Well since Google isn't planning on making a game console, selling database software, making an operating system, or selling a suite of programming languages, I don't think any of that will bear down on the success or failure of Google. 
In the short term, I doubt Google has anything to fear. Their search technology and related services are genuinely superior to the competition(with perhaps limited exceptions, e.g. specialized subject search engines, and so forth; but no comparable stable of general products exists) and they have significant brand recongition and a generally positive image. In the immediate term, this is absolutely unbeatable. However, they do have reason to worry, and seem to be doing so. Search is an area that is difficult, a lot of smart people have worked on it, and more are always needed; but smart people can generally be obtained with enough money and a decent corporate culture. MS has both. They make massive profits on Office and Windows, and their research division has some serious academic firepower. The MSN search backend isn't going to suck forever. As for the frontend, MS has the advantage of a massive install base. They just have to flip the proverbial switch in their OS, and their search becomes a default. This isn't a bad thing, per se, search seems to be a big feature for modern desktop OSs, and MS has as much a right to one as any; but it doesn't make Google's life any easier.
They seem to be responding rationally, though. Beefing up Google Toolbar, presumably so more people will bother to install it, and so that when Vista comes out, people still think to download the toolbar before realizing that their OS now comes with a search system that doesn't suck. Their web offerings continue to wend their way through beta, generally improving with time, as is to be expected. Their most interesting move, though, is the attempt to eat at MS's margins in areas that they have nothing to do with. Those programmers assigned to Openoffice, for example, aren't an altruistic measure, and have no real bearing on anything else they do(Office binary and XML are already well enough understood for search to work on them quite easily, OpenOffice pretty much kills the market for "GoogleOffice: OpenOffice; but with ADS!") It's pretty much solely an effort to cut sales of Office and/or force MS to lower prices. I doubt that we'll see GoogleOS, or anything of that sort; because that just doesn't fit with what Google does; but I would not be at all surprised if Google dedicates small but significant sums to various OSS projects that overlap with MS core markets. They won't hope to make a dime off of them; but it's by far the cheapest way to cut MS's margins, and force them to spend more on their core markets and less on search.
They seem to be responding rationally, though. Beefing up Google Toolbar, presumably so more people will bother to install it, and so that when Vista comes out, people still think to download the toolbar before realizing that their OS now comes with a search system that doesn't suck. Their web offerings continue to wend their way through beta, generally improving with time, as is to be expected. Their most interesting move, though, is the attempt to eat at MS's margins in areas that they have nothing to do with. Those programmers assigned to Openoffice, for example, aren't an altruistic measure, and have no real bearing on anything else they do(Office binary and XML are already well enough understood for search to work on them quite easily, OpenOffice pretty much kills the market for "GoogleOffice: OpenOffice; but with ADS!") It's pretty much solely an effort to cut sales of Office and/or force MS to lower prices. I doubt that we'll see GoogleOS, or anything of that sort; because that just doesn't fit with what Google does; but I would not be at all surprised if Google dedicates small but significant sums to various OSS projects that overlap with MS core markets. They won't hope to make a dime off of them; but it's by far the cheapest way to cut MS's margins, and force them to spend more on their core markets and less on search.
The word "Google" is too well known at this point. It is burned in even more than MSN or anything else.
What planet are you from? Apple is NEVER going to have 20% marketshare. Think about it for a minute. Dell has 18% marketshare.
Maybe you are a mac user, and for that I am sorry, bot you don't have to be a zealot. The fact of the matter is that if Microsoft was coming to an end, it would have happened already. The end of Microsoft was heralded during the rise in popularity of Linux in the late 90s combined with the DOJ trial. Unfortunately for the mac zealots, MS's marketshare has actually INCREASED since then - in the face of FREE competition - and they also basically won the trial.
Maybe you are a mac user, and for that I am sorry, bot you don't have to be a zealot. The fact of the matter is that if Microsoft was coming to an end, it would have happened already. The end of Microsoft was heralded during the rise in popularity of Linux in the late 90s combined with the DOJ trial. Unfortunately for the mac zealots, MS's marketshare has actually INCREASED since then - in the face of FREE competition - and they also basically won the trial.
Phoenix86
Lifer
- May 21, 2003
- 14,644
- 10
- 81
WTF? Did anyone actually read the article?
So why are publishers and authors so mad about this? First and foremost, Google Print represents, in many ways, a challenge to the existing order. Authors write books, publishers print, distribute and sell books, and that is the whole story. Intellectual property laws allow said authors and publishers to control the exact distribution of their content and its exact pricing. Google?s approach of scanning these books without permission is tantamount to a high-profile slap in the face.
