"Now would be a good time for Microsoft to increase Washington lobbying efforts regarding Google."

I do not think the new administration would be very receptive to Microsoft lobbying. If anything they seem to not like Microsoft or their software.

Glad to see you agree that Google do not seem to have actually done anything wrong so I wonder why you are suggesting that Microsoft should complain or lobby against them. That would be illegal wouldn't it?

Oh yes, MSFT should pour even more money down the ratholes of E&D, MSN, and the silly fight with Google. Win Mobile is a distant second in the smart phone wars and it will take years to correct that deficiency.

Sorry, but as I see it MSFT is screwed 10 ways to Sunday. Watching Ballmer lead this gaggle is like watching a Special Olympics athlete try to compete with the real thing.

Joe,

M$ has to purchase Yahoo and facebook. Anything less will simply not be enough. Facebook appears to be the real deal in terms of social networking, while Yahoo has great web e-mail, search and Zimbra, all of which would be valuable to M$ long-term, with the later providing the future roadmap for Exchange to follow.

From there, M$ has to execute on its mobile + services strategy as they creep towards the release of WM7. WM7 had better be great and include a M$ branded phone with the upcoming NVidia Tegra chip. Again, anything less will make it nearly impossible to stem the loss of market share. In fact, to some extent, WM7 has to up the ante when it comes to mobile smartphone gaming to best Apple's current offerings, along with a compelling Skymarket offering that matures quickly.

As such, these are all tall orders, especially for a company like M$ with such a poor track record in terms of managing, engineering, and advertising search, mobile, and content.

You are confusing me Joe, I don't want MS' destruction(I want it controlled and diminished) but I could recommend that which you are recommending if I was wishing to rush MS' doom.
Then why are you advising that? I just can think something like, if you cannot defeat your enemy then fire a bullet at him then we'll see what happens (extreme measures)
--------------
Then what could MS do to avoid its doom?.
Nothing except re-invent itself (and it would mean its destruction as well-if you don't believe me read something of history)

I don't want MS' destruction=I don't want total MS' destruction

Meh.

Kill MS as a monopoly and some other Monopoly will rise to take it's place.

Competition is fantastic. It drives innovation and keeps prices down. I like seeing Micrsoft under the gun. It's sink or swim time. But I don't for a second think that some other company won't slide into the vacume that will be created when Micrsoft is no longer a market leader.

Quote Nknow "It drives innovation and keeps prices down. I like seeing Micrsoft under the gun. It's sink or swim time. But I don't for a second think that some other company won't slide into the vacume that will be created when Micrsoft is no longer a market leader."
-
Completely agree, and even if it does come to pass that MS falls from grace, we will probably still be having the same debates a few years from now just with different Companies being talked about. But as you say it drives innovation.

IMO if Apple or Canonical were given the position Microsoft had a few years ago, they would have probably acted in pretty much the same way as Microsoft, and I see the IT world a little like evolution, with the main predator being wiped out by the smaller creatures because it is unable to adapt in a new environment. A new animal comes along, evolves into the main predator and then the whole thing starts again. (IMO)
-
I believe it was Portuno who said that Microsoft should split into more focused smaller units and I completely agree, I honestly believe if MS has simply stuck with its OS and office suite we would have two of the worlds definative packages (IMO)
Ive always said I believed the issue with Microsoft was that it tried to become "jack of all trades" and ended up (IMO) as master of none.
-
In relation to games, again IMO missed the boat. Ive said so many times that despite the years head start 360 had, it failed to win the console battle as soon as Nintendo showed up. Microsofts loss against blueray with its HDdvd standard to me suggested at the time, that this was another market that Microsoft had not quite grasped, and that was without mentioning the huge hardware failure problem they had with the 360.
-
Ive given my first hand experiences with WM and an MDA Mail, and I dont think people want to hear them again. Suffice to say, that experience prevents me from even considering a mobile MS solution ever again, I dont know how widespread any bad feeling about WM is, I havent really looked, it was one experience Id rather forget.
-
and finally search. In my opinion Microsoft appear to be fighting this battle simply because the corporate ego wont let them admit defeat, Id say the investment here would be far better placed in products which gave them their household name such as Windows and Office. I honestly dont believe Microsoft could ever compete with the google brand name, its entrenched in our vocabulary. Just like (IMO) people in the main wont relate an O/S to Gentoo, the habit of relating search to google is just too difficult to break.

