Google beatng Microsoft ?
In blogging, there is an important debate going on the topic "Why Google Cant beat Microsoft”
Phil made some comments in this topic:
- Microsoft wants everyone to have a rich desktop experience; Google wants everyone to have a rich Internet experience.
- Microsoft's business model depends on everyone upgrading their computing environment every two to three years. Google's depends on everyone exploring what's new in their computing environment every day.
- Microsoft looks at the world from a perspective of desktop + Internet. Google looks at the world from a perspective of Internet + any device.
- Microsoft wants computers to help individuals do more unaided. Google wants computers to help individuals do more in collaboration. In the Internet age, who wants to work alone any more, when all the unexplored opportunity is in collaborative endeavor?
- In a few year's time, who's going to still be working at a desk anyway?
Agreed that Web 2.0 is more into internet experience rather desktop, but one always needs a “rich” desktop and applications to work on and develop applications and internet.
For his second point, Tim at O’reilly Radar supports this point from the Web 2.0 era’s perspective.
In his second point, he says that Microsoft “demands” the hardware upgradation, while what I see this as with so much advancement in hardware, if we don’t make applications worth those hardware whats the use of hardware. Its not that their applications donot work for old hardware, if that would have been the case then u can certainly kick such statements. They are harnessing the computing power to max providing “new” and “richer” with the benefits of “non-aided” experience of working.
I agree to third point of author. While for the fourth point, Agreed that open source is not expanding but exploding with a large user base and easily available technical help for most tools and products. But then too most of this information is not properly organized and many questions (especially for support) are still unanswered.
Hence, Microsoft is not out and now supporting some Open standards and making some of their technology open source, they are trying to cope up with open source community.
Randy Holloway makes another important point in his reply to Phil’s post which author forgot, i.e. no one still likes to share his data with Google. Rather it’s not about liking; it’s about the data security and user privacy. People are not sure whether their data is “secure” with the products like GMail and Google Web Accelerator.
While Scoble thinks the question should rather be “How do you thrill audiences?". Supporting his arguments, he says MSN has already done it with Windows 95 and Halo2 and there are more to come for the Web 2.0 era, others are talking about.
Lets see what Microsoft has to unleash next?
I will support Robert’s argument that only difference between google and Microsoft is that Microsoft looks at the world from a perspective of desktop + Internet while Google looks at the world from a perspective of Internet + any device.
Both of them do provide thrills in their respective fields with “proprietary” work and both provide tools/APIs to access their services.
Both with times keep thrilling users with their technologies like MS does with windows, Hotmail , AOE, Xbox etc. and Google does with Google search, Gmail etc.
 Phil’s Blog on “Why Microsoft can't best Google” http://blogs.zdnet.com/SAAS/?p=13&part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdblog
 Randy Holloway on “Why Microsoft can best Google”
 Tim Blog on same topic http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/09/why_microsoft_cant_best_google.html
 Robert Scoble on “Beat Google? Wrong question” http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2005/09/09.html#a11079