Scared of Google?

[a5cent]

I think Microsoft is learning, and they've got some good ideas right now on the direction of things, but they seem to be struggling to explain it. I think in large part because of the existing culture.

Completely agree! Apparently, MS has determined that explaining many of these differences is a lost cause. I'm starting to feel they chose wisely...

 

[omniusovermind]

Hmm. I've been in this business a long time....

...Google for as large as they are is also itself struggling. They've succeeded with search and make money there, but most all of their other initiatives for how clever and creative they are... they don't make money. Android for how success it is, doesn't really make Google money. It helps direct traffic to their sites but is that enough?

We'll see.

Google was listed as the 2nd richest technology company in the world last year at the end of q3 I'm not sure where you're going with this.

 

[a5cent]

Google was listed as the 2nd richest technology company in the world last year at the end of q3 I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I think his point is, that Google has so far failed to profitably monetize anything beyond search. Ignoring their investments outside their traditional software space, Google is a gigantic company standing on a single pilar called 'search' and is struggling everywhere else, which everyone is willing to ignore since search is such a rediculously efficient money printing machine.

Google isn't struggling financially, but strategically.

 

[AaHaa]

Completely agree! Apparently, MS has determined that explaining many of these differences is a lost cause. I'm starting to feel they chose wisely...

I really got this feeling myself when I saw the "Child of the 90's" IE-commercial. It really looks like they learnt from their mistakes, know what challenges they face, how people think about them, and what to do about it. If Microsoft can continue working like this, I'd be a lot less worried.

 

[nube_android]

There's a great article on SeekingAlpha about android and Google, its about how Microsoft are in a much better position than Google are.
I haven't got the link but I'm sure someone will post it.

I would say the reason MS is in a better positition is because they not only have control over their operating system, but they have much more growth room in the mobile market.

 

[ninjaap]

Hmm. I've been in this business a long time, and frankly I think Microsoft is simply receiving a good solid dose of their own medicine. I've seen a lot of companies come and go. What was on top is no longer. Good ideas do usually prevail.

I think Microsoft is learning, and they've got some good ideas right now on the direction of things, but they seem to be struggling to explain it. I think in large part because of the existing culture.

Google for as large as they are is also itself struggling. They've succeeded with search and make money there, but most all of their other initiatives for how clever and creative they are... they don't make money. Android for how success it is, doesn't really make Google money. It helps direct traffic to their sites but is that enough?

We'll see.

I think that's a pretty solid point of view about MS. I can dig it.

 

[KingCrimson]

In terms of online services, I use all Google with the exception of SkyDrive. I find Google services to be utterly superior to Microsoft's. Chrome is like 100x better then IE 10. Gmail is 1000000x better then Outlook.com. Google Search is 4134321432432x better then Bing when it comes to showing relevant results, then you add Knowledge Graph on top of that. Bing did have a nice image results UI, but Google has since surpassed it.

 

[KingCrimson]

I think his point is, that Google has so far failed to profitably monetize anything beyond search. Ignoring their investments outside their traditional software space, Google is a gigantic company standing on a single pilar called 'search' and is struggling everywhere else, which everyone is willing to ignore since search is such a rediculously efficient money printing machine.

Google isn't struggling financially, but strategically.

Microsoft has still failed to create a new profit engine in the last decade. They are still riding on their legacy creations of Windows/Office/Tools. XBox has made a lot of revenues, but a ton of losses. So essentially Google & MSFT are in the same boat. Only Apple seems to be able to create wildly profitable new business units every 3-4 years.

 

[a5cent]

Microsoft has still failed to create a new profit engine in the last decade. They are still riding on their legacy creations of Windows/Office/Tools. XBox has made a lot of revenues, but a ton of losses. So essentially Google & MSFT are in the same boat. Only Apple seems to be able to create wildly profitable new business units every 3-4 years.

Legacy creations? Do you also consider Google's single relevant service 'legacy search'? That description is out of place.

Also, you've not mentioned any of MS' servers and enterprise services, which are a huge part of their operations. Just because consumers are oblivious to them doesn't make them unimportant.

The point here is that Microsoft has many products in active development that are sold across many different industries and at various levels. Microsoft is, even just within the software space, a highly diversified company, which creates a lot of opportunities others lack. Google stands on a single pillar called search, whereas MS stands on dozens.

In that sense, Google and MS are not at all in the same boat.

 

[omniusovermind]

Legacy creations? Do you also consider Google's single relevant service 'legacy search'? That description is out of place.

Also, you've not mentioned any of MS' servers and enterprise services, which are a huge part of their operations. Just because consumers are oblivious to them doesn't make them unimportant.

The point here is that Microsoft has many products in active development that are sold across many different industries and at various levels. Microsoft is, even just within the software space, a highly diversified company, which creates a lot of opportunities others lack. Google stands on a single pillar called search, whereas MS stands on dozens.

In that sense, Google and MS are not at all in the same boat.

Google has an estimated 400 projects on the go at their R&D including hardware. They also have holdings in robotics, biotechnology, and even pharmaceuticals. Don't just go by what is publicly visible.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[anon(5370748)]

Google has an estimated 400 projects on the go at their R&D including hardware. They also have holdings in robotics, biotechnology, and even pharmaceuticals. Don't just go by what is publicly visible.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

They still suck. Shutting down Reader... what's the matter with them?

 

[KingCrimson]

Google has an estimated 400 projects on the go at their R&D including hardware. They also have holdings in robotics, biotechnology, and even pharmaceuticals. Don't just go by what is publicly visible.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Microsoft Robotics Developer Studio
Microsoft Research - Turning ideas into reality

 

[a5cent]

Google has an estimated 400 projects on the go at their R&D including hardware. They also have holdings in robotics, biotechnology, and even pharmaceuticals. Don't just go by what is publicly visible.

