6 ms·

Microsoft, since Satya took over, is a developer-first company. Everything they're doing is designed to give developers better tools on whatever platform they c

Microsoft, since Satya took over, is a developer-first company. Everything they're doing is designed to give developers better tools on whatever platform they choose. As we're all aware by now, Google is an advertising company (with a heap of technology, but it's still a company which primarily sells advertising).

chatmasta 8y ago
To be fair to Google (and I say that as a massive skeptic), they are diversifying their business model, most notably by offering cloud services and developer tools. At one point 98% of their revenue was from advertising, and probably they saw the writing on the wall that it was time to diversify. Google Cloud seems to be doing well. I’m not sure what the revenue breakdown is now, but also not sure we can entirely call them an advertising company anymore.
- baxtr 8y ago
  Roughly 84% of their revenue is coming through ads. I think it’s fair to call them an advertising company https://martechtoday.com/google-posts-31-1b-in-total-revenue-beats-top-and-bottom-line-expectations-214433 https://martechtoday.com/google-posts-31-1b-in-total-revenue...
  - flyinglizard 8y ago
    And I'd say that a significant portion of the remaining 16% is a byproduct of platforms for selling ads (e.g. Android) or just monetizing infrastructure Google had anyhow to serve ad related services (GCS, Google Drive). The one thing coming to mind which is not designed to boost advertising is their Pixel line (after they killed the rest of their hardware, of course) but even that is not as much of a standalone activity as it is a way to effectively steer the future of the Android ecosystem. Ask yourself this: Which Google products or services would have justification as standalone P&L units, without collecting user data and sending it to the mothership? Not too many.
    - eitally 8y ago
      Android Cloud X Waymo Play (the non-admob parts: app hosting/monetization, licensed content providing (music, movies/tv). ChromeOS / Classroom The entire Hardware division (which now includes Nest) An awful lot of the Geo/Maps org is oriented away from direct advertising. FWIW, you didn't ask, and my answer didn't include, other significant pieces of Google investment that are not remotely ad driven, like Deepmind & the entire RMI (Research & Machine Intelligence) organizations.
- JepZ 8y ago
  Once upon a time, Google was known for those low-distraction text-only banners... What I am trying to say: The whole online advertising business would not be that creepy if Google and Facebook wouldn't compete on who can track more out of the web users. The reason why we call them an advertising company, is that their core actions are driven by their advertising business. Otherwise, you would consider calling them a search company ;-)
bjpbakker 8y ago
> Everything they're doing is designed to give developers better tools on whatever platform they choose This is what people said about Google too a few years back. The reality is: Everything they're doing is designed to increase the company value for their shareholders.
- flyinglizard 8y ago
  Obviously, but what are the means to that end? All public companies are in the quest of increasing shareholder value - some of them do this by selling tobacco, others by monetizing user data (in other words, ad services) and others by providing developer tools and platforms.
- mulletbum 8y ago
  And? Vanguard does things to increase the return for their shareholders. Should I not invest with them?
  - bluGill 8y ago
    Actually no. Vanguard has a different arrangement from pretty much any company in that it is owned by the funds it manages. As such any return vanguard earns for shareholders is money they charged the shareholders in the first place. At best it is a zero sum game, and more likely it is inefficient.
- sooheon 8y ago
  But that is an obvious observation. Almost a tautology. The question is how they choose to go about doing it. One company plans to keep selling me off to advertisers. Another plans to provide me with software.
  - bjpbakker 8y ago
    > One company plans to keep selling me off to advertisers. Another plans to provide me with software. That's not exactly true. Both companies have shown that they _will_ switch to selling something different when they believe they can make more money that way. Also, both these companies spy on you while using their products, and both sell that data to their advertisers. It's not just Google. You should use both their products as you want, when they help you. My point is mainly not to trust that the company behind the developer products is some kind of a good actor. They will sell you out when it fits them.
bnjones 8y ago
I think it is too early to say if Microsoft has reformed. Fact is that a) they bought GitHub, b) infiltrated Python, c) infiltrated the Linux foundation. Given certain recent and not so recent events, it is still very possible that they are purposefully creating divisiveness among open source developers for the long term goal of establishing Windows dominance again.
krn 8y ago
I would put it simply: Apple is a hardware company, Microsoft is a software company, and Google is an ad company. Because that's what these companies sell to keep themselves alive.
- akskos 8y ago
  Imagine what would happen if they all joined forces. Thin (less powerful than rpi) Macbook running Windows with Google ads in the OS!
  - michaelmior 8y ago
    But it would be free (or very cheap)!
    - fetbaffe 8y ago
      "free"
    - m-p-3 8y ago
      At the cost of everything.
  - pc86 8y ago
    Yeah the worst of all three worlds.
  - antt 8y ago
    You dropped the /s. It's a bit late.
  - TheRealDunkirk 8y ago
    I'm convinced that Microsoft will soon offer a "free" version of Windows 10, supported by explicit tracking, advertising, and promotions (q.v., Candy Crush). I think it will be quite successful.
    - cdoxsey 8y ago
hamamm 8y ago
Modern Microsoft and Google are both now trying to make their millions by aggregating and selling customer data. Windows 10 is mostly spyware.
- SquareWheel 8y ago
  That doesn't even make sense. Google is the ad company. If they "sold your data" as claimed, they'd be giving away their biggest advantage to their competitors.
  - flyinglizard 8y ago
    Isn't that just selling user data with extra steps?
    - SquareWheel 8y ago
      It's using data to their advantage, but no it's not being sold.
      - visarga 8y ago
        Using data to target ads is still data exfiltration.
        visarga 8y ago
        Because the destination knows the targeting and the IPs.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      No, in the same way that selling wheat isn't selling land with extra steps.
titanix2 8y ago
Sadly it became a user hostile company at the same it became developer friendly. So while the tools (.net Core, VS Code, Xamarin) are a pleasure to use, I hardly boot Windows 10 anymore except for VS. The UI inconstancies, the productivity-nerfed start menu, the pervasive ads, etc. all contribute to gave that negative sentiment. Also while MS is good to integrate third party open source projects, it also fails at the same time to address some core concerns of developpers from its own platform. For years people have wanted a portable UI framework for .net but the idea is always dismissed by the higher management. So, I think Microsoft is actually a developer-second, hype-first company.
OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago
four legs good two legs bad
ionised 8y ago
I don't believe Microsoft has changed at all, they've just gotten better at marketing.

