Google's Campaign Against Microsoft

-----------


Official Google Blog: Yahoo! and the future of the Internet

Above is a link to a recent post on Google's official blog that puts forth a very interesting viewpoint from one of Google's senior VPs, Alan Eustace. Here we have someone from Google's camp who is appearing to speak for the company, speaking out against their rival Microsoft.

This post is incredibly interesting, because it is not very often that we get to here one company voicing a profound distaste for another company on such a fundamental, philosophical level. Google is not just Microsoft's competitor - Google believes that Microsoft is actually bent on destroying what Google believes is great about the Internet, and even the world.

I imagine the guys over at Microsoft don't actually carry pitchforks when we're not looking. But I think they do see financial profit as their firm's foremost reason for existence. And who can blame them? This is Economics 101. Firms exist to make a profit.

Now, obviously, it's the way in which Microsoft makes its profit that Google finds deplorable. Google sees Microsoft as ensuring future profits by damaging the markets in which it competes. The obvious result is the current near-monopoly that Microsoft enjoys in the PC operating system market. Especially from Google's perspective, it seems like Microsoft doesn't just seek to protect its own interests, but also seeks to enforce its interests on everyone else. After all, it was just about one year ago that Microsoft decided to launch a massive attack on Google over copyrights.

If Google's perspective is accurate, then what kind of future would we see if Microsoft is able to buy out Yahoo! and start to work toward an Internet monopoly that mirrors its monopoly in software? Perhaps Microsoft would eventually produce an OS that would show heavy "preference" for websites in the Microsoft network of sites. Is it that hard to imagine a Windows message saying something like "You have attempted to access a website outside the Microsoft network. You may be opening your computer to unwanted security risks." Maybe below that box, we'd see a link to a quite imaginative list of advantages of working within the Microsoft network.

Would this be an accurate visualization of what Google is picturing?

Yahoo!Soft? - Early reports say Microsoft to Buy Yahoo! for $44 bil

-------------

Microsoft has reportedly made a bid to buy the struggling Yahoo! for $44 billion. Whether this goes through or not, this is the first serious attempt at formal consolidation among the major search engines.

Unlike the coming Google/Double-click merger, it's likely that average internet users will readily assume that this merger will have a huge affect on them. My guess is that, if this goes forward, this merger will get more anti-trust attention than Google's.

Microsoft Helps Us All... For Now

------------


» Microsoft earnings shine; Ups fiscal year outlook Between the Lines ZDNet.com

Microsoft just reported a company record $16.36 billion in revenues for last quarter, which was just above what analysts had expected. In addition, the outlook for the coming quarter is in line with analyst's expectations. The earnings report was strong all the way around. MSFT stock was up $1.58 per share today, or 4.75%.

Hold Your Breath On The Gathering Gloom: Everyone Waits For Microsoft's Earnings Report

--------

Microsoft Earnings: They Really Are A "Big" Deal

The market seems to be back up, along with Google, Apple, and the rest of the technology world today, but everyone also seems to be waiting to hear what Microsoft has to say. Microsoft is up $0.56 per share today, or 1.75%, and it seems that everyone is expecting them to give a favorable earnings report later today.

Analysts estimated revenue of $16 bil for Microsoft for the quarter ending December 31st. Everyone apparently thinks Microsoft made that target. If they did, then the economic gloom may not be gathering so quickly after all.

If they didn't make it, then... Well, I don't really want to think about what might happen if they didn't make it. Let's just hope they did, for the sakes of our IRAs.

Breathe Deep The Gathering Gloom: GOOG Down 3.5% In Early Trading

-------------

Are we seeing further signs in the Internet world of a storm on the horizon? Early reports indicate that Google stock is down 3.55%, or about 20 points, at $564 per share.

According to Google's own SERP, the Nasdaq info that came up in a search for "goog" is delayed by 15 minutes. Whether or not 15 minutes is incredibly significant, when I started to write this post, reports where saying Google was down 2.6%. It's 9:04AM now, and apparently, 5 minutes has been enough for the company to lose an entire percentage point.

Microsoft is also reporting a pre-market loss of 1.9%, or $0.59 per share, which brings them to about $31 per share.

And just to make it a tri-fecta, Apple is also reporting significant losses, down $17.5 - no... $17.6 per share. This is yet another stock that fell further as I was checking on it. That's a whopping 11.3%.

Actually, the consensus seems to be that Microsoft, Google, and the bulk of Silicon Valley's business giants are all being affected by Apple's disappointing Q2 forecast, just released. Apple reportedly thinks that revenue will grow only 29% in Q2, down from Q1's 35% in revenue growth.

It's amazing that positive reports are bringing the world down this fast, just because they're not positive enough. I'm no stock analyst, or prophet of doom, but from the looks of these falling stocks, we could be watching lights fade from every room.

Gimme a Break, Microsoft: You'll Never be Something You're Not (Google)

It looks like MS is now trying to get on the online-documents bandwagon, with their beta launch of the new MS Office Live Workspace. See this article over at SE Land:

SELand: Microsoft Office Live Workspace To Challenge Google Docs

But, really - give me a break, Microsoft. Your online file-sharing is really nothing better than an FTP account if you must have already purchased MS software in order to use the service. This is no competitor to Google's Google Docs software, which plays an entirely different game by allowing users to use software that is completely free of purchase, along with a file storage system that is also free.

