Buck passing. IT support people have heard of it
|
|
|
Google will be the next Microsoft
GOOGLE'S FAMOUS MANTRA of 'Don't be evil' is becoming increasingly examined, with good reason.
Not content with handling around 90 per cent of UK search requests and about 70 per cent in the US, Google also dominates online advertising with a massive 75-80 per cent market share.
Considering its market share in search and advertising, how and why Google is able to avoid more severe antitrust scrutiny, considering IBM's and Microsoft's run-ins with anti-monopoly commissions around the world, is unknown.
However, despite these all-conquering statistics, Google is now rushing into the mobile advertising arena, having recently purchasing Admob for $750 million and aiming for dominance in yet another market.
Analysts and forward-thinking companies like Google all see mobile devices as the clients of the future, and Google wants to ensure that it's at the forefront of providing services, and it doesn't see this happening by just providing the advertising.
Google has seen Apple's vice-like grip on the smartphone market and is now ploughing forward with Android. Google has obviously not been satisfied with its partners efforts with the first generation of Andriod-based phones, having released its own phone in the guise of the Nexus One.
This comes shortly after Google's attempts to break into the browser market with Chrome, now advertised on the usually naked Google home page, and into the operating system space via the Linux based Chrome OS. By owning the software client, Google can ensure its products are running highly optimised on Google supplied software, and can ensure full compatibility with the underlying web browser.
Similarly to Microsoft, Google has begun extending its reach into development languages, tools and environments. The Google Web Toolkit (GWT) is now an established web development framework, using JavaScript and Java. GO was recently launched and is an open-source C/Python hybrid that Google hopes combines performance with speed of development. Even SQL has been replaced - 'GQL' is used for its own brand of database, which is a non-relational DB under the App Engine hood.
By delivering open source languages and software, Google is seen to embrace the movement to openness and shared development - the antithesis of Microsoft's closed-source ideology - making it appear more attractive and more open, subsequently attracting developers and development for its key technology stack. However, though it's seen as less evil, it's inherently self-serving.
The search and advertising behemoth is also not satisfied with producing and owning some of the web's best applications, including Google Apps, Google Mail, Google Analytics and Google Maps - it also wants to host everyone else's.
Google wants to be at the forefront of Cloud computing and is pioneering its own efforts in the shape of the Google App Engine - Google's application development and hosting platform synonymous with all things Cloud based.
By owning the framework in which future applications are delivered, Google can ultimately ensure its languages, APIs, and services are utilised by the development community, further tying the network to Google's array of products.
As you can see, Google wants to own everything in the chain. It wants to own and produce the client, in the shape of a Google engineered mobile device with Android or a netbook using the Chrome web browser and the Chrome OS. It wants to own the programs you use with the range of Google applications. It wants to own the infrastructure for any other applications you use or intend to create via the Google App Engine cloud. It wants to control how you search for your data, and index the plethora of Internet based data in the ether with the Google search engine. It wants to simultaneously handle all the advertising infrastructure, and receive the subsequent commissions.
By controlling the complete user experience, development community, and underlying architecture, Google will also control a vast catalogue of personal data on your interests, search history and Internet presence - not to mention your underlying documents, images and other information in its data centres. The amount of personal user and usage information it is and will be able to store will be mind-numbing, and this alone has produced many discussions.
If Google is able to gain a foothold with the same level of market share it enjoys in its primary areas of search and advertising, in every market it's currently targeting, the company's virtual and real-world presence will be staggering - far in advance of what Microsoft had its heyday or what IBM had in its wonder years.
Google wants to own everything, and it's on track to doing just that. How that will square with its own corporate mantra is anyone's guess. µ
Share this:
Share
Google is not yet as bad as Microsoft.
It's just a good thing that Google has taken the search market, and Apple the mobile market, rather than Microsoft extending its current desktop market into other areas.
Microsoft is already a convicted monopolist. It tries to overthrow industry standards, to force through its own proprietary formats.
