Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.
The coming Microsoft vs. Google battle
Published on December 26, 2004 By Frogboy In Google

Do you know why we love the computer industry? Because only in the computer industry do we get to have hard core smack downs.  It's one big industry video game where Microsoft has to fight off various "bosses" as it climbs the ladder to tougher and tougher opponents:

Microsoft vs. IBM

Microsoft vs. Netscape

Microsoft vs. AOL

and now..

Microsoft vs. Google

Each time, the opponent is tougher, more seasoned and each time the restraints on Microsoft greater.  And Google is smart.  From the very start Google has been about the smartest, most clever company I've seen on the net. Almost all their ideas are brillian.  Clever search engine. Text ads, you name it, it's all been done with incredible intelligence. 

So can Microsoft's new search engine beat it out? I have my doubts. I've been trying out MSN Search and it doesn't compare at this point.  Here's a simple search: "Brad Wardell".  On MSN Search I get some interview on a gaming site as the # 1 pick. On Google I get my blog page. So whatever algorithm Microsoft is using, it hasn't quite come together yet.

And so far, Google has been benevolent.  The power that Google has is frightening. They could flatten almost any net based business (including ours) just by changing their algorithm a bit to push us off the first page on a number of things. Even as it their use of open directory, which is incredibly outdated, is a source of frustration to us.

So what's next for Google? Check out this article on Technology Review for a very lengthy and thorough analysis...


Comments (Page 1)
on Dec 26, 2004
MS can if it want to lose money for years become the #1 in search engines. They have deeper pockets than Google.That and keep making theirs better.
on Dec 26, 2004
Happy Holidays Brad

Buh-Bye Google. They won't win a standards war, not one that will require them to breach the desktop and expand a needed function into a Microsoft dominated arena. Rather to survive, I think they need to work along side Microsoft in some fashion so that they can seamlessly become a presence on a user's desktop. I think that the average PC user buys a box, plugs it in and expects it to do whatever they need it to do without downloading, buying and configuring additional software. I use Messenger and Windows Media Player for those very reasons. When Longhorn comes out and it is search-centric (I think that's the term the article used) there will be no need for another party's desktop search engine.

I've never cared for MSN search or Yahoo. I switched from AltaVista to Google, when I switched search engine choices, but if MSN search improves dramatically and is built-in to the desktop....
on Dec 26, 2004
I still think Google will end up creating a browser for itself, use its IM service along side its blogging service and news gathing to form its one 'newspaper' if you will... sort of a media center. Then, with new searches for vidoe meta data, clustering, signing in for saved searches (like Yahoo! now has) and even stuff like what Buy.com has (called Metails.com but now has a new name). Google can do that as well.

With widgets, Google can capture the desktop in a different way. Lets face it, I might get my computer and not want to download a software, but all you have to do is make a deal with a company like Dell or Gateway and your software is already on the computer (Paint Shop, McAffee to name a few)

Google now has the tools, with Blogging, search, IM, email, even Keyhole (a earth viewer) to create a Hyper OS (an os that you 'add' to what you have already) such that it will be Windows XP + Google.

At least that is what I see.
on Dec 26, 2004

IBM was the best, Microsoft won.

MacOS was the best, Microsoft won.

Netscape was the best, microsoft won

Wordperfect was the best, Microsoft won.

IN each and every case, Microsoft entered the game late, and killed the competition with inferior products through its marketing muscle.

I love Google as well, but I am not going to bet against MS any more.  The above is just the marquee battles, but they have killed many other companies as well.  Remeber DR DOS?  It was the best DOS there ever was, and MS killed it with WIndows 3.11.

on Dec 26, 2004
How about these?

Microsoft vs. Apple (Windows vs. Mac OS)
Microsoft vs. Corel (Word vs. WordPerfect)
Microsoft vs. Lotus (Excel vs. 1-2-3)
Microsoft vs. Oracle (Access vs. Oracle Database)
Microsoft vs. Real (Windows Media vs. RealPlayer)
Microsoft vs. Nintendo (XBox vs. GameCube)

Micro$oft have never met an adversary they could not overcome. They will end up destroying Google, just as they destroyed everyone else before Google.
on Dec 26, 2004

Microsoft vs. Apple (Windows vs. Mac OS)
Microsoft vs. Corel (Word vs. WordPerfect)
Microsoft vs. Lotus (Excel vs. 1-2-3)
Microsoft vs. Oracle (Access vs. Oracle Database)
Microsoft vs. Real (Windows Media vs. RealPlayer)
Microsoft vs. Nintendo (XBox vs. GameCube)

Micro$oft have never met an adversary they could not overcome. They will end up destroying Google, just as they destroyed everyone else before Google.

