Bye Bye, Google

[oldpueblo]

Google docs for consumers is free as Office online for consumers is also free.
Google apps for business is paid as Office 365 is also paid.
https://www.google.com/work/apps/business/pricing.html

How much does Microsoft charge for Windows Phone and full Windows in small tablets? Nothing?

Microsoft and Google are similar.

(Those photoshops could be better.)

Still not the same, at all. Here's context. Microsoft's products were once not free and have only been made semi-free due to industry trends. They are fighting to stay relevant and useful, AND be the go-to company for cross platform support. Google however went the opposite direction, luring people in with promises of cool free stuff and THEN creating paid for products after they were able to hook enough people, and make enough money off of people's data, wait I mean cool free stuff! They started as just search, nothing else. Search getting slowly more invasive the larger they grew. Don't be evil turned into be evil all the time basically. The two companies could not be any more different, it's like saying a guy that killed someone to steal his things and a person that shot someone in self defense are both murderers. Context and intent matter. The end result is similar, but the reasons/scenario are not at all. Here's a great read relevant to this topic.

Microsoft Is The New Google, Google Is The Old Microsoft - Forbes

How are Microsoft's once-paid now-free services funded? Office online, virtually unlimited OneDrive, Windows for devices <9" for example? Isn't there even an HP Stream 7 w/ads? Windows is also much lower cost than it used to be, and upgrades are now mostly free. How are they covering the costs?

Two thoughts on this. They are eating the costs making a bet on the long term return. Think Walmart's strategy, high volume with low prices makes more money in the long run than the opposite. It's also why PCs outsell Macs by a huge margin. In this case it's subscription fees hopefully make up for larger one time purchases only once every several years (Windows/Office). And/or also realizing their once paid for products are selling less since there are free competitive alternatives. So they wouldn't have been making that money anyway, might as well make them free'ish in the hopes of keeping people in the ecosystem. The war of hardware is over really, it's all about the ecosystem these days and MS is moving that direction being the ONLY cross-platform company.

Just to add some more context, believe it or not I'm not some rabid anti-Google guy. I used Android for years and loved it. But over the years I've seen Google slowly devolve into a company with really poor business ethics (hence this thread!) and it's only cemented my decision to no longer use them for anything. YouTube (who they bought, not created) is of course an exception, though they did make it annoying to use once they integrated it with G+. It's a great example really, they took something wonderful and twisted/leveraged/hooked it into their data-mining machine.

The cr?me de la cr?me? This video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnVuqfXohxc

Be together not the same. Hey Google, be together WITH US and release your services on Windows devices. So that we can be...the same, you know? Because right now MS is doing a far better job at that than you are.

 

[tgp]

Two thoughts on this. They are eating the costs making a bet on the long term return. Think Walmart's strategy, high volume with low prices makes more money in the long run than the opposite. It's also why PCs outsell Macs by a huge margin. In this case it's subscription fees hopefully make up for larger one time purchases only once every several years (Windows/Office). And/or also realizing their once paid for products are selling less since there are free competitive alternatives. So they wouldn't have been making that money anyway, might as well make them free'ish in the hopes of keeping people in the ecosystem. The war of hardware is over really, it's all about the ecosystem these days and MS is moving that direction being the ONLY cross-platform company.

Good points. Thinking of myself as an example, I moved to paying for Office 365 for the sole purpose of being able to install Office Pro on several devices without spending a fortune. I don't even use the other services included in my Office 365 subscription. In fact, I could use Office online, or Google Docs on my Android devices. They would be more than sufficient for my needs. But I've been using Office since like forever, and I hate to leave it.

In this case, Microsoft played their cards well to get someone like me. I pay for a $99.99/year service, but otherwise I probably wouldn't spend a single penny on Office. I'd use the free Office online and/or Google Docs.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

Yes, they've made some acquisitions over the years and have expanded their portfolio. But that doesn't make them an advertising company anymore than GM was a computer company when they acquired Perot's EDS in the 80s or RJ Reynolds being a cookie company after purchasing Nabisco.