Look how Microsoft destroyed Netscape, by using its monopoly powers. Microsoft still behaves like a thug. It recently rammed its Office format through the ISO. It has rejected HTML5.
Google is using open formats and open-source software. Its strength lies in a vulnerable search algorithm.
I think these are the true reasons why some AMD's marketing people recently were biased toward Google's Android devices.
I think Google will launch a cloud gaming service that will have same features like what have comes in the Windows.
Some people are so emotionally invested in the idea of Microsoft being "evil" that they are incapable of seeing the real threat.
Symptoms include thing that MS is a "convicted monopolist", which is isn't, and that they "destroyed" that second-rate piece of trash "Netscape" (which by the way is the first and original example of what bloatware looks like in real life.) Also,... Oh, wait! I see the Willfully-Blind Anti-MS minions have already shown up!
I recall when there a tendency among the paranoically-inclined to whine about MS "taking over the internet". Which of course never happened. Now Google is actually doing it in real life, along with taking ownership of both all your personal data, and the entire cultural, scholarly, and intellectual inheritance of the world, and the anti-MS crowd is just too backwards to see it. But then, they have NEVER been too good at seeing the world; they can only see the products of their own ignorance, and being terrified of their own mindless imaginings.
Personally, I would not want to see MS dissappear, even though they have played very dirty to get where they are. What we need is some proper competition in all aspects of the market - from the OS to search, to office applications.
In a way, we need to let google get away with it's monopoly in search, at least for the time being. We need to allow them to become big enough to give MS some real competition, so as to break the market up a bit and stoke the fires of innovation.
It might be working already: would Windows 7 be as good as it is if Google had not been around?
If you did a blind test and told people that a company was going to:
1. Release their own OS which relies heavily on their market dominating web service cluster and by default only supports.
2. Invent their own programming framework on which said OS functions best.
3. Release their own backend storage mechanism which is only designed to work with the aforementioned items and the aforemetioned items with it.
If you tell people that it's Microsoft with it, they're already sending the e-mail to the DOJ. Tell them that it's Apple or Google, it's "Hey, dude, that's awesome."
Good for them ! As long as they do it without dirty practices, what's the problem ? Some years later, some guyz will come with some revolutionary ideas and overthrown them just the way they kicked M$ in the mouth. Plain and simple.
Nice piece of speculation Maddoctor. Had forgotten that AMD had demoed that tech at CES2009. They said at the time that full on rollouts would occur sometime in 2010.
Get the infrastructure in place at
Google in 2010 and then with the rollout of Bulldozer and the mobile Llano platforms in 2011 market the heck out of the fact that your best performance lies in AMD based products and Android platforms.
Evil...but in a good way.
Google gave up it's "Don't be evil" mantra a while ago.
Using FireFerret with its AdBlock+ plugin I don't see ads. Ten of them are blocked on this page alone. Does that stop Google (and the Inq) getting revenue when I visit them? Not that I care, I just don't want the time and bandwidth spent downloading stuff I don't want to see.
Seriously, guys, why do you even bother?
Microsoft does what they do, and will continue to do so. They do not actually need you to astroturf on every single thread that even mentions them, any more than people calling them names is going to stop lazy idiots buying Windows because its "the easy option".
Likewise, if Google produce things that people want, people will buy those things. If enough people buy those things, Google will become the next Microsoft, just as Microsoft became the next IBM. And so it goes.
And if they become powerful enough to start abusing their position, no doubt they will face scrutiny. That hasnt happened yet, possibly because Google are only really big in online advertising - and the only people who even care about online advertising are those directly involved in the industry; it currently has zero footprint in the Real World.
The articles premise is sound, the points it raises are valid. Your pro/anti-Microsoft tomfoolery is utterly, *utterly* irrelevant.
And besides - they *are* a convicted monopolist. Check your darn facts.
