4 ms·

Here's where I see the fundamental difference between Microsoft and Google: Google has a conference, well known to all and sundry. Google plans a big reveal. M

by skorgu 17y ago

Here's where I see the fundamental difference between Microsoft and Google: Google has a conference, well known to all and sundry. Google plans a big reveal. Microsoft plans a big reveal to steal some thunder. Normal PR all around. But look at the scope of the two reveals. Google essentially plans to reboot the entire mechanism of interpersonal interaction on the internet. Whether it will ever work, catch on, or even be useful it's without question astonishingly ambitious. Arrogant even. "We're so smart we'll tell you how you should be talking to each other." Love, hate, angry blog posts are generated in abundance. Microsoft launches a new search engine. Which, to be fair, seems like a quite nice new search engine. But where's the ambition? Where's the absolutely insane, balls-out wtf? Even if the Zune was better than the iPod it would be a clone. Even if Bing is better than Google it'll be a clone. Even if the Xbox is better than the Playstation it still won't be qualitatively different. Sure some of them may succeed and none will likely fail completely but it's hard to see the ambition in any of them.

vrandom 17y ago
I don't think it's fair to turn the Bing vs Wave previews into this kind of corporate comparison. Bing is being released to try and gain MS a good double digit market in a billion dollar industry. It is little more than a clone because that is all that a search engine can realistically be with current technology. Sure innovation is great. That's why we're all at HN right?! But the big money (short of creating a whole new industry) is about getting market share in established markets. That is what MS are doing - from Bing to Silverlight to Xbox to most other things they do. Nothing more or less.
- citrik 17y ago
  I think it's driven more by their respective business models. Google is more focused on incubating fresh ideas and growing those ideas into the next established market where as Microsoft tends to reiterate on accepted ideas, Market the @%#* out of it, and our favorite (step 3) profit. Why is it that the big money is there to eek out a Nth of a percent but not available for fresh big ideas? I'm not at all disagreeing with you, I just think that's an interesting point. I wish the world were the other way around it might be a better place (or maybe there'd just be less "big money" for having tried). Maybe if MS let smaller groups run wild more often they'd see more of these elusive "innovative ideas".
ashot 17y ago
I'm surprised you didn't make the larger point: this is true for every product Microsoft has ever made. Copy, improve, persist. Basic, DOS, Windows, Office, IE, etc. They are not a creative company (or as Jobs would have it they have no taste - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upzKj-1HaKw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upzKj-1HaKw ). Their business does not revolve around creating new things but about copying and improving things that already exist in the market. And to be fair, this strategy has worked out quite well for them so far, so why would they change course?
- skorgu 17y ago
  Well said!
- rjurney 17y ago
  It worked for shrinkwrap software, where release cycles are large. It has not worked for web software, where releases can happen daily. They can never catch up.
  - raganwald 17y ago
    It worked for shrinkwrap software when they had an OS monopoly they could abuse to drive their competition out of business, and likewise it worked for their OS business when they could negotiate illegal anti-competitive terms and conditions with their licensees. I'm sure they have done some great work, but it is hard to look at their track record and figure out how much of their success was earned on the merits of their products and how much was earned on the "merits" of their business practices.
    - netsp 17y ago
      It also worked before they had an OS monopoly. After all, that's how they got their monopoly.
      - raganwald 17y ago
        Ah, no. They rode IBM's success to their monopoly and even in their first business dealings they had anti-competitive goings on. For example, it was possible to purchase an IBM-PC with DR-DOS instead of PC-DOS, but you ended up paying for PC-DOS and DR-DOS, so it was always cheaper to stick with PC-DOS. Again, I'm saying that it is hard to look at their success and disentangle their products's merits from their business practices.
iamelgringo 17y ago
But where's the ambition? Where's the absolutely insane, balls-out wtf? The WFT is in the scope of where Microsoft competes. Microsoft is competing with Google on search, Apple on OS and MP3 players, Sony and Nintendo on Game consoles, with open source on programming languages and Office Suites, Oracle and IBM in Databases, Logitech and Kensington on input devices, VMWare and Xen in virtualization... The list goes on and on and on. MSFT actually has a foot in the door at least in almost _every_ software market and some hardware markets. That's seriously WTF as far as I'm concerned. That's ambition far beyond what any other company is trying to do as far as I'm concerned.
- Maro 17y ago
  While I agree that MSFT being present in all those markets is an overall WTF, I think a customer/user in one of those markets (eg. search) doesn't really care about the provider being present in others (eg. consoles).
prakash 17y ago
Micrsoft's entire model is predicated on fast following & iterating, and pouring money into projects till the other company slips or gives up or runs out of money -- Xbox is a good example.
- trezor 17y ago
  Xbox is a good example. While I may or may not agree on your point at large, the complete Xbox package (the Xbox 360 software, Xbox live etc) is clearly superior to anything Sony can produce. I don't care about the PS3 having provenly more capable hardware, when everything I care about is better on the Xbox 360. If you are going to flag an example, try an example which doesn't prove your point wrong next time. Edit: To do my best to avoid a console war, let me make it clear that I own both an Xbox 360 and a PS3. I realize my opinion is clearly not 100% objective, but sales-figures alone should to some extent back my point.
  - prakash 17y ago
    I guess my point didn't come across clearly, I used Xbox for the same reasons you mention. It started out trailing all major consoles, now, as you mention, it's pretty good. Xbox is an example where it worked out, that probably won't be the case with search.

