Microsoft goes after Google

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Chris Mayhew, Sep 19, 2003.

  1. Chris Mayhew

    Chris Mayhew Guest

    Microsoft goes after Google .....

    "Chairman Bill Gates, Chief Executive Steve Ballmer and a handful of other
    executives sat down in February to answer a question asked countless times
    before in the world's largest software maker's 28-year history. Should
    Microsoft build or buy?"

    http://snurl.com/2ei8
     
    Chris Mayhew, Sep 19, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Chris Mayhew

    steve Guest

    Chris Mayhew wrote:
    > Microsoft goes after Google .....
    >
    > "Chairman Bill Gates, Chief Executive Steve Ballmer and a handful of other
    > executives sat down in February to answer a question asked countless times
    > before in the world's largest software maker's 28-year history. Should
    > Microsoft build or buy?"
    >
    > http://snurl.com/2ei8


    If it comes from Microsoft, it will have strings attached.

    One of the reasons Google is the premier search engine is they give you
    the results to the searches without perverting them with ad
    subscriptions or strings attached.

    Amazing that even after almost 10 years of involvement, Microsoft STILL
    does not 'get' the internet.
     
    steve, Sep 20, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Chris Mayhew

    Peter Guest

    this quote is from Chris Mayhew of Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:44 :
    > Microsoft goes after Google .....
    > "Chairman Bill Gates, Chief Executive Steve Ballmer and a handful of other
    > executives sat down in February to answer a question asked countless times
    > before in the world's largest software maker's 28-year history. Should
    > Microsoft build or buy?"


    Microsoft don't build or innovate, they steal or buy or use unlawful means
    to drive competitors out. It started right back when MS sold / licenced
    someone else's creation (DOS) to IBM.

    "Microsoft thinks it can only beat Google if it owns the technology"
    Could be a problem for them, as Google runs on open source software like
    Linux and python.
    OTOH, maybe this is why MS is funding SCO, hoping to conquer open source,
    and capture it for their own.


    Peter
     
    Peter, Sep 20, 2003
    #3
  4. Chris Mayhew

    Chris Mayhew Guest

    Peter <> wrote in
    news::

    > this quote is from Chris Mayhew of Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:44 :
    >> Microsoft goes after Google .....
    >> "Chairman Bill Gates, Chief Executive Steve Ballmer and a handful of
    >> other executives sat down in February to answer a question asked
    >> countless times before in the world's largest software maker's
    >> 28-year history. Should Microsoft build or buy?"

    >
    > Microsoft don't build or innovate, they steal or buy or use unlawful
    > means to drive competitors out. It started right back when MS sold /
    > licenced someone else's creation (DOS) to IBM.
    >

    And didn't Bill Gates BUY DOS before licencing it to IBM who at that point
    didn't have an operating system for their new creation which is hardly
    sealing or unlawful which leaves buying which is in fact lawful not to
    mention forward think of Bill Gates at the time when he saw that his
    PURCHASE might make a $ or 2 and I doubt that he would have thought that it
    would become as big as it did.

    Of course I would expect you to conceed any of the above.....

    > "Microsoft thinks it can only beat Google if it owns the technology"
    > Could be a problem for them, as Google runs on open source software
    > like Linux and python.
    > OTOH, maybe this is why MS is funding SCO, hoping to conquer open
    > source, and capture it for their own.
    >
    >
    > Peter
    >
     
    Chris Mayhew, Sep 20, 2003
    #4
  5. Chris Mayhew

    Lennier Guest

    On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:38:53 +1200, steve wrote:

    > Microsoft and IBM partnered on OS/2, the successor to DOS. There are tales
    > on both sides of that argument as to why they fell out....
    >
    > That's a heated debate now 15 years old. I've spoken personally to some of
    > the key players -during my time at IBM in the US - and it is one wild
    > story.


    I am interested to hear more about this particular story - especially if
    you're confident that your sources have given you facts.