Microsoft did not commit a crime by being a monopoly, but by using it to "cut off [Netscape's] air supply" (their written word), strong-arming PC makers, and ... no, that would be a book.
On the other hand, Google opens up a world of information in so many areas. Whatever the motive, the public so far has benefited a lot.
Also don't forget that the convicted monopolist behemoth Microsoft is still around (though looking ever more like Computer Associates v2.0 with a cool research department tacked on), and in addition to the above argument, I would rather see Google keeping Microsoft in check with whatever tactics they can use among them.
Why IS Ultee' Always Right.
Microsoft Didn't Just Plop Down -=7=-. IT took 40 Years to Develope & Market, Now Microsoft has Taken Baton to Good Base For HOME Computing.
That Base was Known when M/S Started, Then Commodore Hooper & Co Had Bit of Wringing to Give US,Corporately. Time Takes Time. So Goo Gle UNIX Might Be So Goo, goo googleie good, Or Maybe MUCH More Like Gestopo.ONLY BETTER, Faster,Deeper, & More Ruthless.
Remeber Explainations About 25% US Bonds from 1980 To 1986, That theULTIMAT Explained Here On theINQ.
US OWES: $12,245,872,000,000
Theres Debt to Be Paid that Goes Far Beyond Dod Restrictions on Digital Industry. Its Called:OWE: $12,245,872,000,000 . At Maximun, Thats PER MONTH. Laugh,Laugh,Laugh?. Bonds are Primarily Owned By Republic of Chinas' Banks. Banks' Print Money. Those High Intrest 25% US Bonds will Be Paid, by Printing Money, Yet theREADERS Gets NO Break. Home Saving Becomes microDrop Compared To Bully of BIG,BIG Money.Think of Prices going thru Roof & Public Squandered In Desperate Fear & Gulping system, Yellow Jouno Press. NoBody Can Afford It. NoBody gets Google, AS Have to Sell 500 Computers, To Broken People, Just to Get One Yourself. While 50% of Public Gets Service FREE. NoBody Can Afford It. Wait till Next Summer, US Would Seek Relief In International Bankruptcy Court. Fun Won't Start Till May 2010, As thats When 30 Year Indentures Come to Roost.
GooGle, Readers Might Get It, NoBody Will get it. Fight with Your BEST Straw.
Google YES, People,NO. EyeBall Candy Is New InterNational Right Wing Conspiracy To Form Twarting, World GovernMent, I Will NOT Live to See Stopped.Even With theGOOD Google.
REF Words:disaster,Googlstopo,World Collaspe,Starvation, Mass Exterminations....
Signed:Fre'Mont.
I don't understand why Google diversifying their business gets people worried about them being a monopoly.
They dominate search and ads. If they didn't have ads, they couldn't pay for search. So that's really one in the same.
But what else do they dominate? Every other product of theirs has competition, and they do not have a majority market share in any product other than search (actually far from it).
Do they dominate ...
- Office apps? No
- Mobile OS? No
- Mobile phones? No
- Browser? No
- PC OS? No
- Programming language(s)? No
The only thing on that list where they seem to be gaining substantial ground is Mobile OS, and that's no where near a plurality let alone majority.
Let me quote a section and then rewrite the end:
"By controlling the complete user experience, development community, and underlying architecture ..." they'd be no different from Apple/Microsoft 10 years ago.
Google is just taking a different approach to providing the computing tasks that we need by making it more web based. Hopefully it'll increase competition and innovation.
(Been waiting a *long* time to use that one, heh.)
But seriously: how is it go_ogle provides so much for FREE? Advertising? Pffft! And apparently safe from anti-trust? (As is M$, a key factor in their rise, as IBM got M$ in precisely because fearing more anti-trust action themselves.)
go_ogle just happens to be the perfect front for police state surveillance: "data mining" that they sell to whoever pays.
You just woke up from a coma, and updated your 20-year old IT history knowledge from Bill Gate's blog or something.