MS should drop search. They lost. It's over.

Buying Facebook is a good idea. Buying Yahoo is a bad one. They should give up on WM too. It's time it's past.

Where they should concentrate is getting Office Live up. They should continue with their server virtualization projects. Hyper-V needs some polish but it is solid. Hosted CRM and Exchange are doing well also. They need to concentrate on the server and desktop and security, and give up on about a thousand other failed or barely surviving ventures.

You can't be all things to all people. And for the record... Xbox might finally prove profitable, but Microsoft should have focused on Windows gaming. That's one area that keeps people from jumping ship. Instead all they've done is bitchslap Sony.

Quote "Microsoft should have focused on Windows gaming. That's one area that keeps people from jumping ship"
-
That is the most correct statement I think Ive seen on MSwatch. IMO Windows games, and their loss to the console market is one of the reasons why home users are not considering Windows as being a definative platform anymore.
-
Whilst I champion the better performance (IMO) of a collection of Windows games that can run through Wine, truth is the home user would not look twice at an alternative if Microsoft had looked after and catered better for (IMO) the home games player.
-
Now we have the situation where the PC is no longer (IMO) considered the games machine, and as long as a home user can do the "basics" on it, I dont think they are really that bothered what OS is on there anymore as long as its functional and doesnt require a constant investment.

Re: Google's search dominance is pervasive (and in my analysis monopolistic)"

Fact: Microsoft holds a dominant market share of the desktop operating system.

Response: Allowing one company to control desktop standards is Good For Everybody.

Fact: Microsoft obtained their dominant market share by first taking advantage of IBM's stupidity, and then by shady arm-twisting OEM deals and intense lobbying efforts.

Response: Any negative writing about the lord god Bill Gates and his one true prophet Steve Ballmer must cease and desist. These deities have every right to run their business as they choose.

Fact: Google builds a search engine that offers a better search experience than the established heavyweights such as AOL, Alta Vista (remember them??), Ask Jeeves, Yahoo, and MSN (even with the idiotic butterfly ads). And they do it without back-room OEM, or any coercive deals. People can continue to point their browsers anywhere they want with the exact same ease. In fact, google is harder to type than aol or msn and slightly harder than yahoo.

Response: It's not fair that Google offers a better search experience. It's not fair that advertisers would want to pay the provider of the best search experience. It's not fair that poor Bill Gates is down to his last $45 billion and can't afford to buy the entire universe. It's just not fair! Please make them stop it, Mommy!!!!

Government response: Okay, Billy and Stevie. I'll make them stop it. You're right: You are the one true god and nobody is allowed to threaten the holy church of Microsoft. You go make Vista or Shasta or Mohave or Sahara or Death Valley or whatever else you want to call it.

Economy's response: To the devil with all of you. I'll teach all you whiners what Not Fair really means.

"other Monopoly will rise to take it's place"
Maybe yes maybe not, but to day
To DAY MS is the “King of the mountain”

To day :MS is the biggest software's company of the World
MS gets its objectives with no importance for ethic, and is able to achieve this based on its enormous economic and political power ,cunning lawyers, lack of scruples and a
powerful propaganda machine
MS is a legally proven criminal.
MS because of its monopoly, charges us with abusively and excessively high prices (proof: obscene enrichment) for a bad or mediocre product or service. Then perpetuating this situation trying to kill every newly born company that could compete against MS
----------------

Ms knows that the summer finished.... but we cannot forget there is a long autumn and an even longer winter ahead...we could do not forget that Ms will has not ethical or moral doubts about its objectives.

