5 ms·

It's interesting how Google's projects don't spell financial returns immediately but a few years hence, they are the dominant player in that field. Management d

It's interesting how Google's projects don't spell financial returns immediately but a few years hence, they are the dominant player in that field. Management deserves credit for nurturing these project but it has always been characteristic of Google to support ambitious ideas. Google Maps was more ready than anyone else to ride the smartphone explosion. I guess they will also be more ready than everyone to cash on self-driving cars, Advanced AI, VR, and maybe youth-enhancing drugs too.

gaius 9y ago
It's interesting how Google's projects don't spell financial returns immediately but a few years hence, they are the dominant player in that field Hmmm, wasn't this Microsoft's business strategy too, until the regulators got involved?
- chairmanwow 9y ago
  Wait. What are you talking about? This seems like a noteworthy story.
  - gmueckl 9y ago
    Not sure if there is. Google and MS have tons of cash to burn during the early life cycle of a new product. Thus they can iterate long and fast to get something the market wants. However, Microsoft got bashed for abusing one successful product (Windows) to eliminate competition for another (Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player). Google comes close to this with the behaviour of thier search engine which has been judged to give unfair boosts to other Google products. This kind of anticompetitive behaviour would be news. A big bank account all by itself is not.
- toyg 9y ago
  The difference is that Google usually spearheads a field, whereas Microsoft does that when they are catching up with existing leaders. One technique advances state of the art, the other leverages a monopoly to gain commercial advantages. "Regulators" only got involved with browsers, once. You can't use that as an excuse for all the subsequent blunders by MS management. Their big tech bet was tablets and PDAs and they still got pipped by Apple and Google, without any involvement by lawyers.
  - gaius 9y ago
    The difference is that Google usually spearheads a field, whereas Microsoft does that when they are catching up with existing leaders In what way? Google didn't invent search, mail, banner ads... nor maps.
    - toyg 9y ago
      Google Maps was leaps and bounds better than anything in the mapping space at the time. Google Mail was leaps and bounds better than anything in the webmail space at the time (more space, better spam filter, better UI, imap support...). The pagerank intuition (and the technical way of achieving it, with clusters of cheap PCs) was original in search at the time, which is how they built their lead. Ads they mostly got from the Doubleclick acquisition, but the intuition of serving more palatable text ads on a mass scale was original. Android they acquired, but the intuition of keeping it opensource was original in embedded systems at the time. Whereas MS Office was just another office suite. Xbox was just another console. Windows CE was a hacked-down Windows that struggled vs real mobile systems. .Net was a Java clone. Bing was a Google clone. IIS was a clone of existing webapp servers, with the only advantage being that it came preinstalled. SQLServer they acquired and made it slightly easier to use than competitors. After Windows, IE was probably the only major project where they innovated substantially, and they let it die.
      - GFischer 9y ago
        I agree about Maps and Mail, but I disagree about your assesment of Microsoft only failing - they had quite a few misses, but you're discrediting their hits. The XBox's innovation (according to developers) was in making game development easier (DirectX) - heck, it was called DirectX Box originally!. .Net started as a Java clone, but outpaced it significantly (LINQ, Lambdas, Generics, extensions, anonymous types) mostly thanks to Anders Hejlsberg. I agree they had their share of high-profile failures, Windows CE and all of Microsoft's mobile forays failed, the current Windows Mobile was starting to get good but they had to kill it. Excel was better than anything that came before and was a category-killer, so not "just another office suite" (although they did use their monopoly to force it). They did have some wins (Azure) and they still have their cash cows to fall on.

gaius 9y ago

It's interesting how Google's projects don't spell financial returns immediately but a few years hence, they are the dominant player in that field Hmmm, wasn't this Microsoft's business strategy too, until the regulators got involved?

chairmanwow 9y ago
Wait. What are you talking about? This seems like a noteworthy story.
- gmueckl 9y ago
  Not sure if there is. Google and MS have tons of cash to burn during the early life cycle of a new product. Thus they can iterate long and fast to get something the market wants. However, Microsoft got bashed for abusing one successful product (Windows) to eliminate competition for another (Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player). Google comes close to this with the behaviour of thier search engine which has been judged to give unfair boosts to other Google products. This kind of anticompetitive behaviour would be news. A big bank account all by itself is not.
toyg 9y ago
The difference is that Google usually spearheads a field, whereas Microsoft does that when they are catching up with existing leaders. One technique advances state of the art, the other leverages a monopoly to gain commercial advantages. "Regulators" only got involved with browsers, once. You can't use that as an excuse for all the subsequent blunders by MS management. Their big tech bet was tablets and PDAs and they still got pipped by Apple and Google, without any involvement by lawyers.
- gaius 9y ago
  The difference is that Google usually spearheads a field, whereas Microsoft does that when they are catching up with existing leaders In what way? Google didn't invent search, mail, banner ads... nor maps.
  - toyg 9y ago
    Google Maps was leaps and bounds better than anything in the mapping space at the time. Google Mail was leaps and bounds better than anything in the webmail space at the time (more space, better spam filter, better UI, imap support...). The pagerank intuition (and the technical way of achieving it, with clusters of cheap PCs) was original in search at the time, which is how they built their lead. Ads they mostly got from the Doubleclick acquisition, but the intuition of serving more palatable text ads on a mass scale was original. Android they acquired, but the intuition of keeping it opensource was original in embedded systems at the time. Whereas MS Office was just another office suite. Xbox was just another console. Windows CE was a hacked-down Windows that struggled vs real mobile systems. .Net was a Java clone. Bing was a Google clone. IIS was a clone of existing webapp servers, with the only advantage being that it came preinstalled. SQLServer they acquired and made it slightly easier to use than competitors. After Windows, IE was probably the only major project where they innovated substantially, and they let it die.
    - GFischer 9y ago
      I agree about Maps and Mail, but I disagree about your assesment of Microsoft only failing - they had quite a few misses, but you're discrediting their hits. The XBox's innovation (according to developers) was in making game development easier (DirectX) - heck, it was called DirectX Box originally!. .Net started as a Java clone, but outpaced it significantly (LINQ, Lambdas, Generics, extensions, anonymous types) mostly thanks to Anders Hejlsberg. I agree they had their share of high-profile failures, Windows CE and all of Microsoft's mobile forays failed, the current Windows Mobile was starting to get good but they had to kill it. Excel was better than anything that came before and was a category-killer, so not "just another office suite" (although they did use their monopoly to force it). They did have some wins (Azure) and they still have their cash cows to fall on.