3 ms·

No. Google uses the dark forces of advertising and free products. Sun was trying to sell products.

achow 4y ago
Except that Dark Forces can change its allegiance. Product search is/was moving towards Amazon. Hypothetically, if 'Metaverse' or 'Web 3.0' becomes a reality, not sure whether GOOG can do anything much there - as it is they are poor in innovations.
ceeplusplus 4y ago
Google is also crippled by employees who demand the firm follow the latest social justice whim (which has prevented them from entering big markets in the past, like defense and China). Sun had employees actively trying to build things, even if they were the wrong things.
sangnoir 4y ago
Sun failed because something "better"[1] came along (Linux and good-enough commodity x86). There's no telling if something better than Google (the product) will arise in the future; which is why Google (the company) doing it's darndest to ensure they are the ones to invent it. 1. Or hard to profitably compete with. Additionally, the dot-com bust sealed Sun's fate.
- Annatar 4y ago
  Linux and good-enough commodity x86 are not better, nor will they ever be better, because one cannot build quality by polishing turds. Sun Microsystems failed because their hardware pricing wasn't competitive with the x86-based PC bucket turds, which were "good enough": most people working in IT can't explain why Sun hardware was superior even though it vastly was, so it was like throwing pearls before the swine. We have lots of ignorant idiots in IT, because they were drawn to good salaries like moths to a flame.
  - mrunkel 4y ago
    Perhaps instead of calling your peers idiots, you might take the time to explain what made Sun so much better?
    - Maursault 4y ago
      I don't know for sure, but I believe what made Sun's stuff so great (i.e. doesn't really ever stop working) was very tight software and hardware integration.
    - Annatar 4y ago
      With a few very notable exceptions, most of these people are not my peers, and it is highly unlikely that they will ever manage to become my peers. People here who are my peers are not idiots, so my original statement did not and does not apply to them. The question in general is, what is one doing on a web site which is supposed to be creme de la creme of Silicon Valley and having to ask why Sun Microsystems was so much better? My peer would be driven by relentless pursuit of perfection, being the best they can be at whatever they attempt: that would include researching what came before, and why it was so important when so many people say that it was important. A large portion of people working at Sun Microsystems consisted of highly and formally educated scientists and engineers, inventors in an environment which not only encouraged but inspired innovation. They had people who were capable of designing advanced hardware and people who were capable of designing advanced software, combining both into vertically integrated systems. For example: did you know that Sun UltraSPARC hardware has a crossbar switch at the core of its architecture? PC bucket turd servers still don't have that, relying instead of North and South "bridges", which are not much more than memory controllers, and certainly nowhere near a crossbar switch in design or capability. And that is just one of many, many examples of what made Sun Microsystems so great.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - prepend 4y ago
    I disagree. With web and distributed computing I could anything I wanted by putting together “turds.” I think Sun failed because they thought that expensive, complicated hardware and software was required for business. And it was for like old business. But new, Internet businesses meant lots of small distributed tasks that didn’t require anything that Sun made and could be done on el cheapo hardware and software. It’s like those old people who complained that mp3 wasn’t as good audio as whatever. They’re right but it doesn’t matter. Obviously, Sun hardware was better but it was like 100x the cost for 3x improvement. So everyone did the math and skipped Sun. And people sound funny complaining about turds.

Except that Dark Forces can change its allegiance. Product search is/was moving towards Amazon. Hypothetically, if 'Metaverse' or 'Web 3.0' becomes a reality, not sure whether GOOG can do anything much there - as it is they are poor in innovations.

ceeplusplus 4y ago

Google is also crippled by employees who demand the firm follow the latest social justice whim (which has prevented them from entering big markets in the past, like defense and China). Sun had employees actively trying to build things, even if they were the wrong things.

sangnoir 4y ago

Sun failed because something "better"[1] came along (Linux and good-enough commodity x86). There's no telling if something better than Google (the product) will arise in the future; which is why Google (the company) doing it's darndest to ensure they are the ones to invent it. 1. Or hard to profitably compete with. Additionally, the dot-com bust sealed Sun's fate.

Annatar 4y ago
Linux and good-enough commodity x86 are not better, nor will they ever be better, because one cannot build quality by polishing turds. Sun Microsystems failed because their hardware pricing wasn't competitive with the x86-based PC bucket turds, which were "good enough": most people working in IT can't explain why Sun hardware was superior even though it vastly was, so it was like throwing pearls before the swine. We have lots of ignorant idiots in IT, because they were drawn to good salaries like moths to a flame.
- mrunkel 4y ago
  Perhaps instead of calling your peers idiots, you might take the time to explain what made Sun so much better?
  - Maursault 4y ago
    I don't know for sure, but I believe what made Sun's stuff so great (i.e. doesn't really ever stop working) was very tight software and hardware integration.
  - Annatar 4y ago
    With a few very notable exceptions, most of these people are not my peers, and it is highly unlikely that they will ever manage to become my peers. People here who are my peers are not idiots, so my original statement did not and does not apply to them. The question in general is, what is one doing on a web site which is supposed to be creme de la creme of Silicon Valley and having to ask why Sun Microsystems was so much better? My peer would be driven by relentless pursuit of perfection, being the best they can be at whatever they attempt: that would include researching what came before, and why it was so important when so many people say that it was important. A large portion of people working at Sun Microsystems consisted of highly and formally educated scientists and engineers, inventors in an environment which not only encouraged but inspired innovation. They had people who were capable of designing advanced hardware and people who were capable of designing advanced software, combining both into vertically integrated systems. For example: did you know that Sun UltraSPARC hardware has a crossbar switch at the core of its architecture? PC bucket turd servers still don't have that, relying instead of North and South "bridges", which are not much more than memory controllers, and certainly nowhere near a crossbar switch in design or capability. And that is just one of many, many examples of what made Sun Microsystems so great.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- prepend 4y ago
  I disagree. With web and distributed computing I could anything I wanted by putting together “turds.” I think Sun failed because they thought that expensive, complicated hardware and software was required for business. And it was for like old business. But new, Internet businesses meant lots of small distributed tasks that didn’t require anything that Sun made and could be done on el cheapo hardware and software. It’s like those old people who complained that mp3 wasn’t as good audio as whatever. They’re right but it doesn’t matter. Obviously, Sun hardware was better but it was like 100x the cost for 3x improvement. So everyone did the math and skipped Sun. And people sound funny complaining about turds.