I'm not. I'm aware of Google's many other investments, which is why I referred specifically to diversification within the software space! In that space, Google is a one trick pony, albeit an extremely profitable pony. Google may surprise us, but I don't think many are expecting synergies to emerge between Android/Chrome and Google's many other ventures in energy, biotech, etc. Microsoft is far more diversified within the software space, which is where Microsoft is expected to more easily find unique opportunities for innovation. I hope I've now made myself clear.

 

[omniusovermind]

On that specific point yes. But the undertone of a few posts in this thread is that Google has a flaw in its business model. But really, so what? Who doesn't? They're still obscenely wealthy and doing a whole lot of things right so what's the point of a "wellll they're doing such and such wrong. I know it means pretty much nothing but.. just sayin"

I guess I just don't see the point unless you're just theorycrafting purely for the heck of it?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Fumetsu]

And that's the problem I have with Google defenders, whether you were intending to be one or not. There's just a lack of fundamental understanding of the situation, whether through lack of research or willful ignorance. Microsoft is saying they've worked with the YouTube team, have a client ready, and Google shut it down. Would the situation be the same if YouTube had stayed independent? And Scroogled is a marketing campaign, it doesn't hurt users. Google is hurting users, from acquiring YouTube and shutting out Microsoft, to essentially monopolising the RSS market then killing their product.

Now personally, I wouldn't give a crap if Apple didn't allow iTunes to work with Windows 8. That's Apple for you, they may be smug but they aren't blatantly blindsiding you. If Google wishes to play it's bullcrap "openness" and "freedom" arguments, it should stop locking out development of clients for its yes, proprietary services. Let's not even get started on actually opening up those proprietary services.

Maybe you need to do research.

Microsoft wants the ability to use Google's proprietary API for Youtube that it uses in its iOS and Android apps so that it can release a Microsoft developed YouTube app that Google played no part in developing.

Google is not required to do so. In fact, none of the other OEMs or Apple are allowed to do so, as the native YouTube clients are developed by Google and licensed by the OEMs for inclusion in their stock ROMs. It also does not have to allow Microsoft to use its private/proprietary YouTube API to release a YouTube branded native app for Windows Phone that Google did not develop. Like everyone else, it can use the 3rd party API or the mobile web version, which while not as full featured works just fine. While Android is open source, Google Apps are not and the OEMs must license them from Google in order to include them. MS wants to play by a different set of rules and it's not surprising that they dont want to work with MS given the Scroogled campaign and other evidence that MS is actively sponsoring supposedly independent 3rd parties to lobby against Google both here and in Europe.

Google owns YouTube, it is not a standard that falls under FRAND and Google isn't required to develop or allow native clients for a competitor's platform that don't follow it's design language or guidelines.



Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ammarmalik2011]

I like how people curse and abuse Google, basically show their deep rooted hatred towards everything Google yet they complain about Google not providing Microsoft the necessary information for a YouTube app. This hatred will still remain even if Google does provide Microsoft the required details.

 

[Darkgift]

Maybe you need to do research.

Microsoft wants the ability to use Google's proprietary API for Youtube that it uses in its iOS and Android apps so that it can release a Microsoft developed YouTube app that Google played no part in developing.

Google is not required to do so. In fact, none of the other OEMs or Apple are allowed to do so, as the native YouTube clients are developed by Google and licensed by the OEMs for inclusion in their stock ROMs. It also does not have to allow Microsoft to use its private/proprietary YouTube API to release a YouTube branded native app for Windows Phone that Google did not develop. Like everyone else, it can use the 3rd party API or the mobile web version, which while not as full featured works just fine. While Android is open source, Google Apps are not and the OEMs must license them from Google in order to include them. MS wants to play by a different set of rules and it's not surprising that they dont want to work with MS given the Scroogled campaign and other evidence that MS is actively sponsoring supposedly independent 3rd parties to lobby against Google both here and in Europe.

Google owns YouTube, it is not a standard that falls under FRAND and Google isn't required to develop or allow native clients for a competitor's platform that don't follow it's design language or guidelines.



Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Actually, Apple did have its own YouTube app until 2012, when Google finally made a full functioning app for IOS with the release of IOS 6...5 yrs after launch. So, there is a precedent for OEM developed YouTube apps. Google just doesn't want Microsoft to have one. Its pretty blatant and obvious.

 

[ammarmalik2011]

Actually, Apple did have its own YouTube app until 2012, when Google finally made a full functioning app for IOS with the release of IOS 6...5 yrs after launch. So, there is a precedent for OEM developed YouTube apps. Google just doesn't want Microsoft to have one. Its pretty blatant and obvious.

I think that was a license Apple got from Google that was suppose to be for 5 years only. When it was elapsing Apple didn't want to renew it and thus simply removed the app. Google then made their own.

 

[AaHaa]

I think that was a license Apple got from Google that was suppose to be for 5 years only. When it was elapsing Apple didn't want to renew it and thus simply removed the app. Google then made their own.

So... why did they make one for Apple and won't make one for Microsoft? Apple and Google aren't exactly friends either, with Steve Jobs and his thermonuclear war on Google... Is it all because the Windows market is smaller? Because that would be pretty mean for a company that profiles itself as "your friend" who doesn't do evil.

 

[ammarmalik2011]

So... why did they make one for Apple and won't make one for Microsoft? Apple and Google aren't exactly friends either, with Steve Jobs and his thermonuclear war on Google... Is it all because the Windows market is smaller? Because that would be pretty mean for a company that profiles itself as "your friend" who doesn't do evil.

Do you remember when the iPhone was launched? Apple and Google were best buds at that time. Eric Schimdt was in Apple's board of directors. The license was given to Apple then, including one for Google Maps. The thermonuclear war started years after that.