Stop pretending, Microsoft - you'll never be as good as Google!

White Paper by Scott Cleland on the Proposed Google/Doubleclick Merger

Googleopoly.net

Yeah... I don't really know what to say about the whole anti-trust aspect of the Google/Doubleclick merger. This, even though I did minor in Economics in school, and Anti-trust Econ was my favorite class.

Scott Cleland has taken the time to give us a whitepaper on the proposed merger, basically detailing why he thinks that the FTC is going to beat Google down. I have not finished reading the entire report, but the gist of his outlook for the future is that Google is the next Microsoft: Cleland thinks that Google will displace Microsoft as the leading concern of the Anti-trust community.

While he may be right in saying that Google will get beaten down on this one, I don't know if we're going to see the displacement of Microsoft as the most evil monopolizer of the tech world. Basically, I think that everyone jumped on top of Microsoft because their actions were very obviously anti-competitive, and everyone could understand how. Microsoft had become the number 1 OS in the world, and it was actively trying to use that position to strongarm Dell and other computer manufacturers into placing other MS software on computers that came with Windows pre-installed, thereby reducing the chance that users would use software developed by smaller start-ups once they got their computers. It's obvious. Microsoft was the devil for doing this, especially since the software they were pushing was far from being the best out there.

However, I doubt that the public understands the anti-competitive aspects of Google's activities, and so my guess is that they won't care as much. Yes, some out there realize that Google is getting really big - they are presently the world's largest media company, valued at over $130 billion at the time of the YouTube merger. However, I doubt that most people really understand just how Google makes all of its cash. With Microsoft, it was easy - though they did pay millions to develop Windows, each unit costs them pennies to produce (the cost of a CD... and case... and that good-for-nothing manual... and a box), and they continually get hundreds of dollars per unit. With Google, nobody really sees them selling anything at all, except for the advertisers that buy ads. And, I think it's going to hard to convince the average person that someone can really make 100 billion dollars, just from the little ads on the side of a SERP, which really don't even... exist.

Basically, I'm not saying that Google isn't behaving in an anti-competitive manner, but I am saying that Cleland is wrong: Google will not displace Microsoft as the biggest concern of the anti-trust community. Why? Because I think Google will reach monopoly status before anyone realizes it, and will stay there without the public understanding. Without an outcry from a group that is at least somewhat representative of the general public, there will be no praise for bringing down Google. Without the public praise, there's no incentive, which means there will be more incentive to go do something else... like bring down Microsoft. Or, go fly fishing. That's what those DC-politician-types like to do, anyway, isn't it?

Because the anti-trust world is a political world - at least in some sense - the lack of public outcry over Google means that the anti-trust world will not be able to devote the time that will be necessary to bring down Google in the future. Though they might bring down this merger, Google will be fine. Doubleclick may be fine. Both will continue on, and Google in particular will continue to weave its lengthy fingers around us even further, waiting for the day when we may realize the control they have over us, but also realize that we actually gave them that control long ago, quickly and without consideration, and that dismantling it now would mean dismantling the whole world we have come to know.

Sounds like an old movie. That could never really happen!

FYI - This is what Google had to say about their proposed merger with Doubleclick back in April:
GoogleBlog: The next step in Google Advertising

Google Planning Mobile Media Search Engine?

Google Planning Mobile Media Search Engine?

Just a link to what I'm reading at the moment. C'mon, Google! We want you in the mobile phone market.

I also was recently thinking that it's interesting that we Google fans usually seem to be Mac fans as well, mostly because of the characterization of MS as the devil incarnate. However, Apple's operations have not been "open source" by any means, though they do continue to strive to produce superior products.

The principle behind most geeks' love for Google seems to be related to organic growth. Finally, here's a company, in Google, that is not perfect, but seems to be honestly stretching its arms to reach the goals that will really advance its industry for the better. There is a connection here with open source software - especially since most of Google opens up most of their products to independent developers by releasing APIs and publishing development tips on blogs.

So do we cheer for Apple based on principle or quality? If we say it is principle, then it would seem that MS should be our shining example of what collaboration could achieve. While it also seems that most collaboration with MS is not by choice as much as by necessity, the PC, MS's domain, is built from the innovation of a variety of companies, big and small, and advances piece by piece, as different corners of the computer world discover new things. The PC's development is a textbook example of organic innovation and growth.

This is in contrast to Apple's Macs and Powerbooks, which have been produced in an almost completely closed system since Apple's inception. Apple writes the software, develops the hardware, produces accessories, and now even owns stores where the computers are sold. Nobody "works" on their IMac or IPod, but most PC owners who are tech-proficient wouldn't consider it necessary to send their computer off to the shop in order to upgrade a piece of hardware.

So, the principle alley seems to lead us away from Apple, and therefore we must go the quality route, which would make some sense, if we can justify spending the extra dollars for what we get out of an Apple. That is the basic question - is the Apple computer worth the bigger price tag?