4 ms·

Wow, as much crap as my slashbot self has given Ballmer over the years, this interview really shows him having his act together.

pohl 17y ago
I had a similar reaction: that he really had his "talking points" together.
flatline 17y ago
He had some good points. The Chrome/Android split I agree with him on - not sure what Google is doing there - but I wouldn't bet on it being a long-term mistake like Ballmer is doing. He also continues touting Windows and the Windows Mobile platform. That's obvious, but what are they actually doing to innovate or compete? He just talks about attack vectors to the behemoth that is Microsoft. I still think that Ballmer just fundamentally does not "get it".
- warfangle 17y ago
  There's probably not much "reason" behind the Chrome/Android split. It's likely that they were both once someone's 20% project, and simply bubbled up through different portions of the infrastructure.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Google purchased Android.
    - warfangle 17y ago
      Thanks for the correction.
- sjs 17y ago
  Despite Ballmer's attempts at FUD[1] until we see the source code we don't know that Chrome OS is entirely different from Android. They both use the Linux kernel and Chrome OS's new window manager just might be inspired by Android's window manager. Eric Schmidt himself said: > “There’s a great deal of commonality,” Schmidt said. “Eventually they may merge even closer.” http://paidcontent.org/article/419-googles-schmidt-on-chrome-android-they-may-merge-even-closer/ http://paidcontent.org/article/419-googles-schmidt-on-chrome... [1] "I think that’s a little tougher for them now because they basically tell the hardware community Android is dead, Chrome is the thing or maybe Chrome isn’t the thing. Maybe it is Android. The cacophony there is probably helpful to us in the grand scheme of things and I don’t know why they would have chosen to do it, at least the way you read the press. It probably has a lot to do with internal squabbles, but I just don’t know."
jimbokun 17y ago
To me, it suggests Google's competitive strategy is having exactly the desired effect. Android and Chrome are not Google's core business. I do not believe they truly expect to take the lion's share of the OS market from Microsoft. However, Ballmer is obviously spending a lot of time thinking about them. By forcing Microsoft to focus on defending their core product, they are distracting them from attacking in new markets. Resources focused on defending Windows are resources not spent on competing with Google search, for example. Joel describes the general idea here: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html
- jules 17y ago
  And Chrome encourages MS to improve IE, which is good for Google because most Google software "runs" in IE.
  - Periodic 17y ago
    I think it's a little more than that. Google's core revenue is from advertising. They make a lot of money from their little text ads. Because they have so much of the advertising market, every minute you spend on the web is essentially more revenue for them, and the more pages you view in that minute the more revenue for them. Thus they are happy if you spend more time online. If that means making a better browser so people will be more comfortable on the web and spend less time loading pages, Google gets more revenue. If it means making a good mobile OS so people spend time on the web from their phones, Google gets more revenue. If it means their competitors improve their products to make people happy to spend more time on the web, Google gets more revenue. Improvements to IE is more ad impressions/clicks for Google as people will be inclined to spend more time and visit more sites online. It's not even about IE "running" Google software as much as it is improving the Internet, which is where Google ads display.

pohl 17y ago

I had a similar reaction: that he really had his "talking points" together.

flatline 17y ago

He had some good points. The Chrome/Android split I agree with him on - not sure what Google is doing there - but I wouldn't bet on it being a long-term mistake like Ballmer is doing. He also continues touting Windows and the Windows Mobile platform. That's obvious, but what are they actually doing to innovate or compete? He just talks about attack vectors to the behemoth that is Microsoft. I still think that Ballmer just fundamentally does not "get it".

warfangle 17y ago
There's probably not much "reason" behind the Chrome/Android split. It's likely that they were both once someone's 20% project, and simply bubbled up through different portions of the infrastructure.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Google purchased Android.
  - warfangle 17y ago
    Thanks for the correction.
sjs 17y ago
Despite Ballmer's attempts at FUD[1] until we see the source code we don't know that Chrome OS is entirely different from Android. They both use the Linux kernel and Chrome OS's new window manager just might be inspired by Android's window manager. Eric Schmidt himself said: > “There’s a great deal of commonality,” Schmidt said. “Eventually they may merge even closer.” http://paidcontent.org/article/419-googles-schmidt-on-chrome-android-they-may-merge-even-closer/ http://paidcontent.org/article/419-googles-schmidt-on-chrome... [1] "I think that’s a little tougher for them now because they basically tell the hardware community Android is dead, Chrome is the thing or maybe Chrome isn’t the thing. Maybe it is Android. The cacophony there is probably helpful to us in the grand scheme of things and I don’t know why they would have chosen to do it, at least the way you read the press. It probably has a lot to do with internal squabbles, but I just don’t know."

jimbokun 17y ago

To me, it suggests Google's competitive strategy is having exactly the desired effect. Android and Chrome are not Google's core business. I do not believe they truly expect to take the lion's share of the OS market from Microsoft. However, Ballmer is obviously spending a lot of time thinking about them. By forcing Microsoft to focus on defending their core product, they are distracting them from attacking in new markets. Resources focused on defending Windows are resources not spent on competing with Google search, for example. Joel describes the general idea here: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html

jules 17y ago
And Chrome encourages MS to improve IE, which is good for Google because most Google software "runs" in IE.
- Periodic 17y ago
  I think it's a little more than that. Google's core revenue is from advertising. They make a lot of money from their little text ads. Because they have so much of the advertising market, every minute you spend on the web is essentially more revenue for them, and the more pages you view in that minute the more revenue for them. Thus they are happy if you spend more time online. If that means making a better browser so people will be more comfortable on the web and spend less time loading pages, Google gets more revenue. If it means making a good mobile OS so people spend time on the web from their phones, Google gets more revenue. If it means their competitors improve their products to make people happy to spend more time on the web, Google gets more revenue. Improvements to IE is more ad impressions/clicks for Google as people will be inclined to spend more time and visit more sites online. It's not even about IE "running" Google software as much as it is improving the Internet, which is where Google ads display.