had aggressive Q4 targets and handily beat those targets even under competitive pressure from AMD. AMD struggled this Q (tho admittedly due to problems with flash memory).
Intel 7 years ago, MS now...companies are judged on profits and the bohemiths are still rolling in it.
Never underestimate an established consumer brand and a big ol' marketing warchest.
(Hope this linking is in line with TOS)
| 12:43 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hmm I just thought about what I would do if I had the longhorn to be released and search engine.
I would change something in longhorn so the yahoo desktop and Google desktop diddent work anymore on longhorn so they had to build a new version that way I would have some time over the competition and the users would be able to test there search first and make it to a normal use everyday.
| 2:50 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
> Google can't win the desktop battle
> unless they make the operating system irrelevent.
That is the smartest thing I've read yet on this "Google VS MS" stuff.
Those guys yarning on about Google building a browser were whimps. This is Larry and Sergey. These are the biggest dreamers the web has seen in years. They aren't going to toy with building a browser - they are toying with the whole shabang - an Operating System.
This is not a "interface" or "api" war - this is a PLATFORM war!
| 3:05 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Linux today is where AMD was about 5 – 7 years ago. Upgrading to Linux is no different than going from Windows 2000 to XP. |
For you, not for me ;-)
| 3:25 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>This is not a "interface" or "api" war - this is a PLATFORM war!
Finally somebody gets it.
| 6:13 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I mentioned in the Gmail forum that I've been using this service as my only email system now for about a month. I get a lot of email every day, and I've decided that Gmail actually makes me more productive than using a Windows application, like Outlook, Thunderbird, etc.
Google should be pulling application after application across the fold into the web-based world. Eventually, you won't care what operating system you're running as long as the computer has Firefox on it. Microsoft will be trying to figure out how to make a great search engine, and Google will pull the rug out from under them.
| 7:00 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
this is a PLATFORM war! yes I also think that the only option they have to battle the new longhorn with search, why keep depend on microsoft software.
Build a new system many would like that just for the reason to have something els.
| 8:26 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
sorry folks. You're obselete. The platform is dead. No use thinking platforms anymore. We are now moving to the "platform free" era. That's why MS is obselete: it's based on a platform.
| 9:19 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"This is Larry and Sergey. These are the biggest dreamers the web has seen in years. They aren't going to toy with building a browser - they are toying with the whole shabang - an Operating System. "
in years maybe but let's be honest: in no way do they compare to Steve Wozniak, Jobs or Bill Gates as far as visions go. Their idea to determine importance based on how many pages link to a page was not knew, they just applied it to web search. PR is almost our of business because of link buying.
As far as building a new "operating system" /platform: can it even be done without violating the god knows how many patents already awarded to Microsoft and thousands of other companies?
Microsoft has tens of billions in cash and generates another billion a month, Google has good press which can easily disappear if they start to believe their own press releases and ignore legitimate complaints.
| 9:48 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"n years maybe but let's be honest: in no way do they compare to Steve Wozniak, Jobs or Bill Gates as far as visions go."
Even though I think Gates has run out of vision, he did have and implement his original vision of a pc in every house. Apple is similar. Google has no vision that I can see. They made a good search engine. That idea isn't new. And now to me it's starting to look like they're grasping at straws.
Just because google has a 55 billion dollar market cap doesn't mean it will have that tomorrow. As soon as google shares start trading at a coherent PE ratio, like MS shares finally now do, you're looking at a 5 billion dollar company. Or less.
This whole idea of platform less systems, or a platform war, rings a bell, when did I hear that last? Oh, I remember, it was with Netscape 3 and 4. Back in 96,97.
Any real website is a platformless entity, google, amazon, ebay, these don't depend on platforms unless they are stupid enough to depend on active x to run.
Windows isn't going anywhere, and Google isn't going to win any platform war. Linux might start chipping away more heavily in the coming 2 years. And web based applications are going to get more and more common. Like web based search etc.
Whoever said switching to linux is as easy as switching from Windows 2000 to XP has access to some drugs I'd like to try. I love GNU/Linux, but I'd never claim switching to it is easy, unless all you are going to do is send emails, browse the web, and make an occasional office document. And not install a printer, scanner, etc. It's getting easier, definitely, but it's still not easy. Nor should it be as far as I'm concerned, I like having choices that are meaningful.
| 12:43 am on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't doubt that Microsoft can change the scope and nature of web searching. My only question is who they are ripping the technology off of. Microsoft is the company without a vision of the future (the company who didn't have a clue about how big the web would become and therefore was a late entry, compared to Netscape). Microsoft is everything that is wrong with business in this country. No creativity, just a bully.
| 2:53 am on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|My only question is who they are ripping the technology off of. Microsoft is the company without a vision of the future (the company who didn't have a clue about how big the web would become and therefore was a late entry, compared to Netscape). Microsoft is everything that is wrong with business in this country. No creativity, just a bully. |
No arguments here. This might actually cost them, for once they actually have to create their own technology. Although they do have all those google whitepapers to read, that should help them out a bit.
Their dismal history with for example the 'new' file system that was just cancelled from longhorn, and that's been 'coming' since before nt4 suggests that they are having some problems creating new stuff. NT was taken from OS2 more or less if I remember right.
If their past history is any indicator, they will actually try to do a good job on the search engine, at least while there is competition. They don't like to lose, but they really are hampered severely by their corporate culture, which as somebody wrote here simply doesn't understand the web, and never will. Look at their 'success' with MSN for example.
All those people who think MS will magically turn around and really start understanding the web haven't taken a very close look at MS's history with web based technologies, even their total failure, passport, was based around the same model they always follow, centralized control of information, control by MS. That's why it was rejected absolutely by all industries, and why MS quietly dropped the whole plan, leaving just your passport login into hotmail and ms messenger. MS just doesn't get it.
| 4:08 am on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|f I were Bill I'd realize that I don't have much vision at all, let alone a vision that's worth trumpeting. Then I'd retire. |
From a recent MIT Magazine article :
"Microsoft doesn't innovate, they just steal other people's ideas and turn them into mediocre products."
Platforms are at the heart of this war. Nothing is platform independent. Everything is built on some type of standard. If a company can control that standard it translates into big $.
| 4:44 am on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Microsoft doesn't innovate, they just steal other people's ideas and turn them into mediocre products."
well...that's how they started. It worked then and it still does now. They steal and bully you and by the time you sue them, you're already bankrupt. Decades later the company that bought you for pennies on th edollar is lucky to get it's lawyer fees. They let you start something, take the risk and then they take over if it works. In a sense it's cheaper than taking chances...
| This 62 message thread spans 3 pages: 62 (  2 3 ) > > |