    Lennier
     
    Lennier, Sep 20, 2003
    #5
  6. Chris Mayhew

    Gordon Guest

    On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:04:20 +1200, steve wrote:

    > Amazing that even after almost 10 years of involvement, Microsoft STILL
    > does not 'get' the internet.


    The word amazing in the sentence above is amazing in itself. ;-) MS is
    trying to control the world, or at least every ones wallets. Will do until
    it is pushing up daisies in my view.


    --
    Gordon

    Google knows where to find things, ask at http://www.google.com
    Works for me, will work for you, so be it.
     
    Gordon, Sep 20, 2003
    #6
  7. Chris Mayhew

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > this quote is from Chris Mayhew of Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:44 :
    > > Microsoft goes after Google .....
    > > "Chairman Bill Gates, Chief Executive Steve Ballmer and a handful of other
    > > executives sat down in February to answer a question asked countless times
    > > before in the world's largest software maker's 28-year history. Should
    > > Microsoft build or buy?"

    >
    > Microsoft don't build or innovate, they steal or buy or use unlawful means
    > to drive competitors out. It started right back when MS sold / licenced
    > someone else's creation (DOS) to IBM.


    They had licensed QDOS legitimately from its supplier to license it to
    IBM.
     
    Mainlander, Sep 20, 2003
    #7
  8. Chris Mayhew

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > this quote is from Chris Mayhew of Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:02 :
    > > Peter <> wrote in
    > >>
    > >> Microsoft don't build or innovate, they steal or buy or use unlawful
    > >> means to drive competitors out. It started right back when MS sold /
    > >> licenced someone else's creation (DOS) to IBM.
    > >>

    > > And didn't Bill Gates BUY DOS before licencing it to IBM who at that point
    > > didn't have an operating system for their new creation which is hardly
    > > sealing or unlawful which leaves buying which is in fact lawful not to
    > > mention forward think of Bill Gates at the time when he saw that his
    > > PURCHASE might make a $ or 2 and I doubt that he would have thought that
    > > it would become as big as it did.
    > >
    > > Of course I would expect you to conceed any of the above.....

    >
    > The point is that Microsoft don't innovate or create, instead they use work
    > done by others. Read about it for yourself ...
    > http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/QDOS


    So they bought out someone else's product. But then they did all the work
    themselves up through successive versions.
     
    Mainlander, Sep 20, 2003
    #8
  9. Chris Mayhew

    Lennier Guest

    On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:13:04 +1200, Mainlander wrote:

    > They had licensed QDOS legitimately from its supplier to license it to
    > IBM.


    No.

    Bill Gates bought it outright.

    Quick-and-Dirty-Operating-System is what MS-DOS originally was - and still
    is.

    Lennier
     
    Lennier, Sep 20, 2003
    #9
  10. Chris Mayhew

    Wes Guest

    steve <> wrote in message news:<0YLab.2519$>...
    > Chris Mayhew wrote:
    > > Microsoft goes after Google .....
    > >
    > > "Chairman Bill Gates, Chief Executive Steve Ballmer and a handful of other
    > > executives sat down in February to answer a question asked countless times
    > > before in the world's largest software maker's 28-year history. Should
    > > Microsoft build or buy?"
    > >
    > > http://snurl.com/2ei8

    >
    > If it comes from Microsoft, it will have strings attached.
    >
    > One of the reasons Google is the premier search engine is they give you
    > the results to the searches without perverting them with ad
    > subscriptions or strings attached.
    >
    > Amazing that even after almost 10 years of involvement, Microsoft STILL
    > does not 'get' the internet.


    IMHO this salvo against Google could backfire on MS if they're not
    careful and try to force the new search engine on OEM's and consumers.
    Google is *extremely* popular to the point that it's practically
    become a cultural icon (and a verb in numerous languages) worldwide.
    And it's simply b/c Google's got by far the best search tool. Easy to
    learn, not too tough to master, a relatively low frustration index,
    constantly improving. With the added bonus that Google doesn't shove
    ads down your throat, setting them off quietly at the top or side of
    the page to be accessed by anyone who's looking for them, but not the
    general searcher. You're right-- Microsoft would probably go hog-wild
    with ad tie-ins and restrictive licensing, constraining the freedom
    that makes Google so popular in the first place.

