Bill Gates Goes to War! (the google killer)

[Qdrop]

Perhaps I (we) were a little hasty in predicting that Microsoft requires anti-trust laws and regulations to keep it from taking over the world.

Perhaps the free market CAN compete with them after all....

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,1050065-1,00.html

GATES VS. GOOGLE
Search and Destroy
Bill Gates is on a mission to build a Google killer. What got him so riled? The darling of search is moving into software—and that's Microsoft's turf.
By Fred Vogelstein

[excerts]


Microsoft was already months into A massive project aimed at taking down Google when the truth began to dawn on Bill Gates. It was December 2003. He was poking around on the Google company website and came across a help-wanted page with descriptions of all the open jobs at Google. Why, he wondered, were the qualifications for so many of them identical to Microsoft job specs? Google was a web search business, yet here on the screen were postings for engineers with backgrounds that had nothing to do with search and everything to do with Microsoft's core business—people trained in things like operating-system design, compiler optimization, and distributed-systems architecture. Gates wondered whether Microsoft might be facing much more than a war in search. An e-mail he sent to a handful of execs that day said, in effect, "We have to watch these guys. It looks like they are building something to compete with us."

He sure got that right. Today Google isn't just a hugely successful search engine; it has morphed into a software company and is emerging as a major threat to Microsoft's dominance...

[...]

Simply put, Google has become a new kind of foe, and that's what has Gates so riled. It has combined software innovation with a brand-new Internet business model—and it wounds Gates' pride that he didn't get there first. Since Google doesn't sell its search products (it makes its money from the ads that accompany its search results), Microsoft can't muscle it out of the marketplace the way it did rivals like Netscape. But what really bothers Gates is that Google is gaining the ability to attack the very core of Microsoft's franchise—control over what users do first when they turn on their computers.

[...]

Dozens of current and former Microsofties say that Google's success is causing a corporate identity crisis. Gates basically created the notion that success in software is a function of the IQ of your team, and for years Microsoft has prided itself on having the smartest employees on the planet. Now many of those overachievers feel as though they've gotten their first B. Google, not Microsoft, is the hot place to work for young engineers. Every month it seems as if Google hires away one of Microsoft's top developers. Before Google's IPO last fall, Microsoft executives dismissed this brain drain as a function of greed. But when the exodus continued after the IPO—especially when Marc Lucovsky, one of the chief architects of Windows, bolted for Google—it was clear that Microsoft had a bigger problem on its hands. As of March, roughly 100 Microsofties had left for its search nemesis.

[...]

Trying to build a Google killer, however, has turned out to be truly humbling for Microsoft. The effort has taken longer, cost more money, and exposed more big-company problems at Microsoft than anyone imagined.

[...]

But Google is a rival unlike any he has faced in a long time. In previous battles, Microsoft always had a powerful trump card: It controlled the Windows operating system. That meant that when consumers bought a PC, Microsoft had a powerful say in what products and services they saw first. It had pricing power and distribution power over competitors. Because of that, its applications didn't have to be superior to those of the competition—just roughly equal. Windows wasn't better than the Macintosh; Word didn't improve on WordPerfect, or Excel on Lotus. Even Explorer was only as good as Netscape. Microsoft's genius was integrating them seamlessly to make them easier for customers to default to, and then using its marketing, distribution, and pricing clout. It won by attacking competitors' business models, not their technology.

Microsoft's array of weapons has so far proved next to useless against Google. For one thing, any attempt to bundle search with its products will probably be scrutinized by antitrust regulators. Meanwhile, you no longer need a PC to use Google—it works fine from a Treo, a BlackBerry, a cellphone, a television, an Apple, or a Linux computer—any device with some kind of keyboard and Internet access. Nor can Microsoft undercut the price of Google software as it did with Netscape: Google is already free. There's no quick and easy way to lure away Google's online advertisers either. They pay based on the price of a keyword in a search and on how many times users click on the ad, but Google doesn't control that—it's set by auction. Says a former Microsoft executive: "Microsoft can play its old game to compete with Linux and Apple. It has to play Google's game to compete with Google."

-----------------

gooooooooooo GOOOOOOOOOOOGLE!!

regulated market (stopping microsoft from bundling) means better competition!!

[ASsman]

Hah, right like Gates does have "Gates foe" patented. Google will be sued on multiple patent infringements, like "going against M$" , "frontin' " , "etc.".