Goblin: "IMO if Apple or Canonical were given the position Microsoft had a few years ago, they would have probably acted in pretty much the same way as Microsoft"

I wrote sometime ago:

MS had an important role in the development of the world of informatics. It had good timing and it responded to our needs, MS let us (the costumers) get our freedom to overcome the oppression of old tyrants such as old IBM and others.
Human beings are interesting. We can renounce (willingly) to some of our freedom in return of something that we need, but only a bit of it and for a limited time.
The problem with some 'liberators' is that when they have absolute power, they frequently become tyrants-if you read history...
(in other words: we have replaced a product which was necessary but enslaved for other which is necessary but not so enslaved).
And MS is now the new Tyrant, while Open source and Google are the new liberators (Ok, ok, we are at the beginning of the campaign).
Question:
Could the new liberators become the new tyrants?
It's possible. However, I don't think so, because after the Tyrants, aristocrats (or whatever) comes Democracy, and the most similar to that are Open Source (election) and Google (vote) ONE CLICK and we are changing 'government'.
(in other words: we are replacing a necessary enslaved product for another which is necessary but in freedom).
--------------

I have nothing more to add/change except
I believe in the evolution of human being.

"Kill MS as a monopoly and some other Monopoly will rise to take it's place."

The last monopoly we had in this industry was IBM.

Now we have a very diverse marketplace for PC's with over 20 major manufacturers all competing for that same market. All it took were a few standards and anyone could build a PC.

Who's to say that the OS market will not be like the PC market in the future? Maybe it will even have the same players.

So long as the market for operating systems cannot be controlled by one company, we will always have competition because anyone in their basement can write a OS (or a search engine for that matter).

Microsoft controlled the market by dropping the POSIX standard and making their own Win32 standard which nobody else could copy. They won the browser war by creating their own HTML and ActiveX standard. Hopefully people have learned from these mistakes.

@Billy

Simply put.

Software ain't hardware bub. It's Software. And an OS is software. Your equation completely leaves out the HUMAN factor.

Humans are lazy. They will follow the path of least resistance wherever possible. I GUARAUTEE you that if Microsoft fails Apple will become the defacto desktop OS Monopoly.

For as long as desktop OS's matter that is. Do you seriously think that people will just load up OS (insert distro here) and try to become savvy in that? They'll go for what becomes the STANDARD.

Maybe some distro would rise to the level of widespread acceptance. But that distro would end up being a Monopoly in one way shape or form. If not the software then support and services for that software. Some company would rise to the top. That's how things work in I.T.

MicroSoft would be better of if they just produced & developed games-software instead of hardware.

They could generate some descent profits if they released the Halo, Fable and Gears of Wars franchises on the playstation platform, they could even sell licenses & tools to other studio if they developed a descent game-engine.
They wouldn't have lost billions on Research & Development, Warranty extensions and hardware-replacements, and the current PS3 / PSP platform gives them enough freedom to create a healthy software business-model.

But currently they have to sell a lot of game software and overpriced accessories to offset the losses they made with their console-hardware.

They wanted market-share in the hardware, while they could easily create market-share in the software.

DontKonw : You obviously do not understand software or economics so I will not bother to go further than to say that software has no natural barriers to entry.

People will go for a standard, but that standard will be an API, not an OS. Remember POSIX? No? Maybe because you are just a salesman. Don't worry. I am sure the industry will need salesmen in the future.

@Billy

And you don't know history. You also have an amazing ability to ignore what's happening all around you.

Remember how many search companies there were a decade ago?

Search=Google.

I know you'd like to think that the world will become an open source nirvana in Microsoft's absence but you discount corporate greed and consumer apathy.

A decade ago I remember Altavista, they were search. Then one day this small company called Google made a much better search engine and I switched in a heartbeat. The same would happen today if I found something better.

If you are going to spout FUD about how Google is going to abuse its dominant position then please tell us exactly the mechanism for how it will work. Otherwise it just stinks of MS fear tactics. Joe, that applies to you as well.

What should we all be so scared of? How can Google unfairly influence the market for search or online advertising?

@billybob:
Online search and advertising is, I'm sure, a complex business, which will only be made more difficult for new entrants and existing competition as Google approaches and moves beyond 80% market share in Internet search.