Microsoft is not the wonder land of the computers anymore, broaden your research please.
And yes, IT IS EVIL, it's not just about making money.
Ultimately, Google will expand even beyond just the internet. I expect them to branch out into old media advertising as well. That means TV and radio. Don't think it's possible? Eventually, we'll all have DVRs. Those dvrs can hold advertisements. With computerized TV systems and google user data, ad can become targeted for tv shows. TV advertising is where the big money is.
Well it is not surprising the the anti-MS brigade do not actually know what occurred in the Microsoft Anti-Trust case: they SETTLED with the government. And "being a monopoly" is NOT illegal. Microsoft was brought to trial for what the DoJ considered MS's abuse of it market position. I know that some people do not comprehend the difference, but then again, some people are stupid.
Oh, and let me commend the opposition here on their very clever use of "M$". It really shows off your creativity and maturity.
@Mike: If same Mike as posted elsewhere, you have no objection to an M$ monopoly,
either. You seem just plain pro-monopoly.
But you presume a "free market" that simply does not exist without active
government regulation. If M$ had *its* way, go_ogle wouldn't exist. If IBM had
its way, M$ wouldn't exist. If AT&T, known in 1983 as literally *The* Phone
Company, had its way, you wouldn't have a cell phone. And so on.
The rights and geegaws that you take for granted today do *not* come from the
generosity of the rich, nor even from their smarts in creating gadgets.
Monopolies always stifle innovation; the rich (successful thieves) always turn
their "profits" to use in gaining total power over the poor.
Don't blithely assume that go_ogle will eventually have competition that
limits them: that is *not* the trend of the last 50 years, nor a supportable
prediction.
(Just so I'm clear: government is the *worst* evil, more so when allowing
corporations to run wild, and inevitably merging with them. You *can* be
oppressed by corporations, just as much as by governments. Owing your soul to
the company store was once absolutely literal.)
@Turtle: reliable speculation is that M$ gave in to secret agreement for NSA backdoors, that's why M$ has been left pretty much alone since, despite ongoing criminality.
Let me commend you in turn for your admirable stance in what is otherwise a quite civil discussion.
Indeed, while other people bring facts to the table, you are the only one to insult the people who do not agree with your opinion. Quite mature and creative, for a troll that is.
And given your position on Microsoft, you must also surely consider OJ to be totally innocent of manslaughter.
First, I rarely post on this site, and rarely under the name 'Mike'.
Second, I am not pro-monopoly - far from it. However I do not believe Google is a monopoly as I pointed out.
Third, even if you argued Google is a monopoly, you'd need to show me that they have performed anti-competition practices for them to be stifling innovation.
Lastly, I believe Google is bringing competition to markets that currently have dominating players with little to no competition. MS Office dominates all others, IE dominates all others with FF a distant second, Windows dominates the PC OS.
So if you could explain to me how Google is a monopoly in an area other than search + ads, I'd love to hear it.
Your entire post targeted at me was based on an assumption, and a really bad one. If you could comprehend what you're reading you'd realize that I'm hoping Google brings competition to the previously mentioned areas as I feel like there is little to none currently.
So Google is using open source to trick us into believing that they are champions of 0pen development, when they are really using a bait and switch trick to hem us in and enslave us worse that Microsoft, IBM, or Apple ever could with their closed platforms? It looks like running into the open loving arms of Apple is the only real hope left...
Calling Google evil because it is big and successful (which is all that this article communicated)is ridiculous. Googles mega market share is the result of providing market leading services at market leading prices (free) not the result of back-alley deals and malicious squashings of the little guy, nor is it the result of some diabolical master plan to take over the world and sell your daughter to Hugo Chavez.
While I understand that big businesses deserve big magnifying glasses turned on them, the Inquirer has lately been searching rather desperately to find some sort of hate crime to pin on Google. Since this article was a completely senseless and substanceless bashing I have to go to a different article to even find something to refute. How about Schmidt's "Maybe you're doing things you shouldn't be if you're so worried about privacy" comment oh yeah...
