Google's FCC Busy Signal Rings True for Microsoft
|
This afternoon, the FCC set guidelines for a new spectrum auction that should give Microsoft executives cause for sighs of relief and mutterings of "Google be damned!" |
Google has asked the FCC to impose openness requirements on a large portion of 700MHz spectrum, which will go up for auction early next year. The FCC agreed to some openness rules, but nowhere near what Google wanted and perhaps even less when final details are released.
The saying "put your money where you mouth is" applies to Google, which offered to bid up to $4.6 billion if the FCC adopted its openness guidelines. One argument against an open-platform approach was money, that it would reduce the spectrum's value and reap lower proceeds for the government. Carriers like AT&T and Verizon don't want to see more open networks. Google's $4.6 billion guaranteed bid set minimum proceeds for the government and encouraged more competitive bidding. However, given that Google didn't get what it wanted, the company may not bid after all.
What Google wanted was change—breaking the hold carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon have on wireless communications. Google's plan would have made possible the creation of an open wireless network, where any cell phone could operate.
Open-access requirements could have further polarized companies like AT&T, Microsoft and Verizon from the likes of Amazon, Cisco or Google, which would likely benefit from the creation of an open wireless platform. At stake: The future of communications and possible establishment of a secondary platform supporting the Web 2.0 platform.
The timing and the spectrum were right. TV stations are relinquishing the spectrum, as they go digital. As anyone receiving TV signals over the air should know, the 700MHz spectrum is particularly good for penetrating buildings. An open wireless network in this range would be technologically competitive with traditional, closed wireless networks.
As for timing, mobile device usage is booming. Last week, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer boasted that the install base of Windows PCs would reach 1 billion by the end of June 2008. Yeah, whatever—manufacturers ship 1 billion cell phones every year.
People don't carry PCs in their pockets, but cell phones are everywhere. My question: Has the number of people carrying cell phones exceeded those wearing watches? Answer should be obvious, right?
Ubiquitous mobile wireless—assuming companies could deliver products and services and the approach spread to other countries—could transform personal and professional communications and further bolster the Web platform (aka Web 2.0).
Open and closed approaches
The Internet is all about openness, and the Web was a problem for Microsoft even before Netscape released its first Web browser. Google wanted to do to wireless what TCP/IP, HTTP and Tim Berners-Lee did for networking: Open up access to the masses.
Microsoft is all about closed systems intimately bound to PCs and, increasingly, to servers, too. The company makes most of its money from proprietary technologies and file formats—a strategy that will extend with the software plus services strategy. Based on Microsoft's service platform, as revealed during the company's annual financial analysts meeting last week, bundling the Internet into all existing Microsoft products is the endgame. It's conceptually inconceivable that Microsoft could embrace, extend and extinguish the Internet, but that clearly is the real objective.
Google's business is about informational access, around which the company wraps revenue-generating services, such as advertising and contextual search. Google is not a search company, but an informational platform company. Like the PC is the foundation for Microsoft's operating system platform, the Web is the basis for Google's informational platform.
Google's success is intimately tied to the Internet's openness. The company can provide informational utilities to any PC anywhere and wrap around revenue-generating services anyplace. Increasingly, where people need informational access is that cell phone carried around with them all the time—and not just on PCs. But closed cellular networks limit the extent of services Google can offer. Microsoft shares similar problems but compensates through its development tools, mobile operating systems and built-in OS ties back to its online services.
A truly open cellular network would have opened up the mobile market in a new and unrestricted way to Google. More importantly, such a network could have become an important adjunct to the Web platform. The promise of informational access anytime, anywhere and on anything is shifting computational relevance from the desktop to the Web—and to the mobile device.
Microsoft hugely benefits from the less-than-stellar mobile Web experience that most carriers deliver. The company simply doesn't yet have a workable plan in place to truly capitalize on mobile market without creating greater risk for its desktop market. While Microsoft sees those annual 1 billion cell phone cells as a market opportunity, there is, for now, more jeopardy to its highly profitable desktop business.
The FCC's proposed open guidelines aren't closed yet, but that's the direction they are likely headed—and that's good news for Microsoft. Lobbying is likely to be intense as FCC commissioners hammer out the details. However, even if there are fairly definitive openness guidelines, their value would lessen without Google. The information company has the cash, development know-how and incentive to change cellular wireless communications. The FCC came short of opening the way for revolutionary change.
Cellular carriers and Microsoft win something here, but do you lose?