chatmasta 8y ago

To be fair to Google (and I say that as a massive skeptic), they are diversifying their business model, most notably by offering cloud services and developer tools. At one point 98% of their revenue was from advertising, and probably they saw the writing on the wall that it was time to diversify. Google Cloud seems to be doing well. I’m not sure what the revenue breakdown is now, but also not sure we can entirely call them an advertising company anymore.

baxtr 8y ago
Roughly 84% of their revenue is coming through ads. I think it’s fair to call them an advertising company https://martechtoday.com/google-posts-31-1b-in-total-revenue-beats-top-and-bottom-line-expectations-214433 https://martechtoday.com/google-posts-31-1b-in-total-revenue...
- flyinglizard 8y ago
  And I'd say that a significant portion of the remaining 16% is a byproduct of platforms for selling ads (e.g. Android) or just monetizing infrastructure Google had anyhow to serve ad related services (GCS, Google Drive). The one thing coming to mind which is not designed to boost advertising is their Pixel line (after they killed the rest of their hardware, of course) but even that is not as much of a standalone activity as it is a way to effectively steer the future of the Android ecosystem. Ask yourself this: Which Google products or services would have justification as standalone P&L units, without collecting user data and sending it to the mothership? Not too many.
  - eitally 8y ago
    Android Cloud X Waymo Play (the non-admob parts: app hosting/monetization, licensed content providing (music, movies/tv). ChromeOS / Classroom The entire Hardware division (which now includes Nest) An awful lot of the Geo/Maps org is oriented away from direct advertising. FWIW, you didn't ask, and my answer didn't include, other significant pieces of Google investment that are not remotely ad driven, like Deepmind & the entire RMI (Research & Machine Intelligence) organizations.
JepZ 8y ago
Once upon a time, Google was known for those low-distraction text-only banners... What I am trying to say: The whole online advertising business would not be that creepy if Google and Facebook wouldn't compete on who can track more out of the web users. The reason why we call them an advertising company, is that their core actions are driven by their advertising business. Otherwise, you would consider calling them a search company ;-)

bjpbakker 8y ago

> Everything they're doing is designed to give developers better tools on whatever platform they choose This is what people said about Google too a few years back. The reality is: Everything they're doing is designed to increase the company value for their shareholders.