Advertising is, most certainly, a part of their business. It's like when people say that Microsoft is a peripheral maker. Yeah, their keyboard and mice aren't setting the world on fire, but it isn't wrong to say that they're a peripheral maker. They're also a phone maker and a PC maker. So saying they're an ad agency is just a way of saying that they've expanded out into advertising. They're primarily a software company, but they're trying to expand into many other areas.

This is unlike the GM acquisition, because I believe that they did that to enhance their core business. Microsoft wants to turn advertising into another pillar of money.

 

[a5cent]

Advertising is, most certainly, a part of their business.

I think that's undisputed. I'm just not sure how important that fact is.

I think it's far more important to consider how strategically relevant a particular revenue stream is (is it considered their core competency), how closely aligned/related that revenue stream is to a corporations core business, and how much it contributes to their overall earnings.

For example, I consider the idea that Google is a car company utter BS. Yes, they have a research project focused on self driving cars, but have so far not earned one cent from it. Until they do, they are no more a car company than I am an Italia restaurant (I sometimes make my own Pizzas).

In 2014, Google's advertising revenue reached 59 billion, which amounts to 90% of their total revenue.
In 2014, Microsoft's advertising revenue reached 3 billion, which amounts to roughly 3.5% of their total revenue.

Once we factor in that MS also had to invest far more money to make those 3 billion, meaning there profitability per ad is far below Google's, the difference is even more pronounced.
IMHO that makes it quite clear that Google is an advertising company, whereas MS is an Enterprise software and services company, where both also happen to dabble in each others fields.
In summary, both companies have the capability to show advertising, but only one is an advertising company.

 

[anon(6038817)]

I agree with the anti-Google sentiments. Enough is enough. Last month I made a backup of all my Google Data and then systematically went through and deleted all my data from each of the services I used, with the exception of YouTube. I deleted my Google+ profile and recreated an empty one so I could keep my YT channel active (I really hate that they make you do that).

Now I don't even log into Google unless absolutely necessary.

Browser: Firefox with the Adblock and Privacy Badger extensions is a beautiful thing.

Search engine: DuckDuckGo and Bing

Email, Calendar, Contacts, web productivity: I have long preferred Microsoft's online suite over Google's.

Video: There is no substitute for YouTube, but I try to use other services like Vimeo when possible.

Digital media purchases and management: I am a big fan of Amazon's products and services and prefer them over Google Play. If Windows Phone could get official Amazon Instant Video and Amazon Music apps, that would be brilliant.

Maps/navigation: Microsoft/Nokia apps and services are more than adequate, here.

Mobile devices: BlackBerry and Windows!!

Tablet: I haven't really needed a tablet in years, but I still have my deprecated BlackBerry PlayBook. If I'm in the market for a new tab it will be a Surface or other Windows tab (unless BB comes out with a new one).

Desktop/laptop: Windows and Linux

I think I covered all the basics, but you can see there are definitely good alternatives out there.

Goodbye Google, and good riddance.
Sent from my Lumia 822

 

[neo158]

These two websites tell you exactly what data Microsoft collects and how they use it (Bottom of the bing.com webpage FYI):

Microsoft Privacy Statement
Your privacy and Microsoft personalised ads

I have never seen anything like these for any Google service I've used. The difference is that Microsoft are up front about it, Google aren't.

 

[kg4icg]

I got out of Google more than a year ago, switched my email address over to Outlook.com, even did that to YouTube. As for Google services, don't need it.

 

[luisfarelo]

I have ditched Google long ago and haven't regretted it, I hated gmail and I only keep my Google account to log into YouTube

 

[Spectrum90]

In summary, both companies have the capability to show advertising, but only one is an advertising company.