Related Posts:
- What Risk to Cisco and Microsoft?, Microsoft Watch, July 30, 2007
- Google is all About Information, Microsoft Watch, July 17, 2007
- Which Comes First, Software or Services, Microsoft Watch, July 10, 2007
- Why Google Succeeds, Part 2, Microsoft Watch, June 15, 2007
- Why Google Succeeds, Part 1, Microsoft Watch, June 15, 2007
- The Google Quandary, Microsoft Watch, April 24, 2007
- The Google Problem, Microsoft Watch, May 31, 2007
- Who Pays for Software Plus Services, Microsoft Watch, March 15, 2007
- Google Catfight About 30 Years in the Making, Microsoft Watch, March 6, 2007
- Why Google Matters to Microsoft, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 22, 2007
- Google and Long Tail Computing, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 22, 2007
Comments (23)
Joe you said, While Microsoft sees those annual 1 billion cell phone cells as a market opportunity, there is, for now, more jeopardy to its highly profitable desktop business.
The cell phone business is not a threat to Microsoft for a long time yet. But Vista might be a problem for Microsoft to sell to businesses, unless Service Pack 1 for it fixes a lot of problems.
Businesses having second thoughts about Vista
Fewer now believe it's more secure than XP, says new survey.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9028478&source=NLT_AM&nlid=1
Posted by Repugnant | July 31, 2007 6:32 PM
Joe, stop living on Cloud 9. People will never replace there desktops/laptops with a cell phone. People want that rich experience, online and offline. You will never, never have the Internet 24-7, anytime, anywhere. Thats where the desktop will remain vibrant and powerful as usual. The Services vision will help to fill a gap in certain areas, its meant to co-exist with the fat client to give users choice and flexibility.
A lot of functionality on the desktop will eventually migrate to Web 2.0 yes. But I have a SERIOUS problem with Web 2.0 itself. HTTP wasn't designed for applications it was designed for static content there needs to be a protocol to make your dream a reality Joe.
What about ajax/web 2.0?
ajax is a stopgap workaround for the http error, i'm not sure how much you know about programming, but when creating UI-based apps, everything is "event" triggered. You hover, that's an event. you click, that's another event. You scroll, that's an event right there. You select a checkbox, that's an event.
HTTP was designed for one and only one event: on_load. when you first turn on a program. NOTHING after that is supposed to be http. Nothing is supposed to be dynamic, nothing is supposed to change. that's why ajax is SO slow, so incompatible, and so buggy.
So if I were you, I would get off your Google will destroy the Windows desktop crusade. If it were so then, I assume Linux and Mac OS X would be just as vulnerable. Microsoft has the right vision, software plus services. And Joe, if I were you I would stop belittling the PC and Windows User Base. 1 Billion PC's running Windows is nothing to laugh at, a copy of Windows and PC sold could buy 50 cell phones, so the margins are way higher on the PC side.
To Repugnant:
A lot of individuals don't seem to know anything about Vista to give good responsible reason against upgrading. Features like Bitlocker drive Encryption (remember those stolen laptops with War Veteran social security information), Patch Guard, World Wide Language Support, better deployment and management tools through WIM and Ximage, User Account Control, ability to setup a way more secure bi-directional Firewall through MMC, User Account Protection, Limited User Account, Windows Defender, improved Group Policy Editor, you can lock down desktops and prevent unscrupulous employees from copying information to unauthorized devices such as USB thumb drives for example.
These are features Businesses of all sizes, Governments and large institutions are looking for in a modern desktop operating system that is easy to use and at the same time very secure.
Posted by Andre Da Costa | July 31, 2007 8:30 PM
Well, I just don't know. Bought a laptop bout a year ago, HP. Nice with XP home installed. Ran good for while, then it slowed down a lot. Norton did not help it any. I am not very computer learned. Was wondering if I should try Vista, but have not heard good things about it until you mentioned it. Since people talking about Linux here, and that it is free and all. Cause I am having a lot of problems with this XP now. Either replace it with Vista, or Linux. Friend says I should get a Mac, he has one. Sure looks nice, but the price is putting me off.
What do you think I should do?
Posted by Repugnant | July 31, 2007 9:10 PM
Repugnant;
MS has a tool you can download to see if your laptop is Vista ready. I don't recommend Vista to anyone though. Best to find someone that can fix or reinstall XP for you.
You might try downloading and burning a Linux Live CD. Makes a good backup for if/when windows crashes in an emergency. There is such a thing as a Windows Live CD, made with BartsPE, but the question of being legal, if not clear. Still, its nice to have a live cd that you can use if your system goes down for the ten count. You can find the Linux live cd distros at distrowatch.com
The nice thing about the linux live cd's is they are free and you can check out to make sure all your hardware works in advance.
Also, if your computer is not virus invested, you might look for an antivirus solution other than Norton or MacAffee, both tend to slow down computers. Hope this helps.