[Ace42]

It's just a matter of time until google.com inexplicably takes longer to load, or produces errors when viewed in IE.

And notice that the article talks up Google's *free* product business model. That is the antithesis of free-market capitalism. If anything, it is socialism at work.

[Qdrop]

It's just a matter of time until google.com inexplicably takes longer to load, or produces errors when viewed in IE.
wouldn't doubt it...


And notice that the article talks up Google's *free* product business model. That is the antithesis of free-market capitalism. If anything, it is socialism at work. ehh...google makes money of the ads....PERSONALIZED ads. it's one of the fastest growing markets....

but, yeah....i dig thier system......

[Ace42]

but, yeah....i dig thier system......

Personally, I don't find Google's advertising at all obtrusive. It is just like a sales clerk saying "might you also like?" - potentially helpful, although I have my own sites I prefer to buy things from if I am shopping online. And while it does not interfere with the *free* product, I am all for it.

[Qdrop]

Personally, I don't find Google's advertising at all obtrusive. It is just like a sales clerk saying "might you also like?" - potentially helpful, although I have my own sites I prefer to buy things from if I am shopping online. And while it does not interfere with the *free* product, I am all for it.

agreed.

and if this IS a little socialism at work....hey, i'm all for it.
i think it's obviously helping the system.....

bring on the "hybrid"...

[EN[i]GMA]

Billy G, prepare to get your ass kicked.

And Google wasn't that revolutionary in terms of revenue, lot's of sites used Ads to make cash before them, but they made it profitable.

Put aside your Machiavellian theories for a second here. Do you think this war will cause both MS and Google to increased their quality to meet the demands of the consumer?

And Q, how could Microsoft bundle a search engine in the first place? In fact, tell me how bundling is wrong.

[EN[i]GMA]

It's just a matter of time until google.com inexplicably takes longer to load, or produces errors when viewed in IE.

And notice that the article talks up Google's *free* product business model. That is the antithesis of free-market capitalism. If anything, it is socialism at work.

How is it socialistic at all?

[Qdrop]

GMA']

Put aside your Machiavellian theories for a second here. Do you think this war will cause both MS and Google to increased their quality to meet the demands of the consumer? absolutely. this is the market system and capitalism doing what it should be doing.


And Q, how could Microsoft bundle a search engine in the first place? In fact, tell me how bundling is wrong. do you not remember the netsape/explorer war from a few years back?

go research it.

microsoft bundled windows with internet explorer (still do)....netscape sued, saying it was unfair business practice, ect....

[EN[i]GMA]

absolutely. this is the market system and capitalism doing what it should be doing.

do you not remember the netsape/explorer war from a few years back?

go research it.

microsoft bundled windows with internet explorer (still do)....netscape sued, saying it was unfair business practice, ect....

Yeah, and it really killed Opera, Mozilla, and Avant!

Tell me this: if they didn't bundle a browser, where would people get their browser? Go and buy it? So out of the box, the OS doesn't even fully work? Wow, that REALLY helps consumers.

Not to mention it adds an extra 40 dollars to the price of every OS.

Wow, help us some more!

The fact is, they can bundle whatever the like, but I'll use the alternative, like Firefox or Google Desktop Search.

The bundling only ends up helping consumers.

[EN[i]GMA]

Googlesoft: http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2858

[Funkaloyd]

GMA"]Tell me this: if they didn't bundle a browser, where would people get their browser?
Exactly. At the very least, IE is great for finding and downloading another browser.

[Ali]

Why are new pc's sold with windows pre-installed? This gives MS an extremely unfair advantage and should be stopped. PC consumers should be forced to choose the os, rather than have it chosen for them.

This would make MS more competetive and give other os manufacturers a chance.

[D_Raay]

Why are new pc's sold with windows pre-installed? This gives MS an extremely unfair advantage and should be stopped. PC consumers should be forced to choose the os, rather than have it chosen for them.

This would make MS more competetive and give other os manufacturers a chance.
In a perfect world...

[Funkaloyd]

You know what I'm sick of? New cars always having motors already in them. They should make cars without engines, and let me choose what make I want in there.

[Ali]

You know what I'm sick of? New cars always having motors already in them. They should make cars without engines, and let me choose what make I want in there.
idiot

[EN[i]GMA]

idiot

Stunning refutation.