by skorgu 17y ago

vrandom 17y ago

I don't think it's fair to turn the Bing vs Wave previews into this kind of corporate comparison. Bing is being released to try and gain MS a good double digit market in a billion dollar industry. It is little more than a clone because that is all that a search engine can realistically be with current technology. Sure innovation is great. That's why we're all at HN right?! But the big money (short of creating a whole new industry) is about getting market share in established markets. That is what MS are doing - from Bing to Silverlight to Xbox to most other things they do. Nothing more or less.

citrik 17y ago
I think it's driven more by their respective business models. Google is more focused on incubating fresh ideas and growing those ideas into the next established market where as Microsoft tends to reiterate on accepted ideas, Market the @%#* out of it, and our favorite (step 3) profit. Why is it that the big money is there to eek out a Nth of a percent but not available for fresh big ideas? I'm not at all disagreeing with you, I just think that's an interesting point. I wish the world were the other way around it might be a better place (or maybe there'd just be less "big money" for having tried). Maybe if MS let smaller groups run wild more often they'd see more of these elusive "innovative ideas".

ashot 17y ago

I'm surprised you didn't make the larger point: this is true for every product Microsoft has ever made. Copy, improve, persist. Basic, DOS, Windows, Office, IE, etc. They are not a creative company (or as Jobs would have it they have no taste - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upzKj-1HaKw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upzKj-1HaKw ). Their business does not revolve around creating new things but about copying and improving things that already exist in the market. And to be fair, this strategy has worked out quite well for them so far, so why would they change course?

skorgu 17y ago
Well said!
rjurney 17y ago
It worked for shrinkwrap software, where release cycles are large. It has not worked for web software, where releases can happen daily. They can never catch up.
- raganwald 17y ago
  It worked for shrinkwrap software when they had an OS monopoly they could abuse to drive their competition out of business, and likewise it worked for their OS business when they could negotiate illegal anti-competitive terms and conditions with their licensees. I'm sure they have done some great work, but it is hard to look at their track record and figure out how much of their success was earned on the merits of their products and how much was earned on the "merits" of their business practices.
  - netsp 17y ago
    It also worked before they had an OS monopoly. After all, that's how they got their monopoly.
    - raganwald 17y ago
      Ah, no. They rode IBM's success to their monopoly and even in their first business dealings they had anti-competitive goings on. For example, it was possible to purchase an IBM-PC with DR-DOS instead of PC-DOS, but you ended up paying for PC-DOS and DR-DOS, so it was always cheaper to stick with PC-DOS. Again, I'm saying that it is hard to look at their success and disentangle their products's merits from their business practices.

iamelgringo 17y ago

But where's the ambition? Where's the absolutely insane, balls-out wtf? The WFT is in the scope of where Microsoft competes. Microsoft is competing with Google on search, Apple on OS and MP3 players, Sony and Nintendo on Game consoles, with open source on programming languages and Office Suites, Oracle and IBM in Databases, Logitech and Kensington on input devices, VMWare and Xen in virtualization... The list goes on and on and on. MSFT actually has a foot in the door at least in almost _every_ software market and some hardware markets. That's seriously WTF as far as I'm concerned. That's ambition far beyond what any other company is trying to do as far as I'm concerned.

Maro 17y ago
While I agree that MSFT being present in all those markets is an overall WTF, I think a customer/user in one of those markets (eg. search) doesn't really care about the provider being present in others (eg. consoles).

prakash 17y ago

Micrsoft's entire model is predicated on fast following & iterating, and pouring money into projects till the other company slips or gives up or runs out of money -- Xbox is a good example.

trezor 17y ago
Xbox is a good example. While I may or may not agree on your point at large, the complete Xbox package (the Xbox 360 software, Xbox live etc) is clearly superior to anything Sony can produce. I don't care about the PS3 having provenly more capable hardware, when everything I care about is better on the Xbox 360. If you are going to flag an example, try an example which doesn't prove your point wrong next time. Edit: To do my best to avoid a console war, let me make it clear that I own both an Xbox 360 and a PS3. I realize my opinion is clearly not 100% objective, but sales-figures alone should to some extent back my point.
- prakash 17y ago
  I guess my point didn't come across clearly, I used Xbox for the same reasons you mention. It started out trailing all major consoles, now, as you mention, it's pretty good. Xbox is an example where it worked out, that probably won't be the case with search.