Microsoft's Biggest Threat - Google or Open Source? 240
Glyn Moody writes "Google always plays down suggestions that there's any looming clash of the titans between itself and Microsoft. Meanwhile, the search giant is pushing open source in every way it can. They're contributing directly by contributing code to projects and employing top hackers like Andrew Morton, Jeremy Allison and Guido van Rossum, and indirectly through the $60 million fees it pays Mozilla, its Summer of Code scheme and various open source summits held at its offices. Google+OSS: could this be the killer combination that finally breaks Microsoft?"
Google is OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux/OSS are the tools which allow Google to exist.
I'm just waiting for the next big Google.
Since when are these even direct competitors? (Score:4, Insightful)
Missing option.. (Score:5, Insightful)
After Vista they proved they've gotten far to large a head count to innovate. Unless they slim down their development team, they're going to go the way IBM did in the early 90s.
Simon.
What did you say? (Score:5, Insightful)
That statement refers to Google. While I recognize Google's contribution to Open Source by the mentioned means, I would not give it that much credit.
Why is it that Picasa still does not run natively on Linux?
Why is it that one cannot specify ODF as among the file formats available for search, http://www.google.ca/advanced_search?hl=en [google.ca] despite the fact that ODF has been in existence for several years and some estimates put the number of ODF documents on the web in greater numbers as compared to Microsoft's OOXML?
Why is it that new products appear for the closed Windows platform before thet appear for the open Linux platform? They should appear simultaneously. [Emphasis mine].
Kill office to kill MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's greatest enemy is? (Score:3, Insightful)
If they dont stop using monopoly for advance and supporting open standards, they get big enemies like EU.
Microsoft would stay biggest software company if they would work together with industry, open standards and support competitors (Opera, Firefox, Openoffice.org etc) by ripping browser and mediaplayer off from OS (why OS should have red eye remover and music library?) so users can use what they want. Microsoft could install IE and WMP and other tools if they want to non-OEM windows version, but should allow OEM manufactures and end-users to remove them and install something else if wanted. Of course this would mean that Microsoft should start innovating and building better products and not just one big package what some people calls "OS", even it is more than just OS.
GNU/Linux and different distributions from it what includes different desktops and applications, isn't biggest enemy, yet! But it is big wheel what can turn MS weapons against MS itself.
Re:Google is OSS (Score:4, Insightful)
FOSS would pose just as big a danger to them as it does to microsoft if they did otherwise.
A tad cynical perhaps, but you can bet if they thought there was more money in closed source than open, they'd go that way.
One more thing, where is the source for gmail? Or google maps (not the API), or many other google projects. If they're so into the foss, why are so many of their 'free' offerings all but proprietary in nature?
Re:What did you say? (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely that's obvious.
It comes down to one thing: Google's products are intended to be profitable, not primarily to serve an ideology. Sure, Google does have an ideology, but they are also a business.
And when it comes down to actually making a crust, what's more important... supporting an ideologically-rewarding OS, or actually getting your products out to a significant share of the marketplace?
Will MS no longer be needed? (Score:3, Insightful)
The main reason people use Windows is because other operating systems don't meet their needs. It's mainly a software thing, such as is the case for PC gaming (which is still ahead of consoles, but not by as much as in the past). Wine is a helpful product in that it eases the transition for many people, but it's not a complete replacement for Windows yet.
Since things like a suitable alternative for Photoshop (e.g., super GIMP) and a fully-featured Wine aren't going to appear over night, it'll be a long time before MS becomes irrelevant... unless computing moves online. Most business software is either written for Linux already (e.g., development IDEs) or can be COMPLETELY replaced by a combination of FOSS (e.g. Outlook -> Evolution). I replaced my Windows workstation with a Linux workstation at my last job when I became fed up with the task scheduling and constant SSHing in Windows (I had to work on Unix systems anyways).
People are leaving Windows. It's a very slow but consistent process. Every piece of commercial software developed for Linux is a blow to MS. Every computer running Mac OS X is a blow to MS. A lot of little things will bring down MS; it's inevitable. Google, though not a direct competitor, is a huge point of leverage.
Don't think Google's going to come out with Google OS. That's not in their plans. Their idea is to make the OS an irrelevant piece of software when it comes to doing your everyday computing tasks. MS is going to have to come up with a new strategy if they want to cease the antitrust legislation against them.
Re:Kill office to kill MS (Score:5, Insightful)
I am glad you said this AND that you got modded up. Office is the app to kill. Make one that is better, works seamlessly with Office docs and you've got a chance. I use Office because I don't have the time or the desire to dick around with formatting issues and alot of companies are on the same playing field.
But let me also add, making an Office killer is not as simple as making a word processor, spread sheet, and presentation app. Office is a *development environment* and many, many companies use the programatic capabilities of Office to build apps that cal pull on different parts of the office suite. Those programmatic features are used by companies, not necessarily consumers and I will posit that company sales drive Office profits more than consumer sales. so I think to reall make a dent, any competing office suite has to either run Office apps/macros/scripts or interpret/convert existing office apps/macros/scripts as well.
Re:Missing option.. (Score:4, Insightful)
It goes beyond the fact that Microsoft has lost its ability to innovate, though that is a significant portion.
Microsoft still has the zero sum mindset, i.e., either it wins it all, or it walks away. Microsoft will do whatever needs to be done in order to preserve what it has, including watching the market move past them. Microsoft will always be the dominant player on the desktop, Microsoft's monopoly will assure that. However, what Microsoft's monoploy cannot prevent is another entity making the desktop significantly less important. Once the desktop loses its importance, Microsoft's very foundation is weakened.
Unless they slim down their development team, they're going to go the way IBM did in the early 90s.
The computing paradigm shifted away from IBM's mainframes in the early 90s. Will the paradigm shift away from Microsoft's desktops?
Still a secretive monopoly. (Score:4, Insightful)
While remaining even more secretive and becoming even more of a monopoly [google-watch.org] than Microsoft on things that actually matter, like their search and advertising business, to say nothing of their total disregard for privacy.
Can you say 'divide and conquer'? Thought you could.
Microsoft is its own worst competition (Score:4, Insightful)
History dooms Microsft.
Re:Since when are these even direct competitors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Live Search versus Google Search.
Google Earth versus Virtual Earth.
Windows Mobile versus Google Android.
Google Docs and Google Pack (contains StarOffice) versus Microsoft Office.
Google pumping money into Free Software (Summer of Code, employment of key developers) versus pretty much any proprietary software (Windows, Office, IE) that Microsoft tries to sell.
The main way in which they're not competing is where their primary profit lies. Google doesn't make much money off software distribution yet, and Microsoft's primary source of revenue isn't advertising yet. There are certain areas (eg. document applications, mobile phone operating systems) where they plan to make money in different ways. Google wants to display ads alongside your documents, whereas Microsoft wants you to buy their office suite. Google is developing Android to get as many phones as they can internet-enabled so that people use the internet more and are exposed to more of their ads, whereas Microsoft wants mobile phone manufacturers to pay them a license fee for each mobile phone running Windows Mobile.
I think we're all familiar with Microsoft's business strategy. It's fairly simple: they sell software. It works well. (or at least it has until now)
Google's strategy makes it look like they're diversifying because of all the products they're launching, but I think they're actually just trying to put their ad network in as many different places as possible. They've done it for search, documents, emails, and videos. They're looking at putting internet onto phones across a wider audience, and they're surely hoping that some new types of services will emerge that are compatible with their advertising model.
Re:Kill office to kill MS (Score:3, Insightful)
The speed and occasional stability problems do bother me though. I'm also lucky enough that I don't have to use it very often, it's a few times a week and not a few times a day.
Re:Since when are these even direct competitors? (Score:5, Insightful)
MS is an OS and applications company that has recently taken an interest in search tools, and advertising, and game consoles, and live services, and mapping, and portable music hardware, and low-end laptops, and enterprise servers, and smartphones, and content delivery, and standards, and anything else involving binary code that they can get their hands into.
The problem with MS is that they've lost focus on the business that built and sustains them -- Windows and Office. As it stands, Office is still the must-have application, which drives every business in which MS is successful. Replace Office, and you no longer need Windows, Exchange, MS Server, MS SQL, etc. None of their other activities are successful -- they're either gaping sinkholes of cash or so marginally profitable that they're unsustainable for anyone not sitting on $50 billion in cash.
What Google gets right is that their entire business is focused on the core of search, advertising, and the organization of information. Everything they do points straight back to and reinforces the core business.
Google's business is possible thanks to OSS tools, and Google deserves respect for going well beyond what is required under OSS licenses and actively contributing code and developer time to projects that are only marginally related, or completely unrelated to their core business. This doesn't cause them to lose focus, but it does keep their developers sharp and happy, and able to approach problems in completely new ways.
Take the office suite, for example. MS' big innovation for the new Office: a redesigned interface that many users, at least initially, find confusing and frustrating. It's interesting but not really necessary, and it's inexcusable that there's no mechanism to display menus in a way that users are already used to. With the Google office tools (which admittedly are nowhere near ready to replace MS Office) you get something that really is groundbreaking: the ability for multiple people to edit the same document at the same time.
There's also the difference in how these companies view business and threats. In MS' case, they see a threat in every business sector they don't control outright, and in many they do but where there are still upstarts who can't be bought, bullied, or sued. For companies like Google and others who rely on and develop OSS, competition means better software and improved opportunities for all.
MS isn't going away any time soon and there will always be a place for proprietary software. But increasingly proprietary solutions will be limited to niche professional markets (AutoCAD, ProTools, Premier etc), common applications will move from desktop to server and become platform-agnostic (office suites, email/calendaring, collaboration and versioning), and OSS apps will become increasingly robust and capable for armchair enthusiasts and pros alike (Ardour, GIMP, Cinelerra, My/PostgreSQL, etc).
MS can look for threats wherever it wants and they will find a lot. But the real threat doesn't come from any particular company, sector, or application. It's environmental -- the platform will simply become less and less relevant as time moves on. The real threat is that MS won't see this and won't react in time. It will be the beginning of the end as soon as there is a platform-neutral, drop-in replacement for Office + Outlook + Exchange + Sharepoint. We're not there yet, but the day is fast approaching.
Re:Break Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Judge who ruled Microsoft guilty of monopoly abuse and other illegal practices, that's who.
His recommendations were to break up Microsoft into two separate divisions, one for Windows and one for Office.
Microsoft's biggest threat is Microsoft. (Score:5, Insightful)
In my humble and unsubstantiated opinion, Microsoft is Microsoft's biggest threat. They have too many products and too many people, and it has made them uncompetitive. If they refocus on their core business, they can come back. Google and other OSS competitors are superfluous.
Microsoft's Products include:
Accounting software (5 distinct huge business packages plus Microsoft Money and a dozen bolt-on applications); Hardware (Mice, Keyboards, Joysticks, cameras, headsets, and game gear); Operating Systems (Servers, workstations, mobile devices, and embedded devices); online services (MSN, Live services, Search, Groups... this is a huge list); database services (Sql Server), Groupware (Exchange), Office Suites (Office, Works), 3 distinct sets of Mapping software, drawing software, desktop publishing software, Reference software, a graphing calculator application, Hardware and software media players, online media services with varying levels of compatibility, tv set top boxes, a dozen different development languages which may or may not be integrated into visual studio.. The list goes on and on,
OSS is one of several competitors offering an alternative for people to switch away from MS products. If oss ceased to exist, some other competitor would arise. That is how a free market works.
-Ellie
p.s. Google, pay attention, you are spreading out too. Diversification is good, but stay good at what makes you great.Re:Here is what Microsoft needs to do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even those net connected are going to get a little antsy with the messages that they have to keep paying to keep using something they consider they've already bought as part of their PC purchase in the first place.
Given that in Europe, people are already getting itchy feet, and starting to migrate to alternate operating systems, or at least making greater use of them, MS is already under pressure not to upset too many people much more than it already has if they want them to keep buying.
Oh, and as an aside, you probably downloaded Slackware in late '93, not '92, as Slackware did their first release in '93.. I seem to remember Linus releasing the kernel in '93.. As that's when we started tinkering round with it at the Uni I was studying at then..
Just my opinion though.. Subscription may indeed be MS' panacea.. Though personally, I'd find it way too much of a risk (governments are currently shying away from reliance on MS as it puts too much power in the hands of a commercial entity.. What are they going to do when they're told "Pay us a tithe yearly, or ELSE!"?).
Re:Missing option.. (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW, every device I have wants to be hooked up to my PC including my Tivo, my phone, my camera, etc. If anything the proliferation of devices is making the desktop more important - not less. We are starting to see a network effect. It easy to have the PC as the hub because its a standard platform in which everything can interact.
Re:Google is OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
All but proprietary? How is Google implementing an appliaction they don't provide source for, but do publish an API for, different from, say, Microsoft implementing something they don't provide source for, but do publish an API for? Wait! I'll tell you how it's different. With Microsoft, you run the software and you store your data. With Google, they run the software and they store your data.
people (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still a secretive monopoly. (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's this, at the very bottom, that causes me to wonder. The story asks, "Microsoft's Biggest Threat - Google or Open Source?" leaving me to ask myself, "Why give them the answer?" Of course, the post does not address this at all, but it's a real question: Why help Microsoft at all? They're a monopoly, they've got guaranteed income and unlimited resources, why not let them figure it out themselves? Why help them rank and categorize their business challenges?