[EN[i]GMA]

Why are new pc's sold with windows pre-installed? This gives MS an extremely unfair advantage and should be stopped. PC consumers should be forced to choose the os, rather than have it chosen for them.

This would make MS more competetive and give other os manufacturers a chance.

You can order them like that. Any maker allows you to choose the OS, at least when you build your own.

[ASsman]

GMA']
The bundling only ends up helping consumers.

Hahahaha, oh boy.

[EN[i]GMA]

Hahahaha, oh boy.

Without bundling of features, your computer would come barren.

Take out a browser, filemanager, video player, picture editor, sound editor, calculator, movie making program, native drivers, a search function, and the rest of that shit the Windows kernal comes bundled with and you're buying nothing but code.

Hell, take out Explorer entirely and boot without a shell. Goodluck getting anything installed without a GUI though. See how well that goes over.

Tell me this Ass, if you think bundling is bad for consumers, do you think the bundling of a shell is bad as well? Isn't the Explorer shell being native to Windows harmful to Litestep, Sphere XP, Blackbox and all the other themes/shells out there?

Tell me, have you every fucked up your computer and had it boot without a shell loaded? Do you even know what this means?

How can you hate bundling when you use dozens of bundled programs daily? Hypocrite.

And tell me, how does bundling hurt the consumer?

[EN[i]GMA]

Damn Microsoft! Look at what their harmful Explorer Shell bundled with the OS does to your computer!

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/xpehelp/html/xeconExplorerShell.asp

Fucking trash like a desktop, regedit, Calculator, Notepad, Microsoft Paint, and WordPad. Damn you Redmond! Damn you to hell!

[Ali]

GMA']Stunning refutation.That's all it needed.

[Funkaloyd]

I agree, forcing companies to manufacture goods as I want them is an idiotic idea.

[EN[i]GMA]

I agree, forcing companies to manufacture goods as I want them is an idiotic idea.

No, it's a great idea, as long as it's dont through the market.

Tell me, why aren't all Fords black anymore?

[Ali]

I agree, forcing companies to manufacture goods as I want them is an idiotic idea.Yeah, much better to be given the choice of, oh, ONE crappy, unstable, bug-ridden, insecure OS than having to choose from a variety of products, the makers of which have to keep improving and innovating to keep ahead of each other. Like every other industry.

Why do new pc's not have linux, winamp and firefox pre-installed? As long as this continues, would-be competitiors don't have a chance and MS don't have to make as much effort.

[ASsman]

GMA']
And tell me, how does bundling hurt the consumer?
This goes beyond simple "bundling". But why waste more of my time..

[EN[i]GMA]

This goes beyond simple "bundling". But why waste more of my time..

No, it doesn't go beyond "simple 'bundling" at all, you just don't have a single clue why you think Windows SHOULD be bundled with a shell but not a web browser.

[Ace42]

GMA']No, it doesn't go beyond "simple 'bundling" at all, you just don't have a single clue why you think Windows SHOULD be bundled with a shell but not a web browser.

Maybe he does, but doesn't want to waste time getting into a long convaluted argument with you, which invariably results in you throwing up your hands and saying "well, I just don't see the world like that."

Besides, if you remember the trust suits, it was MS *integrating* the browser with the OS, rather than *bundling it with the shell* that was the problem.

The "MSHTML" engine is ubiquitous with 'Doze, and by pushing forward their own non-standard standards, MS have significantly hampered cross-platform compatibility. This creates a stranglehold on the market, and rather than MS competing by offering a "superior product" - they are competiting solely by using a "more prevalent product."

I know many people who have told me "I don't want to run a windows machine, but if I go for a MAC, (or Linux, or FreeBSD, or any other distro / OS / platform) then *BECAUSE OF MICROSOFT'S SELF-SERVING CODING* I won't be able to network properly with people using MS."

These are people who are more than capable of interacting with jabva, OSX, various linux distributions, etc etc. But MS? Always causes trouble.

So, MS aren't "better" they are merely using their position to "make others worse".

So much for competition causing positive progress, eh?

"Not using IE? (You are, in effect, using one of the numerous superior and totally industry standard compliant browsers available as alternatives) - Hah, tough shit, this site won't render properly"

That's like saying a model-T is a better car than a modern vehicles because all the pumps refuse to sell unleaded petrol.