Posted by chips | July 31, 2007 9:35 PM
Repugnant. Asking this question here is practically asking for another pointless chip/Neil/Andre war of words.
Being myself a Linux enthusiast, I would suggest that you give it a try but it depends on the kind of use you make of your laptop and even though it<s making a lot of progress in the ease of use, there is still a learning curve to take when switching to Linux, even if it's not as big as it used to be.
On the other hand, Vista may be a good bet if your laptop can run it and you really want it and you don't mind investing in a new OS. But why not reinstalling XP if it's running so badly?
Personally, I run both XP and Linux and it's gonna be a while before I go Vista because I find XP is just so great. Although I must admit, I keep my XP desktop off the internet.
Posted by Ryannoyed | July 31, 2007 10:08 PM
Ryannoyed;
I agree with you we don't need any more chips/Neil/Andre war of wars.
Why not then suggest to him a good forum for help. As I was only trying to help him, as I see that you are too.
Posted by chips | July 31, 2007 10:15 PM
Chips and Ryannoyed made some some wise suggestions. I suggest backing up the data on your system reinstall XP just to make sure its not possibly a driver or third party software issue. Also, could you give us some specs? Have you defragged your system and done a disk clean up lately?
To know if your system is Vista Capable you will need to download the Vista Upgrade Advisor from Microsoft's website, do a Google search or check the links on the right side of my blog for links to these resources. I also created a Getting Started Quickstart Guide you will find at the top right for preparing and installing Vista on your system.
As for AntiVirus, please avoid Norton at all cost and use something with less footprint such as AVAST! or NOD32. I would post the direct link here but Joe takes forever to approve post with direct links in them.
Posted by Andre Da Costa | July 31, 2007 10:30 PM
Yea AndreDC, now that I think of it, the computer did slow down a lot when I installed Norton. Maybe you are on to something. Thank you.
Chips, I will try the back up Linux disk you suggested, as its free. Why not, the laptop has crashed a few times now, but XP has always come back, so far. This being my only pc, maybe good idea.
And Ryannoyed, I pasted in the imformation on the first post, hoping to get more information on Vista as if I should upgrade, as it seemed that businesses were not going for it for some reason? But if AndreDC fix solves my problem, then XP will work fine. Oh by the way, 512mb of memory, I think.
Posted by Repugnant | July 31, 2007 11:07 PM
The minimum recommended to run Vista efficiently is 1 GB. I am running Vista x64 with 512 on another system, and I am able to use it just fine, but if you are running a lot of applications (multi-tasking), the 1 GB will come in very handy. You can find out more information about your system by clicking Start > right click "My Computer" > click "Properties" > select the "General" tab > and look under "Computer:".
Posted by Andre Da Costa | August 1, 2007 12:58 AM
"I am running Vista x64 with 512 on another system, and I am able to use it just fine..."
You've got to be kidding! 512MB? You must have a funny definition of "fine."
My brother just bought a brand new HP SlimLine PC with 1GB of memory and it runs like a slug. At the local Best Buy, a 2GB HP SlimLine runs great. So 1GB (or less) is definitely not recommended.
I run Vista on a 2GB Core 2 Duo, and it flies! Couldn't be happier with the performance. If you want Vista, don't settle for 1GB. You've been warned...
Posted by Richard | August 1, 2007 6:40 AM
For Those Thinking About Running Vista;
I am running a high end HP with Vista Ultimate on a fresh install. My score is a 5.7 and one thing I did notice that helped with the performance issue is the RAM.
Folks I was currently running 1 gig with Windows XP Professional on a Asus 6600 PCIE nVidia card. Life was fine, no worries.
I "upgraded" and suffered a performance hit. I wated a couple of days for the new operating system to go through its behind the scenes optimization processes -- XP does the same thing. I also then used a professional third party disk defragmenter that also defraged and optimized the MTF, and other essential files. Perfomance seemed to creep up only a little.
I then added three more gigs and increased the Virtual memory. Huge difference. I then added an nVidia 8300 PCIE card -- Outstanding, I went from 3.4 to a 5.7 score.
However, I did not stop there, I went out an purchased a 4 gig USB 2.0 Mem Stick for the Vista "ReadyBoost" formerly known as "SuperFetch"
Now it was time to bring the machine online and install a couple of slick programs -- Rather Trial and Error.
Folks if you run the following products listed below:
1. Norton 360
2. Zone Alarm for Vista
You libotimized you system and you will find out quickly that you are taking a drastic perfomance hit.
I've removed these programs, tried one, tested, uninstalled, and installed and configured the next.