    People like to cite MS's $50 billion war chest and persistent resolve
    when it sets its sights on a goal. The problem is that Google focuses
    *only* on the search engine and perfecting it, while MS is running
    around all over the place. They're fighting too many battles at once
    and making enemies of everyone from IBM, Sun, Kodak, Sony, Apple, and
    a host of small companies that have sucked away billions in lawsuits.
    It's not a great idea to wage war on yet another front against a
    proven champion in its arena. MS may very well try to pull some
    colossally lame anticompetitive stunt (like making Explorer suddently
    "incompatible" with Google or producing an error message when Google's
    Website is called up). They've perpetrated this kind of harebrained
    guano against Blue Mountain, Stac, Goldtouch, Eolas, Intertrust,
    Burst.com, Bristol, and who knows whom else and been dinged for it
    every time by the courts. They have such a reputation for screwing
    developers and filching their ideas that many firms won't meet them
    without a baseball bat these days. Google is popular, ubiquitous, and
    standard enough that any Stupid Software Trick like this might well
    drive irate consumers-- home, business, and academic alike-- into the
    arms of Apple and Linux on a much larger scale than is being seen
    today (not too mention inviting yet another half-billion dollar
    lawsuit to befall their long-struggling Legal Department). People
    have a finite bulls--t tolerance level, and MS may exceed that if they
    do anything stupid against Google.

    Besides, for once, a company might have a quid-pro-quo in response to
    such tactics; if Google suddenly becomes "inaccessible" within
    Explorer, then Google might have some tricks up its own sleeve to
    reduce the, uh, "priority" of Microsoft-related search results in its
    engine. It would be a supreme irony if would-be customers worldwide,
    seeking out new products online, are routed invariably to Linux,
    OpenOffice and Staroffice, AOL, Yahoo, Apple, Corel, Sun, and Novell
    items in their searches rather than these products' competitors in
    MS's packages. Payback can be a bear sometimes... MS can't keep on
    being a copycat of ideas that other companies come up with. For once,
    they've got to start innovating some things themselves.

    Wes Ulm
     
    Wes, Sep 20, 2003
    #10
  11. "Wes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>

    > IMHO this salvo against Google could backfire on MS if they're not
    > careful and try to force the new search engine on OEM's and consumers.
    > Google is *extremely* popular to the point that it's practically
    > become a cultural icon (and a verb in numerous languages) worldwide.
    > And it's simply b/c Google's got by far the best search tool. Easy to
    > learn, not too tough to master, a relatively low frustration index,
    > constantly improving. With the added bonus that Google doesn't shove
    > ads down your throat, setting them off quietly at the top or side of
    > the page to be accessed by anyone who's looking for them, but not the
    > general searcher. You're right-- Microsoft would probably go hog-wild
    > with ad tie-ins and restrictive licensing, constraining the freedom
    > that makes Google so popular in the first place.


    <snip>

    Its ironic that one of the best addins for Internet Explorer is the Google
    Tool Bar because of its pop-up blocker.
     
    Olson Johnson, Sep 20, 2003
    #11
  12. On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:14:45 +1200, Mainlander wrote:

    > So they bought out someone else's product. But then they did all the work
    > themselves up through successive versions.



    MS stated dos 3.3 was end of the line.

    IBM wrote some updates. They showed MS the betas and MS promptly sold it
    as DOS 4.0

    MS ripped off stac, norton and others to "add features" for dos 5 and 6.
    They were basically told "license this to us, or we'll use it anyway and
    bleed you dry in court"

    It's actually a good thing that companies are now taking MS on for theft
    instead of rolling over and playing dead.