Both are advertising companies, but one of them is having success, the other one is struggling. The only difference is the quality of the work done, not the type of work. However, this market situation can change in the future. Microsoft would love to expand its advertising business to the size of operation of Google, they're trying, they're investing, time will tell if they succeed.

The current revenue is not what defines a company, the value of a company depends in its future revenue stream. The investments are better indication of their nature. Google is investing heavily in other industries.

And again, there is nothing wrong with ads or data collection. Microsoft and Google aren't doing anything wrong.

 

[oldpueblo]

Both are advertising companies, but one of them is having success, the other one is struggling. The only difference is the quality of the work done, not the type of work. However, this market situation can change in the future. Microsoft would love to expand its advertising business to the size of operation of Google, they're trying, they're investing, time will tell if they succeed.

The current revenue is not what defines a company, the value of a company depends in its future revenue stream. The investments are better indication of their nature. Google is investing heavily in other industries.

And again, there is nothing wrong with ads or data collection. Microsoft and Google aren't doing anything wrong.

Then I guess I can classify myself as a Feces Production company, because I **** pretty regularly. Your logic amazes me. I mean when people ask what I do for a living, I'll tell them I produce ****. Sure it's not my main revenue stream, in fact I make no money at it at all. But I do it therefore it must be what defines me!

 

[a5cent]

Microsoft would love to expand its advertising business to the size of operation of Google, they're trying, they're investing, time will tell if they succeed.

Nope. Obviously MS won't say no to more money. However, given their current clients they simply can't afford be as aggressive about data mining as Google is. Every large company would invite their MS representative over for a beheading.
Different customers, different goals, different business models... it's not that hard to see they are very different companies.

 

[tgp]

Sure it's not my main revenue stream, in fact I make no money at it at all. But I do it therefore it must be what defines me!

But at the same time, it's one of your most satifying projects. Correct?

Nope. Obviously MS won't say no to more money. However, given their current clients they simply can't afford be as aggressive about data mining as Google is. Every large company would invite their MS representative over for a beheading.

Where do you get this info? Is this real, or is it your sense of utopia for Microsoft, the already perfect company?

 

[a5cent]

Where do you get this info? Is this real, or is it your sense of utopia for Microsoft, the already perfect company?

Talk to the CTO of virtually any large company. They'll tell you exactly that.

 

[oldpueblo]

But at the same time, it's one of your most satifying projects. Correct?

It is the product I'm most proud of.

 

[dicks-webos]

The last Google service I use is contacts. Do the contact avatars sync over to outlook.com yet, last time I tried it did not work so no way for me to switch. If they do, I'm gone!

 

[anon(9152079)]

The last Google service I use is contacts. Do the contact avatars sync over to outlook.com yet, last time I tried it did not work so no way for me to switch. If they do, I'm gone!

Do you mean with Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn profile? They do.

 

[Spectrum90]

Then I guess I can classify myself as a Feces Production company, because I **** pretty regularly. Your logic amazes me. I mean when people ask what I do for a living, I'll tell them I produce ****. Sure it's not my main revenue stream, in fact I make no money at it at all. But I do it therefore it must be what defines me!

You're better with photoshop, please don't try scatological analogies again.

You guys should watch the movie The Internship. It's so emotional and It represents well the values of the company. I bet many of you would become Google fans after watching the movie enough times.

 

[fatclue_98]

You're better with photoshop, please don't try scatological analogies again.



You guys should watch the movie The Internship. It's so emotional and It represents well the values of the company. I bet many of you would become Google fans after watching the movie enough times.

Uh, not!!!

 

[dicks-webos]

@An_dz: No, I mean transfer contacts directly from Google to outlook.com, without any other accounts.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

Then I guess I can classify myself as a Feces Production company, because I **** pretty regularly. Your logic amazes me. I mean when people ask what I do for a living, I'll tell them I produce ****. Sure it's not my main revenue stream, in fact I make no money at it at all. But I do it therefore it must be what defines me!

That ... doesn't even make any sense.