flyinglizard 8y ago
Obviously, but what are the means to that end? All public companies are in the quest of increasing shareholder value - some of them do this by selling tobacco, others by monetizing user data (in other words, ad services) and others by providing developer tools and platforms.
mulletbum 8y ago
And? Vanguard does things to increase the return for their shareholders. Should I not invest with them?
- bluGill 8y ago
  Actually no. Vanguard has a different arrangement from pretty much any company in that it is owned by the funds it manages. As such any return vanguard earns for shareholders is money they charged the shareholders in the first place. At best it is a zero sum game, and more likely it is inefficient.
sooheon 8y ago
But that is an obvious observation. Almost a tautology. The question is how they choose to go about doing it. One company plans to keep selling me off to advertisers. Another plans to provide me with software.
- bjpbakker 8y ago
  > One company plans to keep selling me off to advertisers. Another plans to provide me with software. That's not exactly true. Both companies have shown that they _will_ switch to selling something different when they believe they can make more money that way. Also, both these companies spy on you while using their products, and both sell that data to their advertisers. It's not just Google. You should use both their products as you want, when they help you. My point is mainly not to trust that the company behind the developer products is some kind of a good actor. They will sell you out when it fits them.

bnjones 8y ago

I think it is too early to say if Microsoft has reformed. Fact is that a) they bought GitHub, b) infiltrated Python, c) infiltrated the Linux foundation. Given certain recent and not so recent events, it is still very possible that they are purposefully creating divisiveness among open source developers for the long term goal of establishing Windows dominance again.

krn 8y ago

I would put it simply: Apple is a hardware company, Microsoft is a software company, and Google is an ad company. Because that's what these companies sell to keep themselves alive.

akskos 8y ago
Imagine what would happen if they all joined forces. Thin (less powerful than rpi) Macbook running Windows with Google ads in the OS!
- michaelmior 8y ago
  But it would be free (or very cheap)!
  - fetbaffe 8y ago
    "free"
  - m-p-3 8y ago
    At the cost of everything.
- pc86 8y ago
  Yeah the worst of all three worlds.
- antt 8y ago
  You dropped the /s. It's a bit late.
- TheRealDunkirk 8y ago
  I'm convinced that Microsoft will soon offer a "free" version of Windows 10, supported by explicit tracking, advertising, and promotions (q.v., Candy Crush). I think it will be quite successful.
  - cdoxsey 8y ago

hamamm 8y ago

Modern Microsoft and Google are both now trying to make their millions by aggregating and selling customer data. Windows 10 is mostly spyware.

SquareWheel 8y ago
That doesn't even make sense. Google is the ad company. If they "sold your data" as claimed, they'd be giving away their biggest advantage to their competitors.
- flyinglizard 8y ago
  Isn't that just selling user data with extra steps?
  - SquareWheel 8y ago
    It's using data to their advantage, but no it's not being sold.
    - visarga 8y ago
      Using data to target ads is still data exfiltration.
      - visarga 8y ago
        Because the destination knows the targeting and the IPs.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    No, in the same way that selling wheat isn't selling land with extra steps.

titanix2 8y ago

Sadly it became a user hostile company at the same it became developer friendly. So while the tools (.net Core, VS Code, Xamarin) are a pleasure to use, I hardly boot Windows 10 anymore except for VS. The UI inconstancies, the productivity-nerfed start menu, the pervasive ads, etc. all contribute to gave that negative sentiment. Also while MS is good to integrate third party open source projects, it also fails at the same time to address some core concerns of developpers from its own platform. For years people have wanted a portable UI framework for .net but the idea is always dismissed by the higher management. So, I think Microsoft is actually a developer-second, hype-first company.

OnlyRepliesToBS 8y ago

four legs good two legs bad

ionised 8y ago

I don't believe Microsoft has changed at all, they've just gotten better at marketing.