    --
    There are 2 sorts of email opt-in lists:
    1: Those which can demonstrate the provenance of every subscription request.
    2: Fraud
     
    Uncle StoatWarbler, Sep 20, 2003
    #12
  13. Chris Mayhew

    steve Guest

    Lennier allegedly said:

    > On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:38:53 +1200, steve wrote:
    >
    >> Microsoft and IBM partnered on OS/2, the successor to DOS. There are
    >> tales on both sides of that argument as to why they fell out....
    >>
    >> That's a heated debate now 15 years old. I've spoken personally to some
    >> of the key players -during my time at IBM in the US - and it is one wild
    >> story.

    >
    > I am interested to hear more about this particular story - especially if
    > you're confident that your sources have given you facts.
    >
    > Lennier


    They told their story. I have no way of knowing how true it is. I will post
    links to detailed content as my memory isn't much better than remembering
    it was highly political within IBM....as most IBMer's at the time still
    belived PCs were a passing fad and that serious computing could only be
    done on mainframe ans AS/400s. :)

    Irv Spalten of IBM has posted his view in comp.os.os2.advocacy several times
    - as recently as April 2002 in comp.os.os2.advocacy....He and others are
    there right through from 1990 onward

    Irv is one of people I spoke to while I was at the former IBM PC development
    centre at Boca Raton in Florida. They have since sold it and moved on.

    Brian Sturgill also had a lot to say about OS/2, most of it negative. he has
    produced his own short history of the machinations that went on between IBM
    and Microsoft at that time.

    http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?&rnum=1

    or... http://tinyurl.com/o6bz

    The real story in all this was IBM's unwillingness to embrace the i386
    processor....and Microsoft's (correct) belief that doing anything else was
    nuts.
     
    steve, Sep 22, 2003
    #13
  14. Chris Mayhew

    Bob McLellan Guest

    IBM had OS's coming out of their ears, but, the PC team didn't want to
    get tied up with IBM's internal beauracracy.

    Chris Mayhew wrote:
    > Peter <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >
    >>this quote is from Chris Mayhew of Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:44 :
    >>
    >>>Microsoft goes after Google .....
    >>>"Chairman Bill Gates, Chief Executive Steve Ballmer and a handful of
    >>>other executives sat down in February to answer a question asked
    >>>countless times before in the world's largest software maker's
    >>>28-year history. Should Microsoft build or buy?"

    >>
    >>Microsoft don't build or innovate, they steal or buy or use unlawful
    >>means to drive competitors out. It started right back when MS sold /
    >>licenced someone else's creation (DOS) to IBM.
    >>

    >
    > And didn't Bill Gates BUY DOS before licencing it to IBM who at that point
    > didn't have an operating system for their new creation which is hardly
    > sealing or unlawful which leaves buying which is in fact lawful not to
    > mention forward think of Bill Gates at the time when he saw that his
    > PURCHASE might make a $ or 2 and I doubt that he would have thought that it
    > would become as big as it did.
    >
    > Of course I would expect you to conceed any of the above.....
    >
    >
    >>"Microsoft thinks it can only beat Google if it owns the technology"
    >>Could be a problem for them, as Google runs on open source software
    >>like Linux and python.
    >>OTOH, maybe this is why MS is funding SCO, hoping to conquer open
    >>source, and capture it for their own.
    >>
    >>
    >>Peter
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Bob McLellan, Sep 27, 2003
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guest

    Battery goes dead in 1 hour after SP2!

    Guest, Aug 26, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    605
  2. Ramon F Herrera
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    646
    DA Morgan
    Mar 3, 2007
  3. Alain's Studio

    Why after format it doesn't goes back?

    Alain's Studio, Jul 11, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    537
    Stewy
    Jul 26, 2007
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Google Code Goes Mercurial

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 28, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    315
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Apr 28, 2009
  5. ccie reports

    Microsoft goes after Cisco Call Manager

    ccie reports, Nov 18, 2010, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    465
    ccie reports
    Nov 18, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page