As such, I feel quite certain that Google's management does everything they can to leverage their increasing online power to maximize their revenue streams and business model, which is how corrupting power always starts. For all I know, they could initiate predatory pricing in certain areas of online advertising to stave off someone else's technically better Internet mouse trap, if such a system arises. If fact, as complex as on-line search relevance and associated advertising has become, it's reasonable to assume that only an existing competitor such as M$ or Yahoo would have the necessary resources to challenge Google's dominance, which as an 11 year head start.

From a social standpoint, Google has successfully interjected itself into the Internet in such a pervasive manner that they alone now have the mind share of the public at large in terms of searching the Internet. As such, I think it's very naive to assume that Google hasn't already or would too far down the road step over the line in terms of conducting their business in a manner that would be considered monopolistic. Since I'm not an expert in how Google runs their business, it would be somewhat pointless of me to try to interject a detailed analysis of how they might or are going about this, but my general theme is simply caution in assuming Google can't or won't become a monopoly. However, I would like to suggest that Google is using its search and advertising revenue to offer products for free, which is some sense is indirect bundling in my mind. While it's great for the customer, it does make it exceedingly difficult for a new entrant to design, build and cultivate a better system, and might be a consideration for determining if a company is a monopoly.

Bethatasitmay, all of this competition against, Windows, Office, IE, Exchange etc is a great thing and is forcing M$ to change their business model slowly but surely towards lower priced services versus out of the box, high priced software.

OK - Lets boil those down.

1. Predatory pricing. It is true that Google could cut ad rates to drive out the competition. This is unlikely to happen because:

a) The ad prices are sold on an auction basis, the only way the prices could be lowered is if there was less demand.

b) Microsoft simply has more money and could outlast Google in any sort of price war.

c) It would be suicide because they make 95% of their income from the ad fees. Cutting then would be just cutting their own throats.

2. Oh noes! They own the internet!

I think it is healthy to try to see where they are likely to abuse the market so that we can stop it happening in the future. So far I cannot see how they could. Information spreads quickly and if there were a better mouse trap then people would know about it.

It does not matter if they own a major share of any market as long as market forces can continue to operate. Just because they have a large market share does not mean they will break the law. It does not even give them the ability to break the law if they cannot control entrants to the market (which they can't).

I seem to remember a search engine called Cuil which had more than enough opportunity to make a big dent in Google's share, unfortunately they turned out to be full of hot air.

To Marco and Goblin:
Goblin: "IMO if Apple or Canonical were given the position Microsoft had a few years ago, they would have probably acted in pretty much the same way as Microsoft"
----------------------------------------------------
I hate to be put into a position of defending what I do not use, Apple and Ubuntu. True I have tried Ubuntu and Mint Linux, and while they are good, not my first choice to use in a Linux distro, as I prefer those with KDE.

I might agree with the statement if it only applied to Apple taking over the place of M$, "that it have probably acted in pretty much the same way as Microsoft" Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu, no. As human beings (Mark Shuttlesworth) has mostly acted in a way that shows his concern for his fellow human being, in regard to Ubuntu. As such it could be seen as more of a work of charity than a corporation looking for every drop of profit. Should I be wrong, there is plenty of other Free GNU/Linux distros out there to move to.
--------------------------------------------------
NKnow say:

"MS should drop search. They lost. It's over.
Buying Yahoo is a bad one. They should give up on WM too. It's time it's past."
--------------------------------------------------
I have to agree. But I see an Ballmer obsession with "I will kill Google" here. Data Centers are not cheap, and most likely will have to be rented out to other companies, if MS can do that. Search will be a big hole in the ground for MS to pour money into. Buying Yahoo, will only help MS boost online strength in the very short term. Whatever online property that MS buys, will be instantly worth less money the next day. MS and Yahoo continue to bleed market share to Google. If anything has the potential to bring M$ to the edge of complete failure, it is that of spending all its money reserves on Yahoo. But that is the most likely scenario.