Google is now distributing their content directly to the end user, even if in an abbreviated form, and thus diminishing the power of the existing order. It could be argued that over time, search engines could become a crucial avenue for book advertising and that Google could eventually charge publishers to list their books on Google Print.
Oh, teh noes! Scanning a book w/o the author's permission is a slap in the fact of the author.
/me runs of to library to scan a lot of copyrighted material
How about you (author) make that last argument *when it happens*. 'Cause otherwise it's perfectly legal to copy copyrighted material for non-commercial use, which is their intent. In the end, the publisher/author will still have control over how it's distributed and it's price.
So why are publishers and authors so mad about this? First and foremost, Google Print represents, in many ways, a challenge to the existing order. Authors write books, publishers print, distribute and sell books, and that is the whole story. Intellectual property laws allow said authors and publishers to control the exact distribution of their content and its exact pricing. Google?s approach of scanning these books without permission is tantamount to a high-profile slap in the face.
Google is now distributing their content directly to the end user, even if in an abbreviated form, and thus diminishing the power of the existing order. It could be argued that over time, search engines could become a crucial avenue for book advertising and that Google could eventually charge publishers to list their books on Google Print.
Oh, teh noes! Scanning a book w/o the author's permission is a slap in the fact of the author.
/me runs of to library to scan a lot of copyrighted material
How about you (author) make that last argument *when it happens*. 'Cause otherwise it's perfectly legal to copy copyrighted material for non-commercial use, which is their intent. In the end, the publisher/author will still have control over how it's distributed and it's price.
I own and use both a Power Mac and a homebrew Athlon 64 based PC. Just bought the Mac and use it more and more. I think it is 10x a better product for a non-computer savvy person. Which is to say, 90% of the market.
Why couldn't Apple hit 20% in five years?
They have no competition. Dell, HP, Acer, eMachines, Compaq, etc -- they are the same. They are all Bill Gate's slaves.
What would happen if Gates put the best music program (iTunes), the best amateur music editing program (Garageband), the only easy to use video editing program (iMovie), a software DVD player (iDVD), etc, etc?
He would get hit by the words biggest ****** antitrust suit, that is what! Look at the storm Windows Media player caused!! And it is a POS and will not even play DVD's.
Apple can and has done what is illegal for Bill Gates to do -- take out all the amateur 3rd party software competition. Which really was inevitable with advent of open source software, but that is a tangent.
Everyone and their mom owns a computer with a cd burner, and I bet less than 10% of them know how to use it - let alone do anymore more than suft the internet and email.
Apple suddenly opened up a word of possibily for your average Joe computer user. Suddenly MP3's. photo editing, movie editing, music editing -- it's not just for computer nerds anymore.
Three years ago, computers become as fast as they will even need to be for all but gamers and professionals. Apple realized this and started selling people old technology with good software. And it worked.
And now, starting in 2006, their only weak point, that is to say their hardware, will be moot point. They are going Intel PC's will lose the only advantage they had - speed.
If people keep using Windows, I agree completely. Google could go down like Netscape.
However, let us not forget about those folks over at Apple.
They use Google in their browser.
And they are getting bigger.
Hate to break it to you, all you Apple haters -- but Apple is Googles only hope.
Having said that, though, Google is an incredibly innovate company. Up there with Apple, in my opinion.
I do not think they would go down without a fight.
Microsoft in the Enron of the computer world. They could put a dent in Google, and indeed will if this all plays out, but they are going down!
Of course they are going to continue to use Windows.. what planet are you from
Hating Microsoft is great fodder for 13 year old kids who dont know about the real world, but Microsoft will never die.
Too many American businesses rely on them. To disrupt MS would disrupt the American economy more so than blowing up the World Trade Center.
Thats the truth of the matter.
As stated, Goodbye Google. MS is here to stay, without doubt.. Google does not have such a secured future. Their revenue is based off of advertisements.. they are only one or two bad PR stunts from going down the shitter at any moment.
Lithium381
Lifer
- May 12, 2001
- 12,452
- 2
- 0
I'm inclined to agree with Doug on this, 4 years ago and i'd be cursing Apple as worthless, even as a paperweight. They've impressed me recently and Doug highlighted many of the main points. Is this to say i'm going to buy one....not a chance for the near future, i'm down for windows machines, the Mac OS is just to fluffy for me, but i'm impressed with the recent business choices they've been making over here in Cupertino.
You cannot compare Google Talk to the others in terms of brand loyalty. People will use AIm and MSN only because all their other friends already use it. Compared to a mapping or search program then, my like or dislike of a certain program is not dependent on what my friends use or what the industry standard is.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter