Walid Abu-Hadba, Microsoft’s Vice President of Developer and Platform Evangelism, has gone on record to say that “[m]ost of what Google does is defensive.” He has an interesting point: all of the non-search stuff that Google invests in keep its would-be competitors on their toes, and prevent those would-be competitors from encroaching upon the cash cow of Google’s operation: search.
I observed that Google’s not in the operating system business, so Chrome OS isn’t expected to be their bread-and-butter. It’s expected to be one mechanism (of many) to allow their bread to continue to be buttered by making the online experience better for the casual user. The less barriers there are to an enjoyable online experience, the more of a market Google can enjoy. All the fancy offline features of various Google products are ancillary benefits to a small segment of their userbase: the bulk of Google services and applications are intended to be used and enjoyed online. I’d wager that Google would be happy to drop Chrome OS development if Microsoft Windows presented a demonstrably superior online experience.
Abu-Hadba gets this. He recognizes that Chrome OS isn’t a direct threat to Microsoft’s cash cows, the Windows and Office product lines. Chrome OS may eventually be one part of a larger paradigm shift, and it may even be a major part of that shift, but it’s important to remember that this does not represent a significant change in Google’s strategy. They’re not abandoning their core services to become an operating system developer, any more than Microsoft is abandoning their core offerings to become a search provider.
The thing that interests me vis-à-vis Google and Microsoft is the manner in which each pursues these secondary, and in some cases tertiary, endeavours. I think we can all agree that Google makes some cool stuff, and then just floats it out there for people to use. They seem to focus on making products that are genuinely useful, and allowing the customers to figure that out on their own. Microsoft, on the other hand, sets out to compete in new product spaces, and aggressively works to market their stuff against the competition. Silverlight, anyone? I suspect, without having done any analysis at all, that this is one of the reasons why everyone is so quick to claim that Chrome OS is or is not a threat to Windows: because all of Microsoft’s products are intended to be a threat to some established player.
And I can’t pass on the irony of Microsoft calling anyone else’s products as “defensive”. What was the last truly original thing Microsoft created? I suppose a case could be made for Bing — I admit I haven’t looked at it at all yet, because it doesn’t really interest me.
He’s right. The only thing that Google does that actually makes them money is search, and that’s not going to last forever.
This is what Steve Ballmer has said 10 years ago, Google will not last for another year, look at him now, he is eating his arm, you probably just another brainwashed retard.
Troll.
seach, no. ads, yes!
That’s what I was getting at. I just didn’t feel like explaining it to guys like Mark.
You’re right. I like that about Microsoft – the desire to compete and win, and then dominate where they compete. That overtly competitive spirit is a good thing.
“and then dominate where they compete” you mean being an illegal monopoly, are you too embarrassed to phrase your crap this way?
No, see, it has nothing to do with embarassment. Microsoft is a public company, and its run by highly competitive people highly motivated to dominate. The monopoly part comes after, and when they’re business practices became anti-competitive, then you have a problem. That I agree with. But wanting to get to the point where you’re dominating an entire segment is a good thing.
To a different point, was Surface innovative? Bing is pretty cool, its definitely worth a look.
Woops meant “their”.
Microsoft sucks
He is right about the way Google does that product endorsement, they develop it and throw it out there for everyone to tinker with. But I favor this strategy over Microsoft’s as they just try to overwhelm and offensively take over and remake everything in their image. Microsoft doesn’t create anything they simply put their sticker on it and modify their brand. They probably sink more money into their marketing department than they do in their R&D. Vista is just another “ME” (remember that OS); and they just try to cover things up with another OS it seems. Google has a real chance to recreate “The Operating System”, and they’ll probably do it in the same way they always have, simply focus on making a good product. . .not target another company for WWIII just to make a quick buck like Microsoft has been known to do.
You along with many of the other commenters here are iDiots… obviously so! and that includes the author of this article being that he claims MS has not done anything innovative. oh well just goes to show any idiot could write an article.
@nick
Care to backup you claim with facts?
Otherwise please kindly GTFO.
Innovative and actually deliver those innovations are two DIFFERENT things.
WHy should he post facts to back up his claim? None of the MS haters here have stated or provided any facts?
Both sides of the camp are spouting unsubstantiated crap. Thats what pisses me off more than anything with the content of these types of threads.
@Nick and BFM
There’s nothing idiotic about about seeing the obvious. . .you do actually OWN a PC, right? Have you used other operating systems? I’m coming from a perspective where I’m assuming you’ve used more than just Microsoft products, in making that assumption I didn’t think I had to provide proof of the obvious as I thought we are all rational and intelligent human beings sharing the same reality. UAC is too little too late and years over due, where Macs have had superior capabilities and security for years. . .who here refutes this?! MS Office is the MOST resource intensive application software out there. . . who disagrees with that?!. . .do i need to provide proof. Are you insinuating that Windows ME was a good operating system? Because MS has been trying to sweep that one under the rug for years? Is it my opinion or fact that MS has the tendency to rush products into production after missing at least 3 release dates and not have it ready for public use?! C’mon Guy! There’s nothing made up here this is cold hard fact, its a monopolizing cold hard cash cow more concerned with maintaining a grip on the industry and acquiring more of the industry while forcing any rivals to conform to the standards that THEY create smothering and obliterating any chances for innovation? Thus we become deadlocked with an inescapable standardized system that isn’t PROVEN to be the BEST SYSTEM. That’s not progress. . . .
The author never even used the word innovative.
“Walid Abu-Hadba, Microsoft’s Vice President of Developer and Platform Evangelism”.
Are you kidding? I’d be embarrassed to have that title on my business card. In-fact, I’d be embarrassed to have the word Microsoft on my business card!
Not the smartest man on earth – yet this type of response is to be expected from MS. I keep wondering why MS doesn’t strike back with a superior product though. Oh, yeah, that’s true. They’re just can’t.
Funny man..
“I observed that Google’s not in the operating system business, so Chrome OS isn’t expected to be their bread-and-butter”
Hey, Abu-Hadba, Microsoft not in search business, does it mean that Bing isn’t expected to be your bread-and-butter? Do you wish that spending tons of dollars on ads will solve this problem? LOL :)
No, Microsoft has never been an “innovative” company in the slightest in terms of product development (ways to increase and maintain market share, however….) Their first major product, DOS, started off as just a quick rebranding of an operating system initially called “QDOS,” short for “Quick and Dirty Operating System,” which was leased from an early software company called Seattle Computer. This deal was probably Gates’s singular deal for building Microsoft — IBM was looking for an operating system, Gates didn’t have one, but he knew someone who did…. And QDOS itself was literally a “quick ‘n’ dirty” adaption of an existing 8-bit OS called CP/M to run on 16 bit processors. DOS was a huge cash cow to Microsoft for years since virtually every PC came with it for a while, and they obviously invested little R&D in updating it (hence the primitiveness of its associated programs like edlin.com which dates back to QDOS). From DOS to Zune to Bing, Microsoft pretty much has only leased, bought, copied or stole for its “innovations”.
I don’t understand why people keep using the argument that Microsoft did not invent anything as a knock against them. Sometime the first innovator or inventor might not necessarily make the best product.
Google did not invent search engine.
Apple did NOT invent the GUI, the mouse or the MP3 player.
Toyota did not invent the automobile.
I guess we can all make the same argument that since none of these companies really invented anything, thus we should dispise them.
It would be easier to give Microsoft the same level of credit as Google, Apple, and Toyota if they actually made good products.
Visual Studio.
3.1, 95 & XP.
Office.
XBox.
Google are playing the game at a higher level than everybody else.
They pretend to go for the spectrum – everybody chases and the price goes past the public-access price-point, which is what they wanted in the first place. They entered the bidding to lose, and as a result they won the prize they really wanted.
They pretend to go after the browser market, creating little more than a proof-of-concept browser but with x30 Javascript performance and a new OS-like architecture that has a process per-window and per-plugin and is therefore more secure, speedier and more stable, and everybody is running to play catch-up. They have maybe 5% of the market, but they changed the game, and they have the JS performance they need for their apps.
Now they are pretending to make a competitive OS. And they will change our perception of what a web-centric OS should look like: an almost-always-connected OS, with data and apps in the clouds, cached locally for those rare moments of offline operation.
They may end up with only 5% market-share again, but they still win because what they’re after is changing the market in terms of web-centrality, not winning the OS market.
Bottom line: don’t mistake Google releasing a product with Google wanting to take over a market. Often, they are just pushing everybody else in the direction they want the market to go.
I personally feel Google develops cool stuffs and no doubt Microsoft is king of competition killing they can get stuff done any ways and any means.
And now being the era of Young entrepreneurs Google has this perception of thinking where from Microsoft leaves it, what can be butter for Google is Bread for Microsoft, but some day Google shall take away bread from Microsoft with any great product like Wave or anything…
I hope people do realize that they are essentially rooting against one evil monopoly (Microsoft) and rooting hard for another (Google), when they openly cheer for Google to succeed. And yes, I personally believe that Google is more evil towards the consumers because they invade our privacy. Microsoft on the other hand is evil for all the ways the many people have stated.