XBox360 is its best hope. But here too many people already know about the horrific RROD and Scratched game disks. The 3 year exchanged only on the RROD issue is/was not enough. MS should have just given a "return to store, no hassle, no shipping. for whatever reason broken, for 10 years policy." Would it have been more expensive, absolutely. But it might have been effective in restoring consumer confidence, instead, the reputation of Micro$oft, was further tarnished.

The name of MS has become tarnished, for lots of reasons, XBox360, Vista, come to mind first. This tarnished reputation, is another reason that MS online will never be able to compete with Google. Name changing to Kumo, will not help much either. Maybe, LOL, Microsoft should change its corporate name as a last resort as well, this might fool a few people too.

@Chips
Quote chips "has mostly acted in a way that shows his concern for his fellow human being, in regard to Ubuntu."
-
True, I think the point I was trying to put forward was that give a company the dominance and lack of competition had, and they would act in much the same way. I wouldnt like to comment on what direction or Policy Mark would impliment if say Ubuntu had the possition of Windows, but I think it would be just as detrimental to the computing innovation if any distro/os had the dominance Windows did.
-
I would also like to quote "As such it could be seen as more of a work of charity than a corporation looking for every drop of profit"
-
I completely agree, I think in the mainstream Mark gets very little praise for what he has done for Linux in general.

billybob:
This is simply the old trick of distracting attention by throwing a stone and then surpise you from the back when you turn to look. In other words, to try and scare us with possible evils to make us forget the enemy standing right in front of us.

This is a very old tactic and is generally used out of desperation. Hence my question would be: are the levels of desperation quite that high?

----------------

Goblin:

"Policy Mark would impliment if say Ubuntu had the possition of Windows, but I think it would be just as detrimental to the computing innovation if any distro/os had the dominance Windows did."

I understand your idea but all us could perhaps remember (and not forget) that the open source nature, spirit and rules are completely different from MS' and its likes. thus the possibility you suggest would be averted.

And preventing it, 'the computing innovation' will be protected.

-----------------

Chips;
"As human beings (Mark Shuttlesworth) has mostly acted in a way that shows his concern for his fellow human being"

Excellent point ,sir
We only have our reputation and it speaks for us

To billybob:
This is simply the old trick of distracting attention by throwing a stone and then surprise you from the back when you turn to look. In other words, to try and scare us with possible evils (Google) to make us forget the enemy standing right in front of us (Microsoft).

This is a very old tactic and is generally used out of desperation. Hence my question would be: are the levels of desperation quite that high? (MS' fans)

Hi Marco!
-
Completely agree, and maybe the example of Canonical was a bad one, it was simply highlighting the stagnancy a company with dominance in the market may experience.
-
Ive always been of the opinion one platform (whatever it is) ruling the roost will kill the scene. If you look back at the 16bit wars between A500/ST it was a great time for innovation.
-
Thats why I think Linux is future proofed and I think the number of distros is a strength not a weakness (as some pro-ms people suggest)

Goblin :was simply highlighting the stagnancy a company...

Yes I know that but I was looking to clarify the concept
I hope you excuse me.

It seems Andres loyalties will shift on whos giving out the freebies, here is a site where you can win a Mac. Heres what Andre says about Microsofts competitor:
-
Quote "
-
I am begging please let me win this MacBook Air, I am desperate for a laptop like this. I would appreciate it so much. If you let me win it I can even get additional links at popular websites where you can get to increase your readership. I want an Apple laptop so bad that I have gone as far as emailing Steve Jobs asking for a free MacBook Air, he replied with a polite ‘Sorry, but no’ Sent from my iPhone, LOL!. There are a number of reasons I need this notebook, its slim design, my Dell Latitude 840c died on me in February, I like the look of Leopard and I am just desperate right now."
-
Of course it could just have been posted in devilment and not really him, (although this was in May 08). Im sure "Ridley" will be here shortly to let us know, as I dont believe Andre will answer. (like he hasnt answered the question on Microsoft gifts)
-
For your enjoyment of it in its context:
http://www.upstartblogger.com/free-mac-book-air-and-five-free-iphones