The successful match for me, is use the Vista Firewall and Defender I also installed my Symantec Corperate Antivirus' latest version for Vista -- AVG Free works great too. If you use the Symantec Corp version, make darn sure you use either the Vista Defender or the Symantec version, never both at the same time!!!
I also just love the TuneUp Utilitis 2007. It is the best set of utilities I have seen for 2000, XP, and Vista yet. I use it to clean the registery, enhance Vista performance with a click of the mouse as well as streamlining my broadband through this tool by getting into Windows and optimizing it for the broadband -- Takes two seconds, a mouse click.
Boot time is the fastest I've seen yet -- And the most improvement in performance rests with it's user -- Me -- I grabbed "Introducing Windows Vista" a free book sent to me for the asking by Microsoft -- I ordered it a while back, hopefully they still have the offer.
Yeah there is some drawbacks, price, system resources, hardware upgrades, and some software just doesn't work, and beware there is some companies that claim "Vista Capable" like 360 and the like that currently suck the life out of your performance.
I have no axes to grind, and I am no Shill. Vista for me, I had to relearn and rethink, test, evaluate, and in the interm, I am becoming a fan of Vista -- Not saying it's the greatest Operating System by Microsoft, but it certainly will be a huge improvement when SP1 hits the streets.
Vista flies off the hook for me, but I had to upgrade -- So what, remember Windows 3.11 to Windows 95?
Many people were forced to abandon their 80386 machines and run out and purchase a 80486 machine and start over...
PC Computing, the technology is evolutionary, will always advance and there will be mistakes all along the way...
Posted by Douglas S. Taylor | August 1, 2007 10:15 AM
Joe put on his anti-Microsft hat and kindly forgot to mention that all the stuff that he likes about the Internet is because of Microsoft. AJAX is all the talk and it was invented by MS years ago for Outlook Web Access, so thank MS for the look of the Web today. Not to mention that if MS would not have decided to jump in to the web server business and make it cheap enough for anyone to have there own web server then only those that could afford the cost of Sun and Netscape's high priced web servers would have web sites and it would be half what it is today. Heck, LINUX people have to thank MS for make the Internet cheap for all. If it had not then you would not have been able to post you OS and people download. Microsoft's one little addition of a web server made more web servers on-line with more content and the need for Google. Cheap Internet connection thanks to MS as well , the more people on-line the cheaper the price went down and we got a fight for customers and got broadband. Joe also forgot that MS is an OS company at its core, they sell OS for almost every device out there: TV, toaster, watches, phones, PC . It is not MS that is behind it is the hardware people that can not figure out how to make a good screen that is small and until then the dream of surfing on your phone of a handheld will never happen for the masses and I am a daily smart phone web surfer.
Posted by Justin | August 1, 2007 10:48 AM
To Andre, re: 7/31 8:30 pm post:
You amaze me. You spew out programming musings like you're Joel Spolsky but, instead, you're full of holes.
If HTTP is bad for applications because it handles only one event, then we better dump on TCP/IP and UDP as well. Those certainly don't handle ANY events. HTTP intrinsically handles zero events. When you boil it down, HTTP receives something and returns something (sounds alot like the job that TCP does, doesn't it?) Event-handling are the job of the application not the network plumbing.
The biggest problem with HTTP (that you failed to mention) is that it's text with no binary formatters. That's why HTTP is slower when compared to TCP or UDP. But you can get around quite a bit of the slowness through compression of SOAP requests/responses.
Just thought I'd add something to the Web2.0/HTTP debate....
Posted by Jason | August 1, 2007 10:55 AM
It sure is good to read posts from people like Douglas. It changes from what we find most of the time in the previous articles. I agree with everything that everybody said so far. And speaking of posts, how come a part of my first comment has been cut after I posted it?
For Repugnant's laptop to go Vista, there are good chances that an upgrade would be necessary and there will no doubt be a learning curve. But it's okay if you have the money and the time to invest; you win at the end and the same goes if you decide to try Linux. Looking at your first post though, you don't seem too hot about Vista and it looks like your mind was kind of already made when you asked for advice. But I may be wrong.
Coming back to the article above, forgive my ignorance but could somebody be kind enough to explain to me what's at stake here with the 700 MHz spectrum? I'm not sure I understand Google's logic here. I mean if they bid for it and win, what keeps them from making it all open? I'm not very good with the business side of thngs.
Best regards.
Posted by Ryannoyed | August 1, 2007 11:12 AM
I'm sorry what was the article about by time I got to the last post I forgot.
Posted by Computer Guy | August 1, 2007 11:31 AM
To Justin -
You have a whole lot of fact checking to do, as there's just about zero accuracy to your post.