El Inq: OMG! He said THAT??!! Are you saying I shouldn't be looking at porn or embezzling my mothers retirement savings!!??
It was a completely fair statement and does not mean that Google now believes they should horde everyone's info and sell it to the highest bidder it means that accountability (which I assume we can agree is a good thing) is present in openness... but OMG the porn addicts feel so threatened by statements like that!
Maybe your talent would would be better applied to science fiction novels where conspiracy theories can be taken to a satisfying and full-bodied conclusion rather than your current outlet that subtly misinforms the public with paranoid polemics against laudable foreign firms.
I find it intresting that Microsoft and/or the goverment hasn't taken Google to court yet. Google uses it's #1 position and profits in search to give away products in other areas to harm their competion(Android). Infact since Microsoft doesn't force their search engine on you like they did in the past they should give search away and flat-line Google's little empire. It's a double standard that Microsoft has to compete by pricing their product and Google can give away their product for free and take over markets.
"Don't be evil" always was a very naive slogan, worthy of much suspicion. All in all, "good" and "evil" are not very productive ways of dissecting the world. And somebody could argue that making a profit is not "evil", at which point the company is at the exact same point as any other company. Especially as other companies do not spend their time "being evil", just maximizing their profits.
One should note that by law, publicly traded corporations must (can only) take into account the interests of their shareholders. The rest is marketing and PR.
Dear inquirer and it's readers, why are you stacking paranoia regarding the internet based on a fact that google is everywhere.
Google is the first cybernational (tm), they are good at what they do and I agree they need competition. So quit the wincing and whining, setup to the plate and play ball
I don't recall Microsoft recording every single thing I do with their software and using it to track every website I visit. Google are way out of control, I block all their cookies and analytics domains now.
"Google are already way worse than Microsoft"
Not so fast. I recently had an interview at a company that MS just took over in Raleigh NC, and I learned a few things that I didn't know before. Microshaft has a unique ID for everyone that uses their search engine. This ID is used for marketing purposes. The ads you see will match your profile that MS has stored on you. Sound like google? The point is they both do this crap, and I know firsthand that this is true.
It is your choice to block google and to not use their services.
They don't exclude you from the internet now do they, it's your choice to participate.
What is GSOC, this is no where near what any other multinational does for FOSS or freedom of speech.
There is a difference, it's mostly free beer anyways...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=8&ved=0C543546AH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcorporate%2Ftenthings.html&rct=j&q=Is+Google+evil&ei=7543543hgsH_8654654GGDSh&usg=SDFDSJG45SDFJ234235647
So many people confusing a monopoly with being #1. Microsoft wasn't in trouble because they were number 1. It was the practices they employed while number 1 that got them in trouble.
So, why hasn't anyone taken Google to court over being #1 in their areas? Because having the largest market share isn't illegal.
I find it amusing that people are so scared of Google's cookies and tracking... and yet still come to this site.
What a giant piece of Google FUD. Google is nothing like Microsoft, in that Google are actually able to innovate and provide services people want.
Apple is the next Microsoft. Look at how they lock people down to their hardware, doesn't allow an alternative browser on the iPhone but their own, not allowing Flash etc.
Google has done so much good for humanity that I don't worry about its supremacy.
When in doubt, I google it. Google is the only company that makes me more intelligent. Others companies only try to dumb me down, to sell me crap.
I feel in debt with Google. I never click its Ads. I even use Adblock. What kind of person am I?
They are huge even, but they try to be open, easy for dev, and users.
They keep on innovating, of course it serve they interest ....
First off, being a monopoly as far as I know isn't in itself a crime. It's *abuse* of the monopoly that's illegal, and which Microsoft *has* been convicted of.
Second, it's a *vise*-like grip, not a vice-like grip. OK, I quibble, but shouldn't I expect better of The Inquirer.net?