I'm curious why this question is even on Slashdot at all. Remember the days of "Ask Slashdot?" Back when someone would have a problem with one or another parts of the internet and computer landscape, people would come out of the woodwork to give them answers, suggestions and solutions to whatever the problem seemed to be. While "Ask Slashdot" has largely been relegated to the dustbin of archive.org, we find ourselves confronted with the same kinds of stories here, yet now being asked on behalf of one of the largest companies in the world. Is this a toe-dip into opensource, to get the population to suggest changes in your business model while not having any effect on the software?
I say leave 'em be to figure it out on their own. It's all a part of growing up.
Re:Microsoft's biggest threat is Microsoft. (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft's biggest threat is itself. As with any business model, If it the best that there is, their is no real threat from a business model elsewhere. If, However, is not the best then the business is left open to real competition.
If Microsoft's hotmail was the best we would not have Gmail, and the others. If Microsoft's Windows was the best then there would be no need for Linux occupying hard drives in a great deal of servers or Apple's OS X, high premium, consumer computers. The fact that all these options exist on the market, or where not taken as real competition only a few years ago, shows that what is hurting Microsoft is there own inability to fill the need of customers.
This is not fan-boyism or Microsoft hating. It is just the facts. If Vista was as stable as OS X or Linux, with the ease of use OS X, and the freedom of customization with Linux, Microsoft would have no competition in the OS market, at least.
Re:Google is OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea of a service over software model is that the source code can be given away, it's the service that makes the cash.
And no-one would bother setting up another gmail using the gmail source. They'd have to differentiate themselves significantly to appeal to the massed gmail users, or current non gmail users. That wouldn't be trivial.
The point of opening the source is that while others can take it for use in their own things, they can also add to it and google could have those additions back.
Re:Microsoft's biggest threat is Microsoft. (Score:2, Insightful)
OSS may be their competitor because it is more immune to their tactics than traditional commercial competitors. Google may be a successful commercial competitor because they developed in one of Microsoft's blind spots. Eventually, no matter how Microsoft locks things up, somebody is going to find a way to compete against them, and perhaps Google has done that. I'm waiting to find out.
Re:Google is OSS (Score:4, Insightful)
They give back source code for many different projects but it would be completely stupid to give away the source code to Gmail because they would loose more then they gain.
You need to stop looking at the advantages to yourself and look at what they get out of releasing code. It's their code they can do what they want with it.This boggles me. Yes it's the service that makes cash so why would they risk creating more companies offering the same service they are?
I don't understand what opening the source code has to do with providing software as a service as you just wrote.
"Software as a service" would be more akin with paying so much a year and getting free support, upgrades and bug fixes. You don't need to open source the code or distribute it for free to sell it as a service. I would describe what your are saying as an open source business model which differs slightly.
Re:Google is OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as an exercise, try to figure out what their operational costs would be if they had to license Windows 2003 server for each server they have. Plus, as they are big enough, they can have the luxury of supporting their own proprietary linux distribution, specifically built for their purposes and without the added cruft of a general purpose distribution (be it windows, solaris, or ), thus they can minimize their exposure to vulnerabilities, and can have a very efficient OS, custom-designed to meet their needs.
As they are not redistributing their changes to GPL code, they are not required to release the source for their modifications. That's why you don't see a google linux, a google web server or anything like that being offered by google. They use GPL code, they modify it, but as long as they don't release their versions as binaries, they don't need to release the sources, pretty clever, if not a bit greedy.
Re:Google is OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
What you're saying is that it doesn't matter what Google has done [google.com] for open source and free software, because they're making money off some of their products they haven't done enough. Instead of praising them for what they have done in an environment where they don't have to give anything back legally because they're not distributing any of it, you instead focus on the products they make money on and why they haven't given these away as free software to allow competitors to get a one up.
Just admit it, you won't be satisfied with Google's contributions until they have opened up everything and go bankrupt. They make money selling Gmail to businesses, along with their Office Apps, etc. They won't open source it, that's how they make money to fund SoCs, contribute code back to the kernel and other open source projects.
There's already at least three web based mail programs I can think off the top of my head that are free software, one that looks like Gmail with AJAX, etc. Why the hell do you care so much about Google's implementation?
Re:Microsoft's biggest threat is Microsoft. (Score:3, Insightful)
Any successful computer-related product anywhere threatens MS.