Forum Moderators: open
"In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Schmidt said Google would not seek to turn its website into a broader internet portal, a move that would take it into more direct competition with Microsoft and Yahoo.
...
One widely rumoured defence against Microsoft has been a Google web browser potentially countering the software giant's ability to embed its own search engine into its operating system.
'We are not building a browser,' Mr Schmidt said."
Source: [news.ft.com...]
Mr Schmidt said Google would not seek to turn its website into a broader internet portal, a move that would take it into more direct competition with Microsoft and Yahoo.
Nope, no portal. Just email, newsgroups, personal search, shopping search, phonebook, local search, maps/directions, financial quotes, and advertisements. ;-)
What's next, travel search?
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Shak
But Jake is right: Google is a portal, but they are working hard to hide the fact. Thier challenge remains to keep the google.com home as simple as possible and at the same time promoting other services. Froogle is listed, but for example will Gmail be if they ever get it out of beta?
Hmm, roast chicken!
And IBM didn't build their own operating system back in 1980, either.
Some of these companies make it so easy for Bill to win.
Some of these companies make it so easy for Bill to win.
Bill's success depends on the OS (which the browser is tied to), not the browser itself. But Google isn't building an OS either - rather, they are using Windows and .NET to build many of their new projects (Orkut, Google Desktop Search...) and adapting Windows components to insert their own technology (Toolbar, GDS again...).
Google have decided to "hijack" Windows and IE rather than replace them. If they pull it off, then Bill gets to do all the hard work and Google reap the rewards. It's a very big "If".
"'We are not building a browser,' Mr Schmidt said."
Its all just semantics. After all - if Google have already built the browser - then this is still a true statement..... or if they licence one... or rebadge something...
nah, then G would have to spam itself :)
I would not assume that either is a fact written in stone.
Cheers, S
The comments struck me as akin to politicians saying that they won't raise taxes. They might not, or they might, but little stock should be put into what they say either way.
Watch what they do, not what they say. :-)
Its all just semantics. After all - if Google have already built the browser - then this is still a true statement..... or if they licence one... or rebadge something...
...or use the Mozilla engine...
They also said that Mozilla was already developing good bowsers and there was no need for them to develop browsers.
True.
OTOH, there was no need for M$ to develop another SE either ... ;-)
Well, at least not until the G lag hit.
We are not building a browser,' Mr Schmidt said."
Why laden our slow machines when we can get Google's high performance servers and our 500k connections to do all the work. That way our PCs will not go out of date so quickly, and we'd all be able to work exactly as we would at home from anywhere in the world.
Google has already proved it can make web-based email quicker and more efficient than a desktop application. What's next, a Google Web-Based Word Processor?
I'm patenting all my ideas and applying for copywrites now.
The overlap is looking like a Google branded and customized Firefox based browser.
This article seems to think they will make a G braned version of FF.
so TECHNICALLY, they may not actually be building a browser...otoh, that doesn't stop them from letting someone else build it for them. :P
I'm patenting all my ideas and applying for copywrites now.
The whole logical strategy for Google imho is to make the MS OPERATING system obselete - not the browser! They do this by taking the traditional functionalities of a computer off the OS and onto the web (ideally onto Google) so that they can be used through ANY browser. It is the ANY browser that is the key - if successful, the strategy would make all PCs $100 cheaper overnight and Microsoft would have to give away Windows for free.
D.
if successful, the strategy would make all PCs $100 cheaper overnight and Microsoft would have to give away Windows for free.
The cost of PC's would go down, but your internet access cost would triple. Either way, your still paying for the computing power.
The whole logical strategy for Google imho is to make the MS OPERATING system obselete - not the browser!
Microsoft makes most money from the Office cash cow - they could give away OS for free, in fact cost of OEM Windows is pretty low - something in region of $45. Its not a lot - cost of 3-4 movie tickets, and the benefit you can take from OS is a lot bigger. Its not about OS that Microsoft can afford to give away.