Well, yessss... In that the model-T with petrol will actually run. No in terms of the quality, sophistication and superiority of the product.

[EN[i]GMA]

Maybe he does, but doesn't want to waste time getting into a long convaluted argument with you, which invariably results in you throwing up your hands and saying "well, I just don't see the world like that."

Besides, if you remember the trust suits, it was MS *integrating* the browser with the OS, rather than *bundling it with the shell* that was the problem.

The "MSHTML" engine is ubiquitous with 'Doze, and by pushing forward their own non-standard standards, MS have significantly hampered cross-platform compatibility. This creates a stranglehold on the market, and rather than MS competing by offering a "superior product" - they are competiting solely by using a "more prevalent product."

I know many people who have told me "I don't want to run a windows machine, but if I go for a MAC, (or Linux, or FreeBSD, or any other distro / OS / platform) then *BECAUSE OF MICROSOFT'S SELF-SERVING CODING* I won't be able to network properly with people using MS."

These are people who are more than capable of interacting with jabva, OSX, various linux distributions, etc etc. But MS? Always causes trouble.

So, MS aren't "better" they are merely using their position to "make others worse".

So much for competition causing positive progress, eh?

"Not using IE? (You are, in effect, using one of the numerous superior and totally industry standard compliant browsers available as alternatives) - Hah, tough shit, this site won't render properly"

That's like saying a model-T is a better car than a modern vehicles because all the pumps refuse to sell unleaded petrol.

Well, yessss... In that the model-T with petrol will actually run. No in terms of the quality, sophistication and superiority of the product.

I agree, I don't like Explorer being browser, madatory filemanager and operating environment.

It should be able to be removed and replaced with something better and more stable.

Tell me, what compatibility problems are you talking about? What exactly prevents MS products from networking with other products?

A server running Apache or Windows Server runs almost the same way, it has roughly the same features and compatability, and other than security, the differences are negligable.

I'm not doubting that Microsoft codes proprietarily, but I doubt it's to the degree you mention.

What can you do with open source, that you can't do with Microsoft, and what does Microsoft do to prevent you from using open source?

[Ace42]

GMA']Tell me, what compatibility problems are you talking about? What exactly prevents MS products from networking with other products?

You probably can't remember the ruminations caused by Word 6's tendancy to crash when saving files into a non-native format...

I really don't have the time or the inclination to get into a "propellor-head" discussion about the ins and outs of MS failing to adhere to industries standards, and needless to say, there are plenty of MS hating websites that can give you a long list of examples of MS obfuscating attempts at cross-platform compatibility.

theregister and slashdot are probably good starting points.

and other than security, the differences are negligable.

And who cares about security and stability, right?

I'm not doubting that Microsoft codes proprietarily, but I doubt it's to the degree you mention.

Again, plenty of websites to shock and amaze you at their gall. One of the key obfuscations in *this* area is their refusal to share the OS "procedure calls" / "APIs" (I am a bit wasted, so I might be getting confused at this point, so it might be worth googling around those terms until you find something on what I am talking about) which meant that non-MS software has to work twice as hard to do the same thing.

A quick google (God, see how hard it is for me to pull myself away from proving a point?) found:

http://www.fool.com/community/pod/2000/000414.htm

Hurt #2: The Windows API is difficult to learn and program. Adding to that difficulty, MSFT frequently changes the underlying mechanisms -- in order to give its own application developers an advantage in rolling out apps with new features whenever a new Windows version ships. This is what hurt Lotus for a big example. So I guess I won't write an innovative new spreadsheet program. Consumers get hurt by lack of choice.

Hard because MS refuse to give explanations for numerous features, etc.

Hurt #3: I used the best programming tools I could find, either Watcom C/C++ or Borland tools. Well, Microsoft decided it wanted the market for development tools. So while Borland was trying to figure out how to access the secret unpublished parts of the Windows API, Microsoft was making products that were "better". By changing underlying mechanisms with each new version of Windows (from DDE to OLE, but you as an investor don't need the technical details, all you care about is stock price). If I wanted to program using the full range of tools that my competing developers were having access to by using Microsoft tools, I'd have to give up my Borland tools. That hurt Borland. That hurt me. So now I have to use Microsoft Visual Studio. The reason Visual Studio is the dominant tool on the market is because NOTHING ELSE WAS ALLOWED TO COMPETE. No competition == no innovation == mediocrity. Oh Visual Studio is pretty, we'll never know what else might have been.