I wont go that far.  Apple, Oracle, Real and nintendo are stilll fighting.  But yea, when MS wants your market, they usuallt get it.

on Dec 27, 2004
This is so wrong:

"Wordperfect was the best, Microsoft won.

IN each and every case, Microsoft entered the game late, and killed the competition with inferior products through its marketing muscle."

If you think Microsoft won that with inferior products, you are either very young or have a very bad memory. I suggest you read Rick Chapman's excellent book "In Search of Stupidity" which will tell you why Wordperfect failed and will also remind you of newspaper and magazine statements of the time when pundits were convinced that Microsoft can only create excellent software but cannot do marketing at all.

As for the original poster, what is your evidence that the opponents become tougher?

IBM was certainlt the toughest, at the beginning. Microsoft wouldn't have had a chance had IBM not completely underestimated Microsoft and the power of the network effect in the market.

Netscape was an easier target. Netscape was small, couldn't match Microsoft's programming abilities (which is why Internet Explorer became better than Navigator eventually) and made the most stupid mistake ever (rewriting their software from scratch in the most critical moment).

Microsoft vs. AOL wasn't really a battle. Microsoft tried to introduce MSN as an alternative to AOL and failed, but Microsoft didn't really try. When it became clear that online services wouldn't replace Windows as the most important thing to buy, there was no need to fight. (The same happened to Netscape as a competitor once it was clear that Netscape wouldn't replace Windows as the computing standard. That is why Mozilla is now taking over again.)

Microsoft vs. Google could be very very short indeed.

Andrew (OS/2 user in the 90s, Linux user for two years, now Mac user, didn't buy anything from Microsoft until two months ago).
on Dec 27, 2004
Check the MSN beta search page: http://beta.search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Brad+Wardell&FORM=QBMR

Much better rankings...
on Dec 27, 2004

This is so wrong:

"Wordperfect was the best, Microsoft won.

IN each and every case, Microsoft entered the game late, and killed the competition with inferior products through its marketing muscle."

If you think Microsoft won that with inferior products, you are either very young or have a very bad memory. I suggest you read Rick Chapman's excellent book "In Search of Stupidity" which will tell you why Wordperfect failed and will also remind you of newspaper and magazine statements of the time when pundits were convinced that Microsoft can only create excellent software but cannot do marketing at all.

I beg to differ with you.  And I am probably older than you.  I may have given an overly simplistic answer, and due to brevity, I will concede that point.  In the cases cited, microsoft did truiph with an inferior product.  It was not without some mis-steps on the part of the competitors, but any one who ever said Microsoft was bad at marketing has a hole in their head!

You may not like Microsoft, and indeed I do not like a lot of what they do.  But I defy anyone to show me where Microsoft made a fatal mistake in marketing.  Small mis-steps? Sure, but they killed deskview with only a 'promise' of Windows!

on Dec 27, 2004
I would say that Microsof did not win with Access, and won't anywhere in the near future. Oracle is used more, allows for industruail usage (more than 100 users at one time looking for data) and other essentials. Then there is MySQL, SAP and used to be PeopleSoft.

And was it evry really MS vs Nintendo? MS vs Playstation is the better comparison. Nintendo wasn't even in the running when XBOX came out.

Although Nintendo might be on the come up with its Nintendo DS
on Dec 27, 2004

I would say that Microsof did not win with Access, and won't anywhere in the near future. Oracle is used more, allows for industruail usage (more than 100 users at one time looking for data) and other essentials. Then there is MySQL, SAP and used to be PeopleSoft.

Access was never meant to challenge Oracle.  SQL Server is the direct competitor, and while Oracle does maintain a Lead, and DB2 is stilll in contention, MS is pushing it hard and bundling it.  We will have to see if Oracle can withstand it. I personally think they will as long as Ellison is at the helm.

on Dec 27, 2004
This will be a war of attrition, and resources always win in wars of attrition. Microsoft will eventually better Google.

I remember the day when the owners of Google, two pathetic college peasants, turned down Bill's ten billion dollar offer for Google. Gates said in his Kermit the frog voice "Sir Peter, I can't believe it, can you just call and tell them I'm with you?"

I refused, sometimes Microsoft must fight its own battles.
on Dec 27, 2004
WOM votes for naive in this instance.
on Dec 27, 2004
Microsoft has deeper pockets, out-reaching arms, and the power to make it all work. Don't forget all the David vs Goliath stories, though. When you begin to think you're the best and ignore the rest, there's only one way to go..Down. Whichever wins, it better be because of better search capabilities. As is you don't need special software to run google, so if it provides the best returns, it will remain King of the Heap. Or am I just naive?
on Dec 27, 2004
Oh well, can't be cynical all the time, WOM. Or...can I...da da daaaa..
Meta
Views
» 7182
Comments
» 24
Category
Sponsored Links