Outlook Web Access != AJAX
IIS was significantly predated by httpd/Apache
Google not first search engine, see AltaVista et al.
MS has no affect on Internet connection fees other than via MSN
AOL is responsible for far more folks coming to the Internet than MS
MS is an application company at its core, not an OS company... the OS is simply a vehicle to sell applications (which is where they make money, the OS is generally considered a loss-leader)
Posted by Todd | August 1, 2007 1:11 PM
I wondered where Justin got his info from too. MS was very late on to the internet scene. In fact you don't need MS to have a wonderfull internet experience.
As for Andrea comment about not having the internet 24/7, anywhere and everywhere. Well, that goes right up there with Mr Gates' "640k" comment.
"Services vision", "innovation" etc etc are just so much marketing hype.
Not everybody needs or even want Vista. It's apparent some folk can't get over that concept either and try and push it where ever and whenever they can. Will it be better after SP1? Let's wait and see shall we.
Posted by Bonez | August 1, 2007 2:14 PM
"Microsoft is all about closed systems intimately bound to PCs "
Really? Well Microsoft is the founder of SOAP, the protocol run by all Web Services (the basis for web 2.0 platform). Microsoft is one of the two most important members (the other being IBM)of the W3C consortium working on Web Services standards.
When Microsoft with IBM started talking about SOAP and Web Services companies like Google did not even exist.I would go as far as saying that Microsoft is the first company that embraced the Web 2.0 platform having the first services ready in 2000 codenamed Hailstrom. It failed, because they made some pretty stupid mistakes and some weak internal support. An of course Microsoft had the first ever AJAX application (outlook web access) and of course AJAX is based on XMLHTTP (a microsoft invention).
So Microsoft is not only about about closed systems and propriatery formats. Yes they do that to. However, Microsoft has contributed probably more than any other company (IBM being the other) on the foundations and building blocks of what is now termed WEB 2.0 platform.
Posted by evan | August 1, 2007 4:46 PM
I wonder about some of these people on this site, I mean the Andres, Neils, and Chips going after each other. Childish, pointless, and disturbing.
But they're not the only ones, everyone's got to argue on this site, is it a prideful-penis thing?
Oh, then there are people like this Douglas S. Taylor who seems to share his opinion and research on his own experience and I get the feeling by his article he is giving a helpful point of view based on his "studies" for others to look into. Thanks Douglas, I enjoyed the article you wrote and to all those others who do the same thing.
Posted by CompuGirl | August 1, 2007 6:01 PM
CompuGirl:
You're the one who brought up the first "penis" reference that I've ever seen on this site. Who's degrading the forum?
Posted by Jason | August 1, 2007 9:18 PM
Richard: "Free software is not always better than commercial software. For *some* users, commercial software may have desirable features that aren't available in freeware. I will pay for software if I need to, but if I can make do with free, why not? That's why I use OpenOffice.org--it's great for my purposes and I don't need the advanced functionality of MS Office. I also use avast! antivirus--it's generally as good as Norton or most other AV programs. I have lots of terrific freeware on my Vista machine. In fact, the *only* software I've paid for is Windows Vista itself!"
Richard speaks sense and logic: why pay for something if I can get it free? I just pay if I cannot get something for free or I have a specific need for something. Then, why it is so hard to understand? why is it necessary to destroy and to discredit people or institutions as open source if they help us with good and free software?
The answer is simple: the software is arriving to a breaking point- I mean, software is arriving to the point where free software does all that normal (most) people need. Can you imagine the fear of companies like MS ? They think: “if the normal (non-technical) people found out the truth, my business is going to hell!!” today is Avast, Antivir Guard, Gimp,etc,etc, tomorrow it will be Ubuntu, Open Office,etc, etc. It is becoming the correct situation: free for the common user, but not for businesses (or free software and charges for services) and big companies know that day by day, the situation is going to get worse (for them.)
Their response? We all know it, so it is needless for me to say it. We see it everyday, in the news and in the advent of a bigger number of “defenders” , defenders whose objective is to keep people's eyes closed so they can't see the new alternatives available.
Posted by Marco | August 2, 2007 1:42 PM
If your looking for even more information on PC security then I would head over here as they have plenty of stuff on identity theft, antivirus software etc.
Posted by PC Security | June 19, 2008 6:02 AM
Once you find out what your score is, you' ll have 1/ 3 of the information needed to refinance your mortgage, save your mortgage, or avoid foreclosure altogether. Be sure to print out the credit score and the credit report at the end. You' ll want a hard copy to study.
Posted by foreclosures | August 6, 2008 12:14 PM