Hurt #4: I discovered that I could write programs that could reach more than one platform. Freedom! I started to use Java. Well, Microsoft bundled a new tool in its Visual Studio -- Visual J++ -- that claimed to be a Java programming tool, but in fact allowed me to write code that would work BETTER ON WINDOWS THAN ON OTHER PLATFORMS. So if I chose to continue to use it, I would find that I was once again writing apps for Windows platforms only. That hurt the consumer, who was almost given an opportunity to get access to apps regardless of what platform it ran on. This one's not over yet, here's hoping.

"For windows platforms only" - cross-platform compatibility issues, as I mentioned above.

OK, I'll get it preinstalled by the hardware makers. Hmm the hardware makers won't talk to me -- if they do load my product, Windows will suddenly cost them more. Well, AOL could include it on their CD -- nope, AOL made some kind of deal with Microsoft (or Microsoft would've pulled AOL's signup icon from the desktop).

What can you do with open source, that you can't do with Microsoft, and what does Microsoft do to prevent you from using open source?

Read the site I linked. Really, you could've just used google, instead of testing me, and saved us both a few posts.

Well, let's face it, it's ME who is doing to posting...

[EN[i]GMA]

You probably can't remember the ruminations caused by Word 6's tendancy to crash when saving files into a non-native format...

I really don't have the time or the inclination to get into a "propellor-head" discussion about the ins and outs of MS failing to adhere to industries standards, and needless to say, there are plenty of MS hating websites that can give you a long list of examples of MS obfuscating attempts at cross-platform compatibility.

theregister and slashdot are probably good starting points.



And who cares about security and stability, right?



Again, plenty of websites to shock and amaze you at their gall. One of the key obfuscations in *this* area is their refusal to share the OS "procedure calls" / "APIs" (I am a bit wasted, so I might be getting confused at this point, so it might be worth googling around those terms until you find something on what I am talking about) which meant that non-MS software has to work twice as hard to do the same thing.

A quick google (God, see how hard it is for me to pull myself away from proving a point?) found:

http://www.fool.com/community/pod/2000/000414.htm



Hard because MS refuse to give explanations for numerous features, etc.





"For windows platforms only" - cross-platform compatibility issues, as I mentioned above.





Read the site I linked. Really, you could've just used google, instead of testing me, and saved us both a few posts.

Well, let's face it, it's ME who is doing to posting...

I'll look into it.

Really, I've seen more than my share of Microsoft hate in my time, I read Slashdot often and don't like MS that very much, but I don't think anything they do is criminal and that's where I draw the line.

[Ali]

Microsoft faces a serious threat to its monopoly in Europe's public sector as Tony Blair's newly-elected UK government prepares to announce plans to encourage more take-up of free open-source software.

A survey commissioned by the FT found that more than 60 per cent of UK local authorities intended to increase their use of open source.

The UK pubic sector spent £12.4bn ($23.5bn) on IT in 2003-04, and more than three-quarters of public bodies plan to expand use of open source over the next three years. Two out of five who don't yet use it plan to do so.

Microsoft faces pressure across Europe over its software pricing, which leaves public bodies facing huge bills for upgrading the Windows program.

Other countries are considering their options and could use open-source to bargain down Microsoft. For a company whose most familiar competitive tactic has been to undercut rivals on price, Microsoft has faced a new and unusual threat from "free" software such as the Linux operating system.

The open-source market is beginning to come to some maturity which gives confidence to IT managers that they can start to rely on this technology

This has brought a re-evaluation of the company's unsuccessful efforts to marginalise the open-source approach to software development. It has also forced Microsoft to dig in for what will be its most important long-term competitive battle, according to Steve Ballmer, chief executive officer.
Minutes from a recent meeting in Brussels between Microsoft representatives and local authority representative bodies from the UK, Belgium and Holland said Microsoft's pricing structure had damaged trust.

Local authorities told the meeting they "felt they were being forced down a route dictated by Microsoft and as a result they are now looking for a far more open approach where users have choice".

Angela Waite, president of the Society of IT Managers, which represents local authorities and which carried out the survey for the FT, said the survey showed concerns about open-source were easing.

"The open-source market is beginning to come to some maturity which gives confidence to IT managers that they can start to rely on this technology," she